Lets talk about vaccines.

[Frederick McGuire]

This is a spin off from the Indian Tobacco for Lung Healing? Thread...

All your points are based on quack science or just plain lies. Not saying you are lying, but the industries are and it takes a lot of time and patience to sort everything about but I can offer you the full story on everything you brought up.
1.
Frederick McGuire said: ↑

It has already been discontinued from use in most (all?) vaccines.​

They love this lie, been telling it for a while now.

It is a common myth today that the vaccines administered to children no longer contain the toxic additive thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative linked to causing permanent neurological damage. But a recent federal case involving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has revealed that, contrary to this widely-held belief, thimerosal is actually still present in many batch vaccines, including in the annual influenza vaccine that is now administered to children as young as six months old.​

Did you read my info from the FDA?
They state it is still in the influenza vaccine (lets remember the dose crap that that list of yours tries to pull about thimerosal - hence my wanting evidence) and trace amounts (i.e negligible) in other vaccines.
And vaccines containing thimerosal are no longer approved for use in children under 6 - with the exception of the influenza vaccine.

Given my source is an actual declaration from the body that monitors vaccines, and yours is from? I personally am inclined to go with the evidence...

Its my opinion that it's detrimental to inject this highly toxic substance into children in any quantity. Mercury and Aluminum (also in vaccines) highly increase each others toxicity.

(my bolding on "any" added)
You are wrong.
No IMO, You are wrong here.

It's my opinion Fact that the dose makes the poison.

Even water is toxic if you drink enough of it.

Show me a study that shows that There is thimerosal causing problems.

TBH, what I'd really need is a study that shows that vaccines are doing more harm than good.

But a comprehensive review conducted by Dr. Paul G. King has proven otherwise, showing that ethylmercury is first metabolized by the body into toxic methylmercury, which is then metabolized into inorganic mercury (http://www.infowars.com).
Both methylmercury and inorganic mercury are listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as toxic substances responsible for causing neurological problems, brain disorders, nervous system illnesses, gastrointestinal problems, kidney failure, respiratory illness, and death.​

Ok, so there is a mechanism for harm, that doesn't mean that harm is being done.

An Informal search of wikipedia by Frederick McGuire has shown that drinking dihydrogen monoxide can be fatal, Yet scientists still demand that the general public drink 2 whole litres of it every day!!!

Oh, wait, thats water, and its only fatal if you drink stupidly high amounts of it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
The dose makes the poison.
If it truly is safe at NO levels to contain thimerosal in vaccines, then it should be easy for you to find some studies that show a marked difference between
a) Those vaccinated with a thimerosal free vaccine
b) Those vaccinated with a vaccine free of thimerosal
c) Those who haven't been vaccinated

2. Independent scientists who attempt to study this issue are quickly offed or defamed.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield sues BMJ, journalist Brian Deer for defamation
http://www.naturalnews.com/034629_Andrew_Wakefield_BMJ_Brian_Deer.html

The man has been shamelessly mocked, repeatedly lied about, and cruelly defamed for his legitimate scientific research into the combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism in children.​

This would be funny if it wasn't batshit crazy, seriously?
I don't know what web page you copy/pasted this from, but look for its sources...
I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say there are either none, or they are all super anti-vax (the exact type of people who try to set up misleading studies...)

(How the hell did I miss the link to naturalnews?

He deserves to be shamelessly mocked, he is an unethical douchebag who does exactly what you are claiming mainstream scientists do...
Seriously, the guy is horrible and evil.

He essentially made up the link between the MMR Vaccine and Autism, AND HE HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE OTHER VACCINES BEING MADE...
You say mainstream scientists are bad, but you jump in favour of wakefield?


I don't want to insult you, but do more research...
a lot more research...
Good research...
(then share it with us )

Here's an article from the BMJ (It has sources too... see a pettern here?)
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full
AND here is the article which thoroughly debunks Wakefields fraudulent shit of a study.
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj....=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=342/jan05_1/c5347
(yep, it has sources too)

3. The established safety levels do not account for combining mercury with aluminum, which highly potentates toxicity. They are also the levels for drinking water, not injection into children. That, of course, will never be studied. Of course, the FDA says it's highly toxic in cosmetics, only safe to inject into your children!

show me a study that shows this.

hell, lets take it as true right off the bat, show me a study showing that there are complications occurring at or under the safety level for mercury...

About Whooping cough:

New research reported by Reuters reveals that whooping cough outbreaks are HIGHER among vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children. This is based on a study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.​

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE8320TM20120403

Interesting, but something doesn't add up, I'd need to see some raw numbers, but heres what jumped out at me:they say that of the 132 children they looked at
81% were fully vaccinated
11% were partially vaccinated
and 8% were unvaccinated.

Isn't that roughly that average immunisation rate anyway?
I.E. It it essentially disregarding the vaccine, not attracted to it...

Also, that article you linked to also states that whooping cough rates are far lower than before the vaccine, and that the vaccine greatly lowers the severity of the disease for those who do still get it.

About Donald Trump: I didn't read the whole thing, but it seemed like he just said he has personally witnessed many children have horrendous reactions to vaccines and develop Autism. There are many scientists who have attempted to research this only to disappear or be defamed.

So that tidbit is useless, scientifically speaking... Do you understand why Donald Trump (or anyone else for that matter) is no magic authority on autism?

All the studies you are citing are from the industries themselves. And yes, I have seen the FDAs intelligent safety pages. Why don't you compare their vaccine safety info with some of their other claims?

At the same time that the FDA is warning about the dangers of mercury in cosmetics, however, the agency simultaneously insists that mercury in dental fillings and vaccines for children is just fine. Compare the FDA's page on Thimerosal (mercury) in vaccines (http://www.fda.gov) to the one on mercury in cosmetics (http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm294849.htm), and you will see the agency's blatant hypocrisy in the matter.​

Ya we probably should start a new topic if we want to keep going on this hehe.

So there's a possibility that a limited number of injections in childhood has a different effect than daily repeated long term contact with the skin?
Color me shocked.

Also, It's a blatant mis-telling of the facts.

The FDA has a safety level for mercury in vaccines.
The FDA has a safety level for mercury in cosmetics.
They may be different given the different levels of exposure via those different means.
where is the hypocrisy?

 

[sublimationpurist]

I understand, I'm supposed to believe the FDA that mercury, which they say is extremely toxic in cosmetics, is safe to inject as long as it's in the magic amount the drug companies figured out. A leading vaccine developer at Merck admitted the vaccines cause many health conditions and him and his colleagues laugh with him. And you still believe these people?

It's unbelievable to me that people accept these week long studies if they are ever even done, that say vaccines and everything else is safe because the person didn't die in a week.

And of course, you ignore that the entire vaccination theory of antibodies has been debunked. And that they suppress your immune system from forming real immunity

Rather than teach the body how to respond to infections, vaccines actually inhibit the immune system's ability to produce TH2-type cytokines, and suppress cellular immunity, which is how the body protects itself against deadly viruses and bacteria.

 

[weedemon]

I have to agree that vaccines have saved far more lives than it has ended or seriously harmed.

regarding vaccines and "acceptable" doses of certain chemicals I would like to say this:

Bio accumulation (this is the chronic build up of toxic chemical substances that once are in our bodies cannot be released. Lead, mercury, DDT etc...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation

In one of my classes (air pollution and abatement) we learned that when you are in the workplace the allowable levels of certain pollutants are allowed to be higher than they are in your home. the reason for this is because you are being paid to be at work, you are accepting the risks associated.

personal opinion time:
============
I think this mentality is fucked! We need to value health and life over money.

This is how I feel about preservatives. Don't put that crap in there. Make fresh batches as needed. Piss off about worrying about saving money and making your shit last longer. Personal health over profits please!
==============


infowars.com is a horrible source to use to quote as your source. I love a good conspiracy and believe in a few myself. There is a lot more bullshit floating around then there is truth. we gotta pick carefully.

My father is a Doctor at the local hospital and a family Dr also. I have talked to him about this issue and he said he believes that it is safe, and he would never administer a shot if he thought it would hurt someone. He and I disagree on a lot of things, but i'm not the expert...

At the end of the day, I don't get the flu shot. I don't believe in getting any more shots than I actually have to get. I do think they help far more than they harm.

that's my random thoughts along reading the thread

 

[Frederick McGuire]

I understand, I'm supposed to believe the FDA that mercury, which they say is extremely toxic in cosmetics, is safe to inject as long as it's in the magic amount the drug companies figured out. A leading vaccine developer at Merck admitted the vaccines cause many health conditions and him and his colleagues laugh with him. And you still believe these people?

Stop saying admitted.

Its a very loaded word, and without either studies, or direct quotes from people involved, I don't want to hear it.

And no, Its not a magic number, its a number derived from use, observation, and testing.
Scientists do tests.
They find that item X is safe up to level Y.
and cite their tests/results.
People with vested interests look at it and go NONONONONO! item X is TOXIC... IN ANY AMOUNT.
and cite nothing...

I don't see what's so hard to understand about this cosmetics thing...
Show me the FDA saying is absolutely safe at any level in vaccines, or that it is absolutely unsafe at any level in cosmetics.
They don't, because;
THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SAFETY LEVELS FOR DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS.
WHERE IS THE HYPOCRISY?

It's unbelievable to me that people accept these week long studies if they are ever even done, that say vaccines and everything else is safe because the person didn't die in a week.

Show me some studies that conclude that if there are no adverse reactions after 1 week its completely safe.

And of course, you ignore that the entire vaccination theory of antibodies has been debunked. And that they suppress your immune system from forming real immunity

I saw that article on naturalnews and IMO its spun to buggery.

But lets say that what you just said is true.

Where is the evidence?

I did not "ignore that the entire vaccination theory of antibodies has been debunked", You only just brought it up...

and from what I read of the article, it was basically saying "without our natural defenses to build off the vaccines, they do nothing."

I saw a comment at the bottom of that article which sums up my thoughts quite nicely on the matter.

Its like trying to say that your brake pedal in your car doesn't slow the car down without our natural intervention, so IT MUST DO NOTHING

I just have a few questions that I'd really like answered over anything else in this post:

1. Do you understand/agree that the toxicity of a poisonous/toxic substance is determined by its dose? i.e. there is a number that is not "magic" whereby if you ingested under amount X you would have no adverse reactions at all.
2. Are you able to cite any actual studies? Like ACTUAL evidence? I've been trying to provide you with sources that are credible, if you disagree with any of their methodologies, call them out, but right now all you seem to be saying "All your evidence that has sources and has been investigated by scientists is lies, here read this stuff with no sources posted by some guys who think vaccines are evil"

 

[sublimationpurist]

I've already explained why their numbers and claims of safety are incorrect. Again: There has never been a vaccine test that looks at long term effects. They last a week or two. That's all the studies they allow to be done. I said before that it is my opinion that known toxic chemicals are unhealthy in any amount, and I choose not to put them in my body.
Again, your ignoring all the flaws in the FDAs methods for determining safety limits. Aluminum and mercury are known to increase the toxicity of each other. This isn't accounted for in their limits.

The study about antibodies was done by Harvard, this is mainstream stuff. The stories are on naturalnews, but there's links on the pages to the sources.

Stop saying admitted.

Its a very loaded word, and without either studies, or direct quotes from people involved, I don't want to hear it.

Lol, studies, quotes? You must have missed where I talked about this earlier. This is a recording of top Merck vaccine developers talking about the truth. You would think they know the truth, eh?

This isn't some conspiracy theory -- these are the words of a top Merck scientist who probably had no idea that his recording would be widely reviewed across the internet (which didn't even exist when he made this recording). He probably thought this would remain a secret forever. When asked why this didn't get out to the press, he replied "Obviously you don't go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community."

In other words, vaccine scientists cover for vaccine scientists. They keep all their dirty secrets within their own circle of silence and don't reveal the truth about the contamination of their vaccines.

http://www.naturalnews.com/033584_Dr_Maurice_Hilleman_SV40.html

This is what's coming next! Satire by Mike Adams of NaturalNews

Moron Vaccines contain all the usual ingredients of flu vaccines and MMR vaccines, including methyl mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde and DNA fragments from diseased monkey organs. (This is truly what's found in other vaccines...)
But Moron Vaccines have one ingredient that's slightly different. As Dr. All Proffit, a leading vaccine patent holder, explained, "Moron Vaccines are much like regular vaccines, except instead of taking diseased material from infected cows and monkeys, we take brain cell samples from existing morons which are easy to find among our colleagues. We then weaken those brain cells to make them even more moronic, and then we inject them into infants and children, mixed with a bit of mercury to make sure it targets the neurological system for maximum effectiveness."

The result? As Bill Gates explains, "Billions of children each year are being saved from IBFD." IBFD is short for Intelligent Brain Function Disorder. It is an affliction affecting hundreds of millions of people each year, causing them to achieve dangerously high levels of cognitive function that causes them to ask inappropriate questions about vaccines such as, "Why have vaccines never been tested against non-vaccinated children?" Or, "Why do vaccines cause some children and teens to collapse into autism, comas or death?" Or, "Why don't flu vaccines actually prevent flu symptoms in 99 out of 100 people who receive them?"

A lot of that is true, like 99 out of 100 people who get the flu shot and it doesn't help them.

A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine. Yet, predictably, this report is being touted by the quack science community, the vaccine-pushing CDC and the scientifically-inept mainstream media as proof that "flu vaccines are 60% effective!"

Also, the vaccine makers are the same companies that brought us other great revolutionary technology, like the Nazi death camps (sarcasm).

It's been only 70 years since World War II, and the mad scientists from companies like I.G. Farben, BASF, Hoechst, Dow and Bayer, who created the gas chambers and tested dangerous vaccines on innocent Jews, didn't just go away. In fact, they went to work for U.S. corporations and pharmaceutical companies that run the vaccine industry today. At least a dozen of these cold blooded killers were hired fresh out of prison, just 4 to 7 years after the Nuremberg trials found them guilty of mass murder and enslavement.

Ya I know, I'm crazy to not blindly believe their own studies. This is the same nonsense GMO companies do too, the government lets them do all their own safety testing.

 

[WatTyler]

The Nazi's also glorified naturopathy

Kötschau’s demands were sweeping: the thrust of the Nazi revolution must be to replace the mechanistic thinking of recent medicine by a new and more organic (biologische), holistic view of the world. It was not enough…for surgery to make techical advances; indeed, the primacy of technical or mechanistic thinking had stifled the search for alternative methods and made difficult the preservation of valuable traditional therapies. Natural methods of healing (Naturheilkunde) had as a result been replaced by exclusively physicochemical models and techniques; time-tested methods such as homeopathy had been supplanted by modern pharmacology and mass-produced chemical products. Kötschau complained that two, separate sciences had developed: one for the laboratory and one for the bedside. Science had become ‘separate from the people.’ Kötschau called for a new philosophy of medicine, a philosophy that would reorient medicine toward ‘more Goethe, and less Newton.’

"Natural medicine was not something…invented by the Nazis. New in the Nazi period was the government’s apparent willingness to revive and regulate certain of these traditions and to place them on a par with other forms of medical practice."

"The natural health movement enjoyed support from the highest levels of Nazi leadership [Hitler, Hess, Himmler]."

"Under National Socialism…natural methods…would have to be regulated so that ‘anyone who wants treatment by a natural healer can rest assured that the healer has been adequately trained in the art of his trade.’"

Source

But that's hardly relevant.

Stephenking, I really think you have a philosophical position and not an evidence based or scientific one. You're really very selective in the facts which you choose to look at or expose yourself to, which is the exact opposite of what the discipline of science is obliged to do, regardless of it's preconceived beliefs.

Could I suggest the site;
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/about-science-based-medicine/

It's a lot, lot more informative than Natural News and its spin. It focuses on a broader interdisciplinary scientific perspective and cumulative knowledge, rather than reliance on the short term clinical studies which, as you point out, can be flawed or misleading.

I simply can't believe that you brought Wakefield and his manufactured claims about MMR in as part of your argument. Frederick said most of what's needed, but I'll add that he had significant undisclosed financial interests in it all. It was all about profit- he saw some $40m a year of opportunity in selling testing kits. And that's my issue with much of the "alternative remedy" movement - it's just as much about business and money as conventional medicine, just without the burden of proof of conventional medicine. It's the "Alternative Remedy Industry"- as corrupt as any other. There's good in there as well for sure, but I for one will not blindly swallow everything they say any more than I will untested claims from big pharma.

Here's an excellent article from the above website about "Motivated reasoning, alternative medicine, and the anti-vaccine movement" It seeks to explore "Why is it that so many people cling so tenaciously to pseudoscience, quackery, and, frequently, conspiracy theories used by believers to justify why various pseudoscience and quackery are rejected by mainstream science and medicine? ....." I really think you should read it;
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...-mandela-and-jesus-christ-rolled-up-into-one/

(lol the actual page address which doesn't show fully above is "...disgraced-and-discredited-gastroenterologist-andrew-wakefied-nelson-mandela-and-jesus-christ-rolled-up-into-one/" which made me laugh)

 

[djonkoman]

I'm not at all an expert on vaccinations, never really looked into them, just received them as a kid.
I think the basic vaccinations are certainly usefull, some deseases that used to be prevalent are no almost extinct.
I also believe big pharma thinks more about money than health, and has a lot of questionable workethics, but that doesn't mean everything they produce is evil or useless.

what does strikes me in your debate is talk about flushots for children. do children in america really get vaccinated for the regular ordinary flu?
around here fluvaccinations are only common for people belonging to riskgroups, for those it's free to get the vaccination, but still optional
these riskgroups are people over 60 and people with some healthproblems like diabetes, asthma, kidneytrouble etc.
here is a complete list, it's in dutch tough:
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwe...n-ik-een-griepprik-halen-en-wat-kost-dat.html

no mention of children, except '

kinderen vanaf 6 maanden tot 18 jaar die langdurig salicylaten gebruiken;'​

(children from 6 months till 18 years who are longtermusers of ​

salicylates)


personally I don't go to the doctor easily, and my first reaction when I'm sick is to lay in bed and ride it out. it's normal to be sick once in a while, no need to prevent even a regular flu with vaccinations.
that was also what bothered me about the swineflu, our government bought a lot of vaccinations for a lot of money, and then it turned ot the swineflu was way overhyped, and wasn't as serious as the media portayed it at first.
some sicknesses you just have to go trough, like chicken-pox, don't know how it is over there but around here we don't get vaccinated for chickenpox, everyone gets it as a child, has a misserable week and then is immune for life.
I've also never used aspirin or similar painkillers, since as a kid I found it ridiculous to fight the symptoms while you still keeo the desease anyway and feel good again a few days later. that's just part of life

 

[Nycdeisel]

I understand, I'm supposed to believe the FDA that mercury, which they say is extremely toxic in cosmetics, is safe to inject as long as it's in the magic amount the drug companies figured out. A leading vaccine developer at Merck admitted the vaccines cause many health conditions and him and his colleagues laugh with him. And you still believe these people?

It's unbelievable to me that people accept these week long studies if they are ever even done, that say vaccines and everything else is safe because the person didn't die in a week.

And of course, you ignore that the entire vaccination theory of antibodies has been debunked. And that they suppress your immune system from forming real immunity

Dont forget those "silver" dental fillings(right next to your brain) that also contribute to a lot of the mercury contamination of our waters.

 

[sublimationpurist]

Nycdeisel Absolutely! "Silver amalgam" fillings are something over half mercury, and you don't even need a vape to get the medical benefits of mercury, it vaporizes easily at room temperature on every inhalation!

djonkoman Off the top of my head I would say yes, flu shots are "routine" for children in USA but I could be wrong. If they aren't the Gardasil HPV vaccine is routine for girls. And doctors say it should be routine for boys too (this is for female cervical cancer)! The Gardasil vaccine is the most infamous yet (and very new), with thousands of adverse reactions reported already. Now they are gearing up to push it on buys in Canada too!

CBC News reports that Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) has now recommended that HPV vaccines be administered to boys between the ages of nine and 26. The announcement comes just months after a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) committee also recommended that boys get jabbed with the HPV vaccine, despite the fact that nearly 25,000 children have had serious adverse events as a result of the vaccine, and more than 100 have died (http://sanevax.org/).

WatTyler and Frederick Since I know how I stand on these issues, I admit I know longer read "science" that is skewed in the direction of money. We are on the same side here, it's health vs. money!

Frederick You are still defending the FDAs nonsense studies and "safety limits" of known toxic chemicals. You seem to think they use actual science to determine their limits and what's safe. Well then, I have some questions for you:

And no, Its not a magic number, its a number derived from use, observation, and testing.
Scientists do tests.

Please explain to me the fancy science and "tests" the geniuses at the FDA used to determine that Cannabis falls into schedule I:

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."

Here's another point that contradicts your statement:

And no, Its not a magic number, its a number derived from use, observation, and testing.
Scientists do tests.

What kind of tests and observations where done to determine gamma radiation hundreds to thousands of times the legal limit is immediately "safe" right after the Fukushima disaster? Milk has been tested at many times above the limit. That's some fast testing and observation if I've ever seen any!

In Phoenix, Ariz., a milk sample taken on March 28, 2011, tested at 3.2 pCi/l. In Little Rock, Ark., a milk sample taken on March 30, 2011, tested at 8.9 pCi/l, which is almost three times the EPA limit. And in Hilo, Hawaii, a milk sample collected on April 4, 2011, tested at 18 pCi/l, a level six times the EPA maximum safety threshold. The same Hawaii sample also tested at 19 pCi/l for Cesium-137, which has a half life of 30 years

And before anyway posts any FDA dogma about radiation, let me just explain some basic points to quickly debunk their trickery. They only test for radioactive iodine because it has a half life of a week. That way, the media can pretend the problem has just gone away and resume use their fear mongering and other deception. Fukushima released many different radioactive isotopes, some with half lives like 30 years. They invented different units of measurement for radiation to complicate the matter further.

This is an excellent site for on-topic information!
http://sanevax.org/

Also I would like to say, while I make arguments against vaccines and eating meat, I don't necessarily think these are all or nothing issues. I believe it may be possible to do these things in moderation, but the industries need to change first, and drastically.

While I've been digging up dirt on vaccines and their obvious side effects, I haven't even begun to discuss the serious implications of vaccines that aren't so obvious. Things like how vaccines accelerate the mutation of viruses into much more deadly viruses, similar to antibiotic resistance and why antibacterial soap is bad.

Funnily enough, the FDA actually partly agrees with me on antibacterial soap. They say that it's no more effective against germs than ordinary soap and water. In fact, washing your hands with even natural soap isn't something you should do very often.

 

[WatTyler]

Since I know how I stand on these issues I admit I know longer read "science" ...

doesn't exactly indicate an open inquiring mind.

.... that is skewed in the direction of money. We are on the same side here, it's health vs. money!

But you choose to ignore the financial issues surrounding Wakefield's falsified results and his projected $40m a year business selling autism diagnosis kits? And do you see all the advertising on the Natural News website? And the careers of all the writers there, like the 'Health Ranger', forged and sustained on disagreeing with conventional findings?

Direct sales of alternative medicines expected to be worth £282 ($447) million in the UK within the next couple of years (says the daily mail). And then there's the whole educational market- the book and dvd sales must be worth a lot. In the USA it must be immense. The field is every bit as subject to the negative influence of money as any other area of medicine is.

So how is it that you are able to qualify good scientific findings that's aren't skewed in the direction of money so much better than the rest of us? So far it seems it's only if it's been quoted by Natural News and supports an entrenched philosophical belief. It does seem if it's to the contrary it must be corrupted lies and therefore totally dismissed. So what's the trick?



--------
And the FDA are mocked for their cannabis policy by any one with an evidence based understanding of the drug. The same can not really be said for their use of vaccination which is evidence based.
(I don't actually know about the FDA, but I believe it's broadly similar to the UK situation. except here our clinical advisers said cannabis is not that bad and said it should be class C, but our politicians decided it was and put it back to class B).

--------

edit again. SaneVax? seeing as one of it's main menu sections is titled 'Victims' and nothing on balance about the benefits I could more easily dismiss this as a biased anti-vaccine groups propaganda website than you can dismiss the weight of mainstream medical research, which considers both pros and cons, as invalid.

That's not to say I don't read the issues with certain vaccinations, but on balance genuinely believe the benefits outweigh the costs by far in most active programmes.

 

[sublimationpurist]

I don't have time to read every story about every scientist who was defamed by the FDA, it gets really old. I didn't know Wakefield's full story. Now that I do, I certainly agree that's a conflict of interest.

While I post links to naturalnews, those stories have cited references to studies done in major institutions and published in the "respected" medical journals.

I'm also aware that natural health is a business too. However, there's a pattern in mainstream science of disinformation on natural medicine and exaggerations on the benefits of allopathic medicine.

One trick is to look at what neutral countries, like Switzerland think. For example, while the USA continues its disinformation campaign against homeopathy...

In late 2011, the Swiss government's report on homeopathic medicine represents the most comprehensive evaluation of homeopathic medicine ever written by a government

and was just published in book form in English (Bornhoft and Matthiessen, 2011). This breakthrough report affirmed that homeopathic treatment is both effective and cost-effective and that homeopathic treatment should be reimbursed by Switzerland's national health insurance program.

edit again. SaneVax? seeing as one of it's main menu sections is titled 'Victims' and nothing on balance about the benefits I could more easily dismiss this as a biased anti-vaccine groups propaganda website than you can dismiss the weight of mainstream medical research, which considers both pros and cons, as invalid.
That's not to say I don't read the issues with certain vaccinations, but on balance genuinely believe the benefits outweigh the costs by far in most active programmes

I understand your logic there, but I've posted many examples already of the mainstream suppressing cons recognized by major institutions and also lying of the pros.

When you look at this issue from the bigger picture that individual studies fail to paint, the reality becomes very obvious. What do viruses do when you administer millions of vaccines for them? The virus goes away? Nope, it mutates and becomes much more dangerous. So your solution is to keep giving more and more vaccines until we reach the safety limit of 10,000 at once?!

 

[Frederick McGuire]

Here's the deal, I haven't read the report, but I know homeopathy.
It's a massive pile of jumbo jumbo crap, with no foundation in science.

I'm gonna go out On a limb here and guess that it was only found effective for non-specific, subjective symptoms (e.g. Pain), but completely ineffective for specific, objective symptoms (can't think of a good one of the top of my head, a silly example would be I dunno, speeding up the healing of a broken bone or something?)

Homeopathy is placebo.
It's entire premise dilutes everything to the point that it cannot possibly contain any active ingredients.
I have also yet to see it sufficiently demonstrated that "like cures like"...
Diluting caffeine a million and 1 times isn't gonna help with insomnia any more than placebo...

Anyone who can actually prove homeopathy works should be up for either:
A - a Nobel prize in medicine.
B - the James randi million dollar challenge.

Edit:

I don't have time to read every story about every scientist who was defamed by the FDA, it gets really old. I didn't know Wakefield's full story. Now that I do, I certainly agree that's a conflict of interest.

That's fine, don't read about every one, but perhaps read about the guy you are referencing?

I'm also aware that natural health is a business too. However, there's a pattern in mainstream science of disinformation on natural medicine and exaggerations on the benefits of allopathic medicine.

That's the first time I've ever heard of "allopathic medicine" (I had to look it up). It's funny that it seems to be almost exclusively used as a derogatory term for actual medicine used by homeopaths... (and, if I understand the term correctly, it doesn't apply to vaccines?)

 

[sublimationpurist]

Actually, allopathic medicine is largely placebo too!

A new study in Science Translational Medicine has cast doubt over the scientific validity of nearly all randomized, double-blind placebo controlled studies involving pharmaceuticals used on human beings. It turns out that many pharmaceuticals only work because people expect them to, not because they have any "real" chemical effect on the body. As you'll see here, when test subjects were told that they were not receiving painkiller medications -- even though they were -- the medication proved to be completely worthless.

I used to think homeopathy was nonsense too because it doesn't contain anything active. Now I'm not so sure.

Myth #2: "The research studies showing that homeopathic medicines work are 'poorly conducted studies'."

Wrong! Studies showing the efficacy of homeopathic medicines have been published in the Lancet, the British Medical Journal, Pediatrics, Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Cochrane Reports, Chest (the publication of the British Society of Rheumatology), Cancer (the journal of the American Cancer Society), Journal of Clinical Oncology (journal of the Society of Clinical Oncology), Human Toxicology, European Journal of Pediatrics, Archives in Facial Plastic Surgery, Archives of Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, and many more.[2] ALL of these studies were randomized, double-blind, and placebo controlled. Further, because of bias against homeopathy, these studies have been scrutinized rigorously, perhaps even more rigorously than is usual.

 

[Frederick McGuire]

That's the entire point of placebo controlled trials...
There are crazy placebo effects both ways, there's nocebo effects etc.

Can you please provide a link to that first study?
(I can't seem to get at it if it is there?)

And again, that is for pain, a subjective thing...
Not an objective thing.

Also, instead of a list of all the journals that have published trials with positive effects, could you post links to the studies?
(or, preferably just the 1 or 2 that seem most compelling in your opinion)

 

[sublimationpurist]

Frederick, here is link to the first study, which my quote was related to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12480310

I haven't researched homeopathy much. Without doing research, I assumed it was useless until finding it to work for me. I didn't bother doing research after that.
I will say that I personally know an allopathic physician who has also found homeopathy to work for them, but only recommends it to friends because they can't explain how it works.

Today, the scientific evidence proves that homeopathy really works. No sane, rational person could deny it after reviewing the evidence proving the biological activity of homeopathic water. But instead of denying the existence of homeopathy on the grounds that it doesn't work, modern doctors and researchers deny it based on the rather feeble idea that they don't understand the mechanism by which it might work. That is, they don't know how it works, and therefore it must not be true. And that's about as intelligent as saying "We don't know how gravity works, therefore, there is no such thing as gravity."

Big Pharma knew from the beginning that antidepressants didn't even work as well as placebo! They have seen been found in court to have covered up their own findings. How unusual for Big Pharma! (sarcasm)

Certainly though, depression is a subjective thing. Pain is very real though, beyond subjectivity. Pain can be seen in brain wave patterns and even people who are unconscious like from anesthesia have a measurable response to pain.

What the research really means, you see, is that the mind is the main determiner of the effectiveness of many drugs, not the so-called chemical profile of the drugs themselves. This has been proven out again and again with not just painkiller drugs, but also with antidepressant drugs which have consistently failed to out-perform placebo. (http://www.naturalnews.com/022723.html)

 

[WatTyler]

lol, that story was about supressing the effects of painkillers, not the other way around

Heat was applied to the legs of 22 patients, who were asked to report the level of pain on a scale of one to 100. They were also attached to an intravenous drip so drugs could be administered secretly.
The initial average pain rating was 66. Patients were then given a potent painkiller, remifentanil, without their knowledge and the pain score went down to 55.
They were then told they were being given a painkiller and the score went down to 39.
Then, without changing the dose, the patients were then told the painkiller had been withdrawn and to expect pain, and the score went up to 64.
So even though the patients were being given remifentanil, they were reporting the same level of pain as when they were getting no drugs at all.

The drugs worked, but people were convinced that they didn't.

Big Pharma knew from the beginning that antidepressants didn't even work as well as placebo! They have seen been found in court to have covered up their own findings. How unusual for Big Pharma! (sarcasm)

Anti depressants certainly do work- people wouldn't take them recreationally otherwise. Whether they're a sensible long term solution is another matter. My father suffers from depression and refused to take medication for most of his life. He started last year and it made a world of difference, but now they're no longer working for him like they did.


And this simply isn't true;

Today, the scientific evidence proves that homeopathy really works. No sane, rational person could deny it after reviewing the evidence proving the biological activity of homeopathic water

Dunno where that quote is from, but I consider myself very sane and rational. On balance the overall evidence from meta analysis indicates that homeopathy could be ever so slightly better than a placebo, but this can't be verified due to poor methodologies (surely the homeopaths could address this and demonstrate efficacy under acceptble conditions, if they were able?)

 

[Frederick McGuire]

@stephenking
It (pain) isn't objectively measurable, hence, subjective...
Subjective doesn't mean psychosomatic...

 

[sublimationpurist]

As I said earlier, I'm not well versed in the science around homeopathy. Internal Big Pharma studies indicate little difference between their drugs and placebos, to me, this means they don't work.

On topic though, could someone explain Bill Gate's comments in this video? Many anti-vaccine groups seem to think Bill Gates is saying vaccines will reduce the number of people. While it does seem like he's saying this, I don't believe he would say something like that in public if it were true.

 

[zymos]

@stephenking
It (pain) isn't objectively measurable, hence, subjective...
Subjective doesn't mean psychosomatic...

And technically speaking, psychosomatic doesn't mean "all in your head"- symptoms of psychosomatic illnesses are just as real as any other. Asthma often has a psychosomatic component, for example.

Also, many people misunderstand the significance of the placebo effect. If a drug were shown to have effects on 20% of the people in a study, and 20% of the people getting the placebo also had the effects, it doesn't mean that the drug is ineffective- it really did effect that 20 %, and the fact that some of the placebo group also got those effects does not negate that.

 

[Frederick McGuire]

Thanks for the correction zymos.
What would be a better word to have used there?

I did a bit of googling on that bill gates thing:
First, bill gates could come out tomorrow and say that vaccines are full of fairy dust - he is just as able as anyone else to say something untrue.
Just like how it didn't matter when Donald trump said some stuff about vaccines and autism. The validity of a claim is based on the evidence that supports it, not the person making it.
Having said that, here's the logic I found for the rationale behind his statements:

Given worse healthcare, there is a higher infant mortality rate.
Given a higher infant mortality rate, people will tend to have more kids hoping that 1 or 2 will survive to be adults.
This leads to a higher rate of overall population increase, as people are tending to overcompensate for the higher infant mortality rate.
So basically, if you know your kid will be healthy and live, you won't have 7 or 8 kids, you'll have 1 - 2 kids.

Kinda counter-intuitive when you first hear it, but I can understand the logic.
I wouldn't want to say it as a fact without further looking into the stats, but that seems to be the idea that gates was running with...

 

[WatTyler]

duh, delete. it took me 11 minutes longer than Frederick to finish writing the same thing in far fewer words.

Evidence suggests that if you reduce infant mortality you ultimately reduce the rate of population growth. As well as fewer kids, you'd have them further apart.

edit:

 

[sublimationpurist]

Frederick McGuire and WatTyler Thanks for explaining the Bill Gates thing, I knew there must be some science to it. I'm not sure I'm convinced that theory would apply to third world countries, but maybe it does. I never meant that because Donald Trump says something it's credible. I was merely pointing out that celebrities are talking about it.

There are so many studies in major journals regarding negative effects from just about every vaccine, the newest vaccines being the worst. Both of you seemed to have ignored the tape of top Merck vaccine developers joking about them causing cancer. Surely those people are credible?

Consider the negative effects that have been demonstrated. Especially the effects on the immune system, which is not even understood by allopathic medicine. It seems reasonable to assume they damage your immune system for many reasons. The suppression of TH2-type cytokines by vaccines is enough to demonstrate that. Then there's all the demonstrated increases in other diseases following vaccinations.

Effects like these:
Harvard deconstructed vaccine theories
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/242403.php

"Our findings contradict the current view that antibodies are absolutely required to survive infection with viruses like VSV (vesicular stomatitis virus), and establish an unexpected function for B cells as custodians of macrophages in antiviral immunity," said Dr. Uldrich H. von Andrian from Harvard Medical School. "It will be important to further dissect the role of antibodies and interferons in immunity against similar viruses that attack the nervous system, such as rabies, West Nile virus, and Encephalitis."

As explained by Dr. Russell Blaylock in a recent interview with Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, vaccines not only do not work as advertised, but they actually damage the body's innate immunity. Rather than teach the body how to respond to infections, vaccines actually inhibit the immune system's ability to produce TH2-type cytokines, and suppress cellular immunity, which is how the body protects itself against deadly viruses and bacteria.

A recent report published in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics (IJME) explains that, clinically, NPAFP is indistinguishable from polio paralysis. But according to the Office of Medical & Scientific Justice (OMSJ), NPAFP is twice as deadly as polio paralysis, and yet was not even an issue in India prior to the rollout of the massive polio vaccine campaigns.
In 2011, for instance, the year in which India was declared to be polio-free, there were 47,500 known cases of NPAFP, which is a shockingly high figure under the circumstances. And based on data collected from India's National Polio Surveillance Project, cases of NPAFP across India rose dramatically in direct proportion to the number of polio vaccines administered, which suggests that the vaccines were responsible for spurring the rapid spread of this deadly condition.
Similarly, cases of vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP), a condition in which paralytic symptoms similar or identical to those caused by wild-type polio manifest themselves following the administration of polio vaccines, are also on the rise. Not only are the paralysis symptoms associated with NPAFP and VAPP typically far worse than those brought about by wild-type polio, but they can also accompany other negative side effects including neurological damage.

Whooping Cough Vaccine Doesn’t Work – GSK Says “We Never Bothered to Check”

H1N1 vaccine linked to 700 percent increase in miscarriages:
http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/H1N1-RELATED miscarriages.htm
http://www.guerillahealthreport.com/post.php?id=417
http://thepopulist.net/2010/09/17/h...to-3587-miscarriages-and-stillbirths-in-2009/

H1N1 increases likelihood of getting influenza by 50%
Mumps outbreak spreads among people who got vaccinated against mumps

Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots

Aspirin kills 400% more people than H1N1 swine flu

Nearly 100,000 Americans die every year from adverse reactions to FDA-approved prescription drugs. That's twenty-five times the number of people killed by H1N1 swine flu (even if you believe the CDC's numbers). So where's the big warning about the dangers of prescription drugs? Why isn't the CDC warning Americans about an "epidemic of dangerous drugs" that poses a far greater threat to your health?

Last February, Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez announced the launch of the country's HPV vaccine program at the National Institute of Tropical Medicine conference. In a stunning admission and before an audience of her countrymen, who did not react to her gaffe, President Fernandez admits that the HPV vaccine kills girls. Was she betrayed by her subconscious or by her criminal unconscious?

"Now we are going to add the HPV vaccine to the Official Immunization Program of the State and therefore (this expensive medicine) will be free (the HPV vaccine), and therefore, with some time, we will get thousands of women losing their lives" - Spanish: "Vamos a lograr que miles de mujeres pierdan la vida". In fact, the President even seems to know more than many of us on the lethal effectiveness of the drug when she says..."with sometime."

What kind of positive effects can balance those things out?

 

[WatTyler]

No one's saying that there aren't issues, but it's important not to throw the baby out wiht the bath water. In terms of vaccination in general, the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in it's favour. No two ways about it. It has saved millions of lives. A kind of neo luddite attitude to infectious disease isn't going to help. We must continue to research this tool in our armoury against disease, or we WILL face mass sickness and death. It's what happens when populations of anything get too big.

 

[sublimationpurist]

No one's saying that there aren't issues, but it's important not to throw the baby out wiht the bath water. In terms of vaccination in general, the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in it's favour. No two ways about it. It has saved millions of lives. A kind of neo luddite attitude to infectious disease isn't going to help. We must continue to research this tool in our armoury against disease, or we WILL face mass sickness and death. It's what happens when populations of anything get too big.

But that's exactly what vaccines are contributing too, more deadly diseases (mutation of viruses) and weakened immune systems. Scientists even create weaponized viruses, which sometimes get out of the lab (H1N1).

You think injecting SV40, mercury, and aluminum with diseased animal (and human) parts with vaccines known to suppress TH2-type cytokines, which your body needs to actually create immunity, is a viable long-term solution? As the number of infectious diseases rises we keep giving more until 100,000 a day? No vaccines have ever been tested together, (except maybe MMR) or against an unvaccinated child, or for longer than a week. That isn't research...


CDC researchers say mothers should stop breastfeeding to boost 'efficacy' of vaccines.
Would you not breastfeed now? Going to feed your baby this stuff?
Similac Go & Grow
42.6% corn syrup solids

14.7% SOY PROTEIN ISOLATE (GMO)

11.5% HIGH OLEIC SAFFLOWER OIL, followed by 10.1% SUGAR (SUCROSE)
8.4% SOY OIL (most likely from GMO soybeans, too) and then 7.8% COCONUT OIL

Piggybacking on the recent government announcement concerning overexposure to fluoride, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has now announced that all infant formulas are contaminated with fluoride, and that when mixed with the fluoridated water provided in most US cities, the combination is a toxic threat to babies and infants.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nearly half of all US children are overexposed to fluoride. Many of these children are now afflicted with dental fluorosis as a result, which is a tooth disease involving the mottling and staining of enamel.

WatTyler Are your sure your getting enough Fluoride to prevent cavities like the FDA/CDC says it does? Pro-fluoridation scientists admit it isn't proven to prevent cavities, but there's "evidence" it does. Unfortunately for them, there's also evidence that it does nothing to prevent cavities, including some large scale studies like in Canada. And it also binds to just about everything you wouldn't want it to in your body in addition to your teeth (organs, pineal gland, brain. It also blocks the absorption of the iodine Americans don't eat. If people's teeth get so muddled up by the stuff just imagine what their kidneys must look like.

Hitler used Fluoride to keep his people docile and controllable. I doubt he drank any of that water. We do know Hitler took probiotic supplements, but they were pharmaceutical probiotics so he probably did take pharmaceuticals himself.

Should males be getting the HPV (Gardasil) vaccine? What about the heart attack vaccine?
Ridiculous announcement claims vaccines for heart attack will be available in a few years

You'd get better immunity just from eating organic whole foods and getting enough vitamin D.
Optimum vitamin D blood saturation reduces all-cause mortality by nearly thirty percent

Breast cancer virtually "eradicated" with higher levels of vitamin D

New research shows vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77%

A kind of neo luddite attitude to infectious disease isn't going to help.

I completely agree, but unfortunately before most people will consider alternatives they have to understand how dangerous current solutions are.

We already have these things that defend us from the bad stuff, called immune systems. The immune system isn't understood by modern science, and you shouldn't go messing with it chemically.

There are plenty of ways to boost your immune system but Americans just want to buy a pill or a shot for a quick fix.

I would love to see new technologies for actually preventing the spread of infectious diseases.

Good ontopic interview, certainly these people have their own interests but they aren't citing their own rigged studies like Big Pharma does.
http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=DFBE7C32CBDBF43B7342333B7D827EB0

The Health Ranger interviews neurosurgeon, author and researcher Dr. Russell Blaylock, the foremost authority on excitoxins such as MSG and aspartame. Dr. Blaylock is the author of "Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills." In this interview, Dr. Blaylock covers: * How the vaccine industry's insistence on mandatory participation in vaccine trials is a violation of Nuremburg medical code (or our protection as citizens) * Why Dr. Blaylock compares the corrupt logic and attitudes of the vaccine industry to Nazi Germany * How most of the damage done by vaccines is hidden * The truth about the real number of vaccine reactions and serious complications (esp. from Gardasil) And more!

 

[WatTyler]

But that's exactly what vaccines are contributing too, more deadly diseases (mutation of viruses) and weakened immune systems. Scientists even create weaponized viruses, which sometimes get out of the lab (H1N1).

You think injecting SV40, mercury, and aluminum with diseased animal (and human) parts with vaccines known to suppress TH2-type cytokines, which your body needs to actually create immunity, is a viable long-term solution? As the number of infectious diseases rises we keep giving more until 100,000 a day? No vaccines have ever been tested together, (except maybe MMR) or against an unvaccinated child, or for longer than a week. That isn't research...

One more question, are you going to get the HPV (Gardasil) vaccine? What about the heart attack vaccine?
Ridiculous announcement claims vaccines for heart attack will be available in a few years

I don't believe anyone responsible has claimed that vaccination is a panacea. It's a vital tool in the continual battle with disease. Why has it got to be all or nothing? How is relinquishing vaccination altogether going to provide any kind of a solution? How is that an intelligent approach? It's based on nothing but fear. What's your alternative? Ride it out?

It seems the immune system plays a strong role in how the body reacts to arterial inflammation and build up. Why is it so crazy to believe that an injection of antibodies could help some patients with heart disease? Unless you're biased? I think it's ridiculous to dismiss such claims out of hand- instead look at the evidence.

One more question, are you going to get the HPV (Gardasil) vaccine?

It's not offered to males here and I'm in a committed relationship, but I consider it my social responsibility to practise safe sex. If I can protect myself against HPV and instead I act a vector, well I think that just makes me a total arsehole. No question. It's a selfish thing to do.