tomtom wrote:
Since he damaged most powerful people on this planet, it's more than likely they will take action against him. Are these actions justified? Who knows? Show me these "mass destruction weapons" in Iraq and we can talk.
What an odd non sequitur. Stop diverting attention from your flawed arguments.
My arguments aren't flawed. Sure I might make lots of small mistakes, as vaccines are not my field, still my main point remains - there can be done MUCH more with FAR lesser cost, when we focus on certain vitamin and mineral deficiencies among elderly instead of vaccines.
My other point stand still too - there's no way for mortal human being to judge right now, if there's relationship between vaccination and certain mental disorders among children. Most powerful people on this planet would lost unimaginable amount of money if it's true, so if it's true - they use billions of dollars to keep truth away from us.
Well, on the other hand - they don't have to use that big amount of cash, since 95% of population are mindless sheep.
NO CREDIBLE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN A CONNECTION BETWEEN MENTAL DISORDERS AND VACCINES!
However, let's say there is a connection. I feel sorry for the children and the parents of those children who have been harmed by vaccines. However, would you rather have a dead child or an autistic child? Most would choose an autistic child. In 1999 to 2000, in North Dublin, after Wakefield's study was published, the immunization rate against Measles dropped below 60%. Consequently, 3 children died of Measles and over 100 were hospitalized from 300 cases. Many required ventilation to recover.
I agree with you...
Do you want to buy my book "What doctors don't want you to know" If you order now I will throw in my book "how to make money on the internet"
you just have to pay "shipping and handling" charges plus a monthly newsletter on natural remedies for a small charge.
*giggles*
Do you like my suit and my slick new television studio?
Doctors are for dummies and sheep...
TRUST ME WITH YOUR HEALTH
Kevin Trudeau
hey do you want to make your penis bigger?
buy enzyte!!
You see it is passed off as a FOOD SUPPLEMENT and it is called "natural" so there is minimal regulation..
All we have to do is get a big-time celeb to endorse it and the sheep will be fooled...Thanks Kevin TRueDough ...
Jimmy Johnson says Enzyte works
signed,
Smiling Bob
It is all a CONSPIRACY!!!
Big PHARMA , BIG Insurance Comapnies along with the GOVERNMENT planned this all along.......
Watch my show and I will prove it with "concerned looks" and
"constipation face"
It is that darn Government!
adddf wrote:
NO CREDIBLE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN A CONNECTION BETWEEN MENTAL DISORDERS AND VACCINES!
As studies are controlled by people who are very interested in such lack of connection, it prove nothing.
However, let's say there is a connection. I feel sorry for the children and the parents of those children who have been harmed by vaccines. However, would you rather have a dead child or an autistic child? Most would choose an autistic child. In 1999 to 2000, in North Dublin, after Wakefield's study was published, the immunization rate against Measles dropped below 60%. Consequently, 3 children died of Measles and over 100 were hospitalized from 300 cases. Many required ventilation to recover.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12867830http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/769381.stm
Maybe there should be available vaccine without mercury, so parents could choose it instead? And hell, I'm really not sure if I would choose autistic child over one dieing at age of 2. You still have chance for another child then, while autistic one stays with you for the rest of your life - or maybe "near you", as it's not like your child anymore.
Anyway, you don't know how many children are harmed by vaccines, I don't know neither. I posted story here once about woman, who asked me for help with minor problems (induced hyperthyroidism). Soon we had talk about vaccination, she told me about her child. It was vaccinated against one of these diseases, not remember which one now - maybe Measles, maybe another. Just after vaccination behavior of child changed dramatically - from active, crying, laughing etc child it changed into quiet one, sleeping all the time.
What's the point? It was NOT notified as vaccine side effect. Doctors just ignored it.
I have the answers!!!
Watch my show and buy my books!!!!!!!
I like to use a chalkboard but this will work fine....
The left side of the brain is used for the arts.Artistic sound like autism.....AUTISM WAS CREATED BY THE LEFT OR LIBERALS......
I'm Glenn Beck please disregard my morning zoo and alcoholic past.
The liberals caused AUTISM...........
Meaghen Kelly what does the latest Faux news poll show?
Thanks Glenn!! I love the glasses it makes you look so intelligent!
Faux Poll
Liberals, Democrats cause autism 100
Republicans cause autism 0
disclaimer:poll is not scientific and taken at fox news channel.......
Darn Democrats.......
Obama causes Autism according to the latest Faux news poll...
Hey wanna see me naked?
Most news journalists do this now!
Hey what do you call a doctor when their license is REVOKED?
dude, unemployed, idiot or a danger to the public?
Texas watch out for Mr. Wakefield he may be impersonating a doctor and walking the streets in a dirty lab coat!!!
tomtom wrote:
adddf wrote:NO CREDIBLE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN A CONNECTION BETWEEN MENTAL DISORDERS AND VACCINES!
As studies are controlled by people who are very interested in such lack of connection, it prove nothing.
That sounds exactly like someone who has made up their mind ahead of time to disregard any evidence that contradicts their position (evidence that supports your position, of course, has no bias. It's always that way). This is not a position susceptible to rational argument, so why are we even having this discussion?
adddf wrote:
NO CREDIBLE STUDIES HAVE SHOWN A CONNECTION BETWEEN MENTAL DISORDERS AND VACCINES!
However, let's say there is a connection. I feel sorry for the children and the parents of those children who have been harmed by vaccines. However, would you rather have a dead child or an autistic child? Most would choose an autistic child. In 1999 to 2000, in North Dublin, after Wakefield's study was published, the immunization rate against Measles dropped below 60%. Consequently, 3 children died of Measles and over 100 were hospitalized from 300 cases. Many required ventilation to recover.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12867830http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/769381.stm
That is the most absurd argument I have ever heard. I would choose a HEALTHY child. The choice isn't between death and autistic. There are other options beside vaccines. Modern medicine simply doesn't cover those. Health isn't how many vaccines you've had or how many drugs you take. Health is deriving all the nutrients you need from nature and feeding off your body's natural healing power. If you think drugs and vaccines are the only way to be healthy, then I feel sorry for you. Nutrition alone could solve so many current problems, but the pharmaceutical industry won't have you knowing that. They would rather keep their own "medicines" mandatory and get you addicted to their medicines and make you "feel better" so you will keep coming back for more.
There is more money to be made in a person's sickness than their health.
Nature is ALWAYS better than science.
someone else wrote:
Nature is ALWAYS better than science.
Nonsense.
Life expectancy is way up and infant mortality is way down and you can thank science for that. Science isn't always the answer, but to claim that it never is is idiotic.
someone else wrote:
There is more money to be made in a person's sickness than their health.
Case in point: the lawyers who paid Andrew Wakefield to manufacture the vaccine-autism link in hopes of scoring big class-action wins.
DontFeedTheTroll wrote:
That sounds exactly like someone who has made up their mind ahead of time to disregard any evidence that contradicts their position (evidence that supports your position, of course, has no bias. It's always that way). This is not a position susceptible to rational argument, so why are we even having this discussion?
Then fund independent study.
Sorry, medical establishment lied to me so many times that I will not trust their one single word without checking it myself. It's like trusting USA government.
DontFeedTheTroll wrote:
someone else wrote:Nature is ALWAYS better than science.
Nonsense.
Life expectancy is way up and infant mortality is way down and you can thank science for that. Science isn't always the answer, but to claim that it never is is idiotic.
I'm talking in regards to maintaining health. There are many ways to make a baby not die, but whether it is healthy after that is another story, entirely.
tomtom I would normally applaud your skepticism. It is important that we keep asking these questions and re-evaluating what we think we know. Modern medicine has lots of problems and that is how we will solve them.
BUT when you blindly accept and repeat vague claims about megadose vitamins etc. you make the problem worse. You seem to think we can assume supplements are safe and effective but that is a dangerous assumption. Remember the HOPE study a few years back? Researchers thought vitamin E substitution was going to be a cheap and easy way to prevent cancer and heart disease; after a decade and thousands of patients treated they found out it didn't have any effect on cancer and actually increased the incidence of heart failure. No one saw it coming. These things are less predictable that you'd think.
Supplements are a hugely profitable business. They are cheap to produce and easy to market because their claims don't have to be approved by the FDA. Big supplement corporations love it when you blindly accept their claims. And they have no reason to fund efficacy studies because they can make more money with the uncertainty.
It would be awesome if we truly could "cure" mononucleosis with megadose vitamin C like you've claimed. But until it's been proven that it's more likely to actually help than, say, cause kidney stones (a very real danger, look it up), it's irresponsible to go around trying to convince people to abandon therapies that our best science supports.
helper outer wrote:
BUT when you blindly accept and repeat vague claims about megadose vitamins etc. you make the problem worse. You seem to think we can assume supplements are safe and effective but that is a dangerous assumption. Remember the HOPE study a few years back? Researchers thought vitamin E substitution was going to be a cheap and easy way to prevent cancer and heart disease; after a decade and thousands of patients treated they found out it didn't have any effect on cancer and actually increased the incidence of heart failure. No one saw it coming. These things are less predictable that you'd think.
As I said earlier, you can prove whatever you want using studies, it's question of settings. In this case they used synthetic form of vitamin E, which is in fact dangerous to health. No natural medicine enthusiast suggest usage of synthetic form of vitamin E, and they never claimed it would work.
I can explain here in details why this study was fated to failure, but let's just say that vitamin E in proper form and in high amounts works really well.
Supplements are a hugely profitable business. They are cheap to produce and easy to market because their claims don't have to be approved by the FDA. Big supplement corporations love it when you blindly accept their claims. And they have no reason to fund efficacy studies because they can make more money with the uncertainty.
And this is another myth carefully planted in minds of people by pharma corporations. No, supplements are NOT profitable business. You can produce for example vaccine for the cost of $1 then sell it for $500 (just as it's with this "cancer vaccine"), but for supplements it doesn't work this way. They cannot be patented, so everyone can make them. I'm buying my vitamin C in chemistry shop, for the cost of $3 / year, my megadoses of vitamin D are even cheaper.
It would be awesome if we truly could "cure" mononucleosis with megadose vitamin C like you've claimed. But until it's been proven that it's more likely to actually help than, say, cause kidney stones (a very real danger, look it up), it's irresponsible to go around trying to convince people to abandon therapies that our best science supports.
Kidney stones problem was carefully examined (studies on very, very big groups of people) and no doses of synthetic form of vitamin C increased risk, not even slightly. There was one study claiming such relationship, but it was natural form, so most likely stones were caused by certain plants that are high in both substances promoting stone formation AND vitamin C.
On the other hand, simple supplementation of 1g vitamin C daily decreased overall death risk by 40%.
As for mono, keep in mind I'm in natural medicine - more than just reading, I'm actually offering some therapies to people and I see results by my own eyes. I have plenty of "uncurable" diseases cured on my account. Sure, sometimes natural medicine fails, but as for things like heart diseases, cancer, diabetes and so on - "official" medicine fail really hard time, and I can wholeheartedly say that normal therapies against these are nothing but scam.
So, yes, proper nutrition can do things you would call "wonders", as for case of flu - especially fixing such things as vitamin D deficiency during winter, most likely the only reason why influenza epidemic happens only at this time of year.
Every false claim you're repeating has been addressed in previous threads:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3638635&page=1
Here are some of the highlights:
The facts are quite plain. The science overwhelmingly supports routine childhood vaccinations, and if you don't reach that conclusion, it's because you either can't find legitimate sources, or you choose to read and believe bogus sources.
The fact is, by skipping out on routine shots you're putting your child at risk not only for diseases that are normally mild (chicken pox), but also for ones that are devastaing, like pneumococcal or haemophilus meningitis. These diseases were common prior to the introduction of effective vaccines, and any pediatrician who trained before their introduction can tell you awful stories of limp children who were well a few hours before, and doing spinal taps on them and aspirating pus out where there should be clear spinal fluid. If they survived, they were often left with severe neurological deficits.
The pneumococcal vaccine (targeting the 7 most prevalent serotypes) dropped meningitis rates by 50%, with most cases now being caused by strains not covered in the vaccine. Similar data with Haemophilus. These are not diseases you can avoid; these organisms are part of the normal flora of a lot of people, so unlike chicken-pox and measles you can't rely on herd immunity. Since these diseases are fairly rare, you will probably luck out and not kill your child. But, you basically are choosing to multiply the risks of several serious diseases for your child, all because of an effective campaign of fear-mongering and ignorance.
You may say that the risk is small (and you are correct), but the risk is also small that you'll have a car accident on the way home tonight. Why bother with the car seat for the child? You've probably never had an accident that would hurt her yet, so the risks of it happening today are well below 1%, perhaps even in the 1 in 50,000 range, which is the chance of her developing meningitis. If that risk is acceptable, screw the car seat and drive...
No vaccine makes it to licensure in the US without: phase 1 safety and dose finding studies. Phase 2 proof of efficacy studies. Anf finally, phase 3, randomized trials, either against placebo, or against an already existing vaccine (if a placebo is considered unethical).
Here's just a smattering of the placebo controlled trials of vaccines that pop up when you put in "vaccine AND placebo" into pubmed and limit it to clinical trials:
Four year efficacy of prophylactic human papillomavirus quadrivalent vaccine against low grade cervical, vulvar, and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia and anogenital warts: randomised controlled trial.
FUTURE I/II Study Group
BMJ. 2010 Jul 20
---------------------------------
Safety of herpes zoster vaccine in the shingles prevention study: a randomized trial.
Simberkoff MS, Arbeit RD, Johnson GR, Oxman MN, Boardman KD, Williams HM, Levin MJ, Schmader KE, Gelb LD, Keay S, Neuzil K, Greenberg RN, Griffin MR, Davis LE, Morrison VA, Annunziato PW; Shingles Prevention Study Group.
Ann Intern Med. 2010 May 4
INTERVENTION: Single dose of herpes zoster vaccine or placebo
(my institution was one of the sites for this study, we still are following some of the patients)
---------------------------------------------
Safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity of an inactivated influenza vaccine in healthy adults: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial over two influenza seasons.
Jackson LA, Gaglani MJ, Keyserling HL, Balser J, Bouveret N, Fries L, Treanor JJ.
BMC Infect Dis. 2010 Mar 17
------------------------------------------
Safety and immunogenicity of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in infants: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.
Englund JA, Walter E, Black S, Blatter M, Nyberg J, Ruben FL, Decker MD; GRC28 Study Team.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 Feb
---------------------------------------------------
That's from the first page or 2, I don't have time or energy to comb through all 1,644 results for you.
Funding: Most studies have 2 potential sources: industry or government. Some rare ones get private organization funds (American cancer society, foundations, etc). Generally we love studies that go through the NIH or VA funding mechanisms, because they compete for funds based on the merits of their ideas, vs promoting a company owned drug or vaccine. However, funding for research has decreased, and costs of trails have skyrocketed, so more and more trials do have industry ties. Do we discount them? No. But we do requre that the authors verify that they are in control of the data, that they vouch for the analyses, and that the sponsor did not have veto power over results. Now all clinical trials are registered at clinicaltrials.gov, so that all of this is out there for people to know about.
Re: vaccines as new, unnatural, and radical. Well, there are variable definitions of those words. Jenner's work with varriolation (early small-pox vaccination) was in the late 1700's. Diptheria, tetanus, typhoid, all had vaccines in the early 1900's. Most of them were hardly radical ideas- it was known that organisms caused disease, and that if people survived they were immune. So, take killed or modified organism, introduce them, and see if immunity can be induced in absence of disease. Perhaps that is radical, it seems like basic science to me.
IL MD wrote:
The facts are quite plain. The science overwhelmingly supports routine childhood vaccinations
...and like 99% of said science is controlled by people who get profit from vaccines.
Once again. show me these mass destruction weapons in Iraq, and we can talk about "proven facts".