Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2)
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 21:57
VIEWED: 12509
PAGE 3 of 16
Quote:They are as honest with you as they know to be. But I have found that most doctors buy into the vaccine religion so much they have never questioned it enough to read the research literature. So they don't really have very much real information to give.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Most docs are gonna play it 100% straight with you, the threat of a lawsuit (or in the case of one doc in particular, a bit more personal than that..) is enough to keep them pretty damned honest.
Same with medication or vaccines - they sit down with you, inform you to the best of their ability, and YOU make the call.
I was informed when I got the flu vaccine that there is a negligible chance for developing Guillaine-Barre. But I was not informed that dozens, if not hundreds, of people report a clinical disorder commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome shortly after vaccination as adults (hep B, flu, tetanus, etc.). This information is out there, but swept under the rug by medical authorities and therefore not recognized by most vaccine administrators and physicians.
Now if one trust medical authority enough to not need any additional information, that is that person's choice. MY call would be to do additional research on my own.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
--Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And no one has ever done a study comparing the effectiveness of vaccines vs. nutritional interventions. To study effectiveness of a childhood vaccine, they always compare its effects with those of another vaccine.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Proper nutrition and hygeine are also a factor in flu resistance, and should not be neglected in either case, also.
Would it be so difficult to have one group be vaccinated, and another group get large doses of vitamin C, and still another group get lots of green vegetables? The fact that such a study has never been done make me wonder if they are afraid of what they might find.
Where would the pharm companies be if the green vegetable group had the lowest rates of the target disease?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
To rely on the drug companies for unbiased evaluations of their products makes about as much sense as relying \on beer companies to teach us about alcoholism.
--Marcia Angell, MD, Executive Director, New England Journal of Medicine
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cit, the study clearly shows the effect of the vacc in children 23 months and under is virtually nil.
I referenced that, and you went all freaky on me cause you had not read it.
I was referencing solid data there, which you did not even bother to read.
And then, having not read it, you chose to take the statement out of context, and have a go ?
This is simple freakin logic here.
The study shows the effect of the vacc in children under 23 months is virtually nil, not half, nil.
Therefore doubling the dose is unlikely to have any realistic effect, and if they're still using the thimerosal base (to save a measly $4 a shot, at that) which apparently some providers are, then they're going way over the safety limit, any way you slice it.
Double of nothin is still nothin, and to exponentially compound the risk for no gain is flat out crazy.
As far as the italicized text, it's a summary of their argument for this current flu shot push, once you've stripped all the fluff away, which is exactly what I said - not a direct quote or I would have attributed it.
It's fairly obvious you're not one bit interested in the actual evidence, unless it supports your own viewpoint (and I know you're far from alone in that respect) so I see no further point in discussing it with you, nor wasting my time on it - if you're going to demand it be provided, ask me to spend my time digging it up, you can very well have the decency to read it, especially when it's being directly referenced.
I've burned about as much time and effort on this as I am going to bother to, especially since pointing out a logical, reasonable viewpoint, and the evidence behind it is "propagandizing" to you - you're just wasting my time anyway.
Like I said, I ain't interested in changin anyone elses viewpoint, I just don't want em forcing it on me via manipulation of the law, and I have some pretty good reasons for that.
So it's time to just put a fork in this whole damned discussion, far as i'm concerned.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whatever Frem, what I replied to and why was very clear, the fact you continue to lie about what I said and the reasons behind it speaks volumes.
Continue to lie as much as you like, the only person you're fooling is yourself.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Frem
Just going down the thread so here goes:
"Rue, it's been my experience, as a general rule, that Doctors ain't stupid, and most of mine are actually better than me at sorting which studies are bullshit or invalid due to poor research, skewed sampling, etc."
That wasn't the exact direction I was going in. What I was thinking was that, as we both know, pharmaceutical companies will say all sorts of good things about their products and nothing bad about them. So, if there is no other source of information besides the pharmaceutical shills, we'd be rather stuck for any good information at all.
It takes money to fund basic research (what enzymes/ systems does this product work on), and population studies (how does the product work in real life/ who does it hurt more than helps). What I'm saying is that we need to do a better job making government work for US, rather than for the companies. We need to insist on powerful regulatory agencies that can independently do the research and run the studies, to provide valid information to doctors and consumers.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
"I am saying, the same clinical disease as smallpox is still going around. One may make the case that smallpox (the virus) has been eradicated, based on a technicality. For practical purposes, the disease has NOT been eradicated. ... Even if specific viruses are no longer in circulation, it appears there are plenty more to take their place."
No pox virus quite takes the place of smallpox. Smallpox was a feared disease because of its high mortality rate (25 - 99% depending on population). Monkeypox and variola minor cause less severe diease and have lower mortality rates. (monkeypox 0 - 10% depending on strain, variola minor < 1%). In addition, monkeypox doesn't seem to have sustained human to human transmission. The other pox viruses can cause limited pox on areas of skin contact with an infected animal (camelpox).
Unfortunately my sources either require paid subscription (NEJM) or are books. I'm looking for links you can use.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
host specificity due to specific cell-receptor binding
http://awi.vlaanderen.be/documenten/COST_B28_160205.pdf
In the genus Orthhopoxvirus (OPV) camelpox virus (CMPV) is most closely related to variola virus VAR (Gubser and Smith, 2002). Both viruses are host specific. The high frequency of genomic recombination in OPVs or simple mutations in the CMPV genes coding for the virus virulence factors or for virus coat proteins interacting with the cell receptor-binding sites could cause a breakthrough in the host species barrier.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Smallpox historically causing 95 - 99% mortality among Indians. "I have read speculation of this. But what's the evidence for this theory? I'd like to take a look at it. Thanks."
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/162/16200504.pdf
"Guns, Germs and Steel" Jared Diamond
If you go to google you'll find easily accessible but potentially questionable sources for the impact of smallpox on native populations. Unfortunately, if you go to google scholar, you'll find more reliable but inaccessible sources. Go figure.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree on independent research that can provide valid information to doctors and consumers. I am not sure powerful regulatory agencies is the answer. That implies that only pharm companies have a motive to lie, that only they have an agenda. And that government agencies are pure of heart and look out for public interests, if only they had the power to do so. I disagree with this latter premise.
Originally posted by rue:
We need to insist on powerful regulatory agencies that can independently do the research and run the studies, to provide valid information to doctors and consumers.
What we need are blinded funding mechanisms. Just as it is standard in most peer-review journals for the peer review to be blinded to control bias(the peers do not know who authored the study when they review it), we need to make it standard for researchers to conduct their studies without knowing who is funding them, to control bias.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it's clear that mandatory smallpox vaccinations have eliminated the scourge of smallpox from around the globe. And they are close to eliminating the scourge of polio as well - even in areas of privation and poor sanitation.
This is a good thing - to free humankind of dreaded diseases that kill and cripple.
------------------------------
But if you think that I believe in the goodness of government per se you haven't been reading my posts. Even nominal democracies like the US can be - and have been - severely subverted by the monied. This subversion goes far beyond directly influencing individual researchers. Blinded funding as an answer is naïve at best. Whole areas study can be defunded so that NO ONE gets funding - ie stem cell research. Agencies can be crippled - by reducing staff, reducing budgets, limiting scope, even closing all research libraries - as has already been done to the USEPA. And groups that dole out research funds can fund politically expedient research while denying funds to others - as at the NIH.
The hard fact is, most research money comes from the US government. Most research money will continue to come from the US government. And most research is at the mercy of government funding.
With its great power of the purse, the US government is holding research hostage to political agendas; scientific merit be damned. It is that that we need to change. We need to INSIST on a government that represents US rather than the agenda of its owners. That is the only way we will get valid research.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME