Sunday, November 29, 2009
Dr. Roby Mitchell, M.D ... Finally. A Black Physician With Enough Brains & Heart To Stand Up To The Plantation. Remember Where You Heard It First
Dr. Roby Mitchell, M.D. (www.drfitt.com) issues a retraction to nurses he originally advised to get the H1N1 flu vaccination. After reading the insert of the vaccine, he retracted his advice. This video exposes what is actually IN the vaccine our government is so eager to inject into our population. For more information, please visit the following websites below:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
DV how do you know that is not DMG?
what information would cause you to revise or reject your judgments about vaccines?
... that they came from fruits, plants and seeds as opposed to the diseased organs of monkeys.
Anonymous, because of several facts
1. I'm much, much better looking
2. I'm not a Family Practicioner who dabbles in "orthomolecular" B.S.
3. I don't give advice on TV
since that is impossible is it fair to say then that nothing could revise your judgment?
"You'll never medicate your way out of diseases you behave yourself into".
Roby D. Mitchell, MD
Amen!
Doc Sub, are you familiar with Dr. Elaina George?
http://elainageorge.blogspot.com/
Dr. George states her reasons for not taking the swine flu vaccine:
1. The vaccine makers have been given immunity from being sued for any bad outcome (After the deaths and injuries associated with the Swine flu vaccination campaign in 1976, the vaccine manufacturers lost billions of dollars in civil suits. That cannot happen this time around. Congress has since passed two bills that shield vaccine makers from civil suits.)
2. There are many ingredients in vaccines called adjuvants that are put in to stimulate the immune response (The problem with adjuvants is that they can stimulate the body’s immune system to attack itself. These sorts of diseases are classified as autoimmune diseases.)
3. Mercury is one of the adjuvants used in the new Swine Flu vaccine. (Although no definitive answer has yet been found to unequivocally tie mercury to autism, there is still cause for concern in giving the thiamerosol to pregnant women and to children as mercury is known to be neurotoxic.)
4. Some of the manufactures outside the US are using Squalene which is a known neurotoxin (It technically has not been licensed in the US, but the fast tracking of the vaccine has left the question of whether squalene is present in some of the vaccines dispensed unanswered.)
5. Aluminum has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease and inflammatory conditions such as heart disease (Aluminum is an adjuvant present in vaccines.)
6. A live-attenuated virus is being offered that could increase the risk of Guillain-Barre as well as the spread of the virus. (The nasal form of the vaccine contains live virus that has been weakened. Why has this form of the virus been sent to the market first, when the HHS and CDC have advocated that people with chronic disease, weakened immune systems, children and pregnant woman be the first groups to receive the vaccine? Not only do these patients have the highest risk of getting the disease because of their weakened immune system, they can easily become vectors for the disease since they are capable of infecting anyone they are in contact with for up to 21 days after they receive the vaccine. This has the potential to spread the disease exponentially thereby fulfilling the prophecy of the pandemic.)
Needless to say there are some members of the medical community who have serious objections to the H1N1 vaccine.
@ DMG - Could the adjuvants be killing the beneficial bateriophages in the vaccines?
Uglyblackjohn,
Not sure what you are asking here. I think you may be a bit confused as to what's going on...which is understandable I peeped your blog, and you have two references one from a reputable source Eugene Mayer, PhD from U South Carolina, and one from a geologist who doesn't know dick about biology (Viera Scheibner). Stick with SC.
A bacteriophage is a virus that infects bacteria, to use the bacteria's machinery to replicate more virus. I don't know of any "beneficial" bacteriophages in current vaccines (or in nature). If there are bacteriophages..or bacteria for that matter in a vaccine, it's likely a contaminant.
There is talk of using bacteriophages as a delivery method. But as far as I know it's not been done.
An adjuvant in a vaccine serves to enhance the immune response, not kill bacteria loving viruses.
The short answer as far as I know is: No.
I'm not familiar with her Makheru but assuming that our host's and other's reply to my earlier question is, "No. Nothing could alter my judgment regarding vaccines.", I just wanted a simple demonstration of how this particular discussion is absolutely not about science. Science is an outlook or a method. Certainly it has a skeptical element but by definition it's open to revision based on empirical measurement and observation. If you hold a position which cannot be contradicted then it's a belief or ideology. That's not necessarily wrong or a bad thing but it's merely not what we consider science. And, therefore, dissenting scientific opinion should not be presented as a rational reason for declining vaccination but as part of advocacy for passionately held belief which happens to be substantiated by science. Two very different things which tend to be obscured.
DaVinci, Newton, Einstein et al. all had scientific judgments that were wrong in some way or other. But they were scientists nonetheless because of their approach. As science is a realm of culture, it's about how certain groups interact with nature. Another distinct but overlapping realm is religion.
I'm not surprised that some scientists or physicians disagree about the efficacy of H1N1 specifically or vaccination in general. Doctors disagree all the time about such things as diagnostic tests or antibiotic selection. This week my colleague signed out to me a young woman with abdominal pain at the site of a previous appendectomy who was awaiting a sonogram. I told her that I thought CT was better. Medical practice is ever changing as it should. I'm old enough to recall when every trauma victim with an injured spleen was rushed for emergency surgery and we did an invasive procedure called deep peritoneal lavage. We don't do that anymore and the standard of care seems to work better than the old one. If a consensus developed and certain vaccines were removed or the scheduling changed I'd have no problem with it.
Everything in medicine carries a degree of risk. It's a matter of judgment and experience to determine what is acceptable. And with all due deference to my colleagues above, I would never do shit if I focused primarily on the list of potential reactions. When I had a developmentally disabled child from Nigeria seizing with a fever I gave her Penicillin even though the package insert has a laundry list of adverse reactions. During my early medical practice I never prescribed Bactrim because I felt the risk of a severe skin reaction called Stevens Johnson syndrome unacceptable. However, as the incidence of MRSA skin infections increased I turned to it it as a first line agent for skin infection of the kind that I frequently see after body piercings and tattoos.
And that brings me to another point. I see many many more complications from piercings and tattoos than vaccines. Given their current fashionableness among the youth, athletes, Hip Hop, and fitness enthusiasts, I'd bet that our host and other naysayers here have undergone such cosmetic manipulations. And I'm sure that the permanent dyes aren't made from fruits, plants nor seeds. The risk of HIV, hepatitis, and skin infection is considered rather low enough that it doesn't prevent it's popular use. Plus the risk of such infection which were higher in the past before current standards of antisepsis and hygiene. Adverse reactions are not limited to pharmaceuticals. It's well known that some people are allergic to certain types of natural products like legumes, fruits, seafood, and nuts.
Makheru if you want a more nuanced discussion of the previous mass vaccination program in the Seventies I direct you to The Swine Flu Affair: Decision-Making on a Slippery Disease
by Harvey V. Fineberg and Richard Neustadt. I warn you that it's one hundred pages and very different in purpose and tone from what goes on here. Personally I think blogs like this one are great for discussion and sparking awareness but afterward you really have to do some heavy lifting on your own.
Asante Sana Doc. I appreciate your analysis. You know that I'm into synthesizing info. Boyce Watkins has been sending me emails for a couple of months with various posts from Dr. George, whom I've come to respect. I'm not a scientist, so I'm looking for some peer reviews.
OBTW, I'm trying to find the time to get back at you on that "Obama deserved the Peace Prize" analysis you posted over at Bro. Nulan's but, I'm busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest. As expected the "Real Slim Shady" says he will "finish the job" in Afghanistan. We'll get the details next Tuesday or Wednesday.
@ DMG - Thanks
I was wondering if one had any effect on the other.
"this particular discussion is absolutely not about science."
news flash....of course its not about science....its about plantation medicine using "science" to bamboozle, delude, swindle, defraud, dupe, hoodwink, scam, victimize, impose upon, bilk, etc.....the american public!!!!!!
Newsflash (or actually not news at all), your "everything is a conspiracy" routine has long gotten old. I know you are an intelligent man. Try another angle to get your point across, or at least show up with evidence.
evidence!!???
need to strengthen the out of the box perscription
Yeah, evidence. You know verifiable information that may strengthen the chin dribble you tried to pass off as an indictment of the medical profession a few posts up. You should look into the concept.
Post a Comment