Western medicine got ya'll messed up with the germ theory of disease.In reality, if a child develops measles, whooping cough, chicken pox or any of the other common childhood infections, it is not because of germs (bacteria and viruses) but because of the toxic conditions of the body, a condition referred to as Toxaemia.
There are many causes of Toxaemia. In America the most common are over-eating processed GMO foods, and constantly consuming chemical pollutants. In third world countries the causes are more related to malnourishment, impure water and poor sanitation. Because vaccination does nothing to reduce or eliminate the toxic conditions of the body out of which childhood infections arise, parents seeking natural health instead of drugs for their children, regard this practice as totally futile for it bears no relation to the root causes of childhood infection.
DMG said...
OK, about those holes. First we should take a look at some definitions. Usually words that ends in "-emia" refers to blood. Anemia (lack of blood..or decrease), bacteremia (blood with bacteria), etc.Toxemia (no extra 'a' as that's the British spelling) 1. Clinical manifestation observed during certain infectious diseases, assumed to be caused by toxins and other noxious substances elaborated BY THE INFECTIOUS AGENT (emphasis mine). 2. The clinical syndrome caused by toxic substances in the blood. 3. A lay term referring to the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
I assume you are talking about the first definition as it pertains to infectious disease. As you can see from the definition from my Stedmans the toxic condition is mediated by the infectious agent. So this statement is wrong:
"it is not because of germs (bacteria and viruses) but because of the toxic conditions of the body, a condition referred to as Toxaemia"
Let's take Pertussis (Whooping cough) as an example. This disease is mediated by Bordatella pertussis, and is often less serious when found in teenagers and, however toddlers and infants especially those less than 6 months of age are susceptible to a more serious condition, with a small percentage leading to death, with pulmonary hypertension as a cause. Read all about it here in depth if you like Bordatella pertussis has an exotoxin that interacts with a portion of a G-protein coupled receptor that prevents it from modulating a molecular signal (ie it's stuck in the on position)...causing all sorts of mayhem. Should I go on?
You are again making the mistake of lumping specific diseases into one disease and saying they are all due some sort of nutritional deficiency. This is of course absurd...especially when the offending bacteria can be found, isolated and dealt with, by administration of antibiotics. You also lump all Genetically Modified foods together under the "bad" category without stating why, or providing a mechanism for how they may make one "toxic". The main problem here (and I'm not trying to be dismissive or nasty) is you don't seem to know how anything works. Sure there are certain chemicals that can accumulate in your body, but whether they cause disease depends on the chemical, exposure and susceptibility. Remember everything has a MECHANISM OF ACTION. So you cannot make all of these general statements and expect to be taken seriously by anyone educated in medicine, biochemistry, virology, or bacteriology.
Intellectual Insurgent said ...
Funny, I cannot for the life of me understand why people are "pro-injecting-toxic-poison-into-the-bloodstream" and have yet to hear one valid reason to do so.My sister is a pediatrician and this is a recurring topic at dinner as you can imagine. I've begged her to show me any evidence that vaccines did anything that clean water, proper sanitation and improved nutrition didn't otherwise take care of. Still waiting for the evidence.
And she knows as well as I do that it does not exist. The entire religion of vaccination is just that - complete faith. Nothing more.
In the meantime, children continue to die of SIDS, develop leukemia and suffer from an epidemic of neurological disorders and doctors keep their heads in their asses pretending like injecting formaldehyde and aluminum into newborns has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Personally, I'd be pissed if I had to kneel at my daughter's grave every year at her birthday the way my neighbor's mother does because her first daughter died a few days after her DPT shot.
56 comments:
Is that your daughter? She's beautiful.
Be careful about disseminating information. I'm on my way to bed. I'll poke holes tomorrow.
LOL.
My man.
Thank you. Look forward to the holes.
Brother Vesey:
Your comments please:
The World Health Organization says a vaccine which can prevent a diarrhoea and vomiting virus should be given to all children as a routine vaccination.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8083684.stm
Knowing what you know about the Polio vaccine and its malicious intent - should we expect to see you on the protest circuit against this latest vector used to exploit African and Asian children with an infectious agent?
Additionally - What do you think of the Gates Foundation? They have built labs IN Africa, staffed with Africans to do medical research.
In your estimation are these Africans AGENTS Of Death, working with Da man or are they eyes and ears of Da People, insuring that the Man stays honest?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/malaria/2003897861_malariatanzania09.html
What up Feed.
Read your BBC piece.
I am not surprised. The World "Health" Organization, UNICEF and other internationalist organizations have been pumping vaccines into the bodies of Africans at break neck speeds and around the clock for the past decade or so.
This desperate campaign to "vaccinate" the future generation of Africans coincides with the collective declaration of many super rich individuals and environmentalists that "Population Control" is the only way to save the Earth.
Well, "Population Control" has mutated into "Population Reduction".
The same people who tricked ya'll into believing man has caused global warming - are starting the campaign to cool the planet by ... You guessed it: reducing man's population.
Guess who they want to get rid of first?
You guessed it again.
That's why hundreds of millions of African kids will have Monkey Virus vaccines squirted into their mouths this year.
Southern Africans are 10% of the world's population. Yet they have 66% of the world's HIV infection.
GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE
Track back the vaccinations of southern Africans over the past 20 years.
OK, about those holes. First we should take a look at some definitions. Usually words that ends in "-emia" refers to blood. Anemia (lack of blood..or decrease), bacteremia (blood with bacteria), etc.
Toxemia (no extra 'a' as that's the British spelling) 1. Clinical manifestation observed during certain infectious diseases, assumed to be caused by toxins and other noxious substances elaborated BY THE INFECTIOUS AGENT (emphasis mine). 2. The clinical syndrome caused by toxic substances in the blood. 3. A lay term referring to the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.
I assume you are talking about the first definition as it pertains to infectious disease. As you can see from the definition from my Stedmans the toxic condition is mediated by the infectious agent. So this statement is wrong:
"it is not because of germs (bacteria and viruses) but because of the toxic conditions of the body, a condition referred to as Toxaemia"
Let's take Pertussis (Whooping cough) as an example. This disease is mediated by Bordatella pertussis, and is often less serious when found in teenagers and, however toddlers and infants especially those less than 6 months of age are susceptible to a more serious condition, with a small percentage leading to death, with pulmonary hypertension as a cause. Read all about it here in depth if you like Bordatella pertussis has an exotoxin that interacts with a portion of a G-protein coupled receptor that prevents it from modulating a molecular signal (ie it's stuck in the on position)...causing all sorts of mayhem. Should I go on?
You are again making the mistake of lumping specific diseases into one disease and saying they are all due some sort of nutritional deficiency. This is of course absurd...especially when the offending bacteria can be found, isolated and dealt with, by administration of antibiotics. You also lump all Genetically Modified foods together under the "bad" category without stating why, or providing a mechanism for how they may make one "toxic". The main problem here (and I'm not trying to be dismissive or nasty) is you don't seem to know how anything works. Sure there are certain chemicals that can accumulate in your body, but whether they cause disease depends on the chemical, exposure and susceptibility. Remember everything has a MECHANISM OF ACTION. So you cannot make all of these general statements and expect to be taken seriously by anyone educated in medicine, biochemistry, virology, or bacteriology.
DMG,
Have you read The China Study and, if so, what is your take on it?
II,
I can't say that I'm familiar with it. But I did a quick Google search to get the gist. Why do you ask?
The authors did interesting research regarding cancer and nutrition. As a medical doctor, you would probably find it interesting.
06 05 09
DMG:
Since you claim to be a doctor, I am wondering how you feel about II's comments, particulary regarding the aluminum and formaldehyde that they currently put in vaccines. Why do they put those noxious chemicals into these vaccines? Are they somehow rendered inert in combination? (I highly doubt it but chemistry, and biochemistry aren't my strong suits!)
And lastly, what is wrong with kids catching the chicken pox, measles or mumps? These used to be very common childhood diseases. My Grandpa talked about sitting in a dark room as a boy because he had the mumps. His treatment was to sit in a dark room for about two weeks. The elders told him that way it wouldn't spread to his testicles. And evidently he came out just fine.
I am concerned that by pumping folks up with all these vaccines and other things, that we are overriding and reprogramming our immune systems. Can't we work to STRENGTHEN it instead of work around it?
Mahndisa,
I don't "claim". I am. Instead of answering your question, I'm going to point you to a basic book on immunology. It would be waste of my time to try to bring you up to speed. Get the basics in anatomy, physiology and molecular immunology down, then come back and ask your question. If you read quickly you should be able to speak coherently on the subject by the end of summer. I'm not making jokes.
I have no idea why you told me about your grandfathers mumps and sitting in a dark room, other than to illustrate that home remedies based on wives tales, and rumor still persist to this day.
06 05 09
DMG:
I said you 'claim' to be a doctor because I don't know who you really are. You could be a serial killing nail technician for all I know or care for that matter. However, I will say that your
arrogance is astounding. All I did was ask you why they put noxious chemicals in vaccines.
I even gave you an out and asked if they were rendered inert in combination. Yes biochemistry isn't my strong suit, but I've done a bit of research in biology even a stint in computational biology for that matter.
I mentioned the story of my paternal Grandfather to show you that he survived, had kids, many grandkids and is okay despite having the mumps as a child.
You say old wives tales are still in use. YET he never was vaccinated and got through it.It is my understanding that after a while, the vaccines are no longer effective and you have to get a booster. So they don't even get you permanent immunity!
You don't have to lecture me or presuppose that I am too ignorant to understand what you are saying. Just answer the question, if you can.
The fact that you obfuscated, changed the subject and then insulted my intelligence by saying that I need to be caught up to speed is simply typical of those of your ilk.
I asked the question because no doctor I've asked has been able to answer that question. So I will ask you again: Why are formaldahyde and aluminum put in vaccines? Isn't there a way to make vaccines without adding these things?
I will add, you never know to whom you are speaking nor what life experiences they've had.
Aside from your arrogant posturing DMG, I read that aluminum salts are used as a way to make the dope absorb into the body faster. All your bs you could have just said that in one sentence. To which my response is still the same, why aluminum salts? Why can't it be some less toxic substance? Are you telling me that toxic chemicals are the only ones that can serve this purpose to facilitate vaccine dope uptake?
Surely there are other less toxic substances that could do the job. No?
the doctor calmly brings facts and knowledge.
the zealot brings distemper, unpleasantness, and a transparent attempt to play "gotcha".
the zealot's ugliness is plainly evident both inside and out.
Sorry forgot to list the book You can get it used for about $23 right now if you hurry. Or if you have bit torrent and want a download here. Hit me up in September when you are finished.
Yep. Just as I suspected instead of addressing the issues that I brought up you give me a link. I could learn so appreciate the information but chastise you for the spirit in which you give it.
Anonymous pulueeze get over yourself. If the good doctor cannot answer my questions what good is his knowledge. If someone is fluent in a topic then they have the ability to break it down into simple terms. he has not done so all he's done is tell me I'm too ignorant to understand the explanation.
That is his bad. DMG you perhaps should review the book you've referred me to, after all if you really knew what you were talking about you'd have been able to break it down for me. Dumbass.
Mahndisa,
You forgot to write "signed" before the last word of your post. It's not a matter of me being unable. I just refuse. You aren't allowed to take University senior level coursework until you've taken the foundation courses during Freshman and Sophomore year. However, in this case you haven't even been accepted to the school yet.
My dear, this is why I don't like engaging you. You aren't serious. You've already chosen not to believe in science or the facts as they have clearly been written in basic texts. And by the way, I wasn't being flippant when I advised you to pick up that particular book. Many a med student uses that series as an adjunct to their more dense textbooks. I thought it would be a quick read for someone who clearly has never completed (or passed?) basic biology. But don't let me stop you from proving me wrong. Dazzle us with your knowledge of the human immune system.
If I'm sick, I'ma go see the doctor.
the fuck use I got for you?
fugly as you are man-deesa, you may wanna rethink calling people out they name bitch.
DMG: I thanked you for the reference above. You cannot engage me because you mistake my intentions. Nowhere EVER have I claimed to be an expert in vaccinations. As a matter of fact, I asked those questions out of genuine curiosity. Since none of the doctors I've asked or nurses have been able to answer the question about the toxic adjuvants added to vaccines, I asked you. You instead decided to insult me and so I answered in kind.
It is interesting how every comment by you is either preceded or followed by an anonymous insult about me.
C.r.e.a.m. you are such a retard dumbass.
DMG you have made wayyy too many assumptions not only about me but about my intentions and my level of knowledge.
On a serious level you have shown your ass to be an arrogant fool and I could give a good damn what you think of me. I simply wanted some information.
If you cannot answer a question and break it down into simple terms, then you really don't know what you are talking about. Feynman broke it down like that. It is an utter cop out for you to say that you can't engage me because of a lack of foundational knowledge.
People of various fields of expertise always are in positions to simplify their explanations to a lay audience. If you cannot do that then you must not have a thorough command of the topic. Thus your obfuscations and attack on my intelligence. Dumbass.
Mahndisa,
If you had any knowledge of the subject you wouldn't have had to ask the question, you'd be able to figure it out on your own. But if you'd prefer I spoon feed it to you.
Put simply, aluminum salts are used in vaccines to enhance the immune response (which you might have found in that book I recommended--but you'd need to know something about how all of this works to actually understand). And formaldehyde is used to inactivate toxins that bacteria produce. There is also evidence that it blocks viruses from replicating. There is no evidence that either are detrimental to long term human health (feel free to provide evidence to the contrary...testimonials from ditzy actresses don't count). In fact in animal studies "chronic formaldehyde exposure at doses of 80 to 100 mg per day developed no malignancies over a 2-year period". The amount in vaccines? The highest concentration is no more than 0.1 mg. Without these the vaccinations would be less effective.
I gave you the chance to learn something on your own, but you chose instead to gnash your teeth and attempt to call me out of my name. Which is perfectly fine (I mean why would I be diminished in the least from someone who seems to have taken a vaccine against facts?) This information is widely available at your local medical library, or from trusted sites on the internet. Do I need to make further comments about your intellect? No, you've already said it all.
II,
My bad, I just realized I skipped your post about the China Study. I can't say that I have time to read it. But I'll try to find a synopsis and make a comment on it.
Just as I suspected you are once again attacking my foundation of knowledge. Gee, why ask a question if you already know the answer, which is why I asked you in the first place? Nowhere here nor anywhere have I ever professed to be an expert in virology or on vaccines. I asked questions which I honestly did not know the answr to and you took it to a whole nother level. You are an arrogant stupid idiot who needs to take a lesson in reading comprehension. I already noted that I found aluminum as an adjuvent makes the vaccine dope uptake quicker, among other things. This is breaking it down in plain English. Like I said, if you have a thorough knowledge of a topic you will be able to break it down to people who don't have expertise in that area.
And instead of your insults you could have said somthing really simple. Point blank.
Even still I thanked you for the reference after you provided it. It is apparent that we don't see eye to eye and have nothing to say to one another. So I will agree not to engage your ass in any capacity if you'll make the same agreement, because clearly you and I aren't on the same plane of existence. At least I don't post anonymously and am not afraid to admit when I'm wrong, but retarded doctors who think they know everything never do that which is ashamed. Dumbass.
DMG,
My sister has explained the same thing about how the adjuvants stimulate the enhanced immune response. And she made the same point about the small amounts.
Which is fair enough.
Except that small amounts administered enough times become big amounts.
There are so many toxins in water, food, in the air, AND IN BABY PRODUCTS that cannot be avoided even with the greatest care. Then add to all that more toxins injected directly into the bloodstream of a tiny baby and I don't see how the immune system does not get overwhelmed.
I look around my neighborhood and more than half the homes have kids with some issue, whether it's severe allergies, learning impairments, etc. There is something very wrong going on.
Also, correct me I am wrong, but it is my understanding that formaldehyde does not get metabolized but, rather, accumulates in the tissues. If that is indeed true, then we are starting our kids early on a toxic future.
In Japan, for a few years, they raised the minimum age of vaccination from three months to two years and SIDS practically disappeared. Even if you believe in the religion of vaccines, do you think it is at least appropriate to delay injections until the brain is more developed?
A neurosurgeon by the name of Dr. Russell Blaylock has written extensively about the dangers of vaccinating before the age of 2 years old and makes a very strong MEDICAL case for the link between autism and vaccines.
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/
(click on published papers)
Dr. Blaylock has done a lot of research on MSG and its neurotoxic effects and what is really interesting is that MSG is an ingredient in several vaccines.
Mahndisa,
Finding the answer to your question would probably take a few key strokes. Understanding the answer on a more profound level requires some reading. Now I've answered a question, what's your damn problem now? I don't recall reading anything you've ever written as being close to correct. Isn't that a bitch? The willfully stupid calling names.
II,
If you take all of the vaccines containing formalin or aluminum and added them together (and completely ignored your bodies actions on processing and expelling these substances), there still wouldn't be enough to approach the chronic administration described in my post above.
"Dr. Russell Blaylock has written extensively about the dangers of vaccinating before the age of 2 years old and makes a very strong MEDICAL case for the link between autism and vaccines."
And Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize, that doesn't mean his hypothesis on Vitamin C was complete crap.
If Blaylock were serious about his assertions he would have published them in peer reviewed journals by experts in the field...of which he, despite being a Neurosurgeon, is not. He instead wrote pop books and got a website. If you look closely he's pretty well established in the Nutraceutical industry which fights pretty hard to push "nutritional" supplements with claims that have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This entire industry is about marketing snake oil, because nutritional supplements are poorly regulated or even evaluated. This isn't serious scholarship, it's marketing. I'll be happy to change my mind if you can point me to a serious article written by Blaylock in a serious scientific journal.
It's normal for a parent to be concerned and it's natural to want to find one thing to place the blame for allergies or learning disabilities etc. But look around further the VAST MAJORITY of kids who are completely normal have had vaccinations.
I have a serious question. What does the world "research" mean to you? Because I'm finding that this word, much like the word "theory" has different meanings to the lay and scientific communities.
And Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize, that doesn't mean his hypothesis on Vitamin C was complete crap.
This should read: "And Linus Pauling won a Nobel Prize, that does not mean his hypothesis on Vitamin C WASN'T complete crap" (yeah, yeah, double negative...).
That DMG fuck is such a retard. Saying that what I've written isn't even close to correct? Tell that to the PhD physicists that have commented on my physics posts and argue with them you stupid idiot. And what have I asserted pray tell? My opinions and asked questions to which I did not know the answer.
You have too much faith in peer reviewed journals because if all the peers are in the same boat, then there is no room for disagreements. This is what is happening in the world of physics right now and unfortunately seems pervasive in scientific disciplines.
If one dare buck a trend and ask about current orthodoxies they are written off as crackpots or whatever else. Lord Kelvin committed suicide because of this lack of acceptance but his theories are cannon in thermodynamics.
Open up your mind and realize that just because you have an MD it doesn't mean that your critical thinking abilities are any more developed than anyone elses.
If you really thought in a critical fashion, you'd be pointing out the fact that many clinical trial studies use rubrics and analysis plans that are inappropriate for the data.
I know this from PERSONAL experience. You don't try to fit square pegs in round holes, yet the analysis plans of many of these drugs studies DO exactly that. Then the FDA pushes the prescriptions through.
Under these circumstances, questions SHOULD be asked, that is the nature of scientific inquiry. Dumbass.
Russel Blaylock's views aren't accepted by his peers so why would he put his views in a journal that would likely reject them?
Your smug self righteousness is obvious. You don't treat II with the vitriol that you've treated me and she's asked the same types of questions as well.
The truth is that you don't know as much as you think you know. If you really were a student of science, you'd admit that the data on the efficacy of vaccines is someone methodologically spotty in many cases and you'd also admit that there could be other non toxic substances used as adjuvants. But instead you choose to insult my intelligence. You stupid fuck.
Mahndisa,
You apparently want attention. Well, I guess you proved Cnu correct. I suggest seeking help.
Such a foul mouth for someone so "Christian" and so "intelligent". I don't need to write insults, you are doing quite fine tearing yourself down on your own.
An M.D. does not confer critical thinking. Ones ability to think critically might allow one to obtain an M.D., however.
You should try it...the thinking part that is. You've got the critical part down pretty good.
About II. She's not been nasty to me. I see no reason to be nasty to her.
Nobody is insulting your intelligence more than you are.
I'm wondering, did you type these comments before or after Sunday services?
You should do something about those outbursts.
II,
My apologies again for not getting sidetracked. About formaldehyde accumulation. It's actually not formaldehyde that accumulates. If I recall my biochemistry it's formic acid that MAY accumulate and that causes an acute illness involving a change in pH. (I've dug up one of my old biochemistry texts) Let's see how methanol is metabolized, because one of the intermediates in this pathway is formaldehyde.
So this might help you understand a bit more:
Methanol isn't very toxic, and is absorbed at a rather high rate in the gut.
Step 1.
In the liver methanol is converted to formaldehyde by an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase. (Slow reaction).
Step 2.
Formaldehyde is converted to Formic acid by another enzyme called aldehyde dehydrogenase. Half-life (annotated as t1/2, and means the time that it takes to eliminate half of a substance) of Formaldehyde is about 1-2 MINUTES.
Now Formic acid metabolism is very slow (but DOES occur) and therefore CAN accumulate to some extent in the body and can result in an acute condition called metabolic acidosis (Bodies pH decreases meaning becomes more acidic--an increased amount of Hydrogen ions).
Step 3.
However, Formic acid can be oxidized to carbon dioxide (CO2)and water by an mechanism requiring tetrahydrofolate. CO2 is of course able to be exhaled, and water eliminated by urination.
So that's an example of formaldehyde metabolism from a source entering the gut. But formaldehyde exposure by dermal route as in a vaccine is poorly absorbed, and recall the amounts in vaccines don't exceed 0.1mg total, which is a very SMALL amount. This is too small of an amount to cause metabolic acidosis or any of the neurotoxic effects of say acute and massive methanol overdose.
Anyway most of the formaldehyde exposure is from inhalation from occupational exposure (adhesives etc.), and small amounts from wood and tobacco smoke, and car emissions. If you live in the city and don't get vaccinated you still have more exposure to formaldehyde many orders of magnitude greater than from a vaccine. But even then, studies involving human volunteers and experimental animals show inhalation of formaldehyde results only in local absorption in the upper respiratory tract. Any absorbed formaldehyde is very quickly metabolism before reaching the circulation.
Well, I'm no pediatrician, your sister would a better person to consult about changing the vaccination schedule than I. However, there are some vaccines whose timing is to protect those children under a certain age.
Hope this helps a bit.
Wow is this relly mahndisa acting like an a$$ using words like dumbass, fuck, stupid, retarded. Seriously mahndisa are you on anything? Go back and read your posts because you really sound like a nasty troll not DMG.
I'll bet some of you wonder, "why a physician would come on line to comment".
Those of you who don't know me may think I have nothing better to do. Actually, I do, but I think it's important to dispel rumors and conspiracy theories. I run into people all of the time in the hospital, or acquaintances or relatives who ask these questions. Usually I don't have time or the reference material to give a good answer. Much of this stuff has long been stored deep in the recesses of my mind after med school clinical rotations, or the basic science courses I took as an undergrad and pre-clinical med student. I had the opportunity to take this year away from clinical duties to pursue a research topic and spend more time with my family. I have about a month or two left before I get back into the swing of things and disappear from these blogs. Most of my colleagues wouldn't even take the time to go through lengthy explanations or engage hostile questioners. There's not enough time in the day to take care of patients and answer people we might under most circumstances write off as paranoid or at least annoying. I think answering these questions online in some small way may help a patient come to a good decision about their families health, or at least make people think. The vast majority of people have no real understanding of human anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, etc. and that's not your fault entirely. There's a reason initial medical training can take the better part of a decade. The amount of information we are expected to master is staggering. I had the privilege of earning a medical degree, and I'm happy to share what I've learned for free when I have the time.
Nobody can expect "laypeople" to be able to understand all of the details of medical science, and I've found that the internet has just as often empowered as completely confused patients.
If you have a question and I can answer it I'm more than willing to volunteer my time, effort, and knowledge to help. However, don't assume I'm some nerdy introvert who doesn't know how to take and throw a punch. Be nasty, I'll return the favor 50 fold. Be cool, and we can disagree and laugh together. I'm really not interested in yelling and screaming.
Whoa.
DMG. Insurgent. Mahndisa.
The information, perspective and passion you have shared in this discourse is worth money.
It should be required reading for anyone with a child who is treading into the murky waters of vaccination.
I applaud each of you.
Void of the gratuitous warm fuzzy huggy ... let's all agree for the sake of agreeing ... that one gets from Oprah level discussions - I've learned a lot.
And I have a lot of questions.
1) Insurgent said something that I cannot shake: "I look around my neighborhood and more than half the homes have kids with some issue, whether it's severe allergies, learning impairments, etc. There is something very wrong going on."
She is right.
Not suggesting that anecdotal observations like this should substitute for peer-reviewed journals - however, I think anecdotal observations like this can allow us to conclude that there is something terribly wrong with the medical / food system that modern medicine and peer-reviewed journals cannot explain.
Therefor we should not limit the search for solutions only to modern medicine and peer-reviewed journals.
Agreed?
2) Dr. Russ Blaylock & Vaccination Ban in Japan
Let me know if I am wrong. a) Dr. Blaylock is a respected neurosurgeon. b) Dr. Blaylock has written extensively about the dangers of vaccinating before the age of 2 years old and makes a medical case for a link between autism and vaccines. c) The Japanese banned vaccines before the age of 2 and have since witnessed a dramatic decrease in the number of SIDS cases.
Doesn't experience trump peer-review?
3) D. You say Blaylock is well established in the Nutraceutical industry which fights to push "nutritional" supplements not evaluated by the FDA. You imply his paper is motivated by a desire to market supplements.
a) Why did you put nutrition in quotation marks?
b) The vaccine industry is a $9 Billion per year business. (Still only 3% of annual pharmaceutical revenues). Isn't much of what comes out of "peer-reviewed medical journals" also motivated by marketing.
c) DMG, you say nutritional supplements are not reviewed by the Food and Drug administration. OK. How valuable is a positive review by the Food and Drug Administration? I am under the impression the FDA, like nearly every government agency has been completely co-opted by private lobbying groups.
From LA Times:
"As federal regulators hold fast to their claim that a chemical in baby bottles is safe, e-mails obtained by the Journal Sentinel show that they relied on chemical industry lobbyists to examine bisphenol A's risks, track legislation to ban it and even monitor press coverage.
In one instance, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's deputy director sought information from the BPA industry's chief lobbyist to discredit a Japanese study that found it caused miscarriages in workers who were exposed to it. This was before government scientists even had a chance to review the study."
At the expense of incurring my wife's wrath, I'm going to write one more post before turning in.
"1) Insurgent said something that I cannot shake"
There is nothing that says any of these observations are related or have a common origin. I cannot agree with you that it has ANYthing to do with medicine or food. Not dissing II, but her observation is that of an untrained eye. Nothing may be concluded from anecdote.
"2) Dr. Russ Blaylock & Vaccination Ban in Japan"
"a) Dr. Blaylock is a respected neurosurgeon."
Blaylock is a Neurosurgeon, whether his clinical opinion is respected is unknown to me. He appeared to be board certified, so I will assume until proven otherwise that he is qualified to practice Neurosurgery.
"b) Dr. Blaylock has written extensively about the dangers of vaccinating before the age of 2 years old and makes a medical case for a link between autism and vaccines."
Dr. Blaylock has not to my knowledge written in peer-reviewed journals about this topic. This means his hypothesis, methods, results and conclusions have not been scrutinized by people who are experts in this area. He wrote a book to sell to the public, most of whom will not have the tools to tell fact from fiction on this topic.
"c) The Japanese banned vaccines before the age of 2 and have since witnessed a dramatic decrease in the number of SIDS cases."
Cause does not always equal effect. That's as silly as me saying there are no gunshot wound victims on call nights that I don't shave my face. What does dramatic decrease mean? What are the confounding factors? Are there any types of bias involved in the conclusion. Is there a plausible mechanism? Is it statistically significant? Get the point?
Doesn't experience trump peer-review?
Put simple. No. The peer-review process evaluates claims...and it's rigorous evaluation.
I'm not taking ANYBODIES word on anything. Show me the results, and back up your claims.
"3) D. You say Blaylock is well established in the Nutraceutical
a) Why did you put nutrition in quotation marks?"
(continued)
(Part 2)
Because anybody can push nutritional supplements and won't be called out. And they'll get away with it by writing in the fine print, "these claims have not been evaluated by the FDA...etc, etc."
"Isn't much of what comes out of "peer-reviewed medical journals" also motivated by marketing."
No. Research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are considered suspect, and not much credence is given to these papers without alot of other corroborating evidence.
"c) DMG, you say nutritional supplements are not reviewed by the Food and Drug administration."
If I "mis-wrote" I apologize. The FDA regulates dietary supplements as FOODS not as drugs. Pharma co. are required to obtain FDA approval to prove their products are safe and effective before they can be sold to the public. A loophole allows dietary supplements, to go to market without evaluation for safety or efficacy.
Example, my mother has "bad kidneys", and was taking a dietary supplement from an unscrupulous multi-level marketer that claimed a certain level of magnesium per bottle. The tested level in the product she was taking was 5 times that shown on the label. People with kidney failure can fairly easily have have toxic levels of magnesium, and she was showing signs, that my dad and siblings might not have noticed as non-physicians. In other words it could have killed my mom. I suppose many of these are only dangerous to ones bank account, however there's no way to have any real confidence what's actually IN the bottle.
I cannot comment on the particular example you cite. I'm not suggesting the FDA is exempt from possible corruption. You can't indict an entire agency over one example, especially when there is a multi-billion dollar unregulated industry getting away with outright LIES. Too many people equate "natural" with "better for you" and "safe". This is a dangerous assumption, especially when taking a substance that has not been thoroughly evaluated on a particular population. There are plenty of natural substances that will kill you. The lay public take these "supplements" thinking they aren't going to hurt anything, while all the while they are either interacting with prescribed medications, or doing outright damage. Nothing wrong with alternative or natural as long as the claims have been evaluated and deemed safe.
Yep. And Dmg when you attribute things to me that I've not said, twist my words around and so forth then I can be nasty fifty fold as well.
One thing about blogging is that you learn to develop a thick skin. DMG I never asked you to come to my blog and disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing but that's what you did and you sparked this off. You haven't demonstrated that you can do anything except rattle off stuff that other people have said. Where is your analytical framework from your own conclusions?
Anecdotally you never addressed the issue of quinine. It worked for CENTURIES against malaria without double blind peer reviewed studies.
You are so stuck on consensus science that I bet you'd be one of those old jerks who said that uv light has an infinite energy distribution. Oh someone disagree and they are too dumb to understand? Someone asks you a question and then you say they are too dumb to get the answer? It is apparent that you want attention otherwise you wouldn't have continued to engage me.
I simply have rolled up my sleeves, defended myself against the likes of you and your ilk and could give a good damn about anything else you might have to say.
And Anonymous YES I was on something cursing and using foul language; I was on the juice that the fruit of righteous indignation bears. I dont appreciate people like DMG. And since you are posting anonymously, as DMG's posts are usually follwed by one of your anonymous comments well you can kiss my Black ass.
DV: I'm sorry for shooting off at the mouth. This happens when I'm irritated at bustas like this so called DMG fuck of a person. Oops sorry for the foul language...
DMG,
I put no faith in peer-reviewed, double blind, blah, blah, blah.
This well-respected "researcher" faked data in 22 studies funded by his Big Pharma masters
Some doctors suggest medicine is hard science and the next minute my sister tells me that medicine is an art and nothing can be known 100%. You guys can't have it both ways.
It is too bad that you dismissed Dr. Blaylock's work outright without even reading it. That indeed is faith. My sister did the same and I had to force her to read his work. Then I asked if the arguments he made were plausible and she reluctantly said "yes". Nuff said.
Back in the day, babies used to die from a strange fever after birth. An astute doctor noticed that the delivering doctors weren't washing their hands between births and hypothesized that disease was being spread from one delivery to the next. He was run out of town as a quack (a word doctors love to hurl at people who dare to challenge their God status), shamed and died without being congratulated for the simple wisdom that washing hands is critical.
Such a close-minded profession is dangerous to true health.
One generation ago, pediatricians - at the behest of formula companies - convinced mothers that formula was better than breastmilk for their babies. On what was that based other than naked greed and corruption by the AAP and AMA?
I'm a lawyer and all this boils down to an issue of credibility and, unfortunately, the medical profession has very little.
Western doctors are wonderful for emergency medicine and have proven pioneers with such matters, but sadly they have proven themselves to be dogmatic, intransigent and outright dishonest with regard to so much.
DMG, it is obvious that you are bright and quite interested in sharing your immense knowledge, which is why it surprises me that you dismissed Dr. Blaylock's work without even considering his hypotheses.
Oprah on front street for peddling crap too.
Yesterday, the latest issue of NEWSWEEK hit the stands, featuring Weston Kosova and Pat Wingert's smart, gutsy cover story on what one might call the Oprah Winfrey Medical Misinformation Complex, were one not so afraid of a lawsuit. Shorter version (though you should read the whole thing): Oprah, who has tremendous influence and credibility, promotes health "cures" that may be at best ineffective and at worst dangerous. Both media and medical bloggers took note of the story, and have been discussing its merits online.
Dr. Blaylock:
In a paper I wrote in 2003, I stated that removing the mercury from vaccines would help relieve the problem, but it would not eliminate it. This was based on a number of studies in the neuroscience literature that indicated that excessive and especially repeated immune stimulation could result in severe disruption of brain development and even neurodegeneration.
In this paper and a follow-up paper, I attributed the central mechanism to excessive and prolonged microglial activation with an interaction between inflammatory cytokines and glutamate receptor subtypes. The Vargas et al study, published two years later in 2005, strongly supported this hypothesis, with the finding of elevated inflammatory cytokines as well as the presence of extensive, widespread activated microglia and astrocytes in examined autistic brains from age 5 years to 44 years of age.
CNu -
The stuffed pig commonly referred to as Oprah is so full o' crap on most things she peddles, that this article could be applied to everything emanating from that stank pile in Chicago.
oh my...,
II,
OK. But peer reviewed articles don't require faith. The work is there in black and white. And if it is unable to be replicated then you'll find the frauds. II, I do find it odd that you put so much faith in provocative books that are poorly cited and not scrutinized by people with a background to wade through the crap. I'm curious why you would believe Dr. Blaylock's claims? You don't have the background to evaluate anything that he says. Or the China Study that you quoted? What makes these books more believable?
"Some doctors suggest medicine is hard science and the next minute my sister tells me that medicine is an art and nothing can be known 100%."
Medicine is both. It is rooted in hard science, but takes an artist to interact with patients, and often requires creativity. I had a patient who shot the lower part of his face off with a shotgun in a suicide attempt. His mandible (lower jaw) was completely gone. Our Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon took a flap of thigh, and part of his fibula to build him a new face. That's art built on the science anatomy, physiology, immunology, and molecular biology.
About Blaylock again. Sorry, I'm not in the habit of reading unsubstantiated claims written in pop-science form. It does a disservice to my patients. I'd be happy to examine his claims when they are published and scrutinized by experts in the field. Until then they are just opinions. That's taking a step back 100 years.
"Back in the day, babies used to die from a strange fever after birth."
You are actually talking about the Hungarian Dr. Semmelweis who discovered that hand washing by students in the the nursing school next door had lower rates of infection than did the medical students who would come from anatomy lab straight to the delivery room back in 1847. (He's now one of the heroes of modern medicine). However during this time there was work in England that was pointing to a germ as the culprit and treated his work with more respect. And back then people believed disease was an imbalance of the 4 "humors": black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood. Not very scientific huh? People believed this because of someones untested or scrutinized opinion. Which is what you are asking me to do right now with Blaylock. This kind of thinking is what you get without the scientific method, statistical analysis, or a peer-review process. A quack is someone who claims something works without providing empirical evidence. Often times these people have a financial stake in their claims. What's Blaylock got prominently displayed on his website? If he can prove his claims, I'll gladly listen. Until then he's only a salesman to me. It's funny you should mention Semmelweis as his handwashing gave credence to the "germ theory" that started this whole thread. A better example for the next time you argue against medical dogma would be the H. Pylori story for ulcer disease. It's more modern and is an example of a medical dogma being torn down...by evidence, meticulous scholarship, and peer review. Here's a quick overview.
(continued)
(part 2)
Dismissing shoddy scholarship is in no way having a closed mind. Being able to poke holes in claims made by individuals who provide NO statistically significant evidence is required of my profession.
I just laid out how formaldehyde is metabolized, and you are free to check it.
As a lawyer, I would have thought that you would have a firm grasp of what evidence means. I'm sorry to say that you are just, well wrong. Please don't take this as being personal. But you are committing the same mistake as Blaylock, and not providing any evidence for your claim.
Blaylock has not made an hypothesis. He wrote a book with hopes of getting on Oprah, and selling his wares. I repeat, if he were serious he'd stand up in front of a room of his peers, after submitting his work, and defend himself. Instead he's a board member on some life extension group. You'll understand if I'm not convinced. Physicians and scientists are not his target audience.
II,
Can you tell me where that paper was published?
Mahndisa,
I finally read your post. Nice touch tossing in some physics. Do physicist not ask for proof? I don't know any physicists who are content with "Jeebus did it", not even my very right-wing, ultra-religious uncle.
So. What about quinine. Please enlighten me on all you know about quinine. The stage is yours. Knock it out the park. Don't forget to explain who may or may not benefit from this medication, and who it may actually kill. Here's your chance to tell me what you know.
How would you like medication claims to be evaluated? Should it be OK, to just market something that's been self published, because it "goes against the grain"? That's good enough for you? What's to stop someone from claiming that fists-full-o-salted-butter wrapped in dried tobacco leaves is a good diet to cure heart disease?
So what is it that you are saying? Do you want to be treated with natural remedies WITHOUT any oversight, safety or efficacy studies by people who have demonstrated that they know what they are talking about? Are you saying it's OK to make claims as long as someone has written a book and posted it on the internet or in a New Age store? And you don't see how ludicrous that is?
As far as defending yourself, no you haven't. You've been offensive, sure. You've yelled, screamed, and swore at me. You even attempted to get a little "hood" by calling me a 'busta' (somebody help me out, are people really still saying that? It's been like 19 or 20 years since I first heard that term). I always thought Modesto was farm country. There you got me, something I didn't know.
Here's what you fail to understand DMG. I do not "believe" Dr. Blaylock. Let me plagiarize DV and state, I do not "believe" anything. I simply accept the most plausible explanation. And if something comes along that is more plausible, I will happily change my mind.
My sister, who was a neurobiology major and is now a pediatrician, reluctantly admitted that Dr. Blaylock's hypotheses concerning overstimulation of the microglial cells was entirely plausible.
What doctors want us to do is take their statements as faith. You want me to have faith that the contents of a so-called prestigious journal has been put through the academic mic check, and I do not have such faith.
The JAMA was specifically to make money off advertisements and that's why, when evidence came out that smoking was causing cancer, it took the journal years to go against their tobacco advertisers and allow anything that would support the connection. Medicine is a business. Plain and simple.
Funny that you talk to me about evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that vaccines do what doctors claim they do and do it safely. There isn't. You haven't produced any and you can't. And my sister can't.
That's really what this is about. You have faith in the medical profession. I do not.
So we can go in circles for years, but we will end up in the same place. You want me to believe something because the medical profession (read priesthood) says so and I am a free thinker who questions.
Who questions a profession that decades ago swore it was child abuse not to lay down a baby on her tummy. Now it's on the back.
A profession that convinced mothers that formula is better than breastmilk.
A profession that peddles more drugs than all the crack dealers combined.
A profession that knows nothing about the role of nutrition in disease.
II,
"This well-respected "researcher" faked data in 22 studies funded by his Big Pharma masters"
Just read this. Actually, I think this proves that the eventually works...as he was eventually caught. Why? His work didn't hold up to scrutiny or REPRODUCIBILITY.
Anesthesiology News.
If an anesthesiologist commits academic fraud his career is over. And years of education, training and climbing the academic medicine ladder are down the toilet. If someone from the multilevel marketing/nutraceutical community commits commits fraud, he merely has to peddle a different product, or change the name if his snake-oil.
Unfortunately, for Dr. Blaylock, as a retired Neurosurgeon, there is no body to sanction him if his claims are fraudulent.
Hello II,
"I simply accept the most plausible explanation."
And that's fine, but on what evidence do you base your acceptance?
"What doctors want us to do is take their statements as faith."
Actually, I don't. In an ideal world all of my patients would have a solid foundation in science and would be able to evaluate the research on their own. This is far from true. Mostly I get, "where's my gallbladder?, I didn't know I had a retroperitoneum", "bacteria live on my skin norally??", and "how does my immune system work?". So where does that leave me? I can't say go ahead and read the literature on biliary pathophysiology. I try to break it down to their level of understanding as best I can.
So I again ask you, how do YOU, a lawyer, with no foundation in the biological sciences evaluate claims that vaccines are bad for human health? So far you've pointed me to a retired Neurosurgeon and a popular book. I hope you understand where I'M coming from.
If a research publishes a fraudulent study in Nature, some other researcher somewhere is going to roll up on him and question the work. If it can't be reproduced or the numbers don't add up, the fraud and everyone else in the community is going to hear about (and if you think a rap battle can be cold, try reading the comments sections in NEJM). Your grant money will dry up, and you'll end up disgraced and teaching junior college bio courses to gum chewing air heads.
"JAMA"
You are going back 50 years to get examples. Yes we all know that the AMA did nothing about smoking back then. I'm not a member and JAMA isn't exactly a leading publication. It's decent but there are higher tiers.
"there is absolutely no evidence that vaccines do what doctors claim they do and do it safely."
You are joking right? You didn't see me walk you through formaldehyde metabolism? If you don't want to believe the evidence, that's one thing, but don't act like it's not there.
"You want me to believe something because the medical profession"
Quite frankly, I don't care WHAT you believe. The consequences of your actions are on you. I just don't want you to give one of us physicians that old lament, "...but nobody ever told me..". We can make that deal right now can't we? If you happen to come down with a disease that could have been prevented by vaccination you will admit that you were warned but willfully disregarded the advice of your sister and the rest of the medical community.
Counselor, you lay down some strong statements, but I'm still waiting for you to provide me some evidence.
And again, what makes Blaylock more believable than almost the entirety of the medical community?
06 08 09
II has said it best and so have I. Once again DMG you are making too many assumptions about my intentions. Just because I give a counterexample to one of your orthodox views doesn't mean that I claim expertise in that area. What I know about quinine is that it was discovered in the New World a few centuries ago and the natives had been using it for various ailments. I cited a link above, that you failed to even read by some botanists.
Your arrogance gets me because you take my statements as a challenge wherein I will debate you. That is far from the case. Ultimately I had a couple of questions that I asked in earnest seriousness gave an anecdotal counterexample via quinine and all you did was insult my intelligence.
You even did that to II above when you claimed she didn't have the background to understand your explanations of things. Like I said above, that is an untenable position to hold because you are essentially saying that you are right and others are wrong but they're too stupid and uninformed to know why and you're too smart to explain why.
That is woefully inconsistent with the spirit of scientific inquiry. Why do you think they had Carl Sagen on the air, or the show NOVA on PBS? These shows are for curious people and the language of the shows explain complex mechanisms but in such a way that the average person can understand. Choice architecture is a bitch but in all seriousness, if you truly know what you are talking about you can explain complex stuff to a three year old. When I was three I asked my Dad why the sky was blue. With his excellent understanding of physics he was able to break it down to me such that my little three year old mind understood it. If my Dad could do it, why are you so adverse to the idea?
You also seem to have too much faith in the current orthodoxies. Ever so often the medical community retracts a statement that they made twenty years before. Example Norplant is a SAFE and EFFECTIVE way to control birth. Ten years down the line many women with the device found they could not remove it and others were sterilized.
You cannot also state that if a guy fakes data that he'll get caught. As I said above, if you understood the statistics behind the anlysis plans of these clinical trial studies, you would be appalled.
Case in point, I worked at UCSF for a while in the Institute for Health Policy Studies. A PhD epidemiologist (who was quite published) asked me about a gamma distribution and I provided information on what I knew and gave him links for more illustrations on whether or not a gamma distribution was appropriate for his data. He said: "I'm not interested in how it works, I just care about getting the paper done."
Working my way thru school as a medical secretary years before that, I was secretary to a very well known cardiologist. She published papers like nobody's business. HOWEVER, at the limited stage of my physics knowledge at the time I even found some errors in her formulas that the publications were willing to accept.
NO. I cannot and will not accept that double blind peer reviewed studies are worth one good damn, but that is from personal experience. My husband worked as a programmer for YEARS on clinical trial studies and he would come home and tell me their analysis plans and I would damner piss my pants. Talk about cutting corners! This is why as a couple we've adopted the policy of NOT using any drugs UNLESS they are at least twenty years old. At least one could see a generational effect in that time.
Aside from tutoring one of the things I've done in the past and do from time to time is help soft science students get their PhD analyses together. In particular I was working with a gal who is getting her EdD. HER PROFESSORS had recommended using an F distribution to describe her data. This professor was exceedingly published and had a wide breadth of experience in his field. HOWEVER you don't use an F test when you are looking at data before AND after an intervention with the SAME population. Can you tell me which test would be most appropriate for this data? Once I pointed out the error of her professors' advice, we worked on her analysis plan. That professor apologized and the gal got high marks on her analysis plan. All this to say that specialty in one area does not mean specialty in other areas.
I have met very few doctors (and I've known a LOT in my day) who have any grasp whatsoever of statistics and how to properly use them. Remember the Bell Curve by HARVARD so called soft scientists? Again, peer reviewed studies make no sense if the peers have no understanding of PROPER methodologies regarding analysis plans etc.
Mahndisa,
You brought up quinine, is it not reasonable for one to assume that the person initiating a topic actually knows what she is talking about?
I guess not. I gave you the stage to tell us what you know, instead you launch into another tirade about arrogance to deflect from the fact that you really don't know much about quinine, even though you hold it up as a shining example of what can be done without peer reviewed research.
Well give you a hint, it probably shouldn't be administered to people with cardiac arrhythmias, like say atrial fibrillation, or heart block. It also may cause red blood cells to break down in people with Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency. There are others. I'm not trying to make you look silly, I'm just letting you know this stuff isn't for amateurs. We can all google quinine. But do we all know its clinical uses? Mechanism of action, etc. And how do we know this? Peer reviewed research.
You are all adults. I've OFTEN listed reliable websites to find good solid information. I'm usually ignored. It's not difficult to go to the CDC, Mayo Clinic, or WHO websites. However, the response I get is usually some excuse why this "mainstream" website doesn't give the "true" answer. As though there is some grand conspiracy (what doctors don't want you to know!). Again, Mahndisa, even if you want to believe fairy dust that's your right. Just don't get upset when you are presented with evidence explaining why you are incorrect.
"If my Dad could do it, why are you so adverse to the idea?"
Oh, I have. One cannot distill everything to the level of a three year old without leaving out a great amount of detail. I offered you a book. You should read it, since you are so interested in vaccinations and immunology. I hope you do.
I explained the metabolism of formaldehyde, but have yet to hear anything in response.
Yep just like you cannot answer my question about why the f test was inappropriate for the data with the EdD student I was working with. Never once did I try to be an expert. I just asked for your opinion.you wanted me to debate you on the merits of quinine. That makes no sense I told you what I knew in plain English. The only thing I said was that it was used for centuries without double blind peer reviewed studies. This much is a fact.
I need not assert further knowledge of the biochemical aspects of quinine because I don't know the details, which I already admitted.
I didn't engage you about formaldehyde, simply asked you why can't they use other less toxic substances. II engaged you about its metabolism. I admitted earlier in teh conversation that I am no expert in biochemistry or the like so not once have I tried to debate formaldehyde metabolism with you.
That is really besides the point.
YOu are conflating many issues. First you attack people for asking questions and say that the questions themselves are reflective of lack of foundational knowledge. All you had to do was make it simple.
My Dad didn't leave out that many details about the sky when I was three. When I learned about backscattering and how the eye interprets light later on in my studies, his succinct and simplistic explanation encompassed many of those complex ideas.
You clearly don't have the ability to break things down and when asked to do so simply insult the intelligence of the asker. Your bad and perhaps a reflection of a lack of scientific creativity. Once again you're showing yourself to be a rigid non thinker who only believes in consensus science.
I doubt you'll be making any notable contributions to the field of scientific inquiry with such a smug attitude.
Lastly, I find it curious that not once have you addressed the methodological flaws in many of the clinical trial studies. This is what I KNOW and can adequately discuss. Not once have you addressed the poor statistical modelling that are used in the studies despite their inappropriateness. The truth is that you are so caught up in your ow ego that you cannot admit when YOU don't know something so defensively you insult my intelligence.
Too bad, because science only progreses when its practitioners realize they don't have all the answers. I admitted to the bounds of my knowledge. YOu have yet to do so but from your omissions it is quite clear you don't know squat about statistics nor how to properly apply them to clinical trial studies. Otherwise you wouldn't be so supportive of peer reviewed journals when the peers are uninformed.
Mahndisa,
Actually, you haven't admitted your limitations. You've tried to inflate your skill set.
And what "flaws" in methodology would you be referring to? How do you come to a conclusion like this:
"the methodological flaws in many of the clinical trial studies."
"addressed the poor statistical modelling that are used in the studies despite their inappropriateness. "
How many clinical studies have you read in your lifetime? How many do you have your name on?
So here is your chance discuss, and be specific.
What I cannot figure out is how you are able to indict all research while claiming to know something about statistics, but still you are able to make claims about the safety of vaccines based on anecdote. Remember n=1?
And lastly Mahndisa, your outbursts, need to be acknowledged, exaggerated achievements, and the belief that you have some special insight into medicine because you worked as a medical secretary and because some guy with a PhD in Physics says so, is starting to remind me of something...whatever, not my field.
Mahndisa, it's been fun indulging you but really, you have alot of studying to do if you want to be taken seriously in your arguments. Because I'll be frank. There is not one thing that you wrote that would be taken seriously by anyone with a background in medicine or the biological sciences. Take it however you want. Throw a tantrum, burn a picture of me in effigy, whatever. I don't really care.
Of course you care what I say DMG otherwise you wouldn't have engaged me. And not once have I tried to inflate my skill set dumbass. I said above quite clearly that biochemistry and biology are not my strong suits. You cannot be taken seriously because your mind is so closed that your reading comprehension is clouded by your preexisting views.
And what's funny is that I haven't professed to be an expert the only thing I've done is shown from a variety of experiences that often times medical doctors get their statistics wrong plain and simple.
It is apparent that you have painted a picture of me that isn't even close to accurate. People who exaggerate their skill sets are called liars. I am not a liar in any capacity. At each post, I've admitted to not being an expert and have asked questions to you and you blew me off and treated me like a dumbass.
Thus you are showing yourself to be limited. And frankly you mention these statistics but you don't know how to use or apply them otherwise you'd be able to answer the question I posed above.
I am done engaging you. Nothing has come from this except that reference you provided. Other than that you've shown that you are a hard headed simpleton who believes that science should be done by consensus and nothing more.
I have said this on my blog many times. I am a curious human who has many interests and I don't like it when people come to my blog and insult me when I am expressing myself. I don't like it when I ask someone a question and they tell me I'm too stupid for asking it.
Fuck you DMG I hope you truly rot in hell you idiot!
DMG,
Dr. Blaylock has credibility because he doesn't repeat the vaccine mantra like a non-thinking automatron. If you read his papers, he doesn't say - don't vaccinate. His concerns lie primarily in the timing of the vaccines. He actually thinks through the issues and addresses them rather than the bullying and intimidation that comes from the remainder of the medical community.
It is like the priesthood. There are some priests that sit with parishioners and patiently answer questions and even question things on their own. Then there are those who tell parishioners, you're too stupid to understand what's in the Bible, I've read it backwards and forwards and standing on my head, so I'm the expert and don't waste my time with silly questions, just take my word for it. And one wonders why you end up with so many atheists.
In the many discussions I've had with my sister, she has admitted that medical students are taught very little about vaccines and that pediatric residents - let me repeat - FUTURE PEDIATRICIANS - are taught very little about vaccines. They are taught the standard Big Pharma mandated schedule and that some side effects can happen.
And I'm supposed to just take their word for it? Hardly.
Neither my sister, nor you, nor most other doctors is reading every journal article on this topic or any other. You don't have time. So you're getting the Cliff's Notes and repeating what the Big Pharma financed organizations want you to say.
My sister sends me the latest blurbs she gets from the AAP and they are laughable. Honestly laughable. "Measles outbreak in San Diego. Be sure to tell parents their children must get MMR to avoid this horrible disease". Pure comedy.
Oooohhhh...The measles. Run for the hills.
So I ask - how many of the kids who got measles already had the MMR shot? Turns out something like 80% of them were vaccinated.
Pure comedy.
Did anyone die from the measles? No. Did anyone suffer disability from measles? No. So, the pediatrician tells all the parents that there was a measles outbreak and they better give their kids MMR. No thinking. No asking questions. Just do as you are told by the AAP, which will arm you with just enough facts to scare people, but not too much information to show what nonsense is being peddled.
Most outbreaks of so-called preventable diseases are in largely vaccinated populations.
What is absolutely hilarious is that my daughter's pediatrician repeats the blurbs to me at each appointment. And then I tell him that I looked into the incidents and it was primarily vaccinated kids who came down with the measles. And he shuts up.
When I ask him for info on the vaccines, he gives me the CDC handouts. Do some homework sometime on the dirtbags who make up the CDC's advisory committee on vaccines and it is patent holders on vaccines and paid consultants for Big Pharma.
continued below...
Dr. Paul Offitt, one of the biggest dirtbags of them all, is routinely quoted by CNN, et al. as the authority for the safety of vaccines. What they do not tell you is that Dr. Offitt is a co-developer and patent holder for one of the rotavirus vaccines and was on the CDC committee that voted to add it to the recommended schedule. The piece of crap didn't have the decency to recuse himself from the vote. UNETHICAL.
If we were at trial, I would have a field day with this guy.
Which, brings me to another point. I've worked with many experts in preparing for trial and what I've found is that most double-blind, yada, yada, articles can be picked apart in 100 different ways. Doesn't matter how great you think it is, give us a few days and we'll be handing the author his ass in a garbage bag.
This is why doctors like Dr. Blaylock and others (Dr. Jay Gordon in L.A. is another) who say there is utility in vaccinating, but perhaps we should take a second look at which vaccines are important and when they should be administered have a tremendous following.
That is why all the bullying in the world won't make people "believe" the mainstream quacks who, under their watch, have overseen the biggest epidemic of childhood obesity, allergies, autism, cancer, neurological disorders and stick their heads in their asses and swear vaccines have absolutely nothing to do with it. It simply is not credible.
These are the same people who said, put your children to sleep on their tummies. Oops, a few years later, no on their backs.
These are the same people who convinced mothers that formula was better than breastmilk. Oops, we were wrong, it turns out that evolution or God (take your pick), got it right and factory-made casein isn't as healthy. Do I really need a study to tell me that human milk is better than factory-made milk? Do you?
You want people to doubt what is right in front of their eyes unless it is validated in one of the Big Pharma financed journals and that, simply, is too much to ask. That is priesthood.
II,
"Dr. Blaylock has credibility because he doesn't repeat the vaccine mantra like a non-thinking automatron."
The only person who seems to be taking anything on faith is you. You have faith in Blaylock. Seriously, how does that confer credibility? You don't require empirical evidence? You don't require proof? If you think the medical community is the enemy, completely divorce yourself from us...emergency care, check ups and all. It's becoming obvious evidence means nothing to you.
Priests can't show you evidence that god exists, he asks for your blind faith. He needs to just keep you coming back. Your pediatrician (and sister) can show you evidence. And like my grandmother used to say, "...one monkey don't stop no show". Quite honestly, I don't care if you believe or not, as I've stated several times. Just don't say, "nobody told me" later.
I don't know where your sister went to medical school (or even if you are quoting her correctly), but we were required to examine the evidence found in our texts and in the literature found on Medline.
Yes, pure comedy. 197,000 unvaccinated children DYING from a preventable disease--the fucking measles--is hysterical.
"Most outbreaks of so-called preventable diseases are in largely vaccinated populations."
This isn't true. Show me the evidence for your statement. Here's my evidence in black and white. As a non-physician you are allowed to make any claim you like and hold it up as truth. As an ethical physician, I'm bound to back my claims up with evidence. Looking forward to your evidence. Your pediatrician shuts up, because he's likely got a long line patients and really doesn't need the headache from someone has come to a conclusion before seeing any evidence. I'll bet that kind of thing would annoy you in a courtroom.
Somehow I sincerely doubt you'd be handing anybody their ass. I've yet to see any evidence. Actually so far all you've shown me is conjecture. I'm no expert witness, but I'd LOVE to have a chance to be opposite you in a courtroom.
As for childhood obesity, much like getting a severe illness from lack of vaccination, it is their parents fault. You are the one who controls little fatty's fork, not me.
Ok, you think vaccines cause all of those illnesses? Prove it. Give me evidence that these things can be tracked back to vaccines. Surely they taught you logic in law school. Surely you recognize your fallacious arguments. But you are a lawyer, I don't need to tell you about constructing an argument. But, so far all I've heard from you are sweeping generalizations and repetition of rumor. You challenged me on formaldehyde, I explained it, waited for a rebuttal, but got nothing, but a change in tactic.
Again, let me repeat, I don't care what you do. I have concern for you as a fellow human being, but not like your sister. You are a free woman. I'm not trying to convince YOU of anything, but if you come at me with a half-truth, I'm going to correct you. But can we make the agreement I talked about a few posts above?
Post a Comment