- This topic has 513 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
– “what is more dangerous? The vaccine, or the measles?”
Congratulations on at last asking the right question. Nearly. It should be “what is more dangerous? The vaccine, or the adverse effects from the <b>resultant higher levels of measles plus mumps plus rubella?”
– “…technically…”
This really is the operative word here, because they have compared the low (in fact zero) measles deaths in a mostly vaccinated population against the deaths attributed to vaccination.
– “we know that VAERS reporting of adverse reactions is extremely low”
For God’s* sake think here. Yes, reporting of “adverse reactions is extremely low”, but most adverse reactions are fevers and other minor matters that parents are prepared for and thus often don’t bother reporting. But how low is it for the serious reactions – hospitalisation, disability and death? All of these would show up in health records, and researchers, independent and otherwise, use health records to study vaccine safety.
* “For God’s sake” – literally. God is truth, the devil is falsity. Stop doing the devil’s work by failing to think!
@ Clark September 6, 2019 at 14:16
You’re right, I do have better things to do than combing through a stack of reports I mostly probably wouldn’t understand.
But given they admit the MMR was inadequately tested (rather a mild way of putting it), as you pointed out, why do you still support it?
Given most testing is done by the Corporations, or paid for by them, the fact that Cochrane claim no funds are received from Big Pharma (but they do admit government and NGO funding, which can effectively be the same, ‘guided’ by Big Pharma), and all Cochrane does is evaluate these test papers, then Cochrane just seems like a higher-class Media propagandist for what the governments (and their paymasters, Big Pharma among others) want them to publicise.
What is required is real testing, on animals (something I am generally against, but accept in cases like this that do not cause intentional pain and trauma (like making rabbits smoke cigarette smoke, or putting caustic products in their eyes).I haven’t exactly supported MMR. I have said that the way the websites you promote go about attacking it is entirely misleading. They undermine public understanding of the very nature of science.
If there are problems with the science, the Cochrane library looks like an excellent starting point for examining papers because researchers submit reviews of so many papers to the Cochrane library.
If you’re just going to dismiss all science as corrupted or even actually reversed by big money, then you should confine your arguments to ideology (“vaccination is unnatural”) and politics (“capitalism corrupts everything”), or straightforward conspiracy theory (“they’re out to kill us all!”).
What you shouldn’t do is cherry-pick science as if science supported your position, because you don’t yet possess enough understanding of science to do that with honesty so instead you inadvertently turn scientific material into propaganda. That is entirely the wrong direction; please read Goldacre, he definitely looks like a decent sort to me. You’ll be surprised by Bad Science; more than anything it’s a very powerful criticism of the corporate media.
‘…If you’ve been following the global vaccine debate you’ll likely know Del Bigtree, whose recent testimony we’re so pleased to be sharing with you today.
It takes serious courage to stand up to the most powerful lobby in the world, but that’s exactly what Del has dedicated himself to since learning several years ago of the coverup by Center for Disease Control (CDC) of a study proving a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
Del’s explosive testimony reveals a staggering lack of scientific testing on vaccines and the alarming rate at which more vaccines are being added to the schedule. Meanwhile levels of childhood disease and behavioral problems are soaring, and the medical establishment can provide no answers as to why that might be…’
‘Expert Witness Testimony from Del Bigtree’:
https://commission.itnj.org/2019/08/18/expert-witness-testimony-from-del-bigtree/– “Del’s explosive testimony reveals a staggering lack of scientific testing on vaccines…”
Well that has to be untrue, because just above I linked for you a systematic review of “five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one controlled clinical trial (CCT), 27 cohort studies, 17 case‐control studies, five time‐series trials, one case cross‐over trial, two ecological studies, six self controlled case series studies involving in all about 14,700,000 children”.
– “Expert Witness Testimony from Del Bigtree”
Well it must be about film and television production then, because that’s what he’s an expert in.
@ Clark September 6, 2019 at 17:55
That was why I wanted to get each to answer to the other’s claims – because there was such a big gap. But even Cochrane admits the MSM testing is inadequate, as you pointed out. Given the 14,000,000-odd children they seemed to claim ere included altogether, why do they say the testing is inadequate?
No testing was done with placebos – and contrary to what you claimed, that kind of testing would NOT require the testers to lie to parents – they would be told the truth – that it was a vaccine v placebo, but would not be told which their child had been administered. The one test the agencies and Big Pharma fear like the Devil is supposed to fear ‘Holy Water’ (I believe that is baloney) is a large test of vaccinated children versus completely unvaccinated children, because just because some children may not have had the MMR vaccine, they could have had others which had adjuvants or where harmful in their own right.
So there we go again – where there is a discrepancy, you assume Del’s statement to be untrue, whereas I believe it is Big Pharma, the government and their ‘Regulatory Agents’ and the media and other propagandists who are lying and/or covering up.
That the PTB and the Corporations have no compunction in killing or poisoning us with pesticides, herbicides, GMO’s, lead (known as a danger long before it was removed from household water pipes and petrol, and toothpaste tubes – remember the black ring round the top of the toothpaste? They quietly switched to plastic tubes, without an explanation), Climate Change, killing us and others in wars based on lies or False Flag operations, spending vast amounts on arms and neglecting health, social services and so on you probably agree, yet you persist in having a misplaced trust in a Big Pharma and Regulatory Agencies you admit are crooked. I really don’t understand it.– ” that kind of testing” [with placebo] “would NOT require the testers to lie to parents”
Sorry, that’s unlikely to work. The parents on the anti-vax side are going to want to know that their children aren’t getting vaccine, and those on the more conventional side are going to want to know that they are. You’re going to end up with a tiny subset that aren’t representative of the population at large because of other quirky behavioural differences they have from the two major groups.
– “But even Cochrane admits the MSM testing is inadequate, […] why do they say the testing is inadequate?”
Cochrane don’t admit that; Cochrane was set up specifically to examine and criticise medical science.
I don’t know what you mean by “MSM testing”; typo?
The paper doesn’t say the testing is inadequate, it says that “the design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre‐ and post‐marketing, are largely inadequate.” That is not the same as “a staggering lack of scientific testing on vaccines”.
To discover the difference it would help to read the paper, plus probably several of the papers it reviews, to find what the criticisms actually consists of. You would presumably need to learn some epidemiology, statistics and some technical terms.
But instead you turn to a smattering of political hopefuls, entrepreneurs , “nutritionists”, “naturopaths”, ex-newspaper men and film producers, and treat their word literally like gospel, like a message that will save its believers. This bunch share some striking similarities. Firstly, hardly any of them are scientists or academics, or have any scientific background. But more importantly none of them are active in the scientific literature, they all communicate directly with the public or even market directly to them, and they all act as if the scientific literature is so hopelessly corrupted that it’s worse than useless. This is anti-science, popular among US Republicans.
We see this enthusiasm for directly swaying the public and disdain for debate in the scientific and academic literature in other subjects – most notably in climate change denial, but also militaristic “security consultants” with their objectionable views on “terrorists”, and politicians’ advocacy for economic policies that benefit only the rich.
– “…you assume Del’s statement to be untrue, whereas I believe it is Big Pharma, the government and their ‘Regulatory Agents’ and the media and other propagandists who are lying and/or covering up. That the PTB and the Corporations have no compunction in killing or poisoning us…”
I din’t assume Bigtree’s statement to be untrue; I cited evidence that it’s untrue. And just because a government does something doesn’t automatically make it evil. Governments fund education, benefits, the NHS and road safety campaigns. You already know this, because you compare EU regulation against more lax and corporate-friendly US regulation eg. food standards and pesticides. In the US, pharmaceuticals can be marketed directly to the public whereas in the EU this is very much against the law. Pharma respond in the EU by funding and influencing patient lobby groups, to get their message into the corporate media by the back door.
But we are going over point after point that are covered much better by Goldacre; you’re using up oodles of my time by refusing to read his books.
‘2 Month Old Baby Dies 12 Hours After Receiving 8 Vaccines – Pediatrician Denies Link’:
https://vaccineimpact.com/2016/3-month-old-baby-dies-12-hours-after-receiving-8-vaccines-pediatrician-denies-link/?
The medics wouldn’t even report the death to VAERS. Who, in their right minds, thinks a 2-month old baby should have 8 vaccinations in one visit to pediatrician?‘…I hear case after case of babies dying after vaccines and the parents supposedly falling prey to what the establishment terms “the coincidence dragon” (see slide from Smith 2013 PMID: 23654058)…’ (Dr. Suzanne Humphries).
Many millions of vaccinations are given each year. One unconfirmed story tells us nothing, and promoting this stuff, particularly the gross exaggerations and lies (eg: ‘Measles Vaccines Kill More People than Measles, CDC Data Proves’), amounts to fear-mongering – you know, like the ‘Islamic terrorism’ agenda.
Learn how to make a proper case or stop fear-mongering.
@ Clark September 9, 2019 at 16:50
‘…One unconfirmed story tells us nothing…’
But what I copied out was ‘…‘…I hear case after case of babies dying after vaccines and the parents supposedly falling prey to what the establishment terms “the coincidence dragon” (see slide from Smith 2013 PMID: 23654058)…’ (Dr. Suzanne Humphries)…’. We have a well respected medical doctor here, and she started out believing in vaccines, and giving them to her patients and there children. She realised the obvious truth, and although she doesn’t counsel people against vaccines, she does believe they need to know the truth about there dangers.
You seem to have no empathy for the baby or it’s parents.
‘..one unconfirmed story…’ tells me plenty – a healthy 2-month old baby, parents who trusted the CDC and their guidelines, but unlike you, I or Goldacre, they didn’t know just how corrupt the CDC and others were.
Again, do you honestly believe it makes sense to give 8 vaccines in one session to a 2-month old baby?I don’t even know to what extent the story is true; as usual it’s highly emotionalised, and it’s obviously about blaming vaccines no matter what, no question of rational enquiry. There’s masses of this sort of stuff and it usually turns out to have been highly exaggerated, like the “108 Deaths from MMR” above.
If there are court cases, there are presumably court records, with evidence and scientific theory presented. Those would provide much more reliable information than this sort of thing.
Paul, the basic problem here is that whether vaccination confers more good than harm is a scientific question, but the websites you link to make either emotive arguments eg: “look at my baby. It was vaccinations I tell you”, or political arguments like “taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for this; pharmaceutical companies should pay out for all the autism but the government covers it up for them”, but there’s no analysis as to whether it really was vaccines that hurt the baby, or whether vaccines really do cause autism.
The stories sometimes refer to science. A bit. An article maybe mentions one specific scientific paper, or maybe quotes some scientist or academic – as if science was determined by their authority rather than evidence. There is hardly ever a link to the academic discussion of any paper mentioned, no attempt to put those snippets in context. For instance it’s never explained why the vast majority of relevant experts have dismissed the MMR-autism theory, never a link to a systematic review at, for instance, the Cochrane Library. The counter-evidence is barely mentioned at all, except to dismiss it out of hand as “part of the cover-up”.
Paul, if you’ve mistaken this stuff for scientific discussion, I can’t really blame you because that’s what the MSM has been priming you for all your life. It looks sciency but it isn’t science, just like in the MSM. You do realise that it was the MSM that hyped Wakefield’s baseless MMR-autism scare in the first place, using exactly the same techniques? About 3400 stories from 2001 to 2004, over 1200 stories in 2002 alone. The Telegraph pushed it really hard.
@ Clark September
I’m actually not mistaking the info for anything – I know damn well what it is, the human baby detritus from the evil, insatiable Big Pharma Profit Maw.Mercury and aluminium are neurotoxins, and should not be injected into a human being, never mind day-old babies. If you have learnt otherwise from Goldacre or any other source, you have learnt wrong.
There are scientists and scientists, doctors and doctors. Don’t believe in the likes of Mengele; putting neurotoxins into babies’ bloodstreams would be par for the course for him, but your local GP or paediatrician should be highly averse to it, unless he/she is being paid very handsomely to commit this heinous crime.Paul, I expect you know hardly any toxicology. Neither do I, but at least I’m aware of my ignorance.
A quick search shows that aluminium is the third most common element in Earth’s crust. We all ingest aluminium every day, even babies. It’s in food, and it is used in the water purification process. It’s in toothpastes, and cooking utensils are made from it.
But what difference does it make? You’re only using mercury and aluminium as a stick to beat vaccines with. Even if some vaccines were proven perfectly safe, you’d still spread as much FUD about them as you could dredge up. I’ve told you and shown you where to find more information, but you apparently came to your conclusions years ago and it’s pointless to ask you to reconsider. It’s simply believe Paul, and anyone who disagrees must be either stupid or evil. Well bully for you; you’re really clever and righteous.
‘Captured Agency’ PDF: https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf
Whilst about the Telecommunications business, it is the same as the Big Pharma and Big Agri businesses.
How can anyone side with such a crooked bunch of heinous sociopaths?
The only thing that could bring about change is if people became aware of the very real dangers of these technologies, pseudo-medical procedures and Frankenfoods, which the Corporations, MSM and most government agencies do there level best to prevent, alongside their useful idiots in social media who parrot their lies.“We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.” (Chris Hedges).
Jolly accurate quote I came across by accident; though he states ‘nation’, he could almost as well said ‘world’.– “The only thing that could bring about change is if people became aware of the very real dangers…”
I agree. So don’t kick up a smokescreen for them by amplifying imaginary ones, it just makes their opposition look stupid.
Here’s the MSM:
Can you see anything wrong with that? Is it a scientific article, ie. is there any evidence to assess (scientific), or is it just a report about conflicting claims by people (like in politics)? Who was the article written by, and were they a science journalist or not? Does the article accurately reflect the paper it refers to? How useful is the experiment described in the original paper?
http://www.gmfreecymru.org.uk/pivotal_papers/feedingrats.htm
The whole of Chapter 2 of Bad Science is about how teachers, or rather education authorities, helped destroy education by buying and promoting a US course of classroom exercises called Brain Gym. Nearly every chapter has examples of how the corporate media destroys understanding.
While Hedges’ statement resonates with me, strictly speaking it is overstated and misattributes blame; eg. it’s less doctors and more the pharmaceutical companies that are responsible when people’s health is damaged by their products.
@ Clark September 15, 2019 at 01:33
The Russian trials were claimed to be badly flawed, as indeed was there serious attempts to hide the results they had come up with.
I supported Dr. Puztai at the time, and still do.
Would you eat GMO foods if you had a choice?
Do you have your annual flu jab?
Do you accept that the roll-out of 5G is benign, and would you welcome a Smart Meter?
Remember John Gummer who infamously fed his daughter a hamburger at the height of the mad cow disease scare?
As it happened, she did not come down with it, but that was more by luck than judgement.– “The Russian trials were claimed to be badly flawed”
I linked to the paper right there; you can assess it for yourself, you don’t need anyone to tell you, and you can assess whether the Independent covered it scientifically, or as a political slanging match. If you look at the Independent link, you’ll see it was in the Lifestyle section, not the Science section, and the article makes no consideration of the science.
– “I supported Dr. Puztai at the time, and still do”
Science isn’t about who we “support”. It isn’t football. It’s about whether results support conclusions, and Puztai’s didn’t.
– “Would you eat GMO foods…?”
No, but that’s because I’m boycotting them, not because I’m selfishly scared for my personal health; they’re no more dangerous than other crops, which for decades haven’t had only “natural” DNA either. GM crops deprive farmers of autonomy and thereby place the global food supply at risk, and that’s why I boycott them.
– “Do you have your annual flu jab…?”
I’m not yet old enough to be in the “risk group”. But I’d know how to research my personal choice, whereas you repeatedly demonstrate that you don’t know where to start, and refuse to find out.
– “Do you accept that the roll-out of 5G is benign…?”
It’s driven by profit, and the health effects of the higher frequency bands are inadequately tested. But it isn’t a conspiracy to install death rays in every town, and making that claim just loses us credibility with the thousands of engineers, just everyday workers, who design, test and install it.
– “…and would you welcome a Smart Meter?”
I have repeatedly turned down a “smart” meter. But again, that’s because it’s an intrusion into privacy and because it enables remote disconnection of supply, not because there’s some death ray hidden in it. Such claims just lose us credibility, because they are not consistent with evidence.
Paul, you haven’t commented for a few days; is all well with you?
@ Clark September 15, 2019 at 12:22
Thanks for your concern for my health, as I hadn’t posted for a while. I’m still alive (much to many people’s chagrin).
‘..“I supported Dr. Puztai at the time, and still do”
By that I meant I realised he was being pilloried because he was calling into question the Big Agri ‘Frankenfood’ business. His experiments, though flawed, gave ample reason to follow them up, using better practices.
‘..No, but that’s because I’m boycotting them, not because I’m selfishly scared for my personal health…’
Selfishly scared for your personal health? What a strange thing to say. So all those who eat what they consider are healthy foods, are selfish in your eyes, and should selflessly eat poisons?
‘..they’re no more dangerous than other crops…’ Many people disagree, but Monsanto and their propaganda MSM agree with you.
‘..you repeatedly demonstrate that you don’t know where to start, and refuse to find out..’
On the contrary, I have all the anecdotal and medical information I need to have made my decision to avoid the mercury-containing flu shot like the plague.
‘..But it isn’t a conspiracy to install death rays in every town, and making that claim just loses us credibility with the thousands of engineers, just everyday workers, who design, test and install it…’
More straw-man stuff. Have I ever said it was a ‘death ray’? I do say it is very harmful, and I believe it will intentionally be used for nefarious purposes.
‘I have repeatedly turned down a “smart” meter. But again, that’s because it’s an intrusion into privacy and because it enables remote disconnection of supply, not because there’s some death ray hidden in it. Such claims just lose us credibility, because they are not consistent with evidence.’
More straw-man attacks. I haven’t said, nor implied, it is a ‘death ray’ machine, but that it is very dangerous, and has killed many people, and will kill many more.
I am also against it for the reasons you share, and also the fact that a great many people have said their bills rise instead of fall after they are installed (I believe that is another strong reason the the Utility Companies are keen to push them out – they allow easier surreptitious manipulation of the price.And here is a new article on polio vaccines, and here I go further than the article, in believing this is a deliberate spreading of the disease: ‘WHO Admits Polio Vaccines Are Causing Polio’:
https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2019/09/24/who-admits-polio-vaccines-are-causing-polio/
Bush Sr. and Cheney discussed the use of artificial pandemics to be used to practice genocide against Black people (Bush used the ‘n’ word) in East and West Africa, and Haiti, according to Cathy O’Brien in her two books, ‘TranceFormation of America’ and ‘Access Denied: For Reasons of National Security’.Paul, I am glad you are well, but I do wish you would learn how science is done and where it is discussed so that you would stop spreading ungrounded fears, and instead start alerting people to the real dangers, which would be far more constructive. At present you embody the attitude to science promoted by the so-called “mainstream” media, and you can’t cleanse yourself of that attitude merely by “changing sides”. So, well motivated though you are, you repeatedly add to the problem rather than alleviating it. You repeatedly miss the mark:
– The English Biblical terms translated as “sin” or “syn” from the Biblical Greek and Jewish terms sometimes originate from words in the latter languages denoting the act or state of missing the mark; the original sense of New Testament Greek ἁμαρτία hamartia “sin”, is failure, being in error, missing the mark, especially in spear throwing; Hebrew hata “sin” originates in archery and literally refers to missing the “gold” at the centre of a target, but hitting the target, i.e. error. “To sin” has been defined from a Greek concordance as “to miss the mark”
– “…I realised [Dr. Puztai] was being pilloried because he was calling into question the Big Agri ‘Frankenfood’ business. His experiments, though flawed, gave ample reason to follow them up, using better practices”
His experiments were followed up, and continue to be; the scientific consensus is that genetically modified foods must be tested for safety on a case-by-case basis. But the same goes for anything potentially edible, and our present-day lists of what is edible and what is poisonous are based on millennia of trial and error. In this respect, GM foods are no different to any others; they are merely newer.
– “So all those who eat what they consider are healthy foods, are selfish in your eyes […] ?”
I’m not saying they’re particularly selfish people; we are all selfish people, selfishness is in the nature of us that we should be striving to overcome. But yes, I am saying that it’s a selfish concern; a concern about the self.
We should remember that globally, the major danger around food and nutrition is not getting enough of it; famine and malnutrition. When genetic modification can improve nutritional security it should be praised and welcomed, not demonised with ungrounded fears and emotive sound-bites such as ‘frankenfoods’.
– “I haven’t said, nor implied, [that “smart meters” are] a ‘death ray’ machine, but that it is very dangerous, and has killed many people, and will kill many more”
I take it you mean that the communication components are deadly, which is what I meant by “death ray”. At present this is very unlikely to be true, because they use the same communications infrastructure as the rest of the various communications networks; there is no health basis for singling out “smart meters”. 5G however uses much higher frequencies than before, and health testing of those higher frequencies is insufficiently public.
– “WHO Admits Polio Vaccines Are Causing Polio”
It’s not an “admission”; it is a problem with the oral vaccine that was known and anticipated. The article merely adds misleading anti-vax spin to the health institutions’ own monitoring reports.
