Science/Environment Anti-vacc Crazies at it again. Post appropriate outrage ITT

[Clubs are trumps]

It might be news to you that there is a world wide shortage of IC Nurses. Guess why?

Mate i work at the hospital i mentioned in my post above. Im giving an insight into whats happening. I watched my ex struggle to get employment as a nurse after graduating here during the outbreak of the pandemic, simply because she was born in Nepal. If you're going to ask a condescending sarcastic question you can cram it.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Doesn't everyone?

Arguing over this same impossible crap too it was. I put it in the same category as arguing against the bible, climate skepticism etc.

yeah i know you tried that BS before. i pointed out that you're the AGW denier or creationist in this analogy.

 

[RightorKhan]

yeah i know you tried that BS before. i pointed out that you're the AGW denier or creationist in this analogy.

Well I'm afraid the science clearly points against you, and in great depth.

Much moreso than your tests that take blood tests from people without detoxification systems assuming they work.

 

[CM86]

Well I'm afraid the science clearly points against you, and in great depth.

Much moreso than your tests that take blood tests from people without detoxification systems assuming they work.

The science is against vaccination???

 

[RightorKhan]

The science is against vaccination???

This is fun. You can't argue against the science that's presented to you asking for criticism.

Clearly with that evidence doctors would not inject vaccines that had mercury based preservatives in them into said patients. Had they known their patient had an epigenetic predisposition beforehand that triggers faulty methylation. It's as much common sense as it is fact.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Well I'm afraid the science clearly points against you, and in great depth.

uh huh. you and science are best pals

Vaccines are responsible for a majority of the s**t we see today

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Was anyone every prosecuted for this s**t?

No, because the ads were legal at the time they were produced.

 

[little graham]

if you bothered to look into the situation you'd understand its not what you think.
this campaign just like the infamous lucky strike campaign you would understand what happened.

no doctors ever endorsed smoking camels. they were asked in a general survey (which they were paid to answer)
if they smoked and what brands they smoked. doctors being normal people smoked, namely because most of the population did.

the ad companys then used this information to claim doctors endorsed smoking as safe.

Philip Morse's ad for example the one which gives "medical advice" again advertising manipulation, The advertisement claim doctors said to smoke their cigarettes if you had a in irritation of the throat came about from information not disclosed to the public at the time, again posing as "researches" ad's asked if they had patient who had an irritated throat AND they were going to continue smoking would you recommend they switched to a brand which wont irritate their throat as much. of course doctors said yes.

they then published their own "medical journals" which weren't medical journals they just called them that and most of the research was never peer reviewed, and sited these "journals" claim their product was the less harmful.

and ad's were then produced saying doctors said to switch to OUR brand with tiny disclaimers citing surveys full well knowing you wouldn't look into. (90 years later *******s still don't)

this is the time that smokes became intertwined by with the term "smooth" because the fear at the time was smokers cough. the term smooth was meant to suggest the brand was easier on the throat.

while some doctors did take money and directly endorse smoking this was not the norm and this was unheard of after the 1920's and in the 30's the AMA was publicly against smoking.

this lead to another change in tact by advertisers, those dismissing claims of the medical community as "unproven" and recommending people "try it for themselves" and this is important because we had not clinical proof of the dangers of smoking until 1964. By the Mid 50's many medical magazines and conventions had off their own bat band smoking ads from being associated with them in anyway.

the simple truth is Advertising was almost completely unregulated until the 1940s which is what lead to those ad's. In fact the camel ad was major reason they started cleaning up advertising. as usual blatant lies from anti vacc's movement seeking to manipulate the truth. pathetic.

You should get a medal for that rant.

 

[little graham]

A shocking admission by the editor of the world’s most respected medical journal, The Lancet, has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent.

http://nsnbc.me/2015/06/19/shocking-report-from-medical-insiders/

Horton declared, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”

 

[Long Live HFC]

yeah, so what I do now is swallow every piece of nonsense I can find on natural news or similar, because I lack the knowledge, training and experience to make sound judgements.

 

[Long Live HFC]

NSNBC.

Horton also published that Wakefield study, so no wonder he knows so many papers are bullshit!

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Horton also published that Wakefield study, so no wonder he knows so many papers are bullshit!

beat me to it.

 

[romeohwho]

Lol it's pointless arguing with the uneducated


http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130225162231.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-185307/Mercury-hair-levels-autism-clue.html

And the rest of

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0528180900.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1114124307.htm
http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journa...cro2876-f1.jpg
http://www.nature.com/news/gut-brain...ntists-1.16316

http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journa...cro2876-f1.jpg
http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/08/116...rule-our-minds
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0108125953.htm

Overall it's been shown the human microbione cannot be compromised on a level as severe as in autism merely just with antibiotics and other factors. A complete onset of severe dysbiosis and oxidative stress can only be explained via epigenetic shutdown of the body's detoxification system. Hence all the studies related to suramin, DMSA and other relevent drugs procured to these theories that have each proven correct in their relevant studies.

The problem is people don't understand the meaning of DMSA spiking heavy metal levels, since they don't know what DMSA even is, or what it does. They simply take tests without administering DMSA beforehand magically assuming people with chronic mercury poisoning still have a functional methylation system for some odd reason, and this is why it shows no difference between autistics and non-autistics in those mainstream pro-vaccine flawed studies.

Only idiots would look for a concentrated amount in individuals who have no glutathione to even process it out the liver, through the blood and eventually out the hair, sweat, urine, saliva, piss etc the bodys natural waste/detoxification products.

Mercury only has a half life of 44 days in the blood stream, how the **** do you expect someone with chronic mercury poisoning to even accumulate even a trace amount in that timeframe? It's not channeled in the blood and sent through a system to exit the body therefore it's stupid to assume it will show up in a blood/hair test or anything other than a biopsy... until you replace the broken ruddy methylation system with the substitute DMSA. Then you can see with your own eyes how this indeed indisputable as those metals didn't magically appear out of thin air.

It's as far as established if you give too much DMSA to an autistic patient you can shut down their liver, you can kill the patient by sending the overload of backed up mercury through the now kick started detoxification system, that should've always been there if not for being epi-genetically shut down by mercury in the first place. It's pretty established that mercury triggers autism, other diseases and a whole lot of associated diseases that run parallel such as oxidative stress, dybisiosis, gastrointestinal permeability, ceoliac disease (mercury has a unique affinity to shut down dipeptidyl peptidase-4 required to digest, gliadin/casein), gastrointestinal permeability (as a result of undigested gialin/casein peptides....the list goes on).

Maybe you should address this information for once instead of using the carbon tax argument?

Could you provide the links to scientists favouring a cocktail of drugs instead of using vaccinations?

 

[Lester Burnham]

yeah, so what I do now is swallow every piece of nonsense I can find on natural news or similar, because I lack the knowledge, training and experience to make sound judgements.

What knowledge, training and experience do you have to have make sound judgements on this matter? Compared to say, Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet?

 

[Sydney Bloods]

You should get a medal for that rant.

you stop providing factually incorrect information.

 

[Long Live HFC]

What knowledge, training and experience do you have to have make sound judgements on this matter?

none. but i'm not the partisan who gets everything wrong all the time.

Compared to say, Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet?

lol, see you didn't even understand the drift of my post. i wasn't criticising horton (i did that in a subsequent comment), i was making fun of how LG's brain "works". ie he'll take one person's specific criticism of biotechnology research and then extrapolate that across vast sections of unrelated science. eg post it in this thread in an implicit attack on vaccine efficacy/safety.

meanwhile horton subsequently came out and described wakefield's vaccine-autism study as bullshit. but LG will use him as a reason to ignore any/all research he doesn't like, while he subscribes to the "natural news" level of quality information.

short version: horton hasn't said anything about immunology that supports the nonsense that LG pushes in this thread.

 

[Lester Burnham]

none. but i'm not the partisan who gets everything wrong all the time.

lol, see you didn't even understand the drift of my post. i wasn't criticising horton (i did that in a subsequent comment), i was making fun of how LG's brain "works". ie he'll take one person's specific criticism of biotechnology research and then extrapolate that across vast sections of unrelated science. eg post it in this thread in an implicit attack on vaccine efficacy/safety.

meanwhile horton subsequently came out and described wakefield's vaccine-autism study as bullshit. but LG will use him as a reason to ignore any/all research he doesn't like, while he subscribes to the "natural news" level of quality information.

short version: horton hasn't said anything about immunology that supports the nonsense that LG pushes in this thread.

Forget what has been said in this thread. What do you think of Horton's recent comments?

Horton declared, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

To state the point in other words, Horton states bluntly that major pharmaceutical companies falsify or manipulate tests on the health, safety and effectiveness of their various drugs by taking samples too small to be statistically meaningful or hiring test labs or scientists where the lab or scientist has blatant conflicts of interest such as pleasing the drug company to get further grants. At least half of all such tests are worthless or worse he claims. As the drugs have a major effect on the health of millions of consumers, the manipulation amounts to criminal dereliction and malfeasance.​

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Forget what has been said in this thread. What do you think of Horton's recent comments?

Horton declared, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

To state the point in other words, Horton states bluntly that major pharmaceutical companies falsify or manipulate tests on the health, safety and effectiveness of their various drugs by taking samples too small to be statistically meaningful or hiring test labs or scientists where the lab or scientist has blatant conflicts of interest such as pleasing the drug company to get further grants. At least half of all such tests are worthless or worse he claims. As the drugs have a major effect on the health of millions of consumers, the manipulation amounts to criminal dereliction and malfeasance.​

Do you have a source for that quote (other than the one lg provided)?

 

[Long Live HFC]

Forget what has been said in this thread. What do you think of Horton's recent comments?

Horton declared, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

To state the point in other words, Horton states bluntly that major pharmaceutical companies falsify or manipulate tests on the health, safety and effectiveness of their various drugs by taking samples too small to be statistically meaningful or hiring test labs or scientists where the lab or scientist has blatant conflicts of interest such as pleasing the drug company to get further grants. At least half of all such tests are worthless or worse he claims. As the drugs have a major effect on the health of millions of consumers, the manipulation amounts to criminal dereliction and malfeasance.​

i am unsure why you quoted the same exact presentation that LG did, but whatever.

i have long had concerns about the quality of research in relation to drug manufacturing (specifically how companies simply avoid publishing research that is unfavourable to their product). if it can be shown that they have done worse than this (and i see no reason to doubt horton's position), then they should be prosecuted (for fraud at the least).

this of course does not give alternative "thinkers" cart blanche to dismiss all of western medicine, especially if we're talking about very well established (and independent) research into things like vaccines.

given horton's position, he should at least be in a position to effect meaningful change.

short version- there's a difference between cutting-edge, infancy pharmaceuticals and the widespread research carried out over decades by many and varied researchers. this is why we know vaccines are safe and effective, whereas New Beaut Wonder Drug might not be.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Do you have a source for that quote (other than the one lg provided)?

it's legit.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext?rss=yes

 

[Lester Burnham]

Do you have a source for that quote (other than the one lg provided)?

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext?rss=yes

 

[Long Live HFC]

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext?rss=yes

of course, there's this truly amazing irony (which i've touched on) where if horton was saying anything else, LG (and others) would simply ignore and dismiss him because of his links to "big pharma". it's quite funny, really. the never-ending campaign of confirmation bias

 

[Lester Burnham]

of course, there's this truly amazing irony (which i've touched on) where if horton was saying anything else, LG (and others) would simply ignore and dismiss him because of his links to "big pharma". it's quite funny, really. the never-ending campaign of confirmation bias

You are maybe getting a little worked up over LG's comments. There is an alternative rational position that vaccines can have huge beneficials effect, but big pharma can't be trusted to be ethical in their behaviour. It's become almost religious or footy barracking-like to be "pro-vacc" or anti-vacc". Best to step away from that and try to judge the evidence impartially. We need to listen to guys like Horton who have the experience from both the medical and commercial angles.

I have previously posted in this thread about the beneficial side effects of vaccines. In one way it's good because it opens the possibility of greater health benefits. But in another way it's bad because it shows we don't fully understand how vaccines work.

 

[Long Live HFC]

You are maybe getting a little worked up over LG's comments.

probably. but there's been so many of them it's hard not to.

There is an alternative rational position that vaccines can have huge beneficials effect, but big pharma can't be trusted to be ethical in their behaviour. It's become almost religious or footy barracking-like to be "pro-vacc" or anti-vacc".

i certainly agree that business (big or otherwise) can't be trusted to be ethical. i feel though that the pro/anti vaccination debate is the fault of the anti vaxxers. they swamp the internet in shitty information which makes any kind of rational discussion (which you seem to be after) impossible. how do you reason with someone that thinks vaccines are responsible for all the medical ills plaguing mankind? if pro vaxxers weren't constantly required to challenge and correct the nonsense from the other side, i wonder how much more everyone could end up understanding. alas....

Best to step away from that and try to judge the evidence impartially. We need to listen to guys like Horton who have the experience from both the medical and commercial angles.

agreed.

 

[Pie eyed]

Lucky we can follow all your links to the peer reviewed research backing up your angry, meandering rant, otherwise we'd have to assume you're full of s**t.

Good argument for birth control.

 

[Slax]

i certainly agree that business (big or otherwise) can't be trusted to be ethical. i feel though that the pro/anti vaccination debate is the fault of the anti vaxxers. they swamp the internet in shitty information which makes any kind of rational discussion (which you seem to be after) impossible. how do you reason with someone that thinks vaccines are responsible for all the medical ills plaguing mankind? if pro vaxxers weren't constantly required to challenge and correct the nonsense from the other side, i wonder how much more everyone could end up understanding. alas....

The internet has been their biggest ally. They can load up sites like collective-evolution and the like with pseudo science, mix in a few true scientific studies that they have no issues with and it suddenly looks reputable.

All I can say to any anti-vac person is go and do some reading on smallpox and ask if getting rid of that was a good or bad thing? It puts them in an impossible situation where they have to acknowledge the benefits which automatically destroys their arguments against it. They will try saying that it has nothing to do with their argument but refer them back to it the question and get them to say yes or no, as it is a yes no question.