Don't immunise your child, lose benefits?

[JFKvsNixon]

Yep. Sadly, it's often the case that Drs are the biggest sheeple of all- they really do not question the issues of pharmacutical companies corruption of the medical system.

 

But, it's understandable- doctors training is notoriously tough, long hours, with any kind of actual questioning of course content being strongly disapproved of (even if they had free time to do research of their own).

 

Then it's a career of long hours, and big pay. Long hours means, again, little free time for research, and big pay means lots of opportunities to use that free time to be doing things which is a lot more fun than doing research into stuff that shows deep flaws in the system your career is geared to maintaining.

 

Unfortunately, there's a lot of cranks out there with weird theories, many of them calling themselves 'doctors' when they are anything but.

 

That's why I posted a link to the John Mcdougal article- he's a genuine doctor

 

https://www.drmcdougall.com/

 

who is heavily critical of much of what passes for health care in our society.

As is Doctor Caldwell (treated ex-president Clinton for heart disease by getting him off the pharmaceutical drugs (statins etc) and getting him on a plant-based diet instead), and, many other doctors who are openly, and heavily, critical of the pharmaceutical industries corruption of medical science.

 

Another post full of half baked assumptions.

 

The doctors I know are expected to both produce research and keep up to date with the latest research. They are also expected to facilitate the junior medics in producing their research. They are even given time in their weekly schedule to do all of this.

[Obelix]

I can see you just wish to divert the topic with questions and questions and never really answer this.

 

Let me make it simple for you.

 

1. You said that smallpox disappeared because squalor and santition improved so there is no squalor etc.

 

2. You say polio hangs about because there is squalor and sanitation issues.

 

Statements 1 and 2 are contradictory. Thats enough to torpedo both your arguments.

 

But lets ignore that little faux pas... There are plenty of places all over the world that had smallpox, and still have the same levels of squalor and deprivation - arguably in many cases they are worse. But they have vaccinations, and no smallpox.

 

There are places where there is polio and there are good sanitation conditions. They have clerics stopping them from immunising people, and they have good sanitation, and good diets. They have polio but no vaccine. They've had smallpox vaccine and have no smallpox.

 

Care to explain that lot?

[onewheeldave]

70s' Bangladesh and Somalia OK with you, or not quite squalid enough yet?

 

I've not said vaccinations don't work. Just that there's evidence on both sides. Neither do I know enough about Bangladesh and Somalia in the 70's to comment on whether vaccination was responsible, or, whether the state of sanitation improved/declined in that period.

 

Are you seriously debating about vaccination on the basis of class politics?

No. Simply pointing out that if compulsory vaccination is forced on the underclasses children, and, not on the children of the rich, then it's going to **** people off.

 

What I do object to about vaccination, is forcing it on people, and, the general attitude of dismissal when people question it.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 17:20 ----------

 

Another post full of half baked assumptions.

 

The doctors I know are expected to both produce research and keep up to date with the latest research. They are also expected to facilitate the junior medics in producing their research. They are even given time in their weekly schedule to do all of this.

 

I wasn't referring to just approved research. I was talking about some of the stuff that goes contrary to the medical status quo (such as the afformentioned objections to colonoscopy screening). It's a safe bet they're not encouraged to research that.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 17:22 ----------

 

I can see you just wish to divert the topic with questions and questions and never really answer this.

 

Let me make it simple for you.

 

1. You said that smallpox disappeared because squalor and santition improved so there is no squalor etc.

No, I didn't. I said that bad sanitation leads to disease. Which means that improving sanitation could lower/eliminate such diseases.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 17:24 ----------

 

I can see you just wish to divert the topic with questions and questions and never really answer this.

 

Let me make it simple for you.

 

1. You said that smallpox disappeared because squalor and santition improved so there is no squalor etc.

 

2. You say polio hangs about because there is squalor and sanitation issues.

 

Statements 1 and 2 are contradictory. Thats enough to torpedo both your arguments.

They're not contradictory. Not that I said either of them. I said that bad sanitation can cause disease, and, that improving sanitation can lower/eliminate disease.

[Obelix]

So you've no interest in answering the points raised. What a surprise....

[JFKvsNixon]

I wasn't referring to just approved research. I was talking about some of the stuff that goes contrary to the medical status quo (such as the afformentioned objections to colonoscopy screening). It's a safe bet they're not encouraged to research that.

 

What do you mean by "approved research"?

[Obelix]

Just a point to raise. You know that improving sanitation was responsible for the large increase in polio right...?

[onewheeldave]

So you've no interest in answering the points raised. What a surprise....

 

Grow up dude. I answer more than most here- just cos you don't like the answers I give doesn't mean they're not answers.

 

We've been through this before- I don't have time to waste dealing with whiners who can't deal with actual debate.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 17:32 ----------

 

What do you mean by "approved research"?

 

Research approved of by the medical establishment.

 

i.e. not research into why colonoscopy screening is ineffective and harmfull- that would not be an approved topic. I can't imagine a proposal to research evidence that vaccinations are ineffective and/or harmful would get approval either

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 17:37 ----------

 

Going back to that previously posted wiki link-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_outbreaks_in_the_21st_century#United_Kingdom

 

Let's assume that mass vaccination is effective (as it may well be). That link indicates exactly why forcing vaccinations on people, and, dismissing their fears outright, is itself harmfull.

 

After the MMR vaccine controversy began, the MMR vaccination compliance dropped sharply in the United Kingdom, from 92% in 1996 to 84% in 2002. In some parts of London, it was as low as 61% in 2003, far below the rate needed to avoid an epidemic of measles.[41] By 2006 coverage for MMR in the UK at 24 months was 85%, lower than the about 94% coverage for other vaccines.[42]

 

i.e. prior to the MMR controversy, immunisation was going well. The reason a lot of parents ceased immunising their children wasn't because they didn't want to immunise against measles, but because of fears about the MMR vaccine.

 

If they'd had access to a single measles jab, they'd have been OK with it.

 

It was the official total disregard for their fears, and refusal to make the single jab available to them, that made many leave their children un-immunised,

[Obelix]

Grow up dude. I answer more than most here- just cos you don't like the answers I give doesn't mean they're not answers.

 

You've a track record of not answering questions, and when called on it you drop back to puling and calls of foul

 

Are you going to answer the points raised or duck the issue?

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 17:44 ----------

 

If they'd had access to a single measles jab, they'd have been OK with it.

 

It was the official total disregard for their fears, and refusal to make the single jab available to them, that made many leave their children un-immunised,

 

1. No they wouldn't. I know a couple of people that refuse immunisations completely.

 

2. It was Wakefield's lies and peoples gullibility that caused the problem, not the official line.

[JFKvsNixon]

Research approved of by the medical establishment.

 

i.e. not research into why colonoscopy screening is ineffective and harmfull- that would not be an approved topic. I can't imagine a proposal to research evidence that vaccinations are ineffective and/or harmful would get approval either

 

Is this the same Dr. McDougall that has his own company, Dr. McDougall's Right Foods Inc, that sells the food that his books suggest that you should eat?

 

What does he have to say about colonoscopies then?

 

Re evidence vaccinations - You really don't get it. You don't make a proposal by stating the results that you're looking to find! So you would never make a proposal to find evidence that vaccinations are ineffective and/or harmful. You have to also remember that there has been loads of research into vaccinations safety and effectiveness, lots and lots and lots! The research has been, and is being done.

 

The consensus of that research is that on the balance of risks inoculations are effective and safe.

[onewheeldave]

You've a track record of not answering questions, and when called on it you drop back to puling and calls of foul

 

Are you going to answer the points raised or duck the issue?

What points are you claiming I've not addressed?

1. No they wouldn't. I know a couple of people that refuse immunisations completely.

That's relevant how? Your 'knowing a couple of people that refuse immunisations completely' is totally compatible with my statement that 'a lot of parents ceased immunising their children wasn't because they didn't want to immunise against measles, but because of fears about the MMR vaccine'.

2. It was Wakefield's lies and peoples gullibility that caused the problem, not the official line.

Yes- that's what you believe. I disagree, as is clear from my previous post

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 18:22 ----------

 

Is this the same Dr. McDougall that has his own company, Dr. McDougall's Right Foods Inc, that sells the food that his books suggest that you should eat?

 

Yes, that's the one

His books advocate eating primarily plant starches (grains, legumes, potato/sweet potato, corn etc) along with leafy vegetables and fruits i.e. 'real food' that can be bought cheaply from any grocery store or supermarket.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 18:23 ----------

 

Is this the same Dr. McDougall that has his own company, Dr. McDougall's Right Foods Inc, that sells the food that his books suggest that you should eat?

 

What does he have to say about colonoscopies then?

 

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2010nl/aug/colon.htm

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 18:26 ----------

 

You have to also remember that there has been loads of research into vaccinations safety and effectiveness, lots and lots and lots![/b] The research has been, and is being done.

 

The consensus of that research is that on the balance of risks inoculations are effective and safe.

 

Yet some quite prominent and established medical authorities are heavily critical of the research and question the safety of (for example) colonoscopies, statins, rife over prescription of long term 'symptom management drugs' and, sometimes, vaccines.