Don't immunise your child, lose benefits?

[MAC33]

If you look at the people who develop bad cases of the flu---- most from my experience have taken the flu vaccine.

 

Injecting attenuated viruses into the body.......can this cause the flu as seems likely.

 

To kill or de-activate a tiny virus as they claim......attenuated......takes a lot of precision and time,not to mention having access to a super powerful microscope.

 

How are they able to achieve all this for such a low cost?

 

Then the aluminium and mercury (25mcg)

 

Do you want to roll up your sleeve for this cocktail of foreign animal tissue and chemicals?

[onewheeldave]

If you look at the people who develop bad cases of the flu---- most from my experience have taken the flu vaccine.

 

Injecting attenuated viruses into the body.......can this cause the flu as seems likely.

 

To kill or de-activate a tiny virus as they claim......attenuated......takes a lot of precision and time,not to mention having access to a super powerful microscope.

 

How are they able to achieve all this for such a low cost?

 

Then the aluminium and mercury (25mcg)

 

Do you want to roll up your sleeve for this cocktail of foreign animal tissue and chemicals?

 

Dr McDougal is, overall, in favour of vaccinations-

 

https://www.drmcdougall.com/health/education/videos/mcdougalls-moments/immunizations/

 

(it's a video I'm afraid, but, like I say above, in it he basically says that vaccines=good).

 

Nevertheless, he's heavily critical of the flu vaccines-

 

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2014nl/nov/flushot.htm

 

Mentioning-

 

Summary Reports Show the Scarcity of Benefits:

2010 Cochrane Review found no benefits from vaccinating the elderly.

 

2012 Cochrane Review showed little benefit for children: "No benefits for those two years or younger. Twenty-eight children over the age of six needed to be vaccinated to prevent one case of influenza.

 

2012 Lancet Infectious Disease Review showed little benefit in adults: "… evidence for consistent high-level protection was elusive for the present generation of vaccines, especially in individuals at risk of medical complications or those aged 65 years or older."

 

2013 Cochrane Review found no benefits for healthcare workers or for preventing influenza in elderly residents in long-term care facilities.

 

2014 European Review found that the 2012-2013 influenza vaccine had low to moderate effectiveness, and recommended that seasonal influenza vaccines be improved to achieve acceptable protection levels.

 

2014 Cochrane Review found the preventive effect for healthy adults was small: "…at least 40 people would need vaccination to avoid one influenza-like illness...no effect on working days lost or hospitalization seen…benefits for pregnant women were uncertain or at least very limited."

 

Again he mentions his support of vaccines in general, but says-

 

I am not persuaded by arguments from the anti-vaccine movements. However, my enthusiasm has been tempered over the years. I am very concerned about the additives, especially the aluminum,* found in many of these preparations (Commonly prescribed influenza vaccines do not contain aluminum.) Safer and more effective vaccines are definitely needed.

 

Once again- he's a respected practicing Dr with a great passion for looking at the relevant research. He believes in vaccination, but he's very forthright about what he knows concerning the corruption of medical research but the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry.

[Obelix]

What points are you claiming I've not addressed?

 

You know very well. This is the next tactic - claim you cannot see what points were missed.

 

When pointed out, you will claim they are not clear and I must make myself more specific when dealing with an aspie and it's my fault for not writing it correctly.

 

Then we will have request for references.

 

Then you claim it's too tiring to look at the references (cf Aspie) and can you please show where.

 

In other words - anything to avoid answering the question.

 

So I'll ask again.

 

If imminsiation is so ineffectual and doesnt work, then why have we seen the eradication of two diseases by means of immunisation regardless of the difficulties of the local environment?

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 18:46 ----------

 

If you look at the people who develop bad cases of the flu---- most from my experience have taken the flu vaccine.

 

Injecting attenuated viruses into the body.......can this cause the flu as seems likely.

 

To kill or de-activate a tiny virus as they claim......attenuated......takes a lot of precision and time,not to mention having access to a super powerful microscope.

 

How are they able to achieve all this for such a low cost?

 

Then the aluminium and mercury (25mcg)

 

Do you want to roll up your sleeve for this cocktail of foreign animal tissue and chemicals?

 

Your anecdotal experience isn't evidence

 

Wrong and wrong

 

By doing it in bulk

 

There is no aluminium or mercury in UK flu vaccines.

 

Yes please. Every year. Flu can be lethal.

[MAC33]

No aluminium or mercury in UK vaccines ----obelix.

 

So you are saying Big Pharma sell different vaccinations to the UK market?

 

I have a few vaccine package inserts that show in the list of ingredients aluminium and mercury (25mcg)

[onewheeldave]

You know very well. This is the next tactic - claim you cannot see what points were missed.

 

When pointed out, you will claim they are not clear and I must make myself more specific when dealing with an aspie and it's my fault for not writing it correctly.

 

Then we will have request for references.

 

Then you claim it's too tiring to look at the references (cf Aspie) and can you please show where.

 

In other words - anything to avoid answering the question.

What a load of crap Seriously dude, if that's what you think, then why the hell do you bother? Find someone to debate with who does meet your standards.

 

So I'll ask again.

 

If imminsiation is so ineffectual and doesnt work, then why have we seen the eradication of two diseases by means of immunisation regardless of the difficulties of the local environment?

I don't know if we have (seen the eradication of two diseases by means of immunisation regardless of the difficulties of the local environment).

 

Like I said before, improvements in sanitation could have been responsible (I don't know what happened to sanitation in Somalia in the 70's).

 

From this link-

 

http://informedcitizensagainstvaccination.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/smallpox-eradication.html

 

we have this view (one I've seem brought up on many of the anti-vaccinators websites):

-Source: Smallpox by Ian Sinclair. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/sinclair.html

 

*ICAV’s notes: Now let us examine the “eradication” of Smallpox in developing nations that occurred from the late 1960’s forward. While the CDC states that such “eradication” was the result of mass immunization, many theorize that Smallpox was simply, and similarly to Polio, labeled differently in reporting standards, namely as “Monkeypox” or “Varicella” (chicken pox) in an attempt to hide the Smallpox vaccines ineffectiveness and to promote present and future mass immunization. The following references are available for review:

 

The manipulation of statistics to support England's compulsory smallpox vaccine is discussed in literature distributed by The National Anti-Vaccination League of Britain. For instance, “The Ministry of Health has admitted that the vaccinal condition is a guiding factor in diagnosis.”

 

This means that if a person who is vaccinated comes down with the disease he is “protected” against, the disease is simply recorded under another name. From 1904 to 1934 in England and Wales, 3,112 died of chicken pox and 579 died of smallpox according to the health records. In other words, people who have been vaccinated for smallpox and later come down with the disease are classified in the health records as having chickenpox, a non-fatal disease.

George Bernard Shaw said, “During the last considerable epidemic at the turn of the century, I was a member of the Health Committee of London Borough Council, and I learned how the credit of vaccination is kept up statistically by diagnosing all the revaccinated cases [of smallpox] as pustular eczema, varioloid or what not -- except smallpox.”

 

Additionally, even if somalia was undisputably an example of smallpox dissapearing in the absence of sanitation improvement and presence of vaccination program, it hardly justifies mass-vaccination as a whole. given the many examples of diseases not diminishing when mass vaccination occurs, it would basically be a fairly good example of cherry picking.

 

Once again I'll remind that I'm not saying vaccines don't work- they may do, they may not: I can't say at this point.

 

I'm primarily posting on this thread as I most definitly do oppose compulsory vaccination, most especially when it's forced on the poor and not on the rich.

[MAC33]

From the Centre for Disease Control own website!

 

 

Common substances found in vaccines include:

Aluminum gels or salts of aluminum which are added as adjuvants to help the vaccine stimulate a better response. Adjuvants help promote an earlier, more potent response, and more persistent immune response to the vaccine.

Antibiotics which are added to some vaccines to prevent the growth of germs (bacteria) during production and storage of the vaccine. No vaccine produced in the United States contains penicillin.

Egg protein is found in influenza and yellow fever vaccines, which are prepared using chicken eggs. Ordinarily, persons who are able to eat eggs or egg products safely can receive these vaccines.

Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for toxoid vaccines, (these are vaccines that use an inactive bacterial toxin to produce immunity.) It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria that might contaminate the vaccine during production. Most formaldehyde is removed from the vaccine before it is packaged.

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged when the vaccine is exposed to heat, light, acidity, or humidity.

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is added to vials of vaccine that contain more than one dose to prevent contamination and growth of potentially harmful bacteria.

For children with a prior history of allergic reactions to any of these substances in vaccines, parents should consult their child’s healthcare provider before vaccination.

[JFKvsNixon]

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 ----------

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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.

 

Firstly, you cannot call his article on colonoscopy research by a long long way,, and that is being polite, and evidence of anything it is not. So it would be madness to take his thoughts on the subject over the the medical research consensus opinion.

 

You'll not take in anything I'll say about him because it seems that you have him down as being some sort of guru. So we'll have to leave it there.

 

But lets put this to bed. Colonoscopies save countless lives, and countless more people die through not having a colonoscopy so please do not spread the theory that colonoscopies are dangerous and are something to be avoided.

 

Also isn't the current debate on statins, which is still inconclusive, within the medical profession an example of how research does change opinion? So why would the medical profession be flexible towards statins and inflexible towards inoculations?

[onewheeldave]

Firstly, you cannot call his article on colonoscopy research by a long long way,

I didn't. You asked what he (Dr McDougal) said about colonoscopies, I posted the link (to what he said about colonoscopies). Not sure why you're denying it's research, when I've not claimed it is??

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 21:39 ----------

 

You'll not take in anything I'll say about him because it seems that you have him down as being some sort of guru. So we'll have to leave it there.

 

I'll take in anything you say about him if it's based on some kind of reasoned argument. Can't promise to agree with it, but, if it's valid, obviously I will.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 21:44 ----------

 

 

But lets put this to bed. Colonoscopies save countless lives, and countless more people die through not having a colonoscopy so please do not spread the theory that colonoscopies are dangerous and are something to be avoided.

Put it to bed then. But you saying that don't put it to bed, you're going to have to state some backed up facts/reasons.

 

Much as Dr Mcdougal does in his article, which, as you seem not to have read it, I'll post a chunk of it here, that does contain the kind of facts/reasons you'll have to come up with if you want to 'put it to bed'

 

Colonoscopy Screening Is Unnecessary

 

Since the early years following the development of colonoscopy in 1969, the procedure has been attacked as being unnecessary and unduly dangerous.1 However, with a colonoscopy costing up to $3,000 for each procedure, it has become the gold standard for colon cancer prevention. That prestigious position is now being lost due to recent scientific publications revealing the truth about colonoscopies. Gastroenterologists should expect their incomes to be cut by at least half as the truth becomes more widespread, especially in this climate of out-of-control healthcare spending.

 

As a young doctor in the 1970s I used a rigid two-foot long sigmoidoscope to check my patients for hemorrhoids, colon polyps, and cancer. The procedure was painful, relatively safe, cost about $100, and could be performed in about 10 minutes without any sedation in my office. Colonoscopies became popular as a screening tool in the late 1970s. Because this instrument (the colonoscope) must travel through 6 feet of torturous and turning bowel with four right angle turns (rather than only 2 feet with two bends with a sigmoidoscope) much more is involved. The colonoscopy requires a thorough bowel preparation (lasting as long as three days), sedation, and at least 30 minutes to perform. The risks from the sedation and passage of the tube are considerable. In contrast, nowadays a much more comfortable sigmoidoscope exam (using a flexible instrument) can be performed, which requires at most a day of preparation, costs about $200, and can be completed in 10 minutes. No sedation is required and harm is rarely caused to the patient. Adequately trained nurse practitioners can perform flexible sigmoidoscopy as competently as gastroenterologists can.

 

 

 

Gastroenterologists who favor colonoscopy over sigmoidoscopy argue that failing to inspect the proximal three to four feet of the colon (which cannot be reached by the sigmoidoscope) is malpractice. One medical editor in 2000 metaphorically stated, “Relying on flexible sigmoidoscopy is as clinically logical as performing mammography of one breast to screen women for breast cancer.”2 However, the scientific evidence, even at that time, failed to show any benefit from using colonoscopy over sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer prevention. But because of the self-serving and financial advantages of colonoscopies, sigmoidoscope exams quickly became unfashionable as a screening tool for cancer.

 

The Trend Back to the Sigmoidoscope

 

This colonoscopy-dominated trend began to change in January of 2009 when an extensive review of the results of colonoscopy was reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine.3 Even though the entire five feet of colon were examined by the colonoscope, prevention of deaths from colorectal cancer were limited to only those polyps removed from the left side of the colon—those last two feet that are easily and safely within the reach of a sigmoidoscope. The findings shook the world of gastrointestinal medicine.

 

The next big event was the publication of the “Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial,” published in the May 8, 2010 issue of the Lancet.4 This study has become the waterloo for the colonoscopy industry. In this massive undertaking, 170,432 individuals 55 to 64 years of age were assigned to either once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or no screening. For those who completed the sigmoidoscopy screening the incidence of colorectal cancer was reduced by 33% and mortality by 43%. (Small polyps were removed at the time of the exam.) Follow-up colonoscopy was reserved for those patients with polyps that met high-risk criteria: 1 cm or larger; three or more adenomas; tubulovillous or villous histology; severe dysplasia or malignancy; or 20 or more hyperplastic polyps above the distal (left side) rectum. Only 5.3% of the participants went on to colonoscopy.

 

Why Are Benefits Limited to the Distal Colon?

 

The reasons that survival benefits are confined to polyps removed from the distal (left) colon are unknown, but there are some suspicions. There are technical reasons in that the proximal (right) side is harder to clean out for visualization and more difficult to pass the scope completely into. In addition, right and left colon cancers may differ biologically: right-sided cancers are occasionally flat, making them harder to identify and remove. Right-sided colon cancers are also much more aggressive and deadly, and as a result they may less often be found in a precancerous polyp stage, before they have spread (metastasized).5

 

Colonoscopy is an imprecise instrument. Colon cancer arises from polyps (also called adenomas), and these tests miss about 24% of polyps—12% being large polyps (10 mm or greater).6.7 In autopsy studies, approximately 35% of people consuming the typical Western diet are found to have colon polyps.8,9 Two-thirds of colorectal cancers and adenomas are located in the rectum and sigmoid colon, which, as mentioned, can be examined by flexible sigmoidoscopy.

 

Why Is One Exam Sufficient?

 

The size of a polyp found on examination is an indicator of how long and how aggressively the polyp has been growing.10 Large polyps, which are further along this developmental sequence, are more likely to be cancerous. Polyps less than 5 mm (1/4 inch) are not likely to be cancerous, while 1% of polyps 10 mm (half inch) in size show cancerous changes, increasing to 17% at 20 mm. Less than 1 in 20 small polyps will grow larger and transform into cancer.

 

Ninety percent of colorectal cancers occur after the age of 55. Transition time from the earliest changes in the mucous membranes of the colon to the beginning of actual cancer takes on average 10 to 15 years.10-13 Once the cancer begins, the time for metastasis (spreading to other parts of the body), and finally death, takes another 10 to 20 years, Therefore, the whole process from normal cells to cancer and death will span on average 20 to 35 years.10-13 If one flexible sigmoidoscope examination is successfully performed between age 55 and 64, and no polyps are found (or when polyps are found, they are successfully removed) then the risk of dying from left-sided colon cancer has for all practical purposes been eliminated. In real life, if a polyp destined to become a cancer happened to start the next day after the exam, then the patient would likely die from other causes (a heart attack, stroke, old age) long before the cancer got to him or her. (As discussed above, there is still risk of dying from colon cancer from missed polyps and cancers in the proximal colon.)

 

Colonoscopy Screening Is Unduly Dangerous

 

In terms of making a decision about whether or not to have a screening performed, the benefits and risks to you must be taken into consideration. The absolute risk of developing colon cancer for people following the Western diet is to 2.5%.15 Having one first-degree relative with colon cancer increases the risk to 4.7%, and with two relatives the risk becomes 9.6% (up to the age of 75). This increased risk is in part genetic, but also remember that mother teaches daughter and son how to cook and what to eat.

 

Harms from a colonoscopy may arise from the preparation, the sedation, and the procedure. In the United States, serious complications occur in an estimated 5 per 1,000 procedures.16 When biopsies or polyp removals are performed, then the risk of serious complications, including bleeding, increases. One of the most serious hazards, often leading to death, is perforation of the colon, which occurs in about 1 per 1,000 procedures. In the face of that disaster consider that to prevent one death from colorectal cancer (the benefit), 1,250 people would need to have a colonoscopy.17 This is almost an even exchange: for one life saved from cancer, one life is lost (or at least seriously threatened) from a complication, like perforation.

[MAC33]

I don't trust the Medical fraternity.

 

Not when you read an article like this!

 

Eating healthy may well be soon classified as having a psychiatric disorder.

 

Another ruse to pump us full of toxins making money while we get sick.

 

 

 

http://www.sott.net/article/295152-Officials-label-healthy-eating-as-newest-eating-disorder

[JFKvsNixon]

I didn't. You asked what he (Dr McDougal) said about colonoscopies, I posted the link (to what he said about colonoscopies). Not sure why you're denying it's research, when I've not claimed it is??

 

You certainly implied in an earlier post, when I asked you what do you mean by "approved research" , you answered - i.e. not research into why colonoscopy screening is ineffective and harmfull- that would not be an approved topic.