Don't immunise your child, lose benefits?

[onewheeldave]

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?

The attack on statins which has brought the issue into the public eye, has mainly been led by 'renegade doctors' like Mcdougal.

 

They're not just saying statins are ineffective and harmful, they're talking about why these, and many other drugs and treatments are still being pushed when they are ineffective and harmfull.

 

They're pretty much in agreement that the root of this is money and corruption down to the pharmaceutical companies. That is the debate medical profession needs to engage with. That, they are not going to do, at least not till more millions die as a result of the current dire state of medical research.

 

Statins are the tip of the iceberg, there's just as many 'renegade doctors' talking about the corruption within, for example, the cancer industry.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 21:57 ----------

 

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.

 

No, I did not imply in an earlier post that the link I was later to post in answer to your later question, was research.

 

It's an article. I'm autistic, not stupid- why would I believe an article is research? I do not 'imply', I 'state'. Like most autistics 'implication' is not a skill I possess. You've clearly presumed something that I did not say. That's OK- you made a mistake. Please bear in mind for the future that I don't 'imply'- I use language in a very literal way.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 22:11 ----------

 

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

 

Yes- Orthorexia nervosa, "an extreme or excessive preoccupation with avoiding foods perceived to be unhealthy".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia_nervosa

 

It's a safe bet that some of the doctors I've seen would view me as having that condition.

 

And, it is true that, in our bizarre culture where most of the chronic illnesses that plague our population (heart disease, diabetes, strokes, cancer) are caused by what passes as 'food' (processed supermarket junk), eating healthily can be socially isolating.

 

How strange that they'd be preoccupied with that, yet seemingly oblivious to the fact that a large chunk of our population are literally eating themselves into chronic disease and death.

Edited April 13, 2015 by onewheeldave

[JFKvsNixon]

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'

 

It's important that people know that colonoscopy is the only screening tool that can prevent cancer. Colon cancer starts with small benign growths called polyps that progress through several stages, this is usually a slow process that takes years. So identifying and removing the polyps that are found at a screening colonoscopy prevents colon cancer.

 

Onto what Dr Mcdougall says.

 

He starts begins by confessing that his personal interest in the issue stems from becoming irritated that his wife's gastroenterologist didn't give him, as a medical doctor, due deference. So to sum it up he seems more determined to get one up on the the arrogant gastroenterologist than produce a piece of research that'll change practice.

 

The points he makes are confused and out of date, for example where he compares his old fashioned rigid scope with a colonoscopy. He also mentions the risk of perforation, without mentioning it's which is exceedingly rare and then usually with a diseased colon.

 

Anyway the important thing here is to note, I am not asking you to take my word over his, I'm asking you to take the medical consensus of a test that saves countless lives, costs countless lives when it isn't carried out.

 

It's worth remembering that the article represents Dr Mcdougall's views and his views alone.

 

---------- Post added 13-04-2015 at 22:23 ----------

 

No, I did not imply in an earlier post that the link I was later to post in answer to your later question, was research.

 

It's an article. I'm autistic, not stupid- why would I believe an article is research? I do not 'imply', I 'state'. Like most autistics 'implication' is not a skill I possess. You've clearly presumed something that I did not say. That's OK- you made a mistake. Please bear in mind for the future that I don't 'imply'- I use language in a very literal way.

 

So you expect me to believe that it's a complete coincidence that you was talking about "approved research" and you introduced the effectiveness and safety of a colonoscopy as an example. And then by magic a couple of posts later you produce an article about the effectiveness and safety of a colonoscopy, and they are not related?

 

Also I've read plenty of articles that are research papers, so I don't where you're going with that one.

Edited April 13, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[Obelix]

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.

 

Oh look there's the abuse. Why do you feel it necessary when losing the argument?

 

 

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).

 

Smallpox

 

Rinderpest

 

 

 

Like I said before, improvements in sanitation could have been responsible

 

The blue eyed fairy beetle could be responsible. Have you any evidence?

 

 

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):

 

And? It's a typical froth at the mouth diatriabe completely devoid of evidence at all.

[tzijlstra]

I think what the last three pages aptly demonstrate is that it is wrong of a government to force vaccinations upon a population with mixed opinions, I assume that is a safe conclusion to the discussion.

[JFKvsNixon]

I think what the last three pages aptly demonstrate is that it is wrong of a government to force vaccinations upon a population with mixed opinions, I assume that is a safe conclusion to the discussion.

 

What about when the government says that children that aren't vaccinated for non-medical reasons are not allow to state schools and nurseries, and they'll not relieve benefits to help them access these services?

[tzijlstra]

What about when the government says that children that aren't vaccinated for non-medical reasons are not allow to state schools and nurseries, and they'll not relieve benefits to help them access these services?

 

That would be tantamount to forcing them to have vaccinations in all but word, don't you think?

[JFKvsNixon]

That would be tantamount to forcing them to have vaccinations in all but word, don't you think?

 

There are lots of rules and regulations that parents and children must meet to access state schools and nurseries, isn't this just another one?

 

What if a private school or nursery stipulated that vaccines were necessary to be able to access their services?

[aliceBB]

I think what the last three pages aptly demonstrate is that it is wrong of a government to force vaccinations upon a population with mixed opinions, I assume that is a safe conclusion to the discussion.

 

I'm not sure that your declaring that we have reached 'a safe conclusion' proves anything, really!

 

First, all governments impose all sorts of laws/restrictions on populations 'with mixed opinions' - it's inevitable, given that in a democracy you are never going to get 65 million people to agree with each other about anything. If governments only passed laws about which the whole population agreed, Parliament would grind to a halt. Look at the 'healthy eating in schools' legislation. If they had cowtowed to parents' wishes in that area, burgers and chips would have been on the menu for ever. We elect MPs to represent us and make informed decisions on our behalf. It doesn't mean they have to agree with all of us all the time - how on earth could they?

 

Second, they are not 'forcing' vaccinations on anyone, but making life financially more difficult for those parents who fail to have their children immunised - there's an important difference. It is arguably an incentive scheme.

[Guest sibon]

I think what the last three pages aptly demonstrate is that it is wrong of a government to force vaccinations upon a population with mixed opinions, I assume that is a safe conclusion to the discussion.

 

To be fair, Tim. The last couple of pages have been dominated by a couple of conspiracy theorists who haven't really backed up their obscure viewpoints with any kind of scientific evidence.

 

I conclude that vaccinations work. You can pop to the WHO website and look at an abundance of evidence for my claim.

 

I also conclude that I don't want my kids to be put at risk by a bunch of ill informed contrarians. So I don't want my kids sharing schools with unvaccinated kids. Shouldn't my viewpoint be considered?

Edited April 13, 2015 by sibon

[Obelix]

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

 

Do not lie about what I said again.