Don't immunise your child, lose benefits?

[JFKvsNixon]

Help me out then. Here's 1 claim from the article-

 

 

Here's a link to that paper-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19075198

 

and, here's his link to that paper-

 

 

 

Does that evidence match what Mcdougal claims? If not, where's the problem?

 

Talk me through the paper then.

[onewheeldave]

Talk me through the paper then.

 

I request you answer my question. You seem to be claiming you've got considerably more prowess in decyphering these things than me, so if there's a flaw, just flag it up.

 

I really do not like playing games, and, I do not have time to waste. I'm trying to have a sincere discussion with you on this point, and will continue to do so if I think you're also trying to have a sincere discussion.

 

My strong feeling is that with your comment above, you're entering into game playing territory- put it down to communication issues, put it down to my autism, whatever- that's how I'm feeling.

 

Otherwise, ignore my sincere effort to keep this on track, but in doing so, don't expect me to persist- I really do not like having my time wasted.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 11:36 ----------

 

Not it's not.

 

As I said before, you cannot compare the peer review research carried by the medical industry with the closed research carried out by the pharmnicutical companies. If you read Ben Goldacre you'd realise that this is what he is saying, he wants the pharmaceutical companies to open up all their data for peer review.

 

I know that's what he's saying. (Or, to be more accurate, it's one of the things he's saying- he also makes it clear that the pharmaceutical companies also design studies to deliberately confuse and obscure the truth).

 

But those corrupted studies are a big part of the medical establishments processes in coming to conclusions and recommendations as to how people should live/eat/manage their health issues, aren't they?

 

So, if things are as you claim, and that while pharmaceutical company research is heavily compromised, yet peer review research carried by the medical industry, isn't. The problem remains that the quantity of peer review research carried by the medical industry is very low in comparison to the quantity of suspect pharmaceutical company research.

 

Probably too low to actually conclude much on the major issues- otherwise a simple solution would be to simply ignore all pharmaceutical company research, wouldn't it?

[JFKvsNixon]

I request you answer my question. You seem to be claiming you've got considerably more prowess in decyphering these things than me, so if there's a flaw, just flag it up.

 

I really do not like playing games, and, I do not have time to waste. I'm trying to have a sincere discussion with you on this point, and will continue to do so if I think you're also trying to have a sincere discussion.

 

My strong feeling is that with your comment above, you're entering into game playing territory- put it down to communication issues, put it down to my autism, whatever- that's how I'm feeling.

 

Otherwise, ignore my sincere effort to keep this on track, but in doing so, don't expect me to persist- I really do not like having my time wasted.

 

Why is it wrong of me to ask you to talk me through the evidence that you put forward to back up your argument?

 

Anyway, back to Dr Mcdougal. Ask yourself these questions.

 

• Has he discussed the main issues between having a sigmoidoscopy over colonoscopy?
   
  
• Has he investigated the issues by including the research from both sides of the argument? You cannot ignore the evidence that counters your claims.
   
  
• Has he shown evidence that he's looked at the breadth and depth of research before drawing his conclusions?
   
  
• Has he put his conclusion before his peers in a journal?
   
  
• Has he implied that by following the advice that he sells in his books the need for screening might be avoided?

 

It is clear that he was annoyed because he feels that the gastroenterologist didn't show his due deference and then he's cherry picked the research to back up his claims.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 11:48 ----------

 

I know that's what he's saying. (Or, to be more accurate, it's one of the things he's saying- he also makes it clear that the pharmaceutical companies also design studies to deliberately confuse and obscure the truth).

 

But those corrupted studies are a big part of the medical establishments processes in coming to conclusions and recommendations as to how people should live/eat/manage their health issues, aren't they?

 

So, if things are as you claim, and that while pharmaceutical company research is heavily compromised, yet peer review research carried by the medical industry, isn't. The problem remains that the quantity of peer review research carried by the medical industry is very low in comparison to the quantity of suspect pharmaceutical company research.

 

Probably too low to actually conclude much on the major issues- otherwise a simple solution would be to simply ignore all pharmaceutical company research, wouldn't it?

 

What makes you believe that the quantity of peer reviewed research carried out my the medical industry is low?

 

As for ignoring all pharmaceutical company research, how would you suggest that would work?

[onewheeldave]

Why is it wrong of me to ask you to talk me through the evidence that you put forward to back up your argument?

Not saying it is.

 

What I'm very confused about, is that now I've put in the time and effort to look at the abstract linked to in McDougals article, that you're unwilling to tell me which part of it you have an issue with.

 

Do you have a problem with the abstract in general?

 

I don't think me and you are going to be able to progeess in terms of communication and understanding each others POV, if you don't address things I'm confused about. At least, if you're going to refuse to address, let us know why.

[JFKvsNixon]

Not saying it is.

 

What I'm very confused about, is that now I've put in the time and effort to look at the abstract linked to in McDougals article, that you're unwilling to tell me which part of it you have an issue with.

 

Do you have a problem with the abstract in general?

 

I don't think me and you are going to be able to progeess in terms of communication and understanding each others POV, if you don't address things I'm confused about. At least, if you're going to refuse to address, let us know why.

 

Why is it annoying that I asked to look at a piece of research that you've brought forward? It shouldn't be, it should be automatic and the norm, that you look at any piece of research you bring forward.

 

Remember I originally asked you:

 

Have you checked his evidence to make sure it says what he claims? Even if he's being honest he may well be cherry picking his quotes to make it say what he wants it to say.

 

So just copying the paper doesn't really answer the question, you could have discussed how you believe it backs up his claim.

 

I don't have any problem with it, it's informative. It is however one piece of work amongst a lot of information out there some of which is contradictory. That is why I asked the following:

 

• Has he (Dr Mcdougal) discussed the main issues between having a sigmoidoscopy over colonoscopy?
  
• Has he investigated the issues by including the research from both sides of the argument? You cannot ignore the evidence that counters your claims.
  
• Has he shown evidence that he's looked at the breadth and depth of research before drawing his conclusions?
  
• Has he put his conclusion before his peers in a journal?
  
• Has he implied that by following the advice that he sells in his books the need for screening might be avoided?
  

[onewheeldave]

Why is it annoying that I asked to look at a piece of research that you've brought forward? It shouldn't be, it should be automatic and the norm, that you look at any piece of research you bring forward.

 

Why do you think I found it annoying?

 

I thought the fact that I'd put in bold the parts that were relevant to Dr Mcdougals claim (that "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") would indicate that I'd read the thing.

 

i.e.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19075198][/url]

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Colonoscopy is advocated for screening and prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC), but randomized trials supporting the benefit of this practice are not available.

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the association between colonoscopy and CRC deaths.

DESIGN:

Population-based, case-control study.

SETTING:

Ontario, Canada.

PATIENTS:

Persons age 52 to 90 years who received a CRC diagnosis from January 1996 to December 2001 and died of CRC by December 2003. Five controls matched by age, sex, geographic location, and socioeconomic status were randomly selected for each case patient.

MEASUREMENTS:

Administrative claims data were used to detect exposure to any colonoscopy and complete colonoscopy (to the cecum) from January 1992 to an index date 6 months before diagnosis in each case patient and the same assigned date in matched controls. Exposures in case patients and controls were compared by using conditional logistic regression to control for comorbid conditions. Secondary analyses were done to see whether associations differed by site of primary CRC, age, or sex.

RESULTS:

10 292 case patients and 51 460 controls were identified; 719 case patients (7.0%) and 5031 controls (9.8%) had undergone colonoscopy. Compared with controls, case patients were less likely to have undergone any attempted colonoscopy (adjusted conditional odds ratio [OR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.74; P < 0.001]) or complete colonoscopy (adjusted conditional OR, 0.63 [CI, 0.57 to 0.69; P < 0.001]). Complete colonoscopy was strongly associated with fewer deaths from left-sided CRC (adjusted conditional OR, 0.33 [CI, 0.28 to 0.39]) but not from right-sided CRC (adjusted conditional OR, 0.99 [CI, 0.86 to 1.14]).

LIMITATION:

Screening could not be differentiated from diagnostic procedures.

CONCLUSION:

In usual practice, colonoscopy is associated with fewer deaths from CRC. This association is primarily limited to deaths from cancer developing in the left side of the colon.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:02 ----------

 

 

Remember I originally asked you:

 

 

 

So just copying the paper doesn't really answer the question, you could have discussed how you believe it backs up his claim.

I wasn't answering a question. You asked for evidence in the form of research papers/studies and I gave it.

 

I picked a Mcdougal claim, and showed the part of the research that backed it up. How it backs up his claim seems fairly straightforward to me. If you identified an issue with it, then that would seem to be the appropriate prompt for a discussion.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:03 ----------

 

 

I don't have any problem with it, it's informative.

 

Good. I'm glad I've finally produced a piece of evidence that you recognise as evidence

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:11 ----------

 

It is however one piece of work amongst a lot of information out there some of which is contradictory.

 

Oh

 

Does that mean you've got a link to some evidence that contradicts that claim i.e. that contradicts 'Complete colonoscopy was strongly associated with fewer deaths from left-sided CRC but not from right-sided CRC'?

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:12 ----------

 

Has he (Dr Mcdougal) discussed the main issues between having a sigmoidoscopy over colonoscopy?

The main issue he focused on was that a colonoscopy resulted in more serious complications and deaths. And that it didn't prevent that many more cancers.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:14 ----------

 

[*]Has he investigated the issues by including the research from both sides of the argument? You cannot ignore the evidence that counters your claims.

I don't know. I didn't realise there was that much evidence arguing that colonoscopies were safer than the alternative.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:16 ----------

 

[*]Has he shown evidence that he's looked at the breadth and depth of research before drawing his conclusions?

Is he obliged to? I consider him competent and trustworthy. Is that requirement usually demanded of every doctor expressing his opinion and backing it up with links to relevant research?

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:17 ----------

 

[*]Has he put his conclusion before his peers in a journal?

Don't know. Does he have the time to invest in such an arduous undertaking?

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:22 ----------

 

[*]Has he implied that by following the advice that he sells in his books the need for screening might be avoided?

He's stated definitively and clearly that, in his opinion, eating a low fat vegan plant starch based diet, will lead to a statistically reduced risk of getting colon cancer, any other cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes.

 

And pointed to evidence and studies backing up that opinion.

 

Knowing that a statistically reduced risk of getting colon cancer, any other cancer, heart disease, stroke and diabetes in no way guarantees escaping those illnesses, he still advocates effective screening that has the right balance of benefit/risk.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 18:28 ----------

 

Just found a list of responses to mcdougals article, this ones from a practicing gastroenterologist who is critical of some aspects of the article-

 

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2010nl/sep/responses.htm[/url]

 

As a practicing gastroenterologist for 36 years, I want to make a few comments regarding your recent newsletter article pertaining to colonoscopy. To begin with, I agree entirely that the gastroenterologist that saw Mary should be reported to the local medical board for improper conduct. However, I do not feel you should characterize all of us as caring mostly about money. I can assure you there are other specialists like myself who continue to practice past age 65 solely because of our love for medicine and our patients. Your recent article, as are all your articles, is supported by an abundance of sound medical references. I agree that the cost is out of control. I don’t agree that the procedure complication rate quoted by you reflects all of our experiences. As for myself I have performed over 14,000 colonoscopies over 36 years without a single perforation. Furthermore, the usual duration of the procedure is far less than 30 minutes, as many gastroenterologist often reach the cecum in 2 to 4 minutes. As you are aware, it is the duration of withdrawal time that is important in terms of polyp detection. What bothers me the most about your article and the literature cited is that you have basically given up on the 1/3rd of screening patients who do have right- sided polyps based on existing data. In my opinion, we have not lowered the cancer mortality rate from right- sided lesions because of poor colon preps, inexperienced gastroenterologists, and mucosal microsatellite instability which makes polyps in the right colon far more dangerous because these turn to cancer with metastases much quicker than the 20 to 35 year time table you quote. Rather than giving up on these patients, shouldn’t we improve the preps, train the gastroenterologists better, and lower the costs? In addition, let’s see what this new era of magnifying colonoscopes will do in the right- sided polyp detection rate, particularly flat lesions, and ultimately the number of lives saved as a result. The center where I practice has recently replaced all existing colonoscopes with this new technology. One last point I want to make is that a sigmoidoscopy without sedation is generally mildly to moderately painful. This is because the most difficult (and most dangerous) area of the colon to negotiate is the sigmoid colon, even by trained hands. TP (medical doctor)

 

Despite being critical of the article, unlike you, he does seem to respect Mcdougals efforts with supplying evidence-

 

Your recent article' date=' as are all your articles, is supported by an abundance of sound medical references.[/quote']

Edited April 16, 2015 by onewheeldave

[MAC33]

There is no liability for the Doctors or the pharmaceutical companies for the injuries caused by these vaccinations.

 

Listen to the brunette girl at 3.25 in the video.

 

 

 

---------- Post added 18-04-2015 at 19:01 ----------

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brain-damaged-uk-victims-swine-flu-vaccine-get-60-million-compensation-1438572

 

 

According to the International Business Times U.K. Edition, each of the victims is “expected to receive £1 million each.” Peter Todd, a lawyer who represented many of the claimants, told the Sunday Times (U.K.):“There has never been a case like this before. The victims of this vaccine have an incurable and lifelong condition and will require extensive medication.”Unfortunately for Peter Todd and the countless other victims, there has been cases like this before. Neurological damage from vaccines is not a rare occurrence. In fact, the U.S. government has paid out $3 billion and counting to families of vaccine-injured children. Most of which were due to direct neurological damage or complications arising from such damage.

Edited April 18, 2015 by MAC33

[Nagel]

If anyone wants to see a great programme about Salk and the invention of the Polio vaccine then this is still available on the BBC. It's 45 minutes that will educate anyone except the most ardent ant-vacc nutter.

 

People forget just what a horrible disease Polio was and now it's virtually gone, although there's a worrying increase in Pakistan due to the Taliban's opposition to the vaccination programme.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b05n27mt/the-polio-story-the-vaccine-that-changed-the-world

[Cyclone]

 

If the other kids have had their jabs, they should be immune regardless.

 

All except the ones who can't have jabs for genuine medical reasons.

[Nagel]

All except the ones who can't have jabs for genuine medical reasons.

 

No, there's an effect called passive immunisation when a person is given someone else's antibodies.