Don't immunise your child, lose benefits?

[loraward]

That is not a moral choice, is it?

 

What makes you think that it isn't a moral choice?

[JFKvsNixon]

Here's the actual text of the article, so people can decide for themselves who was being arrogant.

 

I'll say it one more time because you seem to have missed it.

 

A colposcopy is said to be the only diagnostic tool that can actually prevent cancer. I'd cannot even begin to count the amount of lives around the world who's life has been saved by having one. More importantly, the amount of people who have died through not having one is also a very high number.

 

If just one person believes the rubbish that you posting here, then do you understand the consequences of the what you are doing. The bottom line is cancer screening saves lives.

 

I'd like to expect that I can talk about 2 separate things in one thread without people drawing connections that don't exist, yes.

 

I'd also like to be taken as an honest person, which clearly you do not think I am.

 

I really am struggling to believe that the one subject you introduce when talking about "approved research" was the effectiveness and safety of a colonoscopy and the subject of Dr McDougal's article which is the effectiveness and safety of a colonoscopy are two separate things.

 

Like I said before, I'm autistic NOT STUPID. I could not mistake an article, for a research paper, unless, I was stupid.

 

As I said before the two things are not separate things, many research papers are articles so why you're getting choppy about this is a tad confusing.

 

However, as you accept that Dr Mcdougall's article isn't based on any sound research, why the devil would you suggest it as a course of action that somebody should follow?

 

I'm going to leave it at that, cos I'm here to debate compulsory immunisation, not waste my valuable time dealing with people accusing me of being dishonest and/or stupid.

 

I have never accused you of being dishonest or stupid, I have only taken exception that you offered advice that could have serious consequences to those that may take it.

 

I would offer no more advice on this subject than if you're concerned you should speak to your GP and try to get a referral to and gastroenterologist.

[tzijlstra]

What makes you think that it isn't a moral choice?

 

I know you have demonstrated time and time again to not understand morals, so it is a pointless discussion. But think about it for a while and you might surprise me!

[onewheeldave]

 

 

I really am struggling to believe that the one subject you introduce when talking about "approved research" was the effectiveness and safety of a colonoscopy and the subject of Dr McDougal's article which is the effectiveness and safety of a colonoscopy are two separate things.

 

 

 

As I said before the two things are not separate things, many research papers are articles so why you're getting choppy about this is a tad confusing.

 

However, as you accept that Dr Mcdougall's article isn't based on any sound research,why the devil would you suggest it as a course of action that somebody should follow?

 

 

I said the article wasn't a research paper. It contains many references to actual research papers, for example-

 

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.

 

Are Mary and I Going to Have a Flexible Sigmoid Exam?

 

The recommendations for performing sigmoidoscopy over colonoscopy exams have become mainstream in medical journals.18,19 An article in the July 28, 2010 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, “If de novo decisions were being made today about whether to initiate colonoscopy as a screening tool in place of sigmoidoscopy for average-risk individuals, in light of the available evidence doing so would probably be inappropriate.”19 Certainly, this closes the option for either of us getting a colonoscopy done at any age for preventing colon cancer. (Understand that even though the scientific opinions have changed recently, the actual practices among gastroenterologists have not. Plan on being offered a colonoscopy when you see the specialist—that’s what they do)

with the numbers refering tp other papers by experts, and research papers. It also points out that, for every person saved by colonoscopy, one will be killed (due to the fact that serious complications, like perforation (1 in 1000), occur in 1 in 200 colonoscopies. Usually patients are told that complications are 'extremely rare'- they are actually 1 in 200.

[L00b]

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.

Can I have a side order of fries to go with that bad faith, dave?

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.

I think you'll find "the rich" have their children vaccinated without issue, and that Aussies (wealthy or poor irrespective) are not forced to have their children vaccinated, on the contrary they can still refuse vaccination and assume the responsibility of their parental choice by doing something (work/earn) to compensate for the withdrawn portion of benefits.

 

Personal responsibility for personal choices, the way of the world since the year dot.

 

There was an interesting interview with a GP on BBC news this morning. According to that GP, the core problem with vaccination was not so much anti-vaxxing arguments, as parents without the brain power to realise that their tot does need immunizing in the first place. In that context, the UK (and most developed and semi-developed countries with well-developed healthcare infrastructure) was doing fine, with practice-registered parents getting reminders, but transient parents (gypsies, romas) were causing a small problem as moving about and not receiving the vaccine reminders, and which might explain the high(-er) incidence of unvaccinated people in those communities.

Edited April 14, 2015 by L00b

[onewheeldave]

 

If just one person believes the rubbish that you posting here, then do you understand the consequences of the what you are doing. The bottom line is cancer screening saves lives.

 

 

I really do understand your concern- if I believed, as you do, that colonoscopies are effective, I'd be saying the same.

 

However, I believe colonoscopies are both ineffective, and, harmfull.

 

What I'd say to anyone faced with the decision, is, do your own research- decide for yourself. Don't blindly listen to me, to JFKvsNixon, to your GP, or to anyone else. Do your own research, take others opinions into account, come to your own decision. It's your life, you are responsible for it, it's your decision.

 

IMO, the medical system is seriously compromised, and people are dying as a result. If patients want to blindly follow it, that's their choice as well. But, my advice is, do your own research.

[loraward]

I know you have demonstrated time and time again to not understand morals, so it is a pointless discussion. But think about it for a while and you might surprise me!

 

So you point out that it isn't a moral choice but you can't explain why. Most people would say that driving at 150MPH on the motorway would be wrong or a bad behaviour, making it immoral, which means that choosing to drive at 150MPH to it is a moral choice.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 09:16 ----------

 

I really do understand your concern- if I believed, as you do, that colonoscopies are effective, I'd be saying the same.

 

However, I believe colonoscopies are both ineffective, and, harmfull.

 

What I'd say to anyone faced with the decision, is, do your own research- decide for yourself. Don't blindly listen to me, to JFKvsNixon, to your GP, or to anyone else. Do your own research, take others opinions into account, come to your own decision. It's your life, you are responsible for it, it's your decision.

 

IMO, the medical system is seriously compromised, and people are dying as a result. If patients want to blindly follow it, that's their choice as well. But, my advice is, do your own research.

 

When you say research, I assume you mean consider the opinions of others, and I would say the opinion of a GP would supersede any opinion you find on the internet. I consider my GP to be in a better position than me to consider all the available evidence on medical matters.

[onewheeldave]

Can I have a side order of fries to go with that bad faith, dave?

?Really don't understand what you're getting at there.

I think you'll find "the rich" have their children vaccinated without issue, and that Aussies (wealthy or poor irrespective) are not forced to have their children vaccinated, on the contrary they can still refuse vaccination and assume the responsibility of their parental choice by doing something (work/earn) to compensate for the withdrawn portion of benefits.

 

I think you'll find that some rich people do think for themselves, and that some are aware all is not well with the medical system. Steve Jobs, for example, tended to make his own health choices.

 

 

 

Personal responsibility for personal choices, the way of the world since the year dot.

Yes- personal responsibility extends very much to health, hence why people should, IMO, do their own research and take advice from the medical system as what it is- advice, not gospel.

 

Once again I'll remind that I'm not against vaccination, I think there's evidence on both sides. I am against compulsory vaccination.

[JFKvsNixon]

I said the article wasn't a research paper. It contains many references to actual research papers, for example-

 

with the numbers refering tp other papers by experts, and research papers. It also points out that, for every person saved by colonoscopy, one will be killed (due to the fact that serious complications, like perforation (1 in 1000), occur in 1 in 200 colonoscopies. Usually patients are told that complications are 'extremely rare'- they are actually 1 in 200.

 

Show me the substantial research that concludes that for every one person who's life is saved by having a colonoscopy, one person is killed.

[onewheeldave]

 

When you say research, I assume you mean consider the opinions of others, and I would say the opinion of a GP would supersede any opinion you find on the internet. I consider my GP to be in a better position than me to consider all the available evidence on medical matters.

Dr Mcdougals a gp. Many medical professionals are standing up and saying the medical systems corrupted. Many would disagree with your GP. Ultimately you have to choose- choosing to blindly follow the advice of an arbitrary GP is itself a choice, especially when GPs are in deep conflict with each other.