Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[sgtkate]

True. It was Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration (the world's most foremost body in assessing medical evidence). He knows far more about medical evidence and the accompanying appropriate procedures for processing it than you, or any other pseudo-rationalists on this thread.

 

So, why are you all picking fault with his figures? Do you really think that when he says 100,000 deaths a year, he hasn't taken into account and adjusted for, any benefits?

 

Also, he's been very clear in other writings, that he considers the drugs to be beneficial for only a tiny proportion of patients, and overall, to be counter productive.

 

He also points out that he has, because of his job, greater access to pharma companies original data than other scientists. And, he says that those 'hard to obtain' reports show the pharma companies are corrupt and bury evidence that show these facts.

 

Yet the same people who you are holding with such esteem have stated themselves that:

 

'We could assess no significant association between MMR immunisation and the following conditions: autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, or bacterial or viral infections. ' copied from Eric's post you conveniently ignored.

 

So are you going to only accept the truth when it conforms to your view of the world or are you going to accept the same research panel that you have respect for opinions with regards to vaccines? Because if you are going to use them to back up your opinions of drugs usage, then I fail to see how you can then dismiss their research into the lack of link between MMR and vaccines?

Edited February 22, 2016 by sgtkate

[Eric Arthur]

True. It was Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration (the world's most foremost body in assessing medical evidence). He knows far more about medical evidence and the accompanying appropriate procedures for processing it than you, or any other pseudo-rationalists on this thread.

 

So, why are you all picking fault with his figures? Do you really think that when he says 100,000 deaths a year, he hasn't taken into account and adjusted for, any benefits?

 

Also, he's been very clear in other writings, that he considers the drugs to be beneficial for only a tiny proportion of patients, and overall, to be counter productive.

 

He also points out that he has, because of his job, greater access to pharma companies original data than other scientists. And, he says that those 'hard to obtain' reports show the pharma companies are corrupt and bury evidence that show these facts.

You're arguing in an empty room because nobody disagrees that medication kills people.

 

 

By your own standards, through your own research, you must surely now conclude that MMR does not cause autism.

[JFKvsNixon]

True. It was Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration (the world's most foremost body in assessing medical evidence). He knows far more about medical evidence and the accompanying appropriate procedures for processing it than you, or any other pseudo-rationalists on this thread.

 

So, why are you all picking fault with his figures? Do you really think that when he says 100,000 deaths a year, he hasn't taken into account and adjusted for, any benefits?

 

Also, he's been very clear in other writings, that he considers the drugs to be beneficial for only a tiny proportion of patients, and overall, to be counter productive.

 

He also points out that he has, because of his job, greater access to pharma companies original data than other scientists. And, he says that those 'hard to obtain' reports show the pharma companies are corrupt and bury evidence that show these facts.

 

I think that you need to bear in mind how different the system is in America than it is here in the UK.

 

In America there is usually four different parties involved with someones healthcare. The patient, the healthcare provider, the drug company and the insurance company.

 

The drug companies advertise strongly in the US, this advertising persuades many people that they have a problem and there is an answer to their problem, which is a drug sold by the drug company. So then people approach their doctor for a prescription.

 

The relationship between a doctor and a patient in America is very different from the one here in the UK. In the US, the doctor is selling a service and the patient is a customer. So the doctor can be a lot more open to the patients requests for prescription drugs, rather than just considering the patient's medical needs. So they're far more likely to issue a prescription.

 

There is also nothing stopping the patient approaching as many doctors as they want until they get the prescription that they want, or as many prescriptions as they wish, which leads to people being prescribed drugs that react with each other such as multiple prescriptions for painkillers.

 

There is also the relationship between the insurance company and all the other parties, because a lot of the people who access regular medications will get them funded by the insurance companies then many feel like that they're given a blank cheque to spend as they wish.

 

This had led to a situation where people in America have become consumers of medications, and it's this situation that has led to the massive over prescription of drugs in the US.

 

This is one of the reasons that I'm a big champion of systems like the NHS, where the relationship between the healthcare providers, the patients and the drug companies are totally different. Here also we have robust rules regarding advertising, so if a drug company makes a claim in one of their adverts, they have to produce the evidence to support that claim, the drug companies don't want to do this so it's one of the reasons they don't advertise heavily here in the UK.

 

So I'll agree with you that health care in the US is a mess and something that we need to avoid at all costs, but the problems that they have are not replicated to the same degrees by other health care systems around the world.

Edited February 22, 2016 by JFKvsNixon

[Obelix]

True. It was Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration (the world's most foremost body in assessing medical evidence). He knows far more about medical evidence and the accompanying appropriate procedures for processing it than you, or any other pseudo-rationalists on this thread.

 

So, why are you all picking fault with his figures? Do you really think that when he says 100,000 deaths a year, he hasn't taken into account and adjusted for, any benefits?

 

Get this through your head. No one is currently picking faults with his figures. At all. Just because we disagree with the context and the article it doesn't mean we are (at present) picking faults with his figures. You need to understand that, and why people think that BEFORE carrying on with your usual approach.

 

Now are you saying that he says there would be 100,000 fewer deaths if people didn't take drugs? Because that's not what the quotes say at all. Of course since they don't reference where he said them we cannot make any further sense of them.

 

Also, he's been very clear in other writings, that he considers the drugs to be beneficial for only a tiny proportion of patients, and overall, to be counter productive.

 

And these writings are? Can we have a reference please - and DONT just say "google it" it's up to YOU to provide evidence in support of your claims, and I'm sorry you don't get a wriggle out because you claim that not being NT you have trouble processing big documents. You've proven time and again you can be selectively very good at that when it suits your argument.

 

So please - can we have a reference for this claim.

 

He also points out that he has, because of his job, greater access to pharma companies original data than other scientists. And, he says that those 'hard to obtain' reports show the pharma companies are corrupt and bury evidence that show these facts.

 

And again, can we have a reference to this claim of his?

 

Thanks.

[Cyclone]

Don't forget, being not neurotypical OWD doesn't misuse or misunderstand language.

[onewheeldave]

 

By your own standards, through your own research, you must surely now conclude that MMR does not cause autism.

 

I've not done anywhere near enough research to have an opinion on whether MMR does/doesn't cause MMR. As I said in post #250

 

I research a lot of stuff to do with health, diet etc.

 

These things are very complex, and, as you will fully realise, getting closer to truth takes a lot of time and energy (especially as there is a great deal of misinformation, distortion and suppression, due to the financial interests of the pharmaceutical & food industries).

 

So I have to prioritise- things like diet, b12 issue and why the NHS is so far removed from being a 'health' service, all affect me greatly, so that's what I spend my time researching.

 

Vaccinations, MMR etc I'm primarily interested in due to things like the NHS trying to coerce parents into getting their child/ren MMR'd, and refusing them the very reasonable alternative of seperate vaccinations.

 

Of course I defend the right of every parent to not have their child vaccinated- in general, I'm pro-choice.

 

But, as to whether vaccines per se are bad or good, I really couldn't say- I've simply not researched it to the extent that would be necessary. TBH, it's a low priority as I know I certainly won't be getting vaccinated, and, having no children, I won't have to face that decision either.

 

 

 

........[snipped]

 

 

I accept that the Cochrane Collaboration came out against a link. Personally I've not done enough research to have an opinion one way or the other. My gut feeling is that, personally, I won't be having vaccinations.

 

Just because I have respect for Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, does not mean I knee-jerk accept everything that the Cochrane Collaboration come out with.

 

But- you guys, supposedly do, with it being so respected when it comes to medical study expertise. So, given that the founder of said organisation is now heavily critical of several important aspects of modern evidence based medicine, I thought you might be interested in checking him out.

 

---------- Post added 22-02-2016 at 18:21 ----------

 

Yet the same people who you are holding with such esteem have stated themselves that:

 

'We could assess no significant association between MMR immunisation and the following conditions: autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, or bacterial or viral infections. ' copied from Eric's post you conveniently ignored.

 

So are you going to only accept the truth when it conforms to your view of the world or are you going to accept the same research panel that you have respect for opinions with regards to vaccines? Because if you are going to use them to back up your opinions of drugs usage, then I fail to see how you can then dismiss their research into the lack of link between MMR and vaccines?

 

As above- the Cochrane Collaboration and the current views of it's co-founder Dr. Peter Gotzsche are not identical.

 

---------- Post added 22-02-2016 at 18:30 ----------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And again, can we have a reference to this claim of his?

 

Thanks.

 

http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/dr-peter-gotzsche-exposes-big-pharma-as-organized-crime/

 

The main reason we take so many drugs is that drug companies don t sell drugs, they sell lies about drugs. This is what makes drugs so different from anything else in life… Virtually everything we know about drugs is what the companies have chosen to tell us and our doctors… the reason patients trust their medicine is that they extrapolate the trust they have in their doctors into the medicines they prescribe.

 

The patients don’t realize that, although their doctors may know a lot about diseases and human physiology and psychology, they know very, very little about drugs that hasn’t been carefully concocted and dressed up by the drug industry… If you don t think the system is out of control, please email me and explain why drugs are the third leading cause of death… If such a hugely lethal epidemic had been caused by a new bacterium or a virus,or even one-hundredth of it, we would have done everything we could to get it under control.

 

- See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/dr-peter-gotzsche-exposes-big-pharma-as-organized-crime/#sthash.CtGkbKBM.dpuf

 

There's a video of Peter explaining his position, on the page. He covers the widespread corruption in healthcare systems throughout the world, not just the USA, but throughout most of the major healthcare systems, including his own (Denmark).

 

---------- Post added 22-02-2016 at 18:37 ----------

 

I think that you need to bear in mind how different the system is in America than it is here in the UK.

 

In America there is usually four different parties involved with someones healthcare. The patient, the healthcare provider, the drug company and the insurance company.

 

The drug companies advertise strongly in the US, this advertising persuades many people that they have a problem and there is an answer to their problem, which is a drug sold by the drug company. So then people approach their doctor for a prescription.

 

The relationship between a doctor and a patient in America is very different from the one here in the UK. In the US, the doctor is selling a service and the patient is a customer. So the doctor can be a lot more open to the patients requests for prescription drugs, rather than just considering the patient's medical needs. So they're far more likely to issue a prescription.

 

There is also nothing stopping the patient approaching as many doctors as they want until they get the prescription that they want, or as many prescriptions as they wish, which leads to people being prescribed drugs that react with each other such as multiple prescriptions for painkillers.

 

There is also the relationship between the insurance company and all the other parties, because a lot of the people who access regular medications will get them funded by the insurance companies then many feel like that they're given a blank cheque to spend as they wish.

 

This had led to a situation where people in America have become consumers of medications, and it's this situation that has led to the massive over prescription of drugs in the US.

 

This is one of the reasons that I'm a big champion of systems like the NHS, where the relationship between the healthcare providers, the patients and the drug companies are totally different. Here also we have robust rules regarding advertising, so if a drug company makes a claim in one of their adverts, they have to produce the evidence to support that claim, the drug companies don't want to do this so it's one of the reasons they don't advertise heavily here in the UK.

 

So I'll agree with you that health care in the US is a mess and something that we need to avoid at all costs, but the problems that they have are not replicated to the same degrees by other health care systems around the world.

 

A well considered post. I pretty much agree with you about the UK/USA health system differences. I especially agree with your recognition of the adverse affects on the health system of insurance companies (in the USA).

 

The NHS is finished- it will have to become something different, it could well move towards the US model.

 

Dr. Peter Gotzsche is more covering the huge corruption of most national health systems due to their ties to the pharmaceutical industry- this does affect the UK NHS.

 

---------- Post added 22-02-2016 at 18:38 ----------

 

You're arguing in an empty room because nobody disagrees that medication kills people.

 

I know. I'm not responding to strawman arguments though.

Edited February 22, 2016 by onewheeldave

[MAC33]

Sgtkate.......temporarily escaped from the matrix a week back.....but alas.....thru more 'science' based propaganda that he is drip fed fed by Obelix,Cyclone and other non conspiratorial members he has returned!

 

NIST is a science based body--- caught lying through their teeth regarding the events of that fateful day.

 

Therefore other 'science' based organisations are surely capable of doing the same.

 

Whichever body controls 'science' based evidence sgtkate....has your thoughts and beliefs in their vice like grip.

 

When i read their BS claims on the merits of vaccination--it's water off a ducks back to me. You sadly are unable to see it for what it is.

 

Was there not a famous quote about a scientific dictatorship controlling the masses?

 

His story or history is written by the winners.

 

 

 

“The twenty-first century will be the era of the World Controllers… The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles, and mysteries. Under a scientific dictatorship, education will really work…most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.” – Aldous Huxley, from his book Brave New World Revisited

Edited February 22, 2016 by MAC33

[onewheeldave]

Once again you are just picking on a single point and waving it around and going "look, it's abig number its baaaaaad"

 

But without any context whatsover, it's irrelevant. The article doesnt provide any deatils whatsover, it just waves about a big number to look scarey. The correct response to that is "so what?"

 

100,000 a year dying is only a problem if there is no net reduction in morbidity and mortality.

 

When you look at the other side of the coin then it's far more useful. But if 100,000 a year die, and 1 million a year live, then it's a far better situation.

 

Of course the "article" doesnt say anysuch at all. It's not even talked to the good Dr. For all we know it's cherry picked his quotes to make it look bad. It doesnt say when or where such quotes came from. It doesnt reference the articles or symposia where they were said. It's worthless.

 

So again I say

 

So what?

Fair enough. I know it does not misrepresent Dr. Peter Gotzsche as I've seen many videos of him talking and giving lectures.

 

I know you guys don't accept video links, so, that's that.

 

My main motivation in introducing him was my, clearly incorrect, assumption that anyone who considered themselves to be a rationalist, would be very interested in following up a person like Dr. Peter Gotzsche when they hear he's giving public lectures expressing his view that the relationship between healthcare systems and the pharmaceuticals are criminally (his words) corrupt) and that many common drugs are doing more harm to patients than good.

 

---------- Post added 22-02-2016 at 18:56 ----------

 

 

 

And these writings are? Can we have a reference please

 

He's written a book-

 

"Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare"

by Peter Gotzsche

 

Here's the cover:

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Deadly-Medicines-Organised-Crime-Healthcare/dp/1846198844

 

I think we tell tell from the title that he has a serious issue with certain drugs and how they're prescribed

 

I can't give you links to papers- I watch videos, I like to see the person talking, it helps me decide whether I can trust them.

 

I don't bother noting which videos I've watched, as I know that you guys don't accept videos as evidence.

 

If you have started accepting videos, let me know, and, in future, I'll note down what I'm watching.

[Eric Arthur]

The cherry picking is hysterical. There's material for a case study in delusional behaviour right here.

[onewheeldave]

The cherry picking is hysterical. There's material for a case study in delusional behaviour right here.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-reference

 

I think you're probably right Eric