Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[JFKvsNixon]

I'm not saying you didn't- just pointing out that this-

 

 

 

is clearly not a direct quote of-

 

 

 

The words are different- a direct quote would have 100% identical words

 

so, if you used the quote button, and, didn't change any of the words, then the quote button must be malfunctioning.

 

What I'd do, if I suspected the quote button wasn't on the ball, would be to check the quote it produced, and see if it's identical to the text you're wanting to quote- if not, I'd know something is wrong, and, if it is identical, then the jobs a good 'un.

 

Nope the quote that I responded to in my post exactly repeats the words you stated.

 

Here's post 254 with the quote I highlighted in red:

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.

 

I can see there's some extremely suspicious behaviour with the national health services over vaccines, and it’s obvious that MMR and the ‘flu jab’ are likely things to avoid totally.

 

I also find that pseudo-rationalisr/sceptic types are drawn to vaccine support and national health system apologism, bringing in a lot of intellectual-sounding but logically invalid ‘arguments’ to bolster their cause. That’s not just annoying, it’s dangerous, because they’re propping up systems that are causing great harm.

 

The NHS blocking people from acquiring B12 is appaling. It’s crazy that it’s now preventing people from using a substance that they either need, or at least stongly feel they need it, when that substance is proven beyond doubt to be harmless, and, is also very cheap.

 

That’s a clear example, possibly the clearest, of a system that is out-of-control, not fit for purpose, and, extremely dangerous.

 

Decades of managing symptoms with billions of patients on life-long medication, with illnesses that didn’t need to exist, have turned these national health systems into monsters. The tragedy is that the majority of the workers in that system, are decent honest people. These systems were created with the good intention of serving humans, now humans are serving the systems.

 

How can we take anything you say seriously when you believe that the NHS has billions of patients on life-long medication, with illnesses that didn’t need to exist.

 

It also seems that you didn't read the NICE link that you criticised earlier, so you're obviously in no position to criticise the NHS's approach to treating vitamin B12 deficiency when you have no idea what the official approach is and what the rational is behind it. So again how can we take you seriously, when your "knowledge" is gained from quick scan of a few websites?

[onewheeldave]

Nope the quote that I responded to in my post exactly repeats the words you stated.

 

Here's post 254 with the quote I highlighted in red:

 

So where's the post that you actually quoted that text then?

 

cos the quote I've got is this one-

 

the NHS has billions of patients on life-long medication, with illnesses that didn’t need to exist.

(also from post#254)

[JFKvsNixon]

So where's the post that you actually quoted that text then?

 

cos the quote I've got is this one-

 

(also from post#254)

 

I think that we're speaking different languages, so lets just agree to disagree.

[onewheeldave]

I think that we're speaking different languages, so lets just agree to disagree.

 

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

[Cyclone]

Perhaps the confusion comes from onewheeldave talking about the NHS specifically for a (long) paragraph, and then right at the bottom in the the last few sentences apparently changing his scope to include all national health systems.

 

"these national health systems"... Apparently didn't mean the NHS. Despite that being the subject of this entire thread, the rest of his paragraph and the whole discussion we are having here.

 

He fails to actually say which national health systems he IS talking about though. A very wooly use of language.

[sgtkate]

Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration (the world's most foremost body in assessing medical evidence), hopes to make clear this very problem. He is currently working to inform the world about the dangers associated with several pharmaceutical grade drugs. Based on his research, he estimates that 100,000 people in the United States alone die each year from the side-effects of correctly used prescription drugs, noting that "it's remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs." He published a paper last year in the Lancet arguing that our use of antidepressants is causing more harm than good, and taking into consideration the recent leaks regarding antidepressant drugs, it seems he is correct.

 

 

http://www.sott.net/article/312615-Prescription-drugs-are-killing-us-says-Dr-Peter-Gotzsche-and-hes-not-the-only-one

 

Nowwe have evidence we can discuss. Finally. Only been asking for it for like 7 pages... Anyway, he's absolutely right in that some drugs are misprescribed, wrongly used, have unintended side effects and on occasion can react to other meds that are being taken. And things should be done to improve all of the above. How is this related to vaccines though?

 

---------- Post added 21-02-2016 at 11:32 ----------

 

Perhaps the confusion comes from onewheeldave talking about the NHS specifically for a (long) paragraph, and then right at the bottom in the the last few sentences apparently changing his scope to include all national health systems.

 

"these national health systems"... Apparently didn't mean the NHS. Despite that being the subject of this entire thread, the rest of his paragraph and the whole discussion we are having here.

 

He fails to actually say which national health systems he IS talking about though. A very wooly use of language.

 

But as a non neuro-typical person he couldn't possibly have done that. Everything he says is absolutely clear and he never waffles or makes a mistake unlike the rest of us.

[MAC33]

The testimonies of thousands of parents reporting harm of their kids after vaccination from all around the world is not evidence?

 

Well it is to me.

 

Shame for anyone who says its not.

 

Just my thoughts.

[Cyclone]

No, it's most definitely not evidence. It's a collection of anecdotes being self reported with no control and with no medical training.

Even if there's a correlation (which I doubt) that doesn't prove causation.

 

Anyone with even a basic understanding of the scientific method would know this.

 

---------- Post added 21-02-2016 at 20:33 ----------

 

Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration (the world's most foremost body in assessing medical evidence), hopes to make clear this very problem. He is currently working to inform the world about the dangers associated with several pharmaceutical grade drugs. Based on his research, he estimates that 100,000 people in the United States alone die each year from the side-effects of correctly used prescription drugs, noting that "it's remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs." He published a paper last year in the Lancet arguing that our use of antidepressants is causing more harm than good, and taking into consideration the recent leaks regarding antidepressant drugs, it seems he is correct.

 

 

http://www.sott.net/article/312615-Prescription-drugs-are-killing-us-says-Dr-Peter-Gotzsche-and-hes-not-the-only-one

 

If 100,000 people die from side effects, but 10,000,000 are saved from a condition that would have killed them, would you use the drugs?

I would.

If it's 90% chance of death from a disease, or 5% death from the treatment I'll take the 5% please.

[Eric Arthur]

Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration (the world's most foremost body in assessing medical evidence), hopes to make clear this very problem. He is currently working to inform the world about the dangers associated with several pharmaceutical grade drugs. Based on his research, he estimates that 100,000 people in the United States alone die each year from the side-effects of correctly used prescription drugs, noting that "it's remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs." He published a paper last year in the Lancet arguing that our use of antidepressants is causing more harm than good, and taking into consideration the recent leaks regarding antidepressant drugs, it seems he is correct.

 

 

http://www.sott.net/article/312615-Prescription-drugs-are-killing-us-says-Dr-Peter-Gotzsche-and-hes-not-the-only-one

 

Does this dude, given that he "He co-founded, and has written numerous reviews within the Cochrane collaboration" count as being not a conspiracy theorist, and, therefore worthy of respect by the pseudo-rationalist/sceptic camp?

 

You respect Cochrane do you?

http://www.cochrane.org/CD004407/ARI_using-the-combined-vaccine-for-protection-of-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella

 

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.

 

Case closed.

[onewheeldave]

No, it's most definitely not evidence. It's a collection of anecdotes being self reported with no control and with no medical training.

Even if there's a correlation (which I doubt) that doesn't prove causation.

 

Anyone with even a basic understanding of the scientific method would know this.

 

---------- Post added 21-02-2016 at 20:33 ----------

 

 

If 100,000 people die from side effects, but 10,000,000 are saved from a condition that would have killed them, would you use the drugs?

I would.

If it's 90% chance of death from a disease, or 5% death from the treatment I'll take the 5% please.

 

"If" is a useful word isn't it?

 

10,000,000 saved isn't mentioned in the article- just the 100,000 dead from side effects.

 

Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration (the world's most foremost body in assessing medical evidence) and subject of the article you in the link, being a logical person and world-leading expert when it comes to medical study data says these drugs are causing a lot of harm and, in most cases, doing no good.

 

http://www.sott.net/article/312615-Prescription-drugs-are-killing-us-says-Dr-Peter-Gotzsche-and-hes-not-the-only-one

 

The most recent example of this kind of corruption in relation to antidepressants comes from a study that was published last week in the British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen. The study showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials:

[This study] confirms that the full degree of harm of antidepressants is not reported. They are not reported in the published literature, we know that - and it appears that they are not properly reported in clinical study reports that go to the regulators and from the basis of decisions about licensing. (source)

Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported. These are the reports sent to major health authorities like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

 

Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said:

We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I'm actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data.

 

---------- Post added 22-02-2016 at 00:09 ----------

 

You respect Cochrane do you?

Yes- don't you?