Vaccines.

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive, there is no zero.
Smilies
:gigglesnshit: :eyebrow: :header: :woteva: :yikes: :smilin: :bawlin: :wubbers: :NAA: :canny: :trollface: :wurms: :doomed: :wubwub: :leer: :grrrrr: :more beer: :ooer: :whistle: :dafinger: :pukeup: :Hiya: :bored: :Wiiiine!: :choc: :flog: :twirl: :pmsl: :dunno: :pointlaugh: :cheers: :yess: :bum: :snooty: :thud: :shell: :shake head: :thumbsup: :hap: :hand: :shame: :popcorn: :monkey: :off head: :bell: :shoot: :mrgreen: :roll: :oops: :razz: :laughing: :cool: :kinell: :wink: :drool: :grub: :awesome: :slap: :again?: :burfday: :srs?:
View more smilies
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Vaccines.

Re: Vaccines.

Post by Guest » Mon Jul 22, 2019 2:09 pm

MungoBrush wrote:I'm glad that pharma is BIG

It costs £1.2billion to bring each new drug into the market
It takes 12 years from invention to market
Only 1 in 5,000 new drugs makes it - so the BIG PHARMA also has to fund the 4,999 drugs that don't make it.
And if the 1 in 5000 that does make it turns out to be a problem, then we need BIG PHARMA to shell out compensation.

If people want to drink some witches brew concocted by some happy clappers then that's their choice.

But advances in medicine is very expensive
And we need corporations with deep pockets to fund it.

Very well put, now wait for the “chew some willow bark or make tea with it” old wives tales cures voodoo and witchcraft trolls who think pharmaceutical companies are cunts to comment.
You will laugh, guaranteed.

Re: Vaccines.

Post by MungoBrush » Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:14 pm

I'm glad that pharma is BIG

It costs £1.2billion to bring each new drug into the market
It takes 12 years from invention to market
Only 1 in 5,000 new drugs makes it - so the BIG PHARMA also has to fund the 4,999 drugs that don't make it.
And if the 1 in 5000 that does make it turns out to be a problem, then we need BIG PHARMA to shell out compensation.

If people want to drink some witches brew concocted by some happy clappers then that's their choice.

But advances in medicine is very expensive
And we need corporations with deep pockets to fund it.

Re: Vaccines.

Post by Cannydc » Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:33 am

"I would rather listen to my GP than Dogs members"

And there's the thing - if you can't trust your GP, who can you trust ?

If there's a particularly complicated piece of legislation, it's my MP who reads it on my behalf. With medical innovations it's my doctor. By all means ask questions (but ffs not based on internet 'research') but when he replies do you really not trust what he says?

My GP wouldn't care if I only saw him once every 5 years. In fact he would be overjoyed. He isn't in the job to hand out pills, he's there because he wants to cure, to prevent disease, to alleviate pain and suffering. The idea that I should question his possible allegiance to 'Big Pharma' is simply insulting.

2 x Allopurinol
1 x Amlodipine
1 x Indapamide
1 x Ramipril

Re: Vaccines.

Post by LordRaven » Sun Jul 21, 2019 10:56 pm

calitom wrote:
LordRaven wrote:This is amusing, I can imagine Dogs readers arguing with their GP's because of the crap they read here,

When the doctor says "I am prescribing you statins" the Dogs member replies "fuck off! I read Dogs and such and such (who is clearly an expert) says they are not good for me."

Why have GP surgeries when we can all read Dogs :smilin:


Maybe the dogs people do their research...and maybe dogs readers are actually physicians??? and maybe their nephews and brother are also physicians?--with the added benefit of having a masters degree in biology?

ask questions Lord. ask questions.

statements like yours just show that you wont discuss the details. The studies are the studies no matter who reads them.Intelligent people with a high school education can read these studies if they go to the conclusion areas.I can read the whole study...but its not needed to know that statins have not been proven to be effective to anyone other than SLIGHTLY in the 40-60 age group for MALES. The rest is guesswork.
so- comments like yours about DOGS READERS telling their physicians NO just shows your own apathy re what the facts are.And its dishonest.



That is so wrong Tom, I happen to take a lot of tablets for my various conditions every single morning.
4x Meformin x 500mg
I x gliclazide
I x sitagliptin
I x Avrostatin --which I refused to take for a while
1 x Amlodopin
I was meant to take Naproxen but again refused.

What do you take daily Tom?

I would rather listen to my GP than Dogs members so let's agree to disagree

Re: Vaccines.

Post by calitom » Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:55 pm

LordRaven wrote:This is amusing, I can imagine Dogs readers arguing with their GP's because of the crap they read here,

When the doctor says "I am prescribing you statins" the Dogs member replies "fuck off! I read Dogs and such and such (who is clearly an expert) says they are not good for me."

Why have GP surgeries when we can all read Dogs :smilin:


Maybe the dogs people do their research...and maybe dogs readers are actually physicians??? and maybe their nephews and brother are also physicians?--with the added benefit of having a masters degree in biology?

ask questions Lord. ask questions.

statements like yours just show that you wont discuss the details. The studies are the studies no matter who reads them.Intelligent people with a high school education can read these studies if they go to the conclusion areas.I can read the whole study...but its not needed to know that statins have not been proven to be effective to anyone other than SLIGHTLY in the 40-60 age group for MALES. The rest is guesswork.
so- comments like yours about DOGS READERS telling their physicians NO just shows your own apathy re what the facts are.And its dishonest.

Re: Vaccines.

Post by calitom » Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:44 pm

Cannydc wrote:
Rolluplostinspace wrote:In a retrospective cohort study of adults aged 75 years or older without prior CVD, statin use did not reduce risk for CVD or all-cause mortality in those without diabetes. Read more.
https://www.healio.com/internal-medicin ... nsion-risk


Absolutely right.

And, having spoken to my GP a few days ago after someone expressed surprise that I wasn't on Statins, her comment was "we only prescribe them to people who are statistically more likely to have a heart attack - i.e. those with symptoms of blocked arteries and high cholesterol readings.

And at 10p a day, if I was a heart attack candidate I would be glad of them too.

Meanwhile, Marvin and Tom want them off the market???

Finally, I had a good laugh at the 'robot' bollocks. Some people really do need a good dose of Occam's Razor. Not that a razor and paranoia are a good pairing, of course.


i didnt say off the market .My gosh you are pathetic and lazy,.you dont read the posts. I said they were only efective(and just slightly) for MIDDLE AGED MEN WITH PRIOR HEART DISEASE. so no not off the market but not given out like candy to every Tom Dick and harry.
Canny---your laziness is no excuse for your dishonesty and lack of common sense.

Re: Vaccines.

Post by Confused.com » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:40 pm

Fletch wrote:Vaccine Safety and Immunization: Suppressing Critique, Silencing Scientific Evidence
By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null

During the past year there has been a deliberate assault on medical sanity by the Silicon Valley’s internet giants and popular social media platforms to abolish and censor voices and websites challenging the orthodoxy of the CDC’s vaccination policies. Last March, the American Medical Association’s CEO James Madara sent personal letters to the heads of Amazon, Facebook Google, Pinterest, Twitter and YouTube “to do your part to ensure that users have access to scientifically valid information on vaccinations, so they can make informed decisions about their families’ health. We also urge you to make public your plans to ensure that users have access to accurate, timely, scientifically sound information on vaccines.” For the AMA, “valid information” simply means that vaccines are completely safe and effective and the only means at civilization’s disposal for combating infectious diseases.

In 2015, the AMA publicly announced it endorsed the elimination of religious and philosophical exemptions from immunization. It is curious therefore to find that the Association’s Code of Ethics states, “Patient autonomy is the overarching ethical consideration that forms the core of informed consent.” Clearly the AMA abides by a double standard, but Association’s critics have never recognized the organization’s record as representing the public’s best interests. Instead it has a decades long history of being fully compromised by corporate interests and political influence out of Washington. And now it is again parroting the federal government’s efforts to establish a vaccine police state.

A month earlier, Democrat Representative Adam Schiff (image on the right) likewise wrote to the CEOs of Facebook and Google with similar demands. All the contacted companies have now complied with the AMA’s requests to expunge anti-vaccination content and erect the false idol of vaccine safety.

The national campaign to black-out and silence efforts to bring to public light the scientific evidence that should make a rational person stop and think critically about the federal health agencies’ claims about vaccine safety and efficacy is well under way. And it is proceeding far more swiftly than we anticipated.

Even while researching this article, we have noticed the dramatic changes underway in trying to access truthful scientific references and analyses that challenge vaccinations. Therefore, we performed

The Wiki page references CDC claims that “most studies on modern influenza vaccines have seen no link with Guillain–Barré.” This is contrary to several independent analyses of the government’s vaccine adverse reaction database conducted by Genetic Centers of America, MedCon Inc and IMUNOX confirming that GBS is a well-documented reaction to the flu vaccine. Nor is there any mention of the infamous 1976 flu vaccine debacle against the “swine flu” epidemic that never happened. Under President Ford, a Federally hyped flu scare resulted in almost 50 million Americans being unnecessarily vaccinated. Rather than protecting the population from a new swine flu strain, the $137 million vaccination program produced an epidemic of GBS cases.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including The War on Health, Poverty Inc and Silent Epidemic.


https://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccine-s ... ce/5683705

Interesting and something we see on here as well. The US is far more resistant to vaccinations than we in the UK are but noth here and there, everywhere in the west really, the moment anyone questions something they are called CT'ers.

When did we become so subservient to corporate interests?

That first paragraph makes no sense, can you try again in English please?
The second paragraph makes no sense either, is it a statement, a question or a just another daft comment?
In fact, you make no sense. Can’t you find site where posters are of a similar disposition to you?
Try absolutefruitbat.com

Re: Vaccines.

Post by Fletch » Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:32 pm

Vaccine Safety and Immunization: Suppressing Critique, Silencing Scientific Evidence
By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null

During the past year there has been a deliberate assault on medical sanity by the Silicon Valley’s internet giants and popular social media platforms to abolish and censor voices and websites challenging the orthodoxy of the CDC’s vaccination policies. Last March, the American Medical Association’s CEO James Madara sent personal letters to the heads of Amazon, Facebook Google, Pinterest, Twitter and YouTube “to do your part to ensure that users have access to scientifically valid information on vaccinations, so they can make informed decisions about their families’ health. We also urge you to make public your plans to ensure that users have access to accurate, timely, scientifically sound information on vaccines.” For the AMA, “valid information” simply means that vaccines are completely safe and effective and the only means at civilization’s disposal for combating infectious diseases.

In 2015, the AMA publicly announced it endorsed the elimination of religious and philosophical exemptions from immunization. It is curious therefore to find that the Association’s Code of Ethics states, “Patient autonomy is the overarching ethical consideration that forms the core of informed consent.” Clearly the AMA abides by a double standard, but Association’s critics have never recognized the organization’s record as representing the public’s best interests. Instead it has a decades long history of being fully compromised by corporate interests and political influence out of Washington. And now it is again parroting the federal government’s efforts to establish a vaccine police state.

A month earlier, Democrat Representative Adam Schiff (image on the right) likewise wrote to the CEOs of Facebook and Google with similar demands. All the contacted companies have now complied with the AMA’s requests to expunge anti-vaccination content and erect the false idol of vaccine safety.

The national campaign to black-out and silence efforts to bring to public light the scientific evidence that should make a rational person stop and think critically about the federal health agencies’ claims about vaccine safety and efficacy is well under way. And it is proceeding far more swiftly than we anticipated.

Even while researching this article, we have noticed the dramatic changes underway in trying to access truthful scientific references and analyses that challenge vaccinations. Therefore, we performed

The Wiki page references CDC claims that “most studies on modern influenza vaccines have seen no link with Guillain–Barré.” This is contrary to several independent analyses of the government’s vaccine adverse reaction database conducted by Genetic Centers of America, MedCon Inc and IMUNOX confirming that GBS is a well-documented reaction to the flu vaccine. Nor is there any mention of the infamous 1976 flu vaccine debacle against the “swine flu” epidemic that never happened. Under President Ford, a Federally hyped flu scare resulted in almost 50 million Americans being unnecessarily vaccinated. Rather than protecting the population from a new swine flu strain, the $137 million vaccination program produced an epidemic of GBS cases.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including The War on Health, Poverty Inc and Silent Epidemic.


https://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccine-s ... ce/5683705

Interesting and something we see on here as well. The US is far more resistant to vaccinations than we in the UK are but noth here and there, everywhere in the west really, the moment anyone questions something they are called CT'ers.

When did we become so subservient to corporate interests?

Re: Vaccines.

Post by Cannydc » Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:49 am

LordRaven wrote:This is amusing, I can imagine Dogs readers arguing with their GP's because of the crap they read here,

When the doctor says "I am prescribing you statins" the Dogs member replies "fuck off! I read Dogs and such and such (who is clearly an expert) says they are not good for me."

Why have GP surgeries when we can all read Dogs :smilin:


:pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:

But Doc, there's this tinfoil hat wearing bloke in California who says....

(Doc sighs) "Of course, he's right. We are all in the pockets of Big Pharma, and force these useless drugs on our patients so they make more profit. Mind you, at 10p per patient per day we need you all to take at least ten times the recommended dose to make a few quid. Are you in? "

As if....

Re: Vaccines.

Post by Cannydc » Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:44 am

LordRaven wrote:This is amusing, I can imagine Dogs readers arguing with their GP's because of the crap they read here,

When the doctor says "I am prescribing you statins" the Dogs member replies "fuck off! I read Dogs and such and such (who is clearly an expert) says they are not good for me."

Why have GP surgeries when we can all read Dogs :smilin:


:pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:

But Doc, there's this tinfoil hat wearing bloke in California who says....

Re: Vaccines.

Post by LordRaven » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:27 am

This is amusing, I can imagine Dogs readers arguing with their GP's because of the crap they read here,

When the doctor says "I am prescribing you statins" the Dogs member replies "fuck off! I read Dogs and such and such (who is clearly an expert) says they are not good for me."

Why have GP surgeries when we can all read Dogs :smilin:

Re: Vaccines.

Post by Cannydc » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:32 am

Rolluplostinspace wrote:In a retrospective cohort study of adults aged 75 years or older without prior CVD, statin use did not reduce risk for CVD or all-cause mortality in those without diabetes. Read more.
https://www.healio.com/internal-medicin ... nsion-risk


Absolutely right.

And, having spoken to my GP a few days ago after someone expressed surprise that I wasn't on Statins, her comment was "we only prescribe them to people who are statistically more likely to have a heart attack - i.e. those with symptoms of blocked arteries and high cholesterol readings.

And at 10p a day, if I was a heart attack candidate I would be glad of them too.

Meanwhile, Marvin and Tom want them off the market???

Finally, I had a good laugh at the 'robot' bollocks. Some people really do need a good dose of Occam's Razor. Not that a razor and paranoia are a good pairing, of course.

Re: Vaccines.

Post by calitom » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:04 am

Rolluplostinspace wrote:In a retrospective cohort study of adults aged 75 years or older without prior CVD, statin use did not reduce risk for CVD or all-cause mortality in those without diabetes. Read more.
https://www.healio.com/internal-medicin ... nsion-risk


Jack---the only study showing any effectiveness for statinsin reducing CVD(and it is very very very slight--very weak) is the study on middle aged men with prior heart disease.Other than for this group statins are not proven to provide any benefit.The only 'effect' they have is majorly effing with synthesis of necessary cholesterol production...and screwing up all sorts of chemical processes causing brain deterioration,vitamin d shortage COQ10 shortage.

PS--that thing is a bot--i agree with you. that is the only explanation for that last post..especially after the fairly detailed explanations I gave it on the subject matter previously.

Re: Vaccines.

Post by Rolluplostinspace » Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:12 am

In a retrospective cohort study of adults aged 75 years or older without prior CVD, statin use did not reduce risk for CVD or all-cause mortality in those without diabetes. Read more.
https://www.healio.com/internal-medicin ... nsion-risk

Re: Vaccines.

Post by Rolluplostinspace » Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:04 am

One cardiologist's mission to reduce statin use for cholesterol

physicians know only the prescription model. They are taught that the only truly valid proof of efficacy is a clinical trial and that everything else is conjecture. That's why pharma rules, even though the literature is full of data about the health benefits of various foods. Food does not have "dosing data."
Did you know that doctors are monitored according to whether they prescribe medications? If I don't follow the cholesterol guidelines by prescribing statins, insurers will send letters scolding me. If I don't talk to you about the cholesterol-lowering effects of walnuts and oat bran, nobody cares. Physicians even get paid more when a drug is prescribed. A medical encounter that generates a prescription is considered more complex, which qualifies for higher reimbursement. In contrast, if a physician uses some of the very limited time with patients to talk about antioxidants and omega-3 fatty acids, they get nothing more.

My solution is to give physicians, insurers and especially patients an alternative food-based option for cholesterol lowering that could compete with drugs on every level.

But given that it takes only a month of dietary change to determine whether you're a food responder, doesn't it make sense to give people the chance to at least try a validated food intervention before assigning them to a lifetime of pills? Especially since food doesn't have any side effects, just side benefits such as lower blood pressure, better blood sugar control, weight loss and feeling better.
Food is the comprehensive solution to a complex problem. And it just might put me -- and pharmaceutical companies -- out of business.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/08/heal ... index.html

Food is my main medicine for high blood pressure lower cholesterol diabetic glucose control without pills.
I've talked about it many times on this site.
In fact I talked about it a few hours back in what you eating in the arms.
Food is the best medicine for me.

Top

cron