Doctors agree with censored study that concludes unvaccinated children ...

[BADecker]

Doctors agree with censored study that concludes unvaccinated children ...

The assertion that vaccines may cause systematic changes to children's immune and nervous systems is accepted as a possibility by a large number of doctors, including many who consider themselves "pro-vaccine."

"If you don't ask the right questions, you can't find the right answers," said Tommy Redwood, MD, an emergency room doctor in Atlanta, Georgia, with 26 years of medical experience. "If you summarily dismiss the possibility that the increasing rates of childhood illnesses, including ADD, autism, asthma and other auto-immune disorders are connected to vaccines, you can't figure out if our children's health problems are vaccine-related injuries."

Redwood says he suspects that over-vaccination plays a role in the worsening health outcomes seen among children in recent decades.

Chronic disease risk higher

The most recent, peer-reviewed study was accepted for publication by the journal Frontiers in Public Health, according to Jennifer Margulis, PhD. The study was assigned a DOI number and the abstract published on the journal's website. Several days later, all signs of the study vanished from the site without explanation

Margulis is the author of Your Baby, Your Way and the co-author (with Dr. Paul Thomas, M.D.) of The Vaccine-Friendly Plan.

According to Margulis, the abstract described a study comparing health outcomes of 660 fully vaccinated or fully unvaccinated children between the ages of 6 and 12 living in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon. Information was collected via parental survey in 2012.

The researchers found that while unvaccinated children were significantly more likely to get chickenpox and pertussis (whooping cough), they were significantly less likely to have allergies, ear infections, pneumonia, or central nervous system disorders (including autism) than the fully vaccinated children.

Indeed, vaccinated children had twice the risk of chronic illness and four times the risk of autism, learning disabilities, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Vaccinated children who had been born prematurely were six times more likely to suffer from autism or other central nervous disorders than unvaccinated children.

Several prior surveys of parents comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children have shown similar results.

Doctors call for more research

The reality of vaccine injury is obvious to many doctors, such as integrative physician Kelly Sutton MD of Fair Oaks, California. Sutton says she sees vaccine-injured patients every day.

"It's not a rational thing to think that we can just give an ever-increasing number of vaccines without causing damage," Sutton said. "There's a tipping point for many people in terms of the toxins that they can handle."

Sutton says she regularly hears from parents who chose to leave younger children unvaccinated that the unvaccinated children in the same family have better health, social adjustment and academic performance than their vaccinated siblings.

Bose Ravenel, MD, of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, used to scoff at the idea of a connection between vaccines and autism. But after examining the scientific data for himself, the 78-year-old doctor said he could no longer support the party line.

"There is clearly a relationship between vaccines and autism," Ravenel said. "But to say that 'vaccines cause autism' is an inaccurate, non-nuanced statement. At the same time, to say that 'vaccines don't cause autism' is also inaccurate. In certain conditions, like with mitochondrial dysfunction, vaccines certainly can cause autism or contribute to it."

Ravenel supports research into the risks of vaccines in order to find ways to improve their safety.

Such perspectives are common among "pro-vaccine" doctors who are willing to examine the research without bias. A similar line is taken by neuroscientist Rene Anand of Ohio State University.

Read more and click the links at http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-01-08-doctors-agree-with-study-that-concludes-unvaccinated-children-are-healthier-than-vaccinated-children.html.

[1714066209]

1714066209

[1714066209]

1714066209

[1714066209]

1714066209

[protokol]

OK, let's do some critical analysis on this article.

Firstly, it is well known (and pretty obvious) that naturalnews.com is a seriously questionable source when it comes to professional medical advice. You only need to look at how much they rely on dodgy ads (and a specific demographic of readers that lap up this anti-establishment/alternative medicine/anti Big Pharma journalism) to get an idea of how they make money. Just look at the sidebar ads on this page alone.

But let's give them the benefit of the doubt this time, and actually check the sources for the article. It claims, that a doctor (Jennifer Margulis, PhD) claims, that a paper was published in the journal "Frontiers in Public Health", and then removed without explanation. OK, so now we check what sort of a "doctor" Jennifer Margulis is.

Margulis has a B.A. in English literature and Russian language from Cornell University, a Master’s in Comparative Literature from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in English

source: http://kindredmedia.org/author/jennifer-margulis-phd/

Right, the plot thickens... she's not a medical doctor at all, just a journalist with a BA in Engish and Russian, and a doctorate in English. Hmm, this is where alarm bells start to ring.

Then we can look up some information on the journal itself, "Frontiers in Public Health". While it is a peer-reviewed journal, it has had many criticisms and even been added (albeit controversially) to a "blacklist of questionable publications" by another academic, Jeffrey Beall. source:

http://www.nature.com/news/backlash-after-frontiers-journals-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers-1.18639

So both the "doctor" and the journal are now both sounding less reputable than the article implies. But, lets give them both the benefit of the doubt and look at the details given on the paper itself:

the abstract described a study comparing health outcomes of 660 fully vaccinated or fully unvaccinated children between the ages of 6 and 12 living in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon. Information was collected via parental survey in 2012.

Ding ding ding!! This is where we start to really see how unreliable the source for the article is. Any bonafide medical doctor or scientist will tell you that "parental surveys" are an incredibly questionable source of data for any study, (and I wouldn't be surprised if this was the reason that the paper was pulled from publication). Not to mention that the sample was taken from a rather specific section of the population, limited to a few of the more backward States of America (OK, OK, citation needed for that  )

The article doesn't quote any other studies, but goes on to mention a few other "doctors" that agree with the findings, that all seem just as sketchy as good old doctor of English and controversial journalist, Jennifer Margulis. I could probably find a bunch of dirt on them too, but I can't be bothered to investigate further as the article has already lost most of its credibility.

While I would personally agree that studies into the potential dangers of vaccination should continue (even if just to socially educate people), this article stinks.

I haven't done much research into vaccines causing "ADD/ADHD, asthma and other auto-immune disorders", but there are some very meticulous and thorough studies that suggest that vaccines absolutely do not cause autism. For example, here is the abstract of a meta-analysis of 10 studies involving over 1.2 million children:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

And an article explaining it: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/final-nail-coffin-vaccine-autism-myth/

My personal opinion is that in recent years, a greater understanding of autism and ADHD type disorders has led to an increase in their diagnosis. Most children get vaccinated, and if even a small percentage of these children develop autism or ADHD, it's understandable (but incorrect) that the parents could make a false assumption that one had caused the other.

Imagine you started feeding your kid solid food, perhaps PB & J sandwiches for the first time in their life, and a few months later they got some weird disease. Then you read about other parents who did the same thing, and their kids got the same disease. That absolutely doesn't mean that PB & J sandwiches gave them the disease, it was just a coincidence, but these parents get sucked into this filter bubble/echo chamber, and suddenly everything they're reading and hearing is confirming what they suspected. It's called confirmation bias, and is extremely easy to succumb to on the internet.

Moral of the story is, check your sources thoroughly and be extremely careful with websites like "naturalnews.com" - they are using you as a means of making money, and they themselves probably don't believe the majority of the shit they post.

[Sithara007]

Moral of the story is, check your sources thoroughly and be extremely careful with websites like "naturalnews.com" - they are using you as a means of making money, and they themselves probably don't believe the majority of the shit they post.

Exactly. IMO, the government must prosecute the owners of these websites for attempting to harm the health of the people. Anyone who advocates against the usage of modern medicine deserves criminal prosecution.

[IIOII]

Moral of the story is, check your sources thoroughly and be extremely careful with websites like "naturalnews.com" - they are using you as a means of making money, and they themselves probably don't believe the majority of the shit they post.

Exactly. IMO, the government must prosecute the owners of these websites for attempting to harm the health of the people. Anyone who advocates against the usage of modern medicine deserves criminal prosecution.

I'm not sure if this is irony or not.

Assuming that ''modern medicine" is always right is insane. Modern medicine may have preserved the life of many, but there have also been catastrophic mistakes, even advocated by highest rank authorities in the field (e.g. think of prefrontal lobotomy).

Vaccination related negative health conditions are a reality. Today they are assumed to be very rare, but comparative long term assessment of vaccination-related health status is largely unavailable.

Without commenting on the particular study in question, assuming a publication bias is at least plausible, because there is significant capital allocated in the vaccination industry.

The decision to receive vaccination or not should be made freely by every single individual.

[hamiltonik]

Moral of the story is, check your sources thoroughly and be extremely careful with websites like "naturalnews.com" - they are using you as a means of making money, and they themselves probably don't believe the majority of the shit they post.

Exactly. IMO, the government must prosecute the owners of these websites for attempting to harm the health of the people. Anyone who advocates against the usage of modern medicine deserves criminal prosecution.

The prosecution is not correct. Person has the right to dispose of their health. Another thing is that if the person refuses vaccination, he represents the threat of the epidemic. He needs to pay for insurance in case of illness.

[protokol]

Moral of the story is, check your sources thoroughly and be extremely careful with websites like "naturalnews.com" - they are using you as a means of making money, and they themselves probably don't believe the majority of the shit they post.

Exactly. IMO, the government must prosecute the owners of these websites for attempting to harm the health of the people. Anyone who advocates against the usage of modern medicine deserves criminal prosecution.

I'm not sure if this is irony or not.

Assuming that ''modern medicine" is always right is insane. Modern medicine may have preserved the life of many, but there have also been catastrophic mistakes, even advocated by highest rank authorities in the field (e.g. think of prefrontal lobotomy).

Vaccination related negative health conditions are a reality. Today they are assumed to be very rare, but comparative long term assessment of vaccination-related health status is largely unavailable.

Without commenting on the particular study in question, assuming a publication bias is at least plausible, because there is significant capital allocated in the vaccination industry.

The decision to receive vaccination or not should be made freely by every single individual.

You're right in saying that we shouldn't just trust modern medicine/Big Pharma, because they have made huge mistakes in the past (eg the Thalidomide catastrophe) and are known to sometimes be corrupt (eg withholding data that shows their drugs to be ineffective, as is the case with Roche and their Tamiflu drug).

But that doesn't mean that everything Big Pharma makes is dangerous or ineffective. We just need to be careful, and study the actual data and evidence, rather than rely on hearsay.

comparative long term assessment of vaccination-related health status is largely unavailable.

Well, the eradication/control of many diseases such as smallpox, polio, yellow fever, measles and many more constitute a long term assessment that vaccines are effective. You can compare the data and see the correlation quite clearly.

There are also many studies/research into the side effects of vaccines (such as the research I linked in my post regarding autism), and the general consensus is that it's far safer to get vaccinated than not, even though there are minuscule chances for allergic reactions.

I don't like the idea of too much state involvement in people's personal lives, but I also don't believe herd immunity should be compromised because some parents refuse to vaccinate their children - it puts others in danger that may not be able to be vaccinated for real medical reasons (such as allergic reactions)

I don't think full on prosecution of parents is fair, but I do think they should be "persuaded" to vaccinate - for example some countries have started stopping welfare/benefits for parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. That seems like a good idea to me.

[tvbcof]

...
I don't like the idea of too much state involvement in people's personal lives, but I also don't believe herd immunity should be compromised because some parents refuse to vaccinate their children - it puts others in danger that may not be able to be vaccinated for real medical reasons (such as allergic reactions)

I don't think full on prosecution of parents is fair, but I do think they should be "persuaded" to vaccinate - for example some countries have started stopping welfare/benefits for parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. That seems like a good idea to me.

The wealthy and affluent are the ones who are most resistant to vaccinating their kids.  They have the time are resources to do the research, and in some cases are probably well aware of the game and evil enough to be in favor of it.  And they don't need your stinkin' welfare checks.  The kids of this 1% class need to compete against others in their peer group so it is a non-starter to physically damage them with vaccines.  In fact the gauntlet that your average rich-kid runs (fast cars, quality drugs, etc) is already nearly as dangerous as most of the inner city youth face.

The rate set for 'herd immunity' is completely flexible and has varied a lot depending on pharma needs.  The elite 1% kids can easily be slipped into whatever cracks need to be opened up.  A handful of doctors can be chosen to issue waivers, and with 'privacy' laws things could be pretty much completely opaque.  A very interesting study even right now would be to compare the titer levels of the affluent teens vs. the 99%.

It's actually a rather clever system design to:

 - 'persuade' (aka, 'extort') the needy into poisoning their offspring using welfare checks as the carrot.

 - force the middle class to:

    - foot the bill for the welfare check extortion

    - sicken their own kids

    - join the ranks of the needy once all of their property and savings have been handed over to the 1%

Through it all the controllers can harvest the bizzaro autists who pop out.  Classroom bio-metric feedback collection anyone?  Being generally bereft of normal ethical potential and sometimes unusually bright in some ways, such 'human resources' can make very capable technocrats.  Just need to sieve them out.

When this cycle is complete and the middle class is history, the non-useful 'human resources' can be disposed of.  They'll have limited means of resistance being mentally damaged, sick, and totally dependent on the corp/gov state.

[Balthazar]

Moral of the story is, check your sources thoroughly and be extremely careful with websites like "naturalnews.com" - they are using you as a means of making money, and they themselves probably don't believe the majority of the shit they post.

Exactly. IMO, the government must prosecute the owners of these websites for attempting to harm the health of the people. Anyone who advocates against the usage of modern medicine deserves criminal prosecution.

The prosecution is not correct. Person has the right to dispose of their health. Another thing is that if the person refuses vaccination, he represents the threat of the epidemic. He needs to pay for insurance in case of illness.

That assumption is not entirely correct, since person has no right to risk lives of other people. There is a thing called collective immunity. One who are applying vaccination is protecting not only himself, but he also provides protection to those who either have weak immune response or can't be immunized due to medical contraindications. It is our civil responsibility to ensure that infection will not spread through us to the most vulnerable members of our society, such us children, elders or disabled people. If somebody denies that simple fact then he should be exiled to uninhabitable island.

[tvbcof]

Moral of the story is, check your sources thoroughly and be extremely careful with websites like "naturalnews.com" - they are using you as a means of making money, and they themselves probably don't believe the majority of the shit they post.

Exactly. IMO, the government must prosecute the owners of these websites for attempting to harm the health of the people. Anyone who advocates against the usage of modern medicine deserves criminal prosecution.

The prosecution is not correct. Person has the right to dispose of their health. Another thing is that if the person refuses vaccination, he represents the threat of the epidemic. He needs to pay for insurance in case of illness.

That assumption is not entirely correct, since person has no right to risk lives of other people. There is a thing called collective immunity. One who are applying vaccination is protecting not only himself, but he also provides protection to those who either have weak immune response or can't be immunized due to medical contraindications. It is our civil responsibility to ensure that infection will not spread through us to the most vulnerable members of our society, such us children, elders or disabled people. If somebody denies that simple fact then he should be exiled to uninhabitable island.

Qualitatively at least you are telling me that I need to sicken myself in order to offset the risk of someone else who has a regrettable deficiency which I have nothing to do with.  Or simply the power to buy their way out.  Screw that!

Logically speaking, the tiny minority with the supposed deficiency should be the ones who are 'exiled to an uninhabitable island'.  Being a classical liberal rather than an indoctrinated collectivist totalitarian wannabe, however, I don't wish malice upon them and would favor more humanitarian conditions.

If I felt confident that the risk/reward of 'doing good' by someone who has misfortune was transparently and accurately calculated, I very well might do just that.  This is not AT ALL the case with the medical/industrial complex in this country at this time.  Fix that problem BEFORE you force-march people into the the clinic to get whatever big-pharma wishes injected into their bloodstream.  Or expect significant resistance.

[protokol]

Moral of the story is, check your sources thoroughly and be extremely careful with websites like "naturalnews.com" - they are using you as a means of making money, and they themselves probably don't believe the majority of the shit they post.

Exactly. IMO, the government must prosecute the owners of these websites for attempting to harm the health of the people. Anyone who advocates against the usage of modern medicine deserves criminal prosecution.

The prosecution is not correct. Person has the right to dispose of their health. Another thing is that if the person refuses vaccination, he represents the threat of the epidemic. He needs to pay for insurance in case of illness.

That assumption is not entirely correct, since person has no right to risk lives of other people. There is a thing called collective immunity. One who are applying vaccination is protecting not only himself, but he also provides protection to those who either have weak immune response or can't be immunized due to medical contraindications. It is our civil responsibility to ensure that infection will not spread through us to the most vulnerable members of our society, such us children, elders or disabled people. If somebody denies that simple fact then he should be exiled to uninhabitable island.

[...]sicken myself in order to offset the risk of someone else who has a regrettable deficiency which I have nothing to do with.  Or simply the power to buy their way out.  Screw that!

Logically speaking, the tiny minority with the supposed deficiency should be the ones who are 'exiled to an uninhabitable island'.  Being a classical liberal rather than an indoctrinated collectivist totalitarian wannabe, however, I don't wish malice upon them and would favor more humanitarian conditions.
[...]

Bolded by me.

You say "sicken yourself" but all the reputable data shows us that you are not in fact sickening yourself by getting vaccinated. You are actually protecting yourself and others by getting vaccinated. There are small children (too young to get vaccinated), not just people who have medical conditions that prevent themselves from getting vaccinated, and by refusing vaccination you are putting them at risk. You are sounding a little like you condone ethnic/genetic cleansing.

Your posts so far in this thread have been hyperbole/personal opinion, and you haven't added any actual evidence to back up your claims. At least I analysed the OP's article and showed the glaring holes in it, demonstrated how certain media outlets with a money making agenda profit from the disinformation and misleading sources, and posted some very thorough conflicting evidence that vaccines are relatively safe.

If they are so dangerous and cause diseases, where is the evidence for that? Where are all the people dying from vaccination, a common process in the modern world that is used on the vast majority of the population?

I already said that I believe that increasing diagnoses of ADHD and autism are almost certainly a result of increased understanding in the conditions, not due to any vaccination poisoning or other such unsubstantiated nonsense. In past, sufferers of conditions like these would have been branded "imbeciles", "idiots" or "cretins", and probably sent to psychiatric wards for the rest of their lives.

Smallpox was eradicated from the Earth due to vaccination (pretty much, some strains still exist in high security virology labs, but the general population doesn't suffer from it because it was destroyed through vaccination programmes). That in itself is a some pretty thorough evidence that some vaccines at least work as they should. Many other serious diseases are now under control through vaccination.

If you have any proper, reputable peer reviewed evidence that vaccines cause any sort of disease then why not post that, instead of your own personal conspiracy theories? And don't Gish Gallop, just post the single best piece of research/study/meta-analysis you can find and we'll analyse and debate its scientific trustworthiness.

[tvbcof]

...
I already said that I believe ...

Who cares what you said, or how many times you said it?

What you and yours say is as often as not a dead match for what Sharyl Attkisson in her TEDx talk here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

I've already said that I've listened intently to at least 100 presentations from real medical doctors and scientists who unhappy enough to torpedo their careers by speaking out.  And I've read a lot more.  In point of fact, it's getting obvious enough by this time that your rapidly expanding vaccination regime is fucking up a lot of people's immune systems and contributing to a cascade of problems.

Anyone who pays much attention to contentious scienctific debates in our time (vaccinations, GMOs, global climate change, etc) recognizes 'peer review' as a laughable circle-jerk which means little or nothing when corporate money is involved and corporate profits are on the line.

Do you have a particular problem that made you clip my rather common sense suggestion?"

If I felt confident that the risk/reward of 'doing good' by someone who has misfortune was transparently and accurately calculated, I very well might do just that.  This is not AT ALL the case with the medical/industrial complex in this country at this time.  Fix that problem BEFORE you force-march people into the the clinic to get whatever big-pharma wishes injected into their bloodstream.  Or expect significant resistance.

[BADecker]

OK, let's do some critical analysis on this article.

Firstly, it is well known (and pretty obvious) that naturalnews.com is a seriously questionable source when it comes to professional medical advice. You only need to look at how much they rely on dodgy ads (and a specific demographic of readers that lap up this anti-establishment/alternative medicine/anti Big Pharma journalism) to get an idea of how they make money. Just look at the sidebar ads on this page alone.

But let's give them the benefit of the doubt this time, and actually check the sources for the article. It claims, that a doctor (Jennifer Margulis, PhD) claims, that a paper was published in the journal "Frontiers in Public Health", and then removed without explanation. OK, so now we check what sort of a "doctor" Jennifer Margulis is.

Margulis has a B.A. in English literature and Russian language from Cornell University, a Master’s in Comparative Literature from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in English

source: http://kindredmedia.org/author/jennifer-margulis-phd/

Right, the plot thickens... she's not a medical doctor at all, just a journalist with a BA in Engish and Russian, and a doctorate in English. Hmm, this is where alarm bells start to ring.

Then we can look up some information on the journal itself, "Frontiers in Public Health". While it is a peer-reviewed journal, it has had many criticisms and even been added (albeit controversially) to a "blacklist of questionable publications" by another academic, Jeffrey Beall. source:

http://www.nature.com/news/backlash-after-frontiers-journals-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers-1.18639

So both the "doctor" and the journal are now both sounding less reputable than the article implies. But, lets give them both the benefit of the doubt and look at the details given on the paper itself:

the abstract described a study comparing health outcomes of 660 fully vaccinated or fully unvaccinated children between the ages of 6 and 12 living in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon. Information was collected via parental survey in 2012.

Ding ding ding!! This is where we start to really see how unreliable the source for the article is. Any bonafide medical doctor or scientist will tell you that "parental surveys" are an incredibly questionable source of data for any study, (and I wouldn't be surprised if this was the reason that the paper was pulled from publication). Not to mention that the sample was taken from a rather specific section of the population, limited to a few of the more backward States of America (OK, OK, citation needed for that  )

The article doesn't quote any other studies, but goes on to mention a few other "doctors" that agree with the findings, that all seem just as sketchy as good old doctor of English and controversial journalist, Jennifer Margulis. I could probably find a bunch of dirt on them too, but I can't be bothered to investigate further as the article has already lost most of its credibility.

While I would personally agree that studies into the potential dangers of vaccination should continue (even if just to socially educate people), this article stinks.

I haven't done much research into vaccines causing "ADD/ADHD, asthma and other auto-immune disorders", but there are some very meticulous and thorough studies that suggest that vaccines absolutely do not cause autism. For example, here is the abstract of a meta-analysis of 10 studies involving over 1.2 million children:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

And an article explaining it: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/final-nail-coffin-vaccine-autism-myth/

My personal opinion is that in recent years, a greater understanding of autism and ADHD type disorders has led to an increase in their diagnosis. Most children get vaccinated, and if even a small percentage of these children develop autism or ADHD, it's understandable (but incorrect) that the parents could make a false assumption that one had caused the other.

Imagine you started feeding your kid solid food, perhaps PB & J sandwiches for the first time in their life, and a few months later they got some weird disease. Then you read about other parents who did the same thing, and their kids got the same disease. That absolutely doesn't mean that PB & J sandwiches gave them the disease, it was just a coincidence, but these parents get sucked into this filter bubble/echo chamber, and suddenly everything they're reading and hearing is confirming what they suspected. It's called confirmation bias, and is extremely easy to succumb to on the internet.

Moral of the story is, check your sources thoroughly and be extremely careful with websites like "naturalnews.com" - they are using you as a means of making money, and they themselves probably don't believe the majority of the shit they post.

I don't have the time right now to answer everything you have said. But in general, all the things that you say can be applied in just the opposite way.

The whole medical and university set-up is to promote making money. This includes hiding as much of the truth about how they are damaging people for profit, as well as limiting the cures for that same profit.

Consider cancer. The trophoblast theory of cancer that has been around for over 100 years, shows that everyone has cancer. It is a natural thing that is in everybody. When you add a weakening of the immune system, cancer steps out into the open.

So, what strengthens the immune system? Since the immune system is a thing of nature (doctors didn't invent it), treating the immune system with natural foods, etc., strengthens it so that it can control the cancer. Drugs merely weaken the immune system, so that the cancer can't be controlled, and so that the medical has more excuse to attempt their cures.

Modern medicine is a belief system. That's all... except that it is a false one.

The trophoblast theory of cancer is seldom heard. Yet it has never been proven wrong. The medical barely speaks of it if they do at all. No money in it. It's the same with vaccines.

If vaccines are any good, it's only in emergency situations, and there are other things that are better.

[protokol]

OK, let's do some critical analysis on this article.

Firstly, it is well known (and pretty obvious) that naturalnews.com is a seriously questionable source when it comes to professional medical advice. You only need to look at how much they rely on dodgy ads (and a specific demographic of readers that lap up this anti-establishment/alternative medicine/anti Big Pharma journalism) to get an idea of how they make money. Just look at the sidebar ads on this page alone.

But let's give them the benefit of the doubt this time, and actually check the sources for the article. It claims, that a doctor (Jennifer Margulis, PhD) claims, that a paper was published in the journal "Frontiers in Public Health", and then removed without explanation. OK, so now we check what sort of a "doctor" Jennifer Margulis is.

Margulis has a B.A. in English literature and Russian language from Cornell University, a Master’s in Comparative Literature from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in English

source: http://kindredmedia.org/author/jennifer-margulis-phd/

Right, the plot thickens... she's not a medical doctor at all, just a journalist with a BA in Engish and Russian, and a doctorate in English. Hmm, this is where alarm bells start to ring.

Then we can look up some information on the journal itself, "Frontiers in Public Health". While it is a peer-reviewed journal, it has had many criticisms and even been added (albeit controversially) to a "blacklist of questionable publications" by another academic, Jeffrey Beall. source:

http://www.nature.com/news/backlash-after-frontiers-journals-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers-1.18639

So both the "doctor" and the journal are now both sounding less reputable than the article implies. But, lets give them both the benefit of the doubt and look at the details given on the paper itself:

the abstract described a study comparing health outcomes of 660 fully vaccinated or fully unvaccinated children between the ages of 6 and 12 living in Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon. Information was collected via parental survey in 2012.

Ding ding ding!! This is where we start to really see how unreliable the source for the article is. Any bonafide medical doctor or scientist will tell you that "parental surveys" are an incredibly questionable source of data for any study, (and I wouldn't be surprised if this was the reason that the paper was pulled from publication). Not to mention that the sample was taken from a rather specific section of the population, limited to a few of the more backward States of America (OK, OK, citation needed for that  )

The article doesn't quote any other studies, but goes on to mention a few other "doctors" that agree with the findings, that all seem just as sketchy as good old doctor of English and controversial journalist, Jennifer Margulis. I could probably find a bunch of dirt on them too, but I can't be bothered to investigate further as the article has already lost most of its credibility.

While I would personally agree that studies into the potential dangers of vaccination should continue (even if just to socially educate people), this article stinks.

I haven't done much research into vaccines causing "ADD/ADHD, asthma and other auto-immune disorders", but there are some very meticulous and thorough studies that suggest that vaccines absolutely do not cause autism. For example, here is the abstract of a meta-analysis of 10 studies involving over 1.2 million children:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

And an article explaining it: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/final-nail-coffin-vaccine-autism-myth/

My personal opinion is that in recent years, a greater understanding of autism and ADHD type disorders has led to an increase in their diagnosis. Most children get vaccinated, and if even a small percentage of these children develop autism or ADHD, it's understandable (but incorrect) that the parents could make a false assumption that one had caused the other.

Imagine you started feeding your kid solid food, perhaps PB & J sandwiches for the first time in their life, and a few months later they got some weird disease. Then you read about other parents who did the same thing, and their kids got the same disease. That absolutely doesn't mean that PB & J sandwiches gave them the disease, it was just a coincidence, but these parents get sucked into this filter bubble/echo chamber, and suddenly everything they're reading and hearing is confirming what they suspected. It's called confirmation bias, and is extremely easy to succumb to on the internet.

Moral of the story is, check your sources thoroughly and be extremely careful with websites like "naturalnews.com" - they are using you as a means of making money, and they themselves probably don't believe the majority of the shit they post.

I don't have the time right now to answer everything you have said. But in general, all the things that you say can be applied in just the opposite way.

The whole medical and university set-up is to promote making money. This includes hiding as much of the truth about how they are damaging people for profit, as well as limiting the cures for that same profit.

Consider cancer. The trophoblast theory of cancer that has been around for over 100 years, shows that everyone has cancer. It is a natural thing that is in everybody. When you add a weakening of the immune system, cancer steps out into the open.

So, what strengthens the immune system? Since the immune system is a thing of nature (doctors didn't invent it), treating the immune system with natural foods, etc., strengthens it so that it can control the cancer. Drugs merely weaken the immune system, so that the cancer can't be controlled, and so that the medical has more excuse to attempt their cures.

Modern medicine is a belief system. That's all... except that it is a false one.

The trophoblast theory of cancer is seldom heard. Yet it has never been proven wrong. The medical barely speaks of it if they do at all. No money in it. It's the same with vaccines.

If vaccines are any good, it's only in emergency situations, and there are other things that are better.

Um OK, you post an article and then I helpfully show you how the article is misleading you. I actually did a small amount of research and showed the flaws.

Your answer is basically a total cop-out - "Oh but everything you said can be equally applied in the opposite way!". No, they can't, because my sources are from actual medical doctors and researchers, not from some dumb bitch with a doctorate in English, like yours was.

The rest of your post is simply hyperbole, claiming the "whole medical and university set-up is to promote making money." Well no, it does make money but it aso relies on peer-reviewed research of a good quality, unlike the websites you post articles from.

I already addressed the corruption of Big Pharma and agreed that it is a problem. That's why we look at good quality data and evidence rather than believing clickbait from bullshit sites designed to make money.

As for your cancer comments, you should know that one of the main reasons that cancer has become so prevalent is because humans are living longer and longer, giving cancer more time to develop. That's why you don't see many animals in their natural environments get cancer, because they die from other causes before cancer kills them. Modern medicine has increased the life expectancy by a huge amount, so cancers have obviously become a statistically higher killer. This is well known in the scientific community.

Since the immune system is a thing of nature (doctors didn't invent it), treating the immune system with natural foods, etc., strengthens it so that it can control the cancer. Drugs merely weaken the immune system, so that the cancer can't be controlled, and so that the medical has more excuse to attempt their cures.

Modern medicine is a belief system. That's all... except that it is a false one.

That's literally nonsense. Everything is a thing of nature, doesn't mean that drugs or chemical compounds aren't effective against illness. Newsflash:: All elements (and most compounds used in medicine) already exist in nature! There are very few purely synthetic drugs, and even those are synthesized from natural elements.

As for "modern medicine is a belief system", I find it hilarious that you are a super-evangelical Christian, believe in creation and that that the world is 6,000 years old, but can't see the importance of empirical medical research. I hope you don't plan on having children, or have any already... My heart bleeds for them.

[BADecker]

Since the immune system is a thing of nature (doctors didn't invent it), treating the immune system with natural foods, etc., strengthens it so that it can control the cancer. Drugs merely weaken the immune system, so that the cancer can't be controlled, and so that the medical has more excuse to attempt their cures.

Modern medicine is a belief system. That's all... except that it is a false one.

That's literally nonsense. Everything is a thing of nature, doesn't mean that drugs or chemical compounds aren't effective against illness. Newsflash:: All elements (and most compounds used in medicine) already exist in nature! There are very few purely synthetic drugs, and even those are synthesized from natural elements.

As for "modern medicine is a belief system", I find it hilarious that you are a super-evangelical Christian, believe in creation and that that the world is 6,000 years old, but can't see the importance of empirical medical research. I hope you don't plan on having children, or have any already... My heart bleeds for them.

LOL! You are promoting poison as a method of healing because it is a thing of nature? That's exactly the biggest thing the medical does.

[BADecker]

Big Pharma Shaking as Trump Appoints Top Vaccine Truth Advocate





Big Pharma Shaking as Trump Appoints Top Vaccine Truth Advocate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcssxFuboTM

Kennedy announced the position after he met with Trump on Tuesday, and as a result, mainstream media outlets began referring to Kennedy as "an environmental activist and skeptic of vaccines" when reporting the story.

As previously reported, Kennedy has been a vocal critic of the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine. He is now being ridiculed by the media for claiming that there is a link between autism and the preservative Thiomersal, which is present in the MMR vaccine.

"What happened was, the vaccine schedule was increased. We went from receiving about 10 vaccines in our generation, to these kids receive 24 vaccines, and they all have this Thiomersal in them—this mercury—and nobody bothered to do an analysis of what the cumulative impact of all of that mercury was doing to kids," Kennedy said during an appearance on MSNBC in 2012. "As it turns out, we are injecting our children with 400 times the amount of mercury that the FDA or the EPA considers safe."

While Kennedy is criticizing the current standards, he is also calling for more analysis, more scientific research, and more accountability from vaccine manufacturers.

One thing you have to understand about these manufacturers is that in the United States, the pharmaceutical complex was able to successfully lobby outward government to make sure that they cannot be held accountable to the law. Currently, parents cannot sue vaccine manufacturers if those manufacturers creates a defective or destructive vaccine that harms their children.

The "vaccine market" is a $24 BILLION industry and experts are saying it will grow to be worth over $60 billion by 2020. Yet, the revenue continues to grow even though the manufacturers have been caught falsifying data and lying to the public, purely for profit.

Merck, the pharmaceutical giant that produces the MMR vaccine has faced multiple allegations of misconduct coming from at least three whistleblowers, two of whom were former Merck scientists and one of whom was a scientist for the Centers for Disease Control. The accusations included failing to disclose the ineffectiveness of certain vaccines, using improper testing techniques and manipulating test results.

Yet, because of the current law, companies like Merck cannot be held accountable for their actions. It is not just the manufacturers though, it's also the CDC, which has become a revolving door between Big Pharma executives and government officials.

The appointment of Robert Kennedy as the chair of the Commission on Vaccine Safety brings some hope that all of the revelations from whistleblowers like William Thompson and Andrew Wakefield might actually stand a chance of launching an investigation into vaccine manufacturers, and it might give the public the right to hold them accountable for their actions.

Read more at http://wearechange.org/big-pharma-shaking-trump-appoints-top-vaccine-truth-advocate/.

[protokol]

...
I already said that I believe ...

Who cares what you said, or how many times you said it?

What you and yours say is as often as not a dead match for what Sharyl Attkisson in her TEDx talk here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

I've already said that I've listened intently to at least 100 presentations from real medical doctors and scientists who unhappy enough to torpedo their careers by speaking out.  And I've read a lot more.  In point of fact, it's getting obvious enough by this time that your rapidly expanding vaccination regime is fucking up a lot of people's immune systems and contributing to a cascade of problems.

Anyone who pays much attention to contentious scienctific debates in our time (vaccinations, GMOs, global climate change, etc) recognizes 'peer review' as a laughable circle-jerk which means little or nothing when corporate money is involved and corporate profits are on the line.

Do you have a particular problem that made you clip my rather common sense suggestion?"

If I felt confident that the risk/reward of 'doing good' by someone who has misfortune was transparently and accurately calculated, I very well might do just that.  This is not AT ALL the case with the medical/industrial complex in this country at this time.  Fix that problem BEFORE you force-march people into the the clinic to get whatever big-pharma wishes injected into their bloodstream.  Or expect significant resistance.

Answer me this: Why is the life expectancy of the majority of the world's population (at least in the most developed countries) at an all time high? If vaccines are deadly, wouldn't we be seeing a decrease in life expectancy?

Food for thought.

[protokol]

Since the immune system is a thing of nature (doctors didn't invent it), treating the immune system with natural foods, etc., strengthens it so that it can control the cancer. Drugs merely weaken the immune system, so that the cancer can't be controlled, and so that the medical has more excuse to attempt their cures.

Modern medicine is a belief system. That's all... except that it is a false one.

That's literally nonsense. Everything is a thing of nature, doesn't mean that drugs or chemical compounds aren't effective against illness. Newsflash:: All elements (and most compounds used in medicine) already exist in nature! There are very few purely synthetic drugs, and even those are synthesized from natural elements.

As for "modern medicine is a belief system", I find it hilarious that you are a super-evangelical Christian, believe in creation and that that the world is 6,000 years old, but can't see the importance of empirical medical research. I hope you don't plan on having children, or have any already... My heart bleeds for them.

LOL! You are promoting poison as a method of healing because it is a thing of nature? That's exactly the biggest thing the medical does.

No, you just said "natural things are beneficial for the immune system because they are natural". I retorted by saying most drugs are natural, or produced with natural elements, and now you accuse me of "promoting poison as a method of healing"

So you agree that nature can produce poisons as well as beneficial medicine? How do you tell which natural things are beneficial are which are poisons? I guess you just browse naturalnews.com and believe whatever they tell you. Good luck soldier, you're gonna need it...

[protokol]

As a counter argument, antibiotics such as penicillin (originally derived from a natural mould) actually do weaken the immune system. But they're natural right, so they must be good! Nonsense.

[BADecker]

...
I already said that I believe ...

Who cares what you said, or how many times you said it?

What you and yours say is as often as not a dead match for what Sharyl Attkisson in her TEDx talk here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

I've already said that I've listened intently to at least 100 presentations from real medical doctors and scientists who unhappy enough to torpedo their careers by speaking out.  And I've read a lot more.  In point of fact, it's getting obvious enough by this time that your rapidly expanding vaccination regime is fucking up a lot of people's immune systems and contributing to a cascade of problems.

Anyone who pays much attention to contentious scienctific debates in our time (vaccinations, GMOs, global climate change, etc) recognizes 'peer review' as a laughable circle-jerk which means little or nothing when corporate money is involved and corporate profits are on the line.

Do you have a particular problem that made you clip my rather common sense suggestion?"

If I felt confident that the risk/reward of 'doing good' by someone who has misfortune was transparently and accurately calculated, I very well might do just that.  This is not AT ALL the case with the medical/industrial complex in this country at this time.  Fix that problem BEFORE you force-march people into the the clinic to get whatever big-pharma wishes injected into their bloodstream.  Or expect significant resistance.

Answer me this: Why is the life expectancy of the majority of the world's population (at least in the most developed countries) at an all time high? If vaccines are deadly, wouldn't we be seeing a decrease in life expectancy?

Food for thought.

The basic answer is hygiene and Christianity.    

[BADecker]

Since the immune system is a thing of nature (doctors didn't invent it), treating the immune system with natural foods, etc., strengthens it so that it can control the cancer. Drugs merely weaken the immune system, so that the cancer can't be controlled, and so that the medical has more excuse to attempt their cures.

Modern medicine is a belief system. That's all... except that it is a false one.

That's literally nonsense. Everything is a thing of nature, doesn't mean that drugs or chemical compounds aren't effective against illness. Newsflash:: All elements (and most compounds used in medicine) already exist in nature! There are very few purely synthetic drugs, and even those are synthesized from natural elements.

As for "modern medicine is a belief system", I find it hilarious that you are a super-evangelical Christian, believe in creation and that that the world is 6,000 years old, but can't see the importance of empirical medical research. I hope you don't plan on having children, or have any already... My heart bleeds for them.

LOL! You are promoting poison as a method of healing because it is a thing of nature? That's exactly the biggest thing the medical does.

No, you just said "natural things are beneficial for the immune system because they are natural". I retorted by saying most drugs are natural, or produced with natural elements, and now you accuse me of "promoting poison as a method of healing"

So you agree that nature can produce poisons as well as beneficial medicine? How do you tell which natural things are beneficial are which are poisons? I guess you just browse naturalnews.com and believe whatever they tell you. Good luck soldier, you're gonna need it...

Okay. We were both unclear. The point is, medicine is poison. If the medical is using poison to attempt to cure disease, then poison is not really poison. So, why do we call it poison?

Most people who die from cancer under medical supervision, die from the treatment rather than the cancer.