http://www.cdc.gov/od/science/iso/concerns/archive/diabetes_and_vaccines.htmSergei said:
How much would I have to Paypal you to produce strong evidence of a CAUSAL link?
The $60 Billion Vaccine Hoax
- Thread starter Sergei
- Start date
How much would I have to Paypal you to produce strong evidence of a CAUSAL link?
Sergei said:
Good point, but the initial largess leads to future costs and more people looking for handouts.
It is simply a VERY POOR application of funds.
Last edited:
That 'Nexus Magazine' is quite the source. Move over 'Nature', 'Lancet', 'National Enquirer', etc. I love some of the articles they've published. For a giggle, look here: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles.htmlSergei said:
jwm
I believe (although I haven't done exhaustive research) that the only regularly given vaccine in North America which still contains any mercury is the flu vaccine.DistantVoyeur said:
The causal link defence. Classic. That way nothing at all can ever be proven. Meanwhile, there is no CAUSAL link between cholesterol and heart disease either. It's a correlation. That doesn't stop them from promoting statins based on it, though. As matter of fact, most of modern medicine is strictly based on correlations (vaccines included) and ignores the true CAUSES of disease - it recommends profitable "therapies," that's all.cypherpunk said:
Your link just proves my point. That organizations funded by drug companies support their products.
Last edited:
There are bona-fide vaccines, and there are bullshit-from-Big-Pharma vaccines. THAT is the problem. More and more, we are becoming puppets of Big Pharma and misguided physicians. Notice that I did not use the term, doctor. There are very few physicians who are doctors in the correct sense of the word. The latest physician I have gone to is just a pill-dispenser for Big Pharma, and doesn't give a rats-ass as to the real cause of the illness.Aardvark154 said:
I wasn't condoning Nexus Magazine.jwmorrice said:
How about the former editor of the New England Medical journal?
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=43133
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Drug-Companies-Deceive/dp/0375508465
I would read the last one all the way down the page.
Or David Graham,of the FDA:
http://www.newstarget.com/011401.html
Also read the British Medical Journal's series on "Entanglement:"
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7400/1189
There are plenty more, trust me, I've read most of them. Whoever thinks I haven't researched this thoroughly is plain wrong.
I'm surprised at how much scorn I got for pointing out things that are said by the big boy whistleblowers in the industry. My intention was not to try to convince people of anything - it was to get them LOOKING at these things, which are very real.
Thanks a lot for that post. Mine was a pill dispensor too, so I swithched. Then guess what happened - every time I went to the new guy, he tried to get me to do the hepatitis vaccine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He knew I didn't want it.shakenbake said:
I presume by this you mean in the sense of "teacher." And I will agree that some Physicians do a poor job of explaining things to their patients (some of this is due to time pressure).shakenbake said:
I tend the other way in practical usage, since a Professor of History, a Lawyer, a Audiologist, and a Physician are all Doctors in the sense of holding a Doctoral Degree and can be addressed as such, yet only one of them is a physician.
Is the HPV Cervical Cancer Vaccine the former or the later? As I've mentioned above, from personal experience, to my mind, clearly a medical advancement.shakenbake said:
You may be right. IIRC the mercury derivative in vaccines is listed as thimeresol (sp?). For sure it is in the flu-shot, haven't had many other vaccines since childhood and forgot to check back then.Aardvark154 said:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070801/hpv_vaccine_070801/20070801/
http://www.pharmapolitics.com/
http://www.namiscc.org/News/2002/DavidHealy.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Healy_(psychiatrist)
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/1/5
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7483/113-a
http://www.straight.com/article/whistle-blower-spills-medical-ethics-myths-0
http://www.straight.com/article/whistle-blower-spills-medical-ethics-myths-0
http://thinktwice.com/
http://thinktwice.com/studies.htm
http://www.pharmapolitics.com/
http://www.namiscc.org/News/2002/DavidHealy.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Healy_(psychiatrist)
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/1/5
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7483/113-a
http://www.straight.com/article/whistle-blower-spills-medical-ethics-myths-0
http://www.straight.com/article/whistle-blower-spills-medical-ethics-myths-0
http://thinktwice.com/
http://thinktwice.com/studies.htm
Last edited:
This information is a followup of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.
The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.
ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
* 12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
* 7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
* 20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
* 80,000 -- infections in hospitals
* 106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs
These total to 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
What does the word iatrogenic mean? This term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially of a complication of treatment.
Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in interpreting these numbers:
* First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
* Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
* Third, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report.
If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).
Another analysis concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings,with:
* 116 million extra physician visits
* 77 million extra prescriptions
* 17 million emergency department visits
* 8 million hospitalizations
* 3 million long-term admissions
* 199,000 additional deaths
* $77 billion in extra costs
The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.
However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.
An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors.
This might be tolerated if it resulted in better health, but does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison, the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking of the US on several indicators was:
* 13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
* 13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall
* 11th for postneonatal mortality
* 13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)
* 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males
* 10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males
* 10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males
* 7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males
* 3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males
* 10th for age-adjusted mortality
The poor performance of the US was recently confirmed by a World Health Organization study, which used different data and ranked the United States as 15th among 25 industrialized countries.
There is a perception that the American public "behaves badly" by smoking, drinking, and perpetrating violence." However the data does not support this assertion.
* The proportion of females who smoke ranges from 14% in Japan to 41% in Denmark; in the United States, it is 24% (fifth best). For males, the range is from 26% in Sweden to 61% in Japan; it is 28% in the United States (third best).
* The US ranks fifth best for alcoholic beverage consumption.
* The US has relatively low consumption of animal fats (fifth lowest in men aged 55-64 years in 20 industrialized countries) and the third lowest mean cholesterol concentrations among men aged 50 to 70 years among 13 industrialized countries.
These estimates of death due to error are lower than those in a recent Institutes of Medicine report, and if the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.
Even at the lower estimate of 225,000 deaths per year, this constitutes the third leading cause of death in the US, following heart disease and cancer.
Lack of technology is certainly not a contributing factor to the US's low ranking.
* Among 29 countries, the United States is second only to Japan in the availability of magnetic resonance imaging units and computed tomography scanners per million population. 17
* Japan, however, ranks highest on health, whereas the US ranks among the lowest.
* It is possible that the high use of technology in Japan is limited to diagnostic technology not matched by high rates of treatment, whereas in the US, high use of diagnostic technology may be linked to more treatment.
* Supporting this possibility are data showing that the number of employees per bed (full-time equivalents) in the United States is highest among the countries ranked, whereas they are very low in Japan, far lower than can be accounted for by the common practice of having family members rather than hospital staff provide the amenities of hospital care.
Journal American Medical Association July 26, 2000;284(4):483-5
The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.
ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:
* 12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
* 7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
* 20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
* 80,000 -- infections in hospitals
* 106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs
These total to 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
What does the word iatrogenic mean? This term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially of a complication of treatment.
Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in interpreting these numbers:
* First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
* Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
* Third, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report.
If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).
Another analysis concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings,with:
* 116 million extra physician visits
* 77 million extra prescriptions
* 17 million emergency department visits
* 8 million hospitalizations
* 3 million long-term admissions
* 199,000 additional deaths
* $77 billion in extra costs
The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.
However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.
An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors.
This might be tolerated if it resulted in better health, but does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison, the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking of the US on several indicators was:
* 13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
* 13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall
* 11th for postneonatal mortality
* 13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)
* 11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males
* 10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males
* 10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males
* 7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males
* 3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males
* 10th for age-adjusted mortality
The poor performance of the US was recently confirmed by a World Health Organization study, which used different data and ranked the United States as 15th among 25 industrialized countries.
There is a perception that the American public "behaves badly" by smoking, drinking, and perpetrating violence." However the data does not support this assertion.
* The proportion of females who smoke ranges from 14% in Japan to 41% in Denmark; in the United States, it is 24% (fifth best). For males, the range is from 26% in Sweden to 61% in Japan; it is 28% in the United States (third best).
* The US ranks fifth best for alcoholic beverage consumption.
* The US has relatively low consumption of animal fats (fifth lowest in men aged 55-64 years in 20 industrialized countries) and the third lowest mean cholesterol concentrations among men aged 50 to 70 years among 13 industrialized countries.
These estimates of death due to error are lower than those in a recent Institutes of Medicine report, and if the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.
Even at the lower estimate of 225,000 deaths per year, this constitutes the third leading cause of death in the US, following heart disease and cancer.
Lack of technology is certainly not a contributing factor to the US's low ranking.
* Among 29 countries, the United States is second only to Japan in the availability of magnetic resonance imaging units and computed tomography scanners per million population. 17
* Japan, however, ranks highest on health, whereas the US ranks among the lowest.
* It is possible that the high use of technology in Japan is limited to diagnostic technology not matched by high rates of treatment, whereas in the US, high use of diagnostic technology may be linked to more treatment.
* Supporting this possibility are data showing that the number of employees per bed (full-time equivalents) in the United States is highest among the countries ranked, whereas they are very low in Japan, far lower than can be accounted for by the common practice of having family members rather than hospital staff provide the amenities of hospital care.
Journal American Medical Association July 26, 2000;284(4):483-5
These, however, are not deaths due to vaccination.Sergei said:
I truly believe you are perpetrating evil when you try to scare people into not vaccinating children particularly against potentially fatal diseases.
One can argue about mumps or chicken pox, but the practical problem is that so many children are now vaccinated, how is your child going to be exposed to and contract the disease in childhood?* When you catch them as an adult, particularly mumps in the case of men, there are some potentially very serious consequences, additionally there is a higher death rate from contracting mumps or chickenpox than there is from the inoculations.
* And this is to ignore that many school systems and Universities require students to produce proof of vaccination or a titer showing immunity.
1) They don't tell us how many deaths there are from vaccinations. This is suspicious in itself.Aardvark154 said:
2) You started calling me names and took it out on a personal level. How professional (and pathetic, since you don't even know me). I think that maybe it comes from ignorance, since you don't seem to have any idea how the medical industry works. I'm not trying to scare anybody. What I'm saying is that everybody should have the maximum possible information and then decide for themselves. It's not MY business to make other people's decisions. That's at the core of my philosophy. As far as evil goes (and comparing me to Stalin - what a disgrace - you should be ashamed of yourself), maybe you should read all the links above THOROUGHLY and then decide who it is that is behaving like Stalin. Me or the corporations that control people's minds. Including, obviously, yours, since you have such a ridiculous FAITH in vaccines. Then, of course, we have to think about those who like to "project power" and ruin innocent peoples' lives.
3) You have a tendency to draw unfounded conclusions very easily. Example? You assumed that I was Russian or could speak Russian just because I use the nickname Sergei. I am not and do not speak Russian. Another example? You (and others) assumed that I am "uneducated" and so on and so forth. But in the end I've researched this subject A LOT more than any of you. That's obvious.
4) Again, if you study all the available information about how the pharmafia works then you should be able to see my point - they behave like well-organized racketeers - they are not to be trusted.
5) As a previous poster might have said: They haven't been able to prove CAUSALITY between vaccines and incidences of disease. They have, however, proven causality on a few things - like when you do a flu shot and then spend 6 months in the hospital (personal experience with friend's mother).
6) One goes to the "doctor." The result? A confident pronouncement on the state of your health and a piece of paper in your hands in, oh, 5 to 10 minutes of appointment time. IE: McDoctors.
7) You conveniently ignored my central thesis, which was that spending $60 billion IN Africa on building infrastructure would have been better than this corporate money-transfer scheme with dubious products. Now what are they going to get in Africa? They'll be drinking the same filthy water, starving to death, but at least they'll be vaccinated against the chicken pox (but not necessarily protected).
This just proves my point even more - we HAVE to buy and use their products, whether we like it or not.Aardvark154 said:
Now THAT is Stalinism. Or Iosif Vissarionovitz Dzhugashvilli-ism, if you like.
But hey, if ONE person learns something from this thread about the way the medical establishment operates, I'll be happy.
The MD degree is an undergraduate degree. You are correct in the real meaning of the word 'doctor', which derives frnm the Latin for teacher. BTW, where did you get the Lawyer being referred to as doctor, unless he/she has a J.D. (Juris Doctor) degree?Aardvark154 said:
Until the late 19th century, a physician was not referred to as doctor. It became necessary for psychological reasons to start addressing the physicians as doctors.
In any event, I have had the displeasure of having to deal with pompous, arrogant physicians who thought that they were God reincarnated. This is one of the real problems with health care in Ontario, the 'holier than thou' attitude of some of the physicians, IMHO.
Anyway, I did not mean to hijack the thread. Sorry!
I must admint that I am not a physician. However, if it can prevent the occurrence of this form of cancer, then it is a definite advancement.Aardvark154 said:
There IS a causal link between cholesterol and heart disease, fuck stick. Cholesterol has been captured on film as the culprit. The only thing that's unknown is the how and why. Saying that a vaccine causes diabetes is like saying you're lonely because you masturbate. Both sound crazy because both haven't any theory to stand on.Sergei said:
I'm done with you. I hope to God you're trolling and not actually this stupid.
