For those who are under the false impression that a vaccine can prevent or cure AIDS, you need to do some serious research. It's a lie that only succeeds in damaging and destroying more lives while it creates a windfall for medicine.
AIDS-Vaccines Trials Dangerous (2001)
AIDS vaccines that do more harm than good (2007)
Vaccine Failure Is Setback in AIDS Fight - Test Subjects May Have Been Put at Extra Risk Of Contracting HIV (2008) - Washington Post
"89% of doctors rely on drug company salesmen for their information." - The Australian Doctor 1989.
"The incidence of asthma has been found to be five times more common in vaccinated children." - The Lancet, 1994.
"There is no doubt in my mind that in the U.K. alone some hundreds, if not thousands, of well infants have suffered irreparable brain damage needlessly (due to being vaccinated)." - Prof. G. Stewart, Dev. Biol. Stand. Vol. 61: pp 395-405. 1985.
What a stupid piece of propaganda...It's SO much better for hundreds of thousands of people to get sick and a few thousand die of it each year, than false claims that it causes autism which has been disproven in many studies (I think it was 27 times?)
YouTube - Brian Deer exposed - vaccines, autism and the Lancet 12 parents
The propaganda is that vaccines cure disease and do no harm. If you research the CDC website you'll find the flu death numbers grossly over exaggerated because they are combined with deaths from pneumonia. By the way, whatever happened to the deadly world-wide flu pandemic that the "experts" said was supposed to kill millions? Take the blue pill if you like but don't say you were never warned.
@gwho Yes you are right, there is also MSG, Acetone, Aluminum, Formaldehyde, and many more. It's a heavy metal cocktail. Great environment to cause short term and long term disease.
@gwho theres no mercury in it, anymore. You know theres mercury in fish, though? If there was a fish i could eat that makes me resistant to DYING FROM DISEASE, i would eat it.
@grendelee There are still mercury in vaccines which use thimerosal (mercury preservative). The argument that the mercury in the fish is apples to oranges. First, the mercury in the fish compared to the mercury in a shot has little compared to the shot. Second, when you eat the fish it has to go through your own digestive system and there is a chance of it being more "filtered" instead just being directly injected into your system. Third, fish also have selenium which can counteract the mercury.
@NinjaWagz Actually, its the other way around.You get more mercury eating fish then you do getting a vaccine. And how is mercury "filtered"? I thought youre arguement was that mercury NEVER leaves the system, even though it goes away in 18 days.
And if you hate it so much, just get a mercury free shot. Simple as that.
@grendelee How is a mercury free shot any safer when a vaccine still contains mutated & cloned viruses, formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, polysorbate 80, chick embryonic fluid, monkey kidney cells, squalene, aspartame and human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue? (attention pro-lifers!) Sure, mercury is one of the most toxic elements on Earth, but the rest of the ingredients makes Saddam's weapons of mass destruction look like child's play. No wonder doctors avoid them!
@ProjectRedPill1 you dont know what any of those things are. Why is kindey cells bad? How are they bad for you? How about squalene? Thats the stuff thats in every plant and animal on earth. Polysorbate 80 is in food and people put it in their hair. You see, people TELL you its bad, so you get it in your head thats bad. But they you go on to eat food that has the same stuff in it. Dont let people tell you what to think. Basically, what it comes down to is "im afraid of needles" and thats it.
@grendelee There's a good side and bad side to squalene. A 2000 study published in the American Journal of Pathology showed a single injection of squalene into rats triggered "chronic, immune-mediated joint-specific inflammation." (rheumatoid arthritis). Read - "Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret Exposed" - Dr. J. Mercola. I've studied vaccines for over 20 years so I know what's bad about them without anyone having to tell me. Who told you mercury was good? A dentist?
Looks like I deleted my message. I just said that they're using comedy and exaggeration to get a message across. Its nought to get too concerned about as any person with a wee bit o sense would know it for what it is. Its quite amusing. I've never seen any egg shells in the vaccinations I've given (laughing)
And "no" Tranny, Im not going to give you studies papers or statistics, so don't ask laddie. I'm old tired and I've been around too long to even be bothered with all that.
onejohn, your losing the plot a wee bit too. Stick to the issues Sonny and forget the minutiae. Colloidal Silver was good in its time. Very good. My father was a doctor too and he used it. It lost favour very early in my time but I know good doctors who still recommend it.
Tranny you have a lot left to discover laddie and you're behaving like a wee laddie too. You spit back like a teeny-bopper texting under the desk! If you want to become a doctor one day, how about carrying yourself with a bit o humility and dignity and stop looking down your nose at folk who disagree with you eh? Now look here too, its not all as black and white like you think. There's qwakery on all sides. Sort it out.
Your tactic, Transtlantic, is clear. You are simply trying to bury, as far back in the thread the issues you don't want to (can't) address:
In particular, Horton's devastating discussion on the compromis of the "Peer Reviewed" process, which is underscored by the revelations of Climategate, where supposedly independent scientists with nothing more than benevolent intentions have conspired and engaged in clear scientific fraud.
How much MORE motive exists in the pharmaceutical area?!?
oh.... the Horton guy that knows that evolution is a valid theory that supports the need and use of vaccines! that guy!
The guy that knows that for each paper presented u must read it before being able to accuse it of invalid? the guy that knows that anti-vaxers are anti-science biased losers with no idea about what they are talking about?
"Vaccines occupy a peculiar place in medicine and society. That they prevent disease is incontrovertible; ample evidence for their effects is obvious"
TA, I didnt accuse it of being invalid. I simply asked who funded it. Stop being so touchy.
I have wasted much time already following some of your citations on the web, usually to find all I can access is a brief extract.
I'm not going to keep wasting time just because you parrot a citation that you have neatly stored in your notes fom your lectures and assignments. (more...)
You simply deny, out of hand the credibility of every reference I've given. I'm simply asking you to demonstrate the credibility of your sources by demonstrating their independance and lack of conflicting interests.
i deny the credibility? u presented me with crappy bias anti-science websites... are that what u call.... "references"? AHAHAH try use that in a court of law! AHAHAHAH
I already proved the credibility of my sources: state funded or non profit groups, ALL written right there in the papers. Some times its written at the end. Right after the "conflicts of interest" part (usually it say: none to provide). u do know that conflicts of interest are obliged to be presented, don't u? ofc u never knew.
I well recall the days when, as a child lying in bed crook with some childhood illness, my doctor would brave snow and rain to attend my bedside. It was a different era. Those Dr Finlays and Dr Camerons went into medicine to serve - not for status - and expected to make a living, not a fortune.
How times have changed! Now it seems, people go into medicine for the elite status - to boast their top 99.99% qualification standing and look down pitifully and contemptuously
...upon the "ignorant little lay man" while feathering their nests. True, they study hard, they work hard, but no longer do they brave snow and rain to visit the sick child in their home, but instead force the sick child to brave the elements to sit for an hour at their convenience in a crowded germ-laden waiting room for a 10 minute consultation. (more...)
the trend is quite simple: anyone with an highschool education understand why vaccines are safe, effective and needed. You don't because you are an uneducated fool, killing ppl with ur ignorance.
thank god i am here to stop ur nonsense from spreading.
the sick children that only I can save? and u can't do nothing at all?
i not the old? or the serious injured or ill? that also only I can help, and u do nothing. You dont' care, you want them all dead because of your ignorance. You don't want to help jonhy, you want to kill.
ah, another useless anedoctal story... so nice... :D
elite status? lol... when i start my practice as independent i'll win the same if i treat 1, 10 or 100 people a day! we have a National health system here. YOU IGNORANT TARD!
elite stands for the group that boost for the better also.
TA, I have noticed that all the way through, anything involving real life - that is, PEOPLE - becomes "mere anecdotal" to you.
You only value dead statistics. That which can so easily be manipulated, and which I have demonstrated to you IS manipulated by immensely powerful corporations.
As far as your National Health system is concerned, I don't even know which country you are writing from, but I can't see your govt paying you the same to do nothing as to do much.
I do care about ppl, that's why i demand evidence. Your stories are nothing but lies and false appeals for emotion. You keep failing to support any of ur nonsense talk.
what manipulation are u talking about? where is ur evidence? WHERE IS IT? nowhere. u are just doing nutjob talk.
Where have u shown manipulation? WHERE? i presented like 4-5 papers by now. What line was manipulated? are u telling ppl that stated funded papers are....
I've not yet seen Transatlantic's comment to Horton, the Editor-in-Chief" of The Lancet, concerning his devastating evaluation of "peer reviewed", and I doubt (given that he has had a week) that we will.
This week has seen "Climategate" & the true nature of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax exposed to the world as top global warming scientists SUPPOSEDLY with nothing to gain other than helping to "save the planet" have been shown to be conniving CONSPIRATORS. (more...)
Conspiracies have existed for millenia, yet the public has been conned into eschewing the term, "conspiracy" - for ever now linked to "nut" - now even demonised and written into law by no less than the Pres of the USA!
Why???
And why would we be so GULLIBLE, seeing top "independent" climate scientists disgraced, to continue to trust Pharmaceutical companies with billions to gain or lose, to give us the truth about vaccines and drugs?
the nutjob with nooooo idea about what his talking about, with no education, no qualifications, with NOT even one single piece of evidence to provide... (i talking about u jonhy).
or the scientists, the science, the consensus and peer-review of experts, of ppl that spent YEARS studying and dedicating their lives to problems that trouble humanity, that allow discoveries that save ur life or help u in social and economic dimensions....
Sure I get it, TA. We owe much to the dedicated people who have pursued science, made outstanding discoveries, questioned existing paradigms and furthered science - generally to ostracized by their peers who have jealously defended the existing paradigm.
Its those who jealously defend existing paradigms - often because of conflicts of interest and manipulated by the pharmaceuticals - who can't be trusted.
what paradigms can OneJohnFiveTwelve defend when he ignores science? what kind of anything at all related to science or society can OneJohnFiveTwelve defend when he is lay, ignorant and clearly a creationist nujob? absolutly nothing ofc, that's why he actually helps manipulation from ill intended groups: he is just another idiot with no idea about what he is talking about.
here i am to provide the "defense" he so much wants, and to protect him from his own ignorance
Yes, like many senior, highly qualified doctors and many medical professionals, I do dare question the value of MANY drugs and vaccines. I see lives wrecked - people turned into zombies by antidepressants. I see muscles destroyed by statins - even prescribed for women when the pharmaceuticals have ignored studies that show that higher cholesterol levels are beneficial and life-extending for women. Hundreds of thousand die every year from prescribed drugs. (more...)
Do you know, TA, the whole Pan Pharmaceuticals farce here in Australia was triggered when one person tried to jump from a plane after taking Travacalm? Travacalm, incidentally is not a natural health product, but a chemist-only drug. Nevertheless that incident triggered the raid on a company that failed to perform 2 hr long steam-cleans on equipment that packed calcium before it was reallocated to magnesium. (more)...
(cont'd) ALL stocks of vitamins, minerals and supplements were subject of a TGA forced recall. 500 small businesses forced to close. you can imagine the grin on Big Pharma's face. You see the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) is dominated by big Pharma's people and interests.
Ultimately the owner of Pan sued the TGA and was awarded zillions. Now you can imagine the scowl on Big Pharma's face.
So there you go... how many deaths does it take for a DRUG to be recalled. How many for a pharmaceutical company to be raided, "taken down" and ALL ... I mean ALL its drugs to be recalled?
We are looking at corruption Ta. Corruption of a monstrous degree and at the highest levels!
Yes, I dare.
Spew all your venom, name-calling, petty rudeness and ignorance of anything not learned in your classroom from your mentors.
So there u go... u keep talking crap about things u don't have any idea about and keep avoiding to talk about the subject at hand:
Vaccines, that are safe, effective and needed, u failed to provide evidence of the opposite, instead u follow the known path of the conspiracy nutjob: move the goal post, deny and talk crap, with never, but never presenting any piece of evidence. just pure and simple conspiracy crap, that's what u have to give.
1) whatstheharm net - made by a very famous guy, interesting stuff.
2) Qual Assur Health Care. 1990;2(2):111-7.
Quality of alternative medicine--complications and avoidable deaths.
3) ppl die from CAM when they avoid proper treatment, or take to much of a quack CAM product, third: they don't die or get any treatment because CAM really has no beneficial effect at all. - this is logic.
u are not a senior or qualified doctor that dares question using their previous understanding about science. u DENY and accuse based upon ignorance. there is a difference.
U see no such things because u don't even understand the basic principles of chemical laws, u ignore human phisiology...etc, u see things u don't understand, hence ur accusations are anedoctal.
lol... i could even provide u with plenty more papers about the needed review of the peer-review protocols. But that would be using arguments from authority. A logical falacy.
The editor in chief of the Lancet perfectly understands that pittyfull ad hominems from lay ignorant ppl like u are.... anedoctal.
now u just move the goal post in order to avoid to talk about vaccines...
a very famous tactic used by anti-science, conspiracy and religious nutjubs.
"The editor in chief of the Lancet perfectly understands that pittyfull ad hominems from lay ignorant ppl like u are.... anedoctal."
Sue, and he would come out in favour of vaccines. A "hostile witness" is far more valuable to my case against the futility of trusting in "peer reviewed" studies funded by corrupt pharmaceuticals.
But it wasn't "anecdotal" we were discussing when I quoted Horton. It was "peer reviewed" and I aked what you'd like to say to him. You ignored the challenge.
Just what is wrong with your short-term memory TA? The much repeated challenge was "What would you like to say to Dr Horton?" Come on...
"u keep mentioning peer-review studies... but u don't even have a clue what is such!"
You impudent young fellow. Please - desist from presuming to know all about me and what I know and don't know. I'm making allowances for your adolescence, but its wearing very thin.
You keep trying to change the subject horton knows that his comments can't commit logical falacies. He sure knows that u must read ther paper in order to prove its validity. His very comment is the result of paper analysis.
I am sure my assumptions are quite correct: you are a lay little man with no idea about what his talking about. or else you would be presenting evidence to support your claims. you presented: zero references to scientific papers and shown how ur lunacy only takes what "fits"
Yes, we are talking about logical falacies. Everysingle peer-reviewed scientific paper published, must be first proved as "unrealiable", before u can present it as invalid! as u have the bias of not reading them, u are always in the nutjob field.
try focused in this: u keep presenting zero evidence, while I, present plenty!
"The editor in chief of the Lancet perfectly understands that pittyfull ad hominems from lay ignorant ppl like u are....? anedoctal."
TA, its the Editor-in-Chief's OWN "ad hominem" against "peer-reviewed" I drew your attention to.
Its you, my friend who are moving the goal-posts.
I STILLwait to hear what you'd like to say in answer to him. My guess is I'll be waiting a long, long time while you obfuscate, avoid, abuse and name-call.
I already proved u wrong. U must refute each paper, and not avoid its reading by accusing it from an a priori doubt about its quality, but we all know u are a nutjob with a bias.
"I already proved u wrong." No, you took that statement out of context - and you know it!
I said "prove me wrong" that while "I STILL wait to hear what you'd like to say in answer to him my guess is I'll be waiting a long, long time while you obfuscate, avoid, abuse and name-call."
You are backed into a corner. You have nothing to say to Dr Horton who has embarrased your case to the point where you have to debate dishonestly, misrepresenting and ..."misunderstanding" me.
LOL... u losers are always the same... u even use what refutes ur own delusion because U dont have a clue about what your talking about!!!
DR HORTON! KNOWS what is ad hominem, and thats what your doing! u can't deny the reading of the papers! because u'll know if a paper is valid or not AFTER U READ IT!!! GET IT? u tick head!!!
Transatlantic said, "I asked quite clearly...if you had to bet your life... where would you place your trust: modern medicine or your quackery? "
Seeing as you're focused on winning a debate rather than assimilating new information, you'd be advised not to ask a question like that unless you're pretty confident of the answer! You see, I've actually been going through just such a life-threatening situation over the last few weeks. (more)
My approach isn't unique; it is to benefit from both worlds, but sadly, in my case "conventional medicine" has taken a band-aid approach to silence the symptoms rather than get to the bottom of the problem. THAT'S quackery. Alternative disciplines, taking a diagnostic approach are SUCCESSFULLY treating the root causes, reflecting in diminishing symptoms. If you, or anyone else is interested write me privately and I'll give you the details.
You are in denial, like a monkey with your hands clasped over your ears TA!
"AGAIN: if you have to bet your life, where would you place your trust? " I have ALREADY answered this one and you don't want to hear.
"Ruptured appendyx (sic)" You've REALLY been to medical school?? With spelling like that I doubt it. But hey, isn't this a no-brainer? We all know a ruptured appendix is a medical emergency.
On the contrary; you dodged my answer. It was there clear enough for anyone else to understand, but OK I now understand you are Portuguese and having a little difficulty with the language and spelling.
As I said, a ruptured appendix is a medical emergency. Of course I would rely on a doctor! I have talked already about "the best of both worlds" and that is my approach.
However, the very fact that you use such a medical emergency as an example demonstrates your lack of understanding of alternative methods. Although there are many instances where alternative medicine has achieved what drugs and surgery can't (eg cancer and MS), natural methods are basically about prevention and maintaining health. Alopathic medicine is about emergency intervention and maintaining life. The latter is frequently needed as a result of a life of unhealthy habits, but not always.
The fact that i use an medical situation is what i use to prove all of your alternative methods as quackery. A ruptured appendix involves the understanding of pharmacology, anatomy, pathology, human phisiology, biochemistry, histology, etc etc etc. All of this science fields prove your alternative methods are nothing but pure crap.
For example: where is the evidence that ANY alternative method as achieved anything against cancer o reumathology?
"For example: where is the evidence that ANY alternative method as achieved anything against cancer o reumathology? (sic "rheumatology")? "
You still don't get it, do you, TA? The evidence is walking around. Get your nose out of the prescribed, approved texts for a while and "look out the window". Get out and start talking to people. Live, learn ... and mellow a little.
Glad you understand english is not my first language. I have zero problems in understanding you, btw. And you shouldnt have any problems understanding me.
Only now you answered the question. If you had any understanding of what is a ruptured appendix you would know that the treatment of such emergency involves quite a lot of sciences.
One of them: pharmacology. the understanding of this science field alone proves all of your claims wrong.
In a previous post, Transatlantic asserted that "thimerasol is NOT mercury".
From the NNI website at w w w . immunizationinfo . org / thimerosal _ mercury _ detail . cfv ? id = 3 :
QUOTE
"Thimerosal is a compound that is 49.6% mercury by weight." UNQUOTE
Now Transatlantic, before you press the "bullshit website" button, do yourself a favour and take the trouble to read the "About" page - your credibility is already in tatters.
Actually I gave you 2, but the second was probably a little complicated for you.
" filled with crap". care to be specific?
"arrows in very wrong time periods" Yes, go on. I presume you CAN give specific, authoritative correction?
"not the only method of prevention". No, as I said, better sanitation takes the greatest credit of all. In fact, there is little real evidence that vaccines do even prevent diseases., but they do make billions of dollars.
You gave me 2 bullshit websites. Made by unqualified people, that lie, manipulate and do not present references. they are indirect "talks" about subjects the authors don't grasp and have a clear anti-vax bias. with total disregard for correct information.
I can provide specific authoritative correction. The arrows don't point any specific time period - that is obvious. They are vague.
Actually better sanitation values ZERO after infection occurs., but you are oblivious to this fact.
a book is barely a reference specially when it is written by Greg Beattie... (who is that guy? is he a medical doctor, is he someone with a background in science? something tells me he has no idea what is a Cell or a mitochondria...uhm...) shall we trust lay people now? LOL
Here is the reference that "proves me wrong", in paragraph context:
QUOTE: The above graphs, based on the official death numbers as recorded in the Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia, are taken from Greg Beattie's excellent book "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma" and represent the decline in death rates from infectious disease in Australia. They clearly show that vaccines had nothing to do with the decline in death rates. (Quote continued next post)
(Quote continued) (Note: Graphical evidence on the decline in death rates from infectious disease for USA, England, New Zealand and many other countries shows the exact same scenario as above).
So what were the true reasons for this decline? From his book 'Health and Healing' Dr Andrew Weil best answers it with this statement; (Quote continued next post)
(Quote Continued) "Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunisations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available - the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water." UNQUOTE
Its true, Transatlantic that Beattie is one of "The Great Unwashed", as YOU would see him - "just" a parent without a brain, and incapable of meaningful research must just follow the advice of doctors that agree with you (not the others).
However, before you start hand-waiving at Andrew Weil, be advised he received his MD from Harvard over 40 years ago. Check out his biography. Find it at w w w . achievement . org / autodoc / page /wei1bio-1.
Ah, so you admit beattie is a lay person with zero understanding about science. Thanks for that. I prefer to trust information provider as a person with knowledge, understanding and able of critical thought. I don't buy crap written by some random lay person. like you do.
Dr Andrew is a very interesting person. i like his appeals for better health and healthy habits, nothing wrong there. But he is not openly against vaccines, so be carefull using him, because as it is now, HE refutes you.
you really have no idea what is the scientific method...hey loser..
i don't even care if you presented a nobel prize winner's quotes. All of that is meaningless without evidence to support their claims.
FOR ONCE: present one single reference to back up your claims. i don't want some stupid lay book written by a lay moron. I want EVIDENCE. want more examples of what is evidence? it will come.
Yes, All those developed countries show a decline in disease. Due to: antibiotics, new medical advancements (surgery, pneumology, corticosteroids, ventilators, new therapies, etc etc). not one single graph shows ZERO deaths before vaccines. Actually... you should give a look at mobidity of those vaccines... do you know an interesting fact... ONLY vaccines reduced morbidity to ZERO. Try look at a morbidity graph you loser.
ah, the famous Dr Andrew... an appeal for authority- logical falacy.
lol...really...who is greg? who the fuck is greg beatties? where is the reference that he used for his claims? where is it?
they do represent the decline in death rates from infectious disease. But what that actually means? that the diseases were erradicated before vaccines? no, they actually present cyclic higher incidences and increase in new strains before the use of the vaccines.
You clearly can't read those graphs, not one single graph shows zero deaths before the use of vax.
"You clearly can't read those graphs, not one single graph shows zero deaths before the use of vax."
Neither indeed after. Hey, you can obfuscate all you like, but you cannot escape the fact that without the arrows and the figures to hand it would be impossible to tell where the vaccines were introduced. Not even approximately.
Now that would tell most intelligent people something...
You really are dumb. Look at the graphs. You can see that the number of cases of variola, for example, go to ZERO after the introduction of vaccines. Imagine a decrease of 100% after the use of vaccines in just 1-2 years ALL over the world everytime the vax was used. "impossible to tell"? lol... you can even name the day, the year and where the vax was introduced.
but to deny and ignore the Historical facts is a known trend in kooks like you
"Look at the graphs....number of cases of variola, for example, go to ZERO after the introduction of vaccines." (For others' benefit, "Variola" is Smallpox).
Dunno which graph you're looking at TA(unfortunately one of the two sites I gave you is down at present).
Check the England / Wales and Sweden graphs at h (etc) : // childhealthsafety . wordpress . com / graphs / # Smallp _ UK _ US _ Swed which clearly tell another story - no indication that vaccines helped.
""impossible to tell"? lol... you can even name the day, the year and where the vax was introduced. but to deny and ignore the Historical facts is a known trend in kooks like you "
Crikey, TA. My meaning was very clear, but again you misrepresent. I'm not denying documented fact of when vaccines were into'd. I said that without that knowledge, it is impossible to tell from the graphs if you remove the arrows.
And it is. Remove the arrows and all you have is a diminishing series of peaks and troughs.
If I were to display one of those graphs without text, dates or arrows and remove you from any other source of information, you would be unable to point to any place in the graph and say, "that's when vaccinations were introduced".
The fact is that smallpox vaccinations let to many deaths. (Also well documented in the last URL I quoted.)
lol, that's because you only read the graphs out of context!!!! you are an useless dumb dumb that can't read the papers where the graphs were removed from. Read the papers where the graphs were taken from, and you get the dates, and even the explanation to the paper of vax in the erradication of diseases.
ofc you are lost, you didn't even read the papers, you read it all from crap anti-vax websites. you are being fooled, because you lay, ignorant and stupid. You have no education and you are seriously mentally ill. Hence you don't read directly the info, you need the info to be manipulated by anti-vax morons. that's the only way for you to sustain your delusion.
as i said: read the references from where those graphs were removed. they prove you wrong.
". The arrows don't point any specific time period - that is obvious. They are vague."
Surely, pointing to the year vaccines were introduced is sufficient in a hundred year graph? What are you looking for ? A time-stamp??
" better sanitation values ZERO after infection occurs"
To be kind, you are confusing the epidemiological level with the individual level. However would you happily subject your patients to unhygienic, unsanitary conditions maintaining it makes no difference?
Of course you wouldn't - so why make such a ridiculous claim?
It is so well established that improved sanitary conditions have vastly improved public health I'm not even going to bother debating that one any further. You are damaging your own credibility!
It is so well established that sanitary conditions have vastly improved public health. But such does not mean that if we don't vaccinate, the diseases won't return and we die because of them. vaccinated= you don't die from those infectious diseases.
You are proving you have no idea what is the difference between a CD4 and a CD8 cell.
meaning: you are a lay useless moron, proving that people like you kill kill kill because of the spreading of ignorance.
You asked me privately about CD4 and I told you. Now you want me to talk about CD8.
I'm not going to continue answering your red herrings, or responding to your personal abuse. I won't be baited by silly tactics like "dare name one of those references" that you only have to READ the URL that you already turned to.
Neither will I be intimidated by your bullying threats of "don't mess with me" or your orders to 'get lost".
You told me what? privately? lololol yeah...try imply here that you actually answer private messages. You answered ZERO! you loser. you have no idea what is a CD4 or CD8 cell.
Ofc you refuse my challenges, you know there iS NO REFERENCE that supports your quackery, only URL to some lay crap website, no thank you. i prefer to trust proper information like this one:
Sciencebasedmedicine org
written by NM school professors and associate MD, PhD writers.
From my very, very lengthy private rreply to your personal message to me:
"CD4... is an acronym for "cluster of differentiation 4". Its a glycoprotein and is a receptor for HIV on T helper cells, but look, I'm really not into debating HIV=AIDS right now. I confessed openly to being out of date on that debate. "
I also asked in that message if you could fill me in on the details of Gallo being hauled before the courts on fraud charges. Haven't heard from you yet.
Your lenghty private reply? lol... you didn't even check it, did you? YOU NEVER REPLIED TO ME PRIVATELY!!! YOU MORON!
CD4 is actually the gp that defines that type of white cell... at least we all know you can google stuff..HURRAY!
Gallo? what do i care about "charges"? people are presumed innocent, moron. But nice try. btw... Nobel prize of medicine for the discovery of the HIV was given already: 2008, Luc Montaigner.
don't reply, or you will be buried in evidence proving you wrong. get lost
My goodness, TA, you have got your tights in a tangle while I've been gone!
For the record, yes, you were right: I had spent a long time replying to every point in your pm to me, and when I sent it I didn't check my sent box. Fortunately I had kept a copy and have just resent it to you, after spending much time replying to your second pm. I checked this time. Its in my sent box.
Gallo...Probably not much, TA, as long as the person's assertions accord with what you believe. I've begun following up again, but in a nutshell the 2008 Nobel prize didn't acknowledge anything new. It was for the 1983 experiment where Montagnier produced a cell culture that he said MAY have the AIDS virus in it. He admitted he hadn't isolated it. Gallo used a sample of his culture, falsified his own laboratory reports and claimed to prove HIV=AIDS.
Nope, he produced a cell culture, that actually had the AIDS virus-> > HIV.
teaching lesson for you: an experiment in order to valid must be replicated with the same results. His experiment did replicate into the same conclusions: AIDS is caused by HIV.
He admited he isolated it. But somehow the myth spreads in conspiracy nutjobs like yourself that he didn't... is so strange.
Gallo may have done some false things, hence he didn't get the nobel.
Yes, I do realise these graphs don't all cover a hundred years (actually I think 90 years is the longest). Nevertheless, the arrows illustrate the point: These diseases were all dramatically on the decline well before the vaccinations were introduced. The reason? these epidemics largely follow societal development. Huge numbers, poor sanitation, epidemics. Societal advancement and improved sanitation brings improved public health.
A trend? yes i do see a trend: none of those disease where erradicated before the use of vaccines. That is the obvious conclusion from everysingle graph there is related to infectious diseases.
URL? lol... you think i am a lay retard like yourself?
assimilate this you moron, from WHO:
Mortality due to TB 2005:
Africa: 544000 people
Europe: 66000 people
now imagine...that even with poor conditions how many people could we save in africa with vaccines.
Thank you for those figures that demonstrate my point: these diseases occur as epidemics relative to the stage of development of a society. This is well-demonstrated by the world map at h etc : // hararetribune . com / health-a-science / infectious-diseases / 443 -tb-vaccine-in-the-pipeline . html
"now imagine...that even with poor conditions how many people could we save in africa with vaccines."
On the performance of the BCG vaccine, one would certainly have to ... "imagine", and given that the new vaccine isn't scheduled to be available until 2016 its quite safe to "imagine", think wishfully - or even assert as you do.
because i always love to bury you ignorant losers with evidence:
Efficacy of BCG vaccination of the newborn: evaluation by a follow-up study of contacts in Bangui.
Int J Epidemiol. 1995 Oct;24(5):1042-9.
want more? i have hundreds of peer-reviewed papers to prove you just another loser unable to read anything that isn't manipulated by some antivax crap website.
TA, you've been taught that "peer reviewed" as the imprimateur of truth and authority, and in your youthful naivete you haven't questioned that.
Financial compromise of "peer reviewed" authors has been the bain of medical journals for decades. It could be more a red flag than a guarantee of truth!
But seeing I'm only a "useless lay moron" let's see what the Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, Richard Horton has to say on it: (more)...
QUOTE "Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller...(more)
(Horton cont'd,[unedited]) "But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." UNQUOTE
TA, forget ME for a moment; what would you like to say to Richard Horton?
96% of authors defending calcium channel antagonists were found to have a financial interest in the drugs' manufacturers. (1)
I keep telling you... follow the money!
1. Stelfox HT, Chua G, O'Rourke K, Detsky AS. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium channel antagonists. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:101105. [PubMed]
Here's another one for you: "The threat to scientific integrity in environmental and occupational medicine". Go read it at h(etc) : //oem . bmj . com/cgi/content/abstract/62/12/843
Take special note of Horton's comment, "discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding", and that the system is "easily fixed" (or hijacked).
epidemics relative to the stage of a society level? LOLOLOLOL you moron.... you really have no idea about science.
These diseases occur because us, humans, can't fight them! we are not adapted to fight them, but they are adapted to prey on us.
you have no idea what evolution is. It is crystal clear: where vax rates are high, if you get one person infected, that would be how good vaccines are. No matter the society level.
Possibly not, but I do know what it isn't. And it isn't "natural selection" as you have said said to me (you've brought evolution into the public arena here).
You see, natural selection - a creationist concept - culls. It helps in maintaining conformity and actually hinders evolution (IFsuch were possible) by killing off deviants (eg mules, ligers are sterile) (more...)
(Evolution/natural selection cont'd) Most importantly, natural selection dumps genetic information, whereas evolution requires new information be added to the genome. Duplicating existing info (as in Down Syndrome) isn't NEW information. It is existing information repeated.
thank you for proving to everyone reading you that you are a example of an uneducated nutjob, when your kids are at the end of elementary school they will teach you properly or be ashamed of the kookparent they have.
Better make up your mind. You've been telling me I kill people.
Transatlantic, with all your "AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
"s and your "LOLOLOL"s,
your sputtering rhetoric, personal invective and abuse, I think you are losing the plot. The long hours and overnighters cramming for exams are taking their toll. Seriously - take a break Mate - you clearly need one.
"requires new info"? HAHAHA since when? you don't even know what "information" means in biology, you dumb loser.
"existing information repeated"? LOLOLOL so why are they so different? if there is no "info", why are they different? actually... why the heck not one single living human is equal to the other? uhm....
"existing information repeated"? LOLOLOL so... if there is no "info", why are they different?
Good question, but you misquote me. I said "no NEW info".
Transatlantic, take the word "not". Have you ever noticed the change of meaning when you duplicate it? "not not".
That's excessively simple, but genetic info is in code. It requires encoding and decoding. Similar to a computer program. Try duplicating random code in a computer program - see what happens. (more)...
"actually... why the heck not one single living human is equal to the other?"
Ok. Back to basics. Does "Combinations and Permutations" ring a bell?
With just 16 different numbers, there are a possible 20,922,789,888,000 permutations. There are just 6,000,000,000 folks in the world. Now replace 16 variables with the incredible complexity of the human genome and consider the possible number of permutations when you put two together.
Transatlantic, this is becoming more than just a nervous giggle. Get plenty of sleep and take a holiday.
"you have no idea about basic biology..."
Give yourself a few more years and you'll start to realise there's nothing basic about biology. You haven't scratched the surface of it yet. And yes, neither have I.
You are putting up a straw man - putting words into my mouth that I never said so you could knock it down!
I said what I meant.
TA, you seriously oversimplify the issue
bylooking only at the level of nucleotides and codons.
First, last I knew, around 1.5 million points of variance (SNP's) had been identified in the genome some 60,000(?) within the genes themselves. You might like to update that number for us? More....
Add to that the microsatellites (repeating nucleotide sequences - varies between individuals) that most have. Tremendous potential for variation! (more).
Consider though: the 3 billion base pairs of which only some 2% code for genes, the function of about 50% being as yet unknown. Of the remainder, some 99%(?) is identical from person to person and as I recall about half of it is yet to be understood - still referred to as junk dna". (more....)
cont'd ... oops, 1.5 billion base pairs...I'm getting tired.
Now, given that we are only 3 times more complex genetically speaking than a fruit fly oh, and only twice as complicated as one type of worm too small to see, bearing in mind too that we share 60-70% of our genes with a banana (and just about every other multicellular organism) do you suppose there may be whole dimensions that we don't know about the human genome? (more...)
the "function" in terms of a.a. translation are perfectly KNOWN for those 25k genes.
WHat remains unknow is much more than that.
right... now that i provided evidence u don't know what ur talking about, shall we go back to the evidence and fact that vaccines are perfectly safe, effective and needed?
Thanks for updating me as requested, and in doing so strengthening my point.
"go back to the evidence and fact that vaccines are perfectly safe, effective and needed" W'eve discussed that ad nauseum. I've given you the graphs and you can't see the trend, and you major on abusing the references I give you. Then you think that by merely citing a reference (like a magic charm) you seal your point beyond dispute.
U given graphs that prove u wrong, graphs made by the very people u accuse that manipulate research, graphs made by the very ppl that produce research and u deny it when it does not fit ur delusional thinking.
Not one of those graphs support u. IN ALL, ONLY after vax, the diseases were erradicated: this is a fact.
Moron... u only express the genes with a "start" and an "end". U could have trillin upon trillion of nucleotides, have but only 100 genes being expressed.
That's why there are worms with bigger number of pairs of nucletides than us, but even then we have more genes being expressed.
when i say (with the other scientists) that we share X%, they mean X% of nucleotides, NOT GENES! GO CHECK IT OUT YOU IGNORANT MORON!
wrong, the genome is not a computer code. Its made out of genetic code. Something you clearly ignore. RNA table of codons, does it ring any bells? i suppose not.
try repeat the code in a genome and you might get new information.
Transatlantic gushed, "wrong, the genome is not a computer code."
Transatlantic, once again you have misrepresented/misquoted me. What I said was AND I QUOTE: " It requires encoding and decoding. Similar to a computer program."
Gosh TA, howmany times have you done this to me now? SERIOUSLY, if you are that careless in reading your patients notes, you will seriously endanger their health.
Yet ANOTHER misrepresentation!! I never did say "equal". I Said "SIMILAR".
And comparing genetic code to a computer code wasn't my idea TA. It is a comparison drawn by many a scientist withy far more scientific knowledge and qualification than you OR me.
My qualifications are around the top 99,99% of this world population, so i am far far more qualified to talk about science than u, u idiot.
I am not a TA, i am a med student. I already told u that. because i do want to teach u, i'll now spam peer.reviewed papers proving how safe, needed and effective vax are. after and if u write any more stupid posts of urs. I am tired of ur stupidity and denialism.
"so i am far far more qualified to talk about science..."
Do so then. Save the rudeness, the obfuscation, the name-calling and childish tantrums, and instead of simply parroting citations that you already know are useless to me (and most readers)without the time and means to search them out, actually discuss the subject.
Actually TELL us about deaths from "snake oil".
"I am not a TA".
You haven't worked out that "TA" = TransAtlantic"?? And YOU tell ME to "stop being dumb"?
"read my nick: TRANSTLANTIC! do you see an Atlantic there? "
Congratulations! You have indeed caught me out. I hadn't noticed you had missed the "A" out (but what the heck - isn't this becoming PETTY?). Nervertheless in light of your generally..."flexible"... use of your keyboard it really doesn't stand out.
"whattheharm net" I haven't looked it up yet, but I haven't ignored it. I definitely will and will let you know.
FLU
LISA SNOWDON
DATING SPECIAL
whotaughtyou 1 month ago
Google: " vaccine-lobby-launches-gardasil-safety-hoax'
promiseIsaih60 4 months ago
For those who are under the false impression that a vaccine can prevent or cure AIDS, you need to do some serious research. It's a lie that only succeeds in damaging and destroying more lives while it creates a windfall for medicine.
AIDS-Vaccines Trials Dangerous (2001)
AIDS vaccines that do more harm than good (2007)
Vaccine Failure Is Setback in AIDS Fight - Test Subjects May Have Been Put at Extra Risk Of Contracting HIV (2008) - Washington Post
AIDS Drugs cause Heart Disease (2010)
ProjectRedPill1 5 months ago
"89% of doctors rely on drug company salesmen for their information." - The Australian Doctor 1989.
"The incidence of asthma has been found to be five times more common in vaccinated children." - The Lancet, 1994.
"There is no doubt in my mind that in the U.K. alone some hundreds, if not thousands, of well infants have suffered irreparable brain damage needlessly (due to being vaccinated)." - Prof. G. Stewart, Dev. Biol. Stand. Vol. 61: pp 395-405. 1985.
ProjectRedPill1 5 months ago
"Are you a Sheeple?"
Take the Sheeple Quiz and find out at Natural News
ProjectRedPill1 5 months ago
It's a great video, takes the mickey out of it, but gets the point across.
amanwithdreams 1 year ago
It does cause autism. There is not "autism". Wake up, sheep.
jeanne642 1 year ago
How much has the death rate from flu gone down since flu shots were implemented?
MiracleLeigh 1 year ago
What a stupid piece of propaganda...It's SO much better for hundreds of thousands of people to get sick and a few thousand die of it each year, than false claims that it causes autism which has been disproven in many studies (I think it was 27 times?)
gomashedpotatoes 1 year ago
@gomashedpotatoes
YouTube - Brian Deer exposed - vaccines, autism and the Lancet 12 parents
The propaganda is that vaccines cure disease and do no harm. If you research the CDC website you'll find the flu death numbers grossly over exaggerated because they are combined with deaths from pneumonia. By the way, whatever happened to the deadly world-wide flu pandemic that the "experts" said was supposed to kill millions? Take the blue pill if you like but don't say you were never warned.
ProjectRedPill1 10 months ago
this "exageration" is much closer to the truth than what our gov or doctors tell us.
they dont give us an ingredients list.
there is mercury in it.
there is detergent in it.
gwho 1 year ago
@gwho you got that right
russiam2 1 year ago
@gwho Yes you are right, there is also MSG, Acetone, Aluminum, Formaldehyde, and many more. It's a heavy metal cocktail. Great environment to cause short term and long term disease.
amanwithdreams 1 year ago
@gwho theres no mercury in it, anymore. You know theres mercury in fish, though? If there was a fish i could eat that makes me resistant to DYING FROM DISEASE, i would eat it.
grendelee 1 year ago
@grendelee There are still mercury in vaccines which use thimerosal (mercury preservative). The argument that the mercury in the fish is apples to oranges. First, the mercury in the fish compared to the mercury in a shot has little compared to the shot. Second, when you eat the fish it has to go through your own digestive system and there is a chance of it being more "filtered" instead just being directly injected into your system. Third, fish also have selenium which can counteract the mercury.
NinjaWagz 11 months ago
@NinjaWagz Actually, its the other way around.You get more mercury eating fish then you do getting a vaccine. And how is mercury "filtered"? I thought youre arguement was that mercury NEVER leaves the system, even though it goes away in 18 days.
And if you hate it so much, just get a mercury free shot. Simple as that.
grendelee 11 months ago
@grendelee How is a mercury free shot any safer when a vaccine still contains mutated & cloned viruses, formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, polysorbate 80, chick embryonic fluid, monkey kidney cells, squalene, aspartame and human diploid cells from aborted fetal tissue? (attention pro-lifers!) Sure, mercury is one of the most toxic elements on Earth, but the rest of the ingredients makes Saddam's weapons of mass destruction look like child's play. No wonder doctors avoid them!
ProjectRedPill1 10 months ago
@ProjectRedPill1 you dont know what any of those things are. Why is kindey cells bad? How are they bad for you? How about squalene? Thats the stuff thats in every plant and animal on earth. Polysorbate 80 is in food and people put it in their hair. You see, people TELL you its bad, so you get it in your head thats bad. But they you go on to eat food that has the same stuff in it. Dont let people tell you what to think. Basically, what it comes down to is "im afraid of needles" and thats it.
grendelee 10 months ago
@grendelee There's a good side and bad side to squalene. A 2000 study published in the American Journal of Pathology showed a single injection of squalene into rats triggered "chronic, immune-mediated joint-specific inflammation." (rheumatoid arthritis). Read - "Squalene: The Swine Flu Vaccine’s Dirty Little Secret Exposed" - Dr. J. Mercola. I've studied vaccines for over 20 years so I know what's bad about them without anyone having to tell me. Who told you mercury was good? A dentist?
ProjectRedPill1 5 months ago
Looks like I deleted my message. I just said that they're using comedy and exaggeration to get a message across. Its nought to get too concerned about as any person with a wee bit o sense would know it for what it is. Its quite amusing. I've never seen any egg shells in the vaccinations I've given (laughing)
AncientGP 2 years ago
And "no" Tranny, Im not going to give you studies papers or statistics, so don't ask laddie. I'm old tired and I've been around too long to even be bothered with all that.
AncientGP 2 years ago
onejohn, your losing the plot a wee bit too. Stick to the issues Sonny and forget the minutiae. Colloidal Silver was good in its time. Very good. My father was a doctor too and he used it. It lost favour very early in my time but I know good doctors who still recommend it.
AncientGP 2 years ago
Tranny you have a lot left to discover laddie and you're behaving like a wee laddie too. You spit back like a teeny-bopper texting under the desk! If you want to become a doctor one day, how about carrying yourself with a bit o humility and dignity and stop looking down your nose at folk who disagree with you eh? Now look here too, its not all as black and white like you think. There's qwakery on all sides. Sort it out.
AncientGP 2 years ago
Comment removed
AncientGP 2 years ago
Your tactic, Transtlantic, is clear. You are simply trying to bury, as far back in the thread the issues you don't want to (can't) address:
In particular, Horton's devastating discussion on the compromis of the "Peer Reviewed" process, which is underscored by the revelations of Climategate, where supposedly independent scientists with nothing more than benevolent intentions have conspired and engaged in clear scientific fraud.
How much MORE motive exists in the pharmaceutical area?!?
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
oh.... the Horton guy that knows that evolution is a valid theory that supports the need and use of vaccines! that guy!
The guy that knows that for each paper presented u must read it before being able to accuse it of invalid? the guy that knows that anti-vaxers are anti-science biased losers with no idea about what they are talking about?
transtlantic 2 years ago
because u love so much the lancet:
The Lancet,
Vol. 369 No. 9571 pp 1421-1422
"Vaccines occupy a peculiar place in medicine and society. That they prevent disease is incontrovertible; ample evidence for their effects is obvious"
transtlantic 2 years ago
up urs with this jonhy:
Safety and Immunogenicity of Trivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccine in Infants: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Study.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2009 Nov 19. "TIV administered to young infants beginning at 6 to 12 weeks of age is safe and immunogenic"
transtlantic 2 years ago
"Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2009 Nov 19."
Who funded it?
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
omg... here we go again... ad hominem.
instead of accusing the paper as invalid. READ IT!!!! WHO FUNDED IT is written IN THE PAPER!!!!!!
read the papers, loser!
anyone reading the paper will see how big of a fool u are.
transtlantic 2 years ago
TA, I didnt accuse it of being invalid. I simply asked who funded it. Stop being so touchy.
I have wasted much time already following some of your citations on the web, usually to find all I can access is a brief extract.
I'm not going to keep wasting time just because you parrot a citation that you have neatly stored in your notes fom your lectures and assignments. (more...)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(cont'd)
You simply deny, out of hand the credibility of every reference I've given. I'm simply asking you to demonstrate the credibility of your sources by demonstrating their independance and lack of conflicting interests.
I think you can't.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
i deny the credibility? u presented me with crappy bias anti-science websites... are that what u call.... "references"? AHAHAH try use that in a court of law! AHAHAHAH
I already proved the credibility of my sources: state funded or non profit groups, ALL written right there in the papers. Some times its written at the end. Right after the "conflicts of interest" part (usually it say: none to provide). u do know that conflicts of interest are obliged to be presented, don't u? ofc u never knew.
transtlantic 2 years ago
I well recall the days when, as a child lying in bed crook with some childhood illness, my doctor would brave snow and rain to attend my bedside. It was a different era. Those Dr Finlays and Dr Camerons went into medicine to serve - not for status - and expected to make a living, not a fortune.
How times have changed! Now it seems, people go into medicine for the elite status - to boast their top 99.99% qualification standing and look down pitifully and contemptuously
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(cont'd "contemptuously)
...upon the "ignorant little lay man" while feathering their nests. True, they study hard, they work hard, but no longer do they brave snow and rain to visit the sick child in their home, but instead force the sick child to brave the elements to sit for an hour at their convenience in a crowded germ-laden waiting room for a 10 minute consultation. (more...)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(cont'd "10 minute consultation...)
Compassion for the sick has been replaced by concern over the P&L, and "Bedside manner" has been exchanged for arrogance and superiority.
Certainly we have gained (and lost) much knowledge, but at what cost?
Transtlantic, will you fall in line with the trend, as your posts suggest, or will you care?
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
the trend is quite simple: anyone with an highschool education understand why vaccines are safe, effective and needed. You don't because you are an uneducated fool, killing ppl with ur ignorance.
thank god i am here to stop ur nonsense from spreading.
paper of the day:
transtlantic 2 years ago
ah... and more appeals for emotion... so funny...
the sick children that only I can save? and u can't do nothing at all?
i not the old? or the serious injured or ill? that also only I can help, and u do nothing. You dont' care, you want them all dead because of your ignorance. You don't want to help jonhy, you want to kill.
transtlantic 2 years ago
TA, You're heading for a nervous breakdown Lad. Get help.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
ODUMBJ512, you keep proving that u are a total nutjob!
up yours again:
Infants too young to receive pneumococcal conjugate vaccine benefit from herd immunity
Thorax. 2006 July; 61(7): 610.
"high incidence of IPD in black compared with white infants was eliminated after the introduction of PCV7". - its the pneumo vax.
transtlantic 2 years ago
ah, another useless anedoctal story... so nice... :D
elite status? lol... when i start my practice as independent i'll win the same if i treat 1, 10 or 100 people a day! we have a National health system here. YOU IGNORANT TARD!
elite stands for the group that boost for the better also.
transtlantic 2 years ago
"useless anedoctal "
TA, I have noticed that all the way through, anything involving real life - that is, PEOPLE - becomes "mere anecdotal" to you.
You only value dead statistics. That which can so easily be manipulated, and which I have demonstrated to you IS manipulated by immensely powerful corporations.
As far as your National Health system is concerned, I don't even know which country you are writing from, but I can't see your govt paying you the same to do nothing as to do much.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
you clearly have no clue what anedoctal means...
I do care about ppl, that's why i demand evidence. Your stories are nothing but lies and false appeals for emotion. You keep failing to support any of ur nonsense talk.
what manipulation are u talking about? where is ur evidence? WHERE IS IT? nowhere. u are just doing nutjob talk.
Where have u shown manipulation? WHERE? i presented like 4-5 papers by now. What line was manipulated? are u telling ppl that stated funded papers are....
transtlantic 2 years ago
wow... u can't even see the country i am writing from? WOW, how old are u, 5?
Hey Jonhydumb512, U asked correctly and i answered it: READ THE PAPER! ITS RIGHT THERE! who funded it. stop the denial and more reading.
"brief extract"? lol... no problem, anyone with more than 5 years of age can access easily the full written papers.
stored? i do a 10 sec search at PUBMED....
transtlantic 2 years ago
I've not yet seen Transatlantic's comment to Horton, the Editor-in-Chief" of The Lancet, concerning his devastating evaluation of "peer reviewed", and I doubt (given that he has had a week) that we will.
This week has seen "Climategate" & the true nature of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax exposed to the world as top global warming scientists SUPPOSEDLY with nothing to gain other than helping to "save the planet" have been shown to be conniving CONSPIRATORS. (more...)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
Cont'd ...
Conspiracies have existed for millenia, yet the public has been conned into eschewing the term, "conspiracy" - for ever now linked to "nut" - now even demonised and written into law by no less than the Pres of the USA!
Why???
And why would we be so GULLIBLE, seeing top "independent" climate scientists disgraced, to continue to trust Pharmaceutical companies with billions to gain or lose, to give us the truth about vaccines and drugs?
Trasatlantic? (remember Horton!)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
this all ends at this point:
who do we trust?
the nutjob with nooooo idea about what his talking about, with no education, no qualifications, with NOT even one single piece of evidence to provide... (i talking about u jonhy).
or the scientists, the science, the consensus and peer-review of experts, of ppl that spent YEARS studying and dedicating their lives to problems that trouble humanity, that allow discoveries that save ur life or help u in social and economic dimensions....
get it?
transtlantic 2 years ago
"get it? "
Sure I get it, TA. We owe much to the dedicated people who have pursued science, made outstanding discoveries, questioned existing paradigms and furthered science - generally to ostracized by their peers who have jealously defended the existing paradigm.
Its those who jealously defend existing paradigms - often because of conflicts of interest and manipulated by the pharmaceuticals - who can't be trusted.
I've demonstrated that. You've ignored it.
QED.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
what paradigms can OneJohnFiveTwelve defend when he ignores science? what kind of anything at all related to science or society can OneJohnFiveTwelve defend when he is lay, ignorant and clearly a creationist nujob? absolutly nothing ofc, that's why he actually helps manipulation from ill intended groups: he is just another idiot with no idea about what he is talking about.
here i am to provide the "defense" he so much wants, and to protect him from his own ignorance
transtlantic 2 years ago
Ur a nutjob selling snake oil to ppl and u dare question about drugs that save lifes and vaccines that prevent the loss of lifes?
u do more harm with the astonishing quantity of ignorance that u spread than a misuse of Paracetamol
transtlantic 2 years ago
Yes, like many senior, highly qualified doctors and many medical professionals, I do dare question the value of MANY drugs and vaccines. I see lives wrecked - people turned into zombies by antidepressants. I see muscles destroyed by statins - even prescribed for women when the pharmaceuticals have ignored studies that show that higher cholesterol levels are beneficial and life-extending for women. Hundreds of thousand die every year from prescribed drugs. (more...)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(cont'd ..drugs)
So where are the deaths from "snake oil"? Eh?
Do you know, TA, the whole Pan Pharmaceuticals farce here in Australia was triggered when one person tried to jump from a plane after taking Travacalm? Travacalm, incidentally is not a natural health product, but a chemist-only drug. Nevertheless that incident triggered the raid on a company that failed to perform 2 hr long steam-cleans on equipment that packed calcium before it was reallocated to magnesium. (more)...
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(cont'd) ALL stocks of vitamins, minerals and supplements were subject of a TGA forced recall. 500 small businesses forced to close. you can imagine the grin on Big Pharma's face. You see the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) is dominated by big Pharma's people and interests.
Ultimately the owner of Pan sued the TGA and was awarded zillions. Now you can imagine the scowl on Big Pharma's face.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(Cont'd - Big Pharma's face)
So there you go... how many deaths does it take for a DRUG to be recalled. How many for a pharmaceutical company to be raided, "taken down" and ALL ... I mean ALL its drugs to be recalled?
We are looking at corruption Ta. Corruption of a monstrous degree and at the highest levels!
Yes, I dare.
Spew all your venom, name-calling, petty rudeness and ignorance of anything not learned in your classroom from your mentors.
I still dare. Because I have SEEN.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
So there u go... u keep talking crap about things u don't have any idea about and keep avoiding to talk about the subject at hand:
Vaccines, that are safe, effective and needed, u failed to provide evidence of the opposite, instead u follow the known path of the conspiracy nutjob: move the goal post, deny and talk crap, with never, but never presenting any piece of evidence. just pure and simple conspiracy crap, that's what u have to give.
transtlantic 2 years ago
where the deaths of snake oil?
easiest question ever:
1) whatstheharm net - made by a very famous guy, interesting stuff.
2) Qual Assur Health Care. 1990;2(2):111-7.
Quality of alternative medicine--complications and avoidable deaths.
3) ppl die from CAM when they avoid proper treatment, or take to much of a quack CAM product, third: they don't die or get any treatment because CAM really has no beneficial effect at all. - this is logic.
U failed to provide any evidence.
transtlantic 2 years ago
u are not a senior or qualified doctor that dares question using their previous understanding about science. u DENY and accuse based upon ignorance. there is a difference.
U see no such things because u don't even understand the basic principles of chemical laws, u ignore human phisiology...etc, u see things u don't understand, hence ur accusations are anedoctal.
transtlantic 2 years ago
lol... i could even provide u with plenty more papers about the needed review of the peer-review protocols. But that would be using arguments from authority. A logical falacy.
The editor in chief of the Lancet perfectly understands that pittyfull ad hominems from lay ignorant ppl like u are.... anedoctal.
now u just move the goal post in order to avoid to talk about vaccines...
a very famous tactic used by anti-science, conspiracy and religious nutjubs.
why are u afraid of talking about vax?
transtlantic 2 years ago
"The editor in chief of the Lancet perfectly understands that pittyfull ad hominems from lay ignorant ppl like u are.... anedoctal."
Sue, and he would come out in favour of vaccines. A "hostile witness" is far more valuable to my case against the futility of trusting in "peer reviewed" studies funded by corrupt pharmaceuticals.
But it wasn't "anecdotal" we were discussing when I quoted Horton. It was "peer reviewed" and I aked what you'd like to say to him. You ignored the challenge.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
what challenge?
U MORON!!! what challenge?!?!?!?!
u keep mentioning peer-review studies... but u don't even have a clue what is such!
GROW some brain cells and refute the papers.
transtlantic 2 years ago
"what challenge?"
Just what is wrong with your short-term memory TA? The much repeated challenge was "What would you like to say to Dr Horton?" Come on...
"u keep mentioning peer-review studies... but u don't even have a clue what is such!"
You impudent young fellow. Please - desist from presuming to know all about me and what I know and don't know. I'm making allowances for your adolescence, but its wearing very thin.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
You keep trying to change the subject horton knows that his comments can't commit logical falacies. He sure knows that u must read ther paper in order to prove its validity. His very comment is the result of paper analysis.
I am sure my assumptions are quite correct: you are a lay little man with no idea about what his talking about. or else you would be presenting evidence to support your claims. you presented: zero references to scientific papers and shown how ur lunacy only takes what "fits"
transtlantic 2 years ago
"You keep trying to change the subject horton knows that his comments can't commit logical falacies."
On the contrary - I INTRODUCED the subject. We are talking integrity and reliability of "peer reviewed" NOT "logical fallacies"
Try and stay with it TA. I know its a difficult challenge for you to address. Stay focused.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
Yes, we are talking about logical falacies. Everysingle peer-reviewed scientific paper published, must be first proved as "unrealiable", before u can present it as invalid! as u have the bias of not reading them, u are always in the nutjob field.
try focused in this: u keep presenting zero evidence, while I, present plenty!
transtlantic 2 years ago
"The editor in chief of the Lancet perfectly understands that pittyfull ad hominems from lay ignorant ppl like u are....? anedoctal."
TA, its the Editor-in-Chief's OWN "ad hominem" against "peer-reviewed" I drew your attention to.
Its you, my friend who are moving the goal-posts.
I STILLwait to hear what you'd like to say in answer to him. My guess is I'll be waiting a long, long time while you obfuscate, avoid, abuse and name-call.
But please prove me wrong.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
I already proved u wrong. U must refute each paper, and not avoid its reading by accusing it from an a priori doubt about its quality, but we all know u are a nutjob with a bias.
grow up
transtlantic 2 years ago
It was Horton, remember, who issued the devastating comment on the trustworthiness of papers.
There are THOUSANDS of "papers" TA, please don't just come out with plainly silly things.
I STILL wait your response to Horton.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
for example these are peer-reviewed scientific papers
Microbial communication, cooperation and cheating: quorum sensing drives the evolution of cooperation in bacteria.
PLoS One. 2009 Aug 17;4(8):e6655.
Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 March 30; 96(7): 38073812.
my response to Horton? do you think he doubts the theory of evolution?
transtlantic 2 years ago
"my response to Horton? do you think he doubts the theory of evolution? "
Evolution??? We are talking about Horton's devastation of "peer reviewed".
Crikey, TA. How blatantly evasive can you be?
I'm still waiting for your response to Horton concerning his devastating remarks that demolish the integrity and reliability of "peer reviewed".
TA... its not going to go away.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
Yes, i do wonder why you talking about stuff that has no place in this debate....
Horton does not doubt the science that proves evolution which is the same that proves why vaccines are needed.
if you had put a foot in highschool you would know this by now!!!!
Horton does not destroy anything, you nutjob
transtlantic 2 years ago
"I already proved u wrong." No, you took that statement out of context - and you know it!
I said "prove me wrong" that while "I STILL wait to hear what you'd like to say in answer to him my guess is I'll be waiting a long, long time while you obfuscate, avoid, abuse and name-call."
You are backed into a corner. You have nothing to say to Dr Horton who has embarrased your case to the point where you have to debate dishonestly, misrepresenting and ..."misunderstanding" me.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
LOL... u losers are always the same... u even use what refutes ur own delusion because U dont have a clue about what your talking about!!!
DR HORTON! KNOWS what is ad hominem, and thats what your doing! u can't deny the reading of the papers! because u'll know if a paper is valid or not AFTER U READ IT!!! GET IT? u tick head!!!
now go spread ur stupid bias elsewhere!
transtlantic 2 years ago
That was great!
Yuratchka 2 years ago
Transatlantic said, "I asked quite clearly...if you had to bet your life... where would you place your trust: modern medicine or your quackery? "
Seeing as you're focused on winning a debate rather than assimilating new information, you'd be advised not to ask a question like that unless you're pretty confident of the answer! You see, I've actually been going through just such a life-threatening situation over the last few weeks. (more)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(cont'd)
My approach isn't unique; it is to benefit from both worlds, but sadly, in my case "conventional medicine" has taken a band-aid approach to silence the symptoms rather than get to the bottom of the problem. THAT'S quackery. Alternative disciplines, taking a diagnostic approach are SUCCESSFULLY treating the root causes, reflecting in diminishing symptoms. If you, or anyone else is interested write me privately and I'll give you the details.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
You can't tell me new information. Your fantasy is not information that i want to assimilate. I prefer to learn proper science.
Your little anedoctal stories... (you quacks always have one), "alternative...blah blah blah blah"
i ask to everyone...did he answered my question? no, ofc not. The quacks have no idea what basic science is.
AGAIN: if you have to bet your life, where would you place your trust? modern medicine or your quackery?
let's put an example: ruptured appendyx
transtlantic 2 years ago
"can't tell me new information"
You are in denial, like a monkey with your hands clasped over your ears TA!
"AGAIN: if you have to bet your life, where would you place your trust? " I have ALREADY answered this one and you don't want to hear.
"Ruptured appendyx (sic)" You've REALLY been to medical school?? With spelling like that I doubt it. But hey, isn't this a no-brainer? We all know a ruptured appendix is a medical emergency.
No discipline has the answer to everything.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
Again you dodged the question...
clearly you don't want to admit you would need to go to a medical doctor in order to be treated. Well... pity... you just prove me right bt default.
Sorry for the spelling. If you want i can change to Portuguese, i hope your spelling is good in that language. wanna try?
Pare de ser um ANORMAL!
come on loser. who would you place your life if you had a ruptured appendix?
transtlantic 2 years ago
"Again you dodged the question..."
On the contrary; you dodged my answer. It was there clear enough for anyone else to understand, but OK I now understand you are Portuguese and having a little difficulty with the language and spelling.
As I said, a ruptured appendix is a medical emergency. Of course I would rely on a doctor! I have talked already about "the best of both worlds" and that is my approach.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
However, the very fact that you use such a medical emergency as an example demonstrates your lack of understanding of alternative methods. Although there are many instances where alternative medicine has achieved what drugs and surgery can't (eg cancer and MS), natural methods are basically about prevention and maintaining health. Alopathic medicine is about emergency intervention and maintaining life. The latter is frequently needed as a result of a life of unhealthy habits, but not always.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
The fact that i use an medical situation is what i use to prove all of your alternative methods as quackery. A ruptured appendix involves the understanding of pharmacology, anatomy, pathology, human phisiology, biochemistry, histology, etc etc etc. All of this science fields prove your alternative methods are nothing but pure crap.
For example: where is the evidence that ANY alternative method as achieved anything against cancer o reumathology?
transtlantic 2 years ago
"For example: where is the evidence that ANY alternative method as achieved anything against cancer o reumathology? (sic "rheumatology")? "
You still don't get it, do you, TA? The evidence is walking around. Get your nose out of the prescribed, approved texts for a while and "look out the window". Get out and start talking to people. Live, learn ... and mellow a little.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
alternative methods are about what? lolol...
alternative methods that ignore the basic principles of preventive care? your alternative methods that ignore the Human kind need for vaccines? LOLOL
"maintaining health"? lol...all i see is your alternative care do the following: nothing at all or kill.
"alopathic" is the term developed by some homeoquackery moron.
There is only one medicine -> what i am studying.
You? you believe in fantasy crap, useless or/and harmfull.
transtlantic 2 years ago
I never dodged any of your answers.
Glad you understand english is not my first language. I have zero problems in understanding you, btw. And you shouldnt have any problems understanding me.
Only now you answered the question. If you had any understanding of what is a ruptured appendix you would know that the treatment of such emergency involves quite a lot of sciences.
One of them: pharmacology. the understanding of this science field alone proves all of your claims wrong.
transtlantic 2 years ago
There is not the "best of both worlds".
There is only one thing: science.
And science exposes your quackery. Science proves that HIV is a fact, vaccines are safe and effective, coloidal silver is useless and etc etc etc
you have not even the basic education needed to grasp science.
transtlantic 2 years ago
There is only one field where you have the answer to everything related to reality:
Science.
In terms of health, there is only ONE field where you will have the answer to everything related to it:
medical science. (including immunology, phisiology, microbiology, etc etc)
you have no idea what is science. get lost loser.
transtlantic 2 years ago
In a previous post, Transatlantic asserted that "thimerasol is NOT mercury".
From the NNI website at w w w . immunizationinfo . org / thimerosal _ mercury _ detail . cfv ? id = 3 :
QUOTE
"Thimerosal is a compound that is 49.6% mercury by weight." UNQUOTE
Now Transatlantic, before you press the "bullshit website" button, do yourself a favour and take the trouble to read the "About" page - your credibility is already in tatters.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
You useless stupid moron...
you keep proving you have not a single idea about basic chemistry.... do you know what is hemoglobin? do you call it Iron?
what about your body? shall we keep away from you because you are more than 50% hydrogen? you might explode...carefull with the fire!!!
AHAHAHAHAH
you useless moron... ofc a MOLECULE has x weight of Y. It doesn't mean that it is Y.
you can't even tell the difference between a molecule and an atom, go back to school!
transtlantic 2 years ago
Hey, hey, hey, you're a loser. Why don't you read the science. Vaccines are safe and effective.
thorwd 2 years ago
Hey hey hey Thorwd, another "name-caller"? Suggest you read both sides of the science.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
Another truth said with humor.
citysawyer 2 years ago
and again another total bogus website filled with crap...
1) they lie
2) they never mention the time before the introduction of vaccines
3) they put some arrows in very wrong time periods
4) vaccines are not the only method of prevention
You idiot..."shifting goalposts"? you have ZERO knowledge about science. so how the heck can you talk about science?
you are just using straw man arguments. You are appealing to conspiracy delusion!!!
transtlantic 2 years ago
"another total bogus website"
Actually I gave you 2, but the second was probably a little complicated for you.
" filled with crap". care to be specific?
"arrows in very wrong time periods" Yes, go on. I presume you CAN give specific, authoritative correction?
"not the only method of prevention". No, as I said, better sanitation takes the greatest credit of all. In fact, there is little real evidence that vaccines do even prevent diseases., but they do make billions of dollars.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
You gave me 2 bullshit websites. Made by unqualified people, that lie, manipulate and do not present references. they are indirect "talks" about subjects the authors don't grasp and have a clear anti-vax bias. with total disregard for correct information.
I can provide specific authoritative correction. The arrows don't point any specific time period - that is obvious. They are vague.
Actually better sanitation values ZERO after infection occurs., but you are oblivious to this fact.
transtlantic 2 years ago
2 bullshit websites [...] lie, manipulate and do not present references."
How did you get past 1st year uni? How did you miss the clear reference under those graphs?
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
"Oops ...sent prematuely)
How did you miss the clear reference under those graphs?
QUOTE "taken from Greg Beattie's excellent book "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma""
Under those graphs were a number of links. They were FULL of references, many from highly regarded medical doctors.
Transatlantic, why do you make such blatantly false comments? Is it because you don't think others will check out the links anyway?
"anti-vax bias". Of course they do. There's no secret in that.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
a book is barely a reference specially when it is written by Greg Beattie... (who is that guy? is he a medical doctor, is he someone with a background in science? something tells me he has no idea what is a Cell or a mitochondria...uhm...) shall we trust lay people now? LOL
full of references? try name one. i dare you.
transtlantic 2 years ago
The clear reference under those graphs prove you wrong.
second: using the references under the graphs creates a paradox using your own logic: you don't trust studies.
transtlantic 2 years ago
"The clear reference under those graphs prove you wrong."
Explain. You've lost me, and no doubt anyone else reading this ridiculous verbal ping ponging match.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
Here is the reference that "proves me wrong", in paragraph context:
QUOTE: The above graphs, based on the official death numbers as recorded in the Official Year Books of the Commonwealth of Australia, are taken from Greg Beattie's excellent book "Vaccination A Parent's Dilemma" and represent the decline in death rates from infectious disease in Australia. They clearly show that vaccines had nothing to do with the decline in death rates. (Quote continued next post)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(Quote continued) (Note: Graphical evidence on the decline in death rates from infectious disease for USA, England, New Zealand and many other countries shows the exact same scenario as above).
So what were the true reasons for this decline? From his book 'Health and Healing' Dr Andrew Weil best answers it with this statement; (Quote continued next post)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(Quote Continued) "Scientific medicine has taken credit it does not deserve for some advances in health. Most people believe that victory over the infectious diseases of the last century came with the invention of immunisations. In fact, cholera, typhoid, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, etc, were in decline before vaccines for them became available - the result of better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal, and distribution of food and water." UNQUOTE
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
Its true, Transatlantic that Beattie is one of "The Great Unwashed", as YOU would see him - "just" a parent without a brain, and incapable of meaningful research must just follow the advice of doctors that agree with you (not the others).
However, before you start hand-waiving at Andrew Weil, be advised he received his MD from Harvard over 40 years ago. Check out his biography. Find it at w w w . achievement . org / autodoc / page /wei1bio-1.
How does it compare with yours, TA?
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
Ah, so you admit beattie is a lay person with zero understanding about science. Thanks for that. I prefer to trust information provider as a person with knowledge, understanding and able of critical thought. I don't buy crap written by some random lay person. like you do.
Dr Andrew is a very interesting person. i like his appeals for better health and healthy habits, nothing wrong there. But he is not openly against vaccines, so be carefull using him, because as it is now, HE refutes you.
transtlantic 2 years ago
you really have no idea what is the scientific method...hey loser..
i don't even care if you presented a nobel prize winner's quotes. All of that is meaningless without evidence to support their claims.
FOR ONCE: present one single reference to back up your claims. i don't want some stupid lay book written by a lay moron. I want EVIDENCE. want more examples of what is evidence? it will come.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Yes, All those developed countries show a decline in disease. Due to: antibiotics, new medical advancements (surgery, pneumology, corticosteroids, ventilators, new therapies, etc etc). not one single graph shows ZERO deaths before vaccines. Actually... you should give a look at mobidity of those vaccines... do you know an interesting fact... ONLY vaccines reduced morbidity to ZERO. Try look at a morbidity graph you loser.
ah, the famous Dr Andrew... an appeal for authority- logical falacy.
transtlantic 2 years ago
quote?
lol...really...who is greg? who the fuck is greg beatties? where is the reference that he used for his claims? where is it?
they do represent the decline in death rates from infectious disease. But what that actually means? that the diseases were erradicated before vaccines? no, they actually present cyclic higher incidences and increase in new strains before the use of the vaccines.
You clearly can't read those graphs, not one single graph shows zero deaths before the use of vax.
transtlantic 2 years ago
"You clearly can't read those graphs, not one single graph shows zero deaths before the use of vax."
Neither indeed after. Hey, you can obfuscate all you like, but you cannot escape the fact that without the arrows and the figures to hand it would be impossible to tell where the vaccines were introduced. Not even approximately.
Now that would tell most intelligent people something...
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
You really are dumb. Look at the graphs. You can see that the number of cases of variola, for example, go to ZERO after the introduction of vaccines. Imagine a decrease of 100% after the use of vaccines in just 1-2 years ALL over the world everytime the vax was used. "impossible to tell"? lol... you can even name the day, the year and where the vax was introduced.
but to deny and ignore the Historical facts is a known trend in kooks like you
transtlantic 2 years ago
"Look at the graphs....number of cases of variola, for example, go to ZERO after the introduction of vaccines." (For others' benefit, "Variola" is Smallpox).
Dunno which graph you're looking at TA(unfortunately one of the two sites I gave you is down at present).
Check the England / Wales and Sweden graphs at h (etc) : // childhealthsafety . wordpress . com / graphs / # Smallp _ UK _ US _ Swed which clearly tell another story - no indication that vaccines helped.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
""impossible to tell"? lol... you can even name the day, the year and where the vax was introduced. but to deny and ignore the Historical facts is a known trend in kooks like you "
Crikey, TA. My meaning was very clear, but again you misrepresent. I'm not denying documented fact of when vaccines were into'd. I said that without that knowledge, it is impossible to tell from the graphs if you remove the arrows.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
And it is. Remove the arrows and all you have is a diminishing series of peaks and troughs.
If I were to display one of those graphs without text, dates or arrows and remove you from any other source of information, you would be unable to point to any place in the graph and say, "that's when vaccinations were introduced".
The fact is that smallpox vaccinations let to many deaths. (Also well documented in the last URL I quoted.)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
lol, that's because you only read the graphs out of context!!!! you are an useless dumb dumb that can't read the papers where the graphs were removed from. Read the papers where the graphs were taken from, and you get the dates, and even the explanation to the paper of vax in the erradication of diseases.
transtlantic 2 years ago
lol, more indirect links to useless crap... you really can't prvide anything direct, clear....
smallpox erradication ONLY because of vaccines (might reappear without vax):
Smallpox and Its Eradication (History of International Public Health, No. 6). Geneva: World Health Organization. pp. 422538
Rodrigues BA (1975). "Smallpox eradication in the Americas". Bull Pan Am Health Organ 9 (1): 5368.
more? come on... you can«t be that dumb...
transtlantic 2 years ago
dont equate smallpox with the flu common or uncommon.
muckstar23 2 years ago
ofc you are lost, you didn't even read the papers, you read it all from crap anti-vax websites. you are being fooled, because you lay, ignorant and stupid. You have no education and you are seriously mentally ill. Hence you don't read directly the info, you need the info to be manipulated by anti-vax morons. that's the only way for you to sustain your delusion.
as i said: read the references from where those graphs were removed. they prove you wrong.
transtlantic 2 years ago
". The arrows don't point any specific time period - that is obvious. They are vague."
Surely, pointing to the year vaccines were introduced is sufficient in a hundred year graph? What are you looking for ? A time-stamp??
" better sanitation values ZERO after infection occurs"
To be kind, you are confusing the epidemiological level with the individual level. However would you happily subject your patients to unhygienic, unsanitary conditions maintaining it makes no difference?
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
Of course you wouldn't - so why make such a ridiculous claim?
It is so well established that improved sanitary conditions have vastly improved public health I'm not even going to bother debating that one any further. You are damaging your own credibility!
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
It is so well established that sanitary conditions have vastly improved public health. But such does not mean that if we don't vaccinate, the diseases won't return and we die because of them. vaccinated= you don't die from those infectious diseases.
You are proving you have no idea what is the difference between a CD4 and a CD8 cell.
meaning: you are a lay useless moron, proving that people like you kill kill kill because of the spreading of ignorance.
transtlantic 2 years ago
"CD4 and a CD8 cell."
You asked me privately about CD4 and I told you. Now you want me to talk about CD8.
I'm not going to continue answering your red herrings, or responding to your personal abuse. I won't be baited by silly tactics like "dare name one of those references" that you only have to READ the URL that you already turned to.
Neither will I be intimidated by your bullying threats of "don't mess with me" or your orders to 'get lost".
No-one is holding you here.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
You told me what? privately? lololol yeah...try imply here that you actually answer private messages. You answered ZERO! you loser. you have no idea what is a CD4 or CD8 cell.
Ofc you refuse my challenges, you know there iS NO REFERENCE that supports your quackery, only URL to some lay crap website, no thank you. i prefer to trust proper information like this one:
Sciencebasedmedicine org
written by NM school professors and associate MD, PhD writers.
Get lost loser.
transtlantic 2 years ago
From my very, very lengthy private rreply to your personal message to me:
"CD4... is an acronym for "cluster of differentiation 4". Its a glycoprotein and is a receptor for HIV on T helper cells, but look, I'm really not into debating HIV=AIDS right now. I confessed openly to being out of date on that debate. "
I also asked in that message if you could fill me in on the details of Gallo being hauled before the courts on fraud charges. Haven't heard from you yet.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
Your lenghty private reply? lol... you didn't even check it, did you? YOU NEVER REPLIED TO ME PRIVATELY!!! YOU MORON!
CD4 is actually the gp that defines that type of white cell... at least we all know you can google stuff..HURRAY!
Gallo? what do i care about "charges"? people are presumed innocent, moron. But nice try. btw... Nobel prize of medicine for the discovery of the HIV was given already: 2008, Luc Montaigner.
don't reply, or you will be buried in evidence proving you wrong. get lost
transtlantic 2 years ago
My goodness, TA, you have got your tights in a tangle while I've been gone!
For the record, yes, you were right: I had spent a long time replying to every point in your pm to me, and when I sent it I didn't check my sent box. Fortunately I had kept a copy and have just resent it to you, after spending much time replying to your second pm. I checked this time. Its in my sent box.
"Gallo? what do i care about "charges"?"
(more...)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(cont'd)
Gallo...Probably not much, TA, as long as the person's assertions accord with what you believe. I've begun following up again, but in a nutshell the 2008 Nobel prize didn't acknowledge anything new. It was for the 1983 experiment where Montagnier produced a cell culture that he said MAY have the AIDS virus in it. He admitted he hadn't isolated it. Gallo used a sample of his culture, falsified his own laboratory reports and claimed to prove HIV=AIDS.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
Nope, he produced a cell culture, that actually had the AIDS virus-> > HIV.
teaching lesson for you: an experiment in order to valid must be replicated with the same results. His experiment did replicate into the same conclusions: AIDS is caused by HIV.
He admited he isolated it. But somehow the myth spreads in conspiracy nutjobs like yourself that he didn't... is so strange.
Gallo may have done some false things, hence he didn't get the nobel.
transtlantic 2 years ago
Yes, I do realise these graphs don't all cover a hundred years (actually I think 90 years is the longest). Nevertheless, the arrows illustrate the point: These diseases were all dramatically on the decline well before the vaccinations were introduced. The reason? these epidemics largely follow societal development. Huge numbers, poor sanitation, epidemics. Societal advancement and improved sanitation brings improved public health.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
The graphics are clear? LOLOLOLOL
Fact: the diseases were in decline, true
FACT: they were not being errradicated and had cyclic higher incidence.
FACT: only after vaccines they were erradicated
FACT: all those graphs are from a developed society. want me to provide reference to a undeveloped society graphic of those diseases?
get real you stupid idiot. people like you kill the society.
get lost.
transtlantic 2 years ago
"The graphics are clear? LOLOLOLOL"
Yes, they are very clear indeed for anyone who can understand trend. I'm surprised you cannot if you really have a medical training as you claim.
"undeveloped society graphic "
Yes, please provide a URL. I AM interested to assimilate new information.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
A trend? yes i do see a trend: none of those disease where erradicated before the use of vaccines. That is the obvious conclusion from everysingle graph there is related to infectious diseases.
URL? lol... you think i am a lay retard like yourself?
assimilate this you moron, from WHO:
Mortality due to TB 2005:
Africa: 544000 people
Europe: 66000 people
now imagine...that even with poor conditions how many people could we save in africa with vaccines.
transtlantic 2 years ago
"Africa: 544000 people
Europe: 66000 people"
Thank you for those figures that demonstrate my point: these diseases occur as epidemics relative to the stage of development of a society. This is well-demonstrated by the world map at h etc : // hararetribune . com / health-a-science / infectious-diseases / 443 -tb-vaccine-in-the-pipeline . html
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
"now imagine...that even with poor conditions how many people could we save in africa with vaccines."
On the performance of the BCG vaccine, one would certainly have to ... "imagine", and given that the new vaccine isn't scheduled to be available until 2016 its quite safe to "imagine", think wishfully - or even assert as you do.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
lol.... you really are a total idiot...
Not even the BCG vaccine you can make a case against...
let's be clear: do you know how many new cases existed the year previous to the vaccine and the year after the vaccine introduction?
do give it a search, the reason you will dodge this one is because you know vax all to do with the almost insignificant numbers of TB in modern world.
you are a lay ignorant idiot. when are you actually going provide a reference to support your claims?
transtlantic 2 years ago
because i always love to bury you ignorant losers with evidence:
Efficacy of BCG vaccination of the newborn: evaluation by a follow-up study of contacts in Bangui.
Int J Epidemiol. 1995 Oct;24(5):1042-9.
want more? i have hundreds of peer-reviewed papers to prove you just another loser unable to read anything that isn't manipulated by some antivax crap website.
transtlantic 2 years ago
I'll come back to BCG. First, "Peer reviewed:
TA, you've been taught that "peer reviewed" as the imprimateur of truth and authority, and in your youthful naivete you haven't questioned that.
Financial compromise of "peer reviewed" authors has been the bain of medical journals for decades. It could be more a red flag than a guarantee of truth!
But seeing I'm only a "useless lay moron" let's see what the Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, Richard Horton has to say on it: (more)...
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
QUOTE "Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller...(more)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(Horton cont'd,[unedited]) "But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." UNQUOTE
TA, forget ME for a moment; what would you like to say to Richard Horton?
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
For the record, here's an example:
96% of authors defending calcium channel antagonists were found to have a financial interest in the drugs' manufacturers. (1)
I keep telling you... follow the money!
1. Stelfox HT, Chua G, O'Rourke K, Detsky AS. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium channel antagonists. N Engl J Med. 1998;338:101105. [PubMed]
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
Here's another one for you: "The threat to scientific integrity in environmental and occupational medicine". Go read it at h(etc) : //oem . bmj . com/cgi/content/abstract/62/12/843
Take special note of Horton's comment, "discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding", and that the system is "easily fixed" (or hijacked).
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
damn you keep being dumb as heck...
epidemics relative to the stage of a society level? LOLOLOLOL you moron.... you really have no idea about science.
These diseases occur because us, humans, can't fight them! we are not adapted to fight them, but they are adapted to prey on us.
you have no idea what evolution is. It is crystal clear: where vax rates are high, if you get one person infected, that would be how good vaccines are. No matter the society level.
transtlantic 2 years ago
"you have no idea what evolution is. "
Possibly not, but I do know what it isn't. And it isn't "natural selection" as you have said said to me (you've brought evolution into the public arena here).
You see, natural selection - a creationist concept - culls. It helps in maintaining conformity and actually hinders evolution (IFsuch were possible) by killing off deviants (eg mules, ligers are sterile) (more...)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(Evolution/natural selection cont'd) Most importantly, natural selection dumps genetic information, whereas evolution requires new information be added to the genome. Duplicating existing info (as in Down Syndrome) isn't NEW information. It is existing information repeated.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
thank you for proving to everyone reading you that you are a example of an uneducated nutjob, when your kids are at the end of elementary school they will teach you properly or be ashamed of the kookparent they have.
you are an harmless fool
transtlantic 2 years ago
"you are an harmless fool "
Better make up your mind. You've been telling me I kill people.
Transatlantic, with all your "AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
"s and your "LOLOLOL"s,
your sputtering rhetoric, personal invective and abuse, I think you are losing the plot. The long hours and overnighters cramming for exams are taking their toll. Seriously - take a break Mate - you clearly need one.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
"dumps genetic information"... LOLOLOL
"requires new info"? HAHAHA since when? you don't even know what "information" means in biology, you dumb loser.
"existing information repeated"? LOLOLOL so why are they so different? if there is no "info", why are they different? actually... why the heck not one single living human is equal to the other? uhm....
you strupid loser...
transtlantic 2 years ago
"existing information repeated"? LOLOLOL so... if there is no "info", why are they different?
Good question, but you misquote me. I said "no NEW info".
Transatlantic, take the word "not". Have you ever noticed the change of meaning when you duplicate it? "not not".
That's excessively simple, but genetic info is in code. It requires encoding and decoding. Similar to a computer program. Try duplicating random code in a computer program - see what happens. (more)...
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
"actually... why the heck not one single living human is equal to the other?"
Ok. Back to basics. Does "Combinations and Permutations" ring a bell?
With just 16 different numbers, there are a possible 20,922,789,888,000 permutations. There are just 6,000,000,000 folks in the world. Now replace 16 variables with the incredible complexity of the human genome and consider the possible number of permutations when you put two together.
Does that help?
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
"does that help"? AAHAHAHAAHAH damn... you have no idea about basic biology...
Have you ever heard about the word Genetics? k, let«s start:
1) genetic code is not equal to genome.
2) the genetic code is made out of the RNA table of codons.
3) ACTG combine into sequences of 3 letters, making the table of codons
3) some different codons tranlate into the exact same amino acid. (do you even know what is an a.a? seriously doubt it)..
to end this: you are ignorant
transtlantic 2 years ago
"AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
"does that help"? AAHAHAHAAHAH damn...
Transatlantic, this is becoming more than just a nervous giggle. Get plenty of sleep and take a holiday.
"you have no idea about basic biology..."
Give yourself a few more years and you'll start to realise there's nothing basic about biology. You haven't scratched the surface of it yet. And yes, neither have I.
More...
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
"genetic code is not equal to genome."
You are putting up a straw man - putting words into my mouth that I never said so you could knock it down!
I said what I meant.
TA, you seriously oversimplify the issue
bylooking only at the level of nucleotides and codons.
First, last I knew, around 1.5 million points of variance (SNP's) had been identified in the genome some 60,000(?) within the genes themselves. You might like to update that number for us? More....
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(cont'd)
Add to that the microsatellites (repeating nucleotide sequences - varies between individuals) that most have. Tremendous potential for variation! (more).
Consider though: the 3 billion base pairs of which only some 2% code for genes, the function of about 50% being as yet unknown. Of the remainder, some 99%(?) is identical from person to person and as I recall about half of it is yet to be understood - still referred to as junk dna". (more....)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
cont'd ... oops, 1.5 billion base pairs...I'm getting tired.
Now, given that we are only 3 times more complex genetically speaking than a fruit fly oh, and only twice as complicated as one type of worm too small to see, bearing in mind too that we share 60-70% of our genes with a banana (and just about every other multicellular organism) do you suppose there may be whole dimensions that we don't know about the human genome? (more...)
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
(cont'd)
Its like having only a single-dimensional view of a multi-dimensional object. And
even on that one dimension, the functions of half the 20,000 or so genes remain unknown!
I stand by my "combinations & Permutations" comment.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
the "function" in terms of a.a. translation are perfectly KNOWN for those 25k genes.
WHat remains unknow is much more than that.
right... now that i provided evidence u don't know what ur talking about, shall we go back to the evidence and fact that vaccines are perfectly safe, effective and needed?
transtlantic 2 years ago
"WHat remains unknow is much more than that. "
Thanks for updating me as requested, and in doing so strengthening my point.
"go back to the evidence and fact that vaccines are perfectly safe, effective and needed" W'eve discussed that ad nauseum. I've given you the graphs and you can't see the trend, and you major on abusing the references I give you. Then you think that by merely citing a reference (like a magic charm) you seal your point beyond dispute.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
U given graphs that prove u wrong, graphs made by the very people u accuse that manipulate research, graphs made by the very ppl that produce research and u deny it when it does not fit ur delusional thinking.
Not one of those graphs support u. IN ALL, ONLY after vax, the diseases were erradicated: this is a fact.
transtlantic 2 years ago
right... more ignorance...
Moron... u only express the genes with a "start" and an "end". U could have trillin upon trillion of nucleotides, have but only 100 genes being expressed.
That's why there are worms with bigger number of pairs of nucletides than us, but even then we have more genes being expressed.
when i say (with the other scientists) that we share X%, they mean X% of nucleotides, NOT GENES! GO CHECK IT OUT YOU IGNORANT MORON!
this was the second lesson
transtlantic 2 years ago
u have no clue about basic genetics, i bet u have not a clue what SNPs are. so...word of advise kid, don't follow that path.
transtlantic 2 years ago
wrong, the genome is not a computer code. Its made out of genetic code. Something you clearly ignore. RNA table of codons, does it ring any bells? i suppose not.
try repeat the code in a genome and you might get new information.
PWNED! next
transtlantic 2 years ago
Transatlantic gushed, "wrong, the genome is not a computer code."
Transatlantic, once again you have misrepresented/misquoted me. What I said was AND I QUOTE: " It requires encoding and decoding. Similar to a computer program."
Gosh TA, howmany times have you done this to me now? SERIOUSLY, if you are that careless in reading your patients notes, you will seriously endanger their health.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
gosh... how many times do i have to point this out for u...
THE GENETIC CODE being "similar", doesn't mean "equal". Hence U shouldn't compare it to a binary or whatever code u wish to compare to.
grow some brain cells, wanna help with the math?
transtlantic 2 years ago
Yet ANOTHER misrepresentation!! I never did say "equal". I Said "SIMILAR".
And comparing genetic code to a computer code wasn't my idea TA. It is a comparison drawn by many a scientist withy far more scientific knowledge and qualification than you OR me.
Get over it.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
My qualifications are around the top 99,99% of this world population, so i am far far more qualified to talk about science than u, u idiot.
I am not a TA, i am a med student. I already told u that. because i do want to teach u, i'll now spam peer.reviewed papers proving how safe, needed and effective vax are. after and if u write any more stupid posts of urs. I am tired of ur stupidity and denialism.
stop being dumb, u little lay person
transtlantic 2 years ago
"so i am far far more qualified to talk about science..."
Do so then. Save the rudeness, the obfuscation, the name-calling and childish tantrums, and instead of simply parroting citations that you already know are useless to me (and most readers)without the time and means to search them out, actually discuss the subject.
Actually TELL us about deaths from "snake oil".
"I am not a TA".
You haven't worked out that "TA" = TransAtlantic"?? And YOU tell ME to "stop being dumb"?
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago
MORON! i keep presenting you with evidence refuting you!!!!!!! I even presented the deaths from snake oil!
whattheharm net!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! just as a quick example of how bad can snake oil be!
YOu sure arer DUMB! read my nick: TRANSTLANTIC! do you see an Atlantic there? I DON'T! you dumb loser! AHAHAHAH
transtlantic 2 years ago
"read my nick: TRANSTLANTIC! do you see an Atlantic there? "
Congratulations! You have indeed caught me out. I hadn't noticed you had missed the "A" out (but what the heck - isn't this becoming PETTY?). Nervertheless in light of your generally..."flexible"... use of your keyboard it really doesn't stand out.
"whattheharm net" I haven't looked it up yet, but I haven't ignored it. I definitely will and will let you know.
OneJohnFiveTwelve 2 years ago