It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Measles Vaccine Reduces Death From Other Infections Too

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: nitetrain

classic example of simple minded people following the puppet master and listening to the main stream media..carry on with your couch and potatoe chips with soda in hand....


Actually I'm a nurse who works long unsociable hours to save people like you, people who don't understand about biology and chemistry and yet think they are experts because they have read 'godlikeproduction'... people who will not think twice about me injecting them with all kinds they don't know about when their lives are in danger ~rolls eyes~

In your first post you say "Let's see the list, each listed ingredients and it's purpose, and each ingredient potential side effect". I have already talked about 'mercury' and how ethylmercury does not stay in the body. What's next?
Come on, give me another ingredient.




posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Who cares if I use godlikeproductions..it comes up in search engine and goes directly to package insert for vaccinations..boohoo......

The vaccinations have been forced to include autism and SIDs as a listed side effect of adverse reaction....FOR A REASON......it's obviously been proven....how many parents have you two guys interviewed with children with autism...that's where the true evidence is at...

And lady who is a nurse, we don't care.why do you keep bringing up your family and now your job description into the argument..so what, I know people also, have done things also for many years that involve people's lives..Who cares..your attempt at crediting your familys autism rate and attempt "loook at me I save lives" has no bearing on how vaccinations can harm an underdeveloped brain....your above attempt look at me is way off base from what we are talking about....what? you save people's lives, what? people like me, what? you inject people all the time, what? Your a nurse who gives pain medication when they are complaining so they can rest...Who cares...

If you want to explain to the world EVERY ingredient inside each vial vaccination..Then go ahead...i don't need to debate with you..if you want to prove yourself, you go ahead ....But after you list them, and attempt to define each ingredients purpose and possible side effect..Then if you try to say vaccinations are safe, then you will always be clueless..I am just saying it's a long list and no one can pinpoint every ingredient and purpose.nor has anyone ever tried.....even old wise one lady above...besides your listing one ingredient being ingested...that explains your ignorance....we are talking about hundreds of variety of ingredients INJECTED directly in the bloodstream....big difference then eating something and going through the All the variety of filter systems...

Not all Newborns and young children with under developed blood brain barriers, under developed and compromised immune systems, crappy diets, crappy environmental factors can handle a cocktail of unnatural substances injected DIRECTLY into the blood stream and straight to the developing brain...yeah that makes sense....especially a 4-6 month old brain and nervous system..three to five year old brain will develop and grow up to 60-80 percent adult size.....yeah ok great time to administer drugs into blood stream on a direct path the the brain....READ THE INSERT Vaccinations have already been linked to Autism by the company...you think they are going to spell it out anymore clear to the sheeple..

edit on 5-7-2015 by nitetrain because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-7-2015 by nitetrain because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-7-2015 by nitetrain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?
But radiation from x-rays isn't used in radiotherapy.
That's called being dishonest.

radiotherapy:


noun, Medicine/Medical
1.
treatment of disease by means of x-rays or of radioactive substances.
Also called radiation therapy.



originally posted by: Pardon?
And the link from (Un)naturalnews uses a newspaper article as its source.

So what?


originally posted by: Pardon?
And the title is extremely misleading.

How so?


originally posted by: Pardon?
And in the newspaper article are testimonies.

Good.

Testimonies are human beings speaking their truth.

Scientific data can be skewed or downright falsified.

Just because it’s scientific data doesn’t guarantee it’s better than testimony.


originally posted by: Pardon?
In the other link from that site it links to a study specific to contamination from antineoplastins.

What other link from that site?


originally posted by: Pardon?
You're not good at this science thing are you?

You would be more effective in your posts if you left out the personal insults.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: nitetrain
Who cares if I use godlikeproductions..it comes up in search engine and goes directly to package insert for vaccinations..boohoo......

The vaccinations have been forced to include autism and SIDs as a listed side effect of adverse reaction....FOR A REASON......it's obviously been proven....how many parents have you two guys interviewed with children with autism...that's where the true evidence is at...

And lady who is a nurse, we don't care.why do you keep bringing up your family and now your job description into the argument..so what, I know people also, have done things also for many years that involve people's lives..Who cares..your attempt at crediting your familys autism rate and attempt "loook at me I save lives" has no bearing on how vaccinations can harm an underdeveloped brain....your above attempt look at me is way off base from what we are talking about....what? you save people's lives, what? people like me, what? you inject people all the time, what? Your a nurse who gives pain medication when they are complaining so they can rest...Who cares...

If you want to explain to the world EVERY ingredient inside each vial vaccination..Then go ahead...i don't need to debate with you..if you want to prove yourself, you go ahead ....But after you list them, and attempt to define each ingredients purpose and possible side effect..Then if you try to say vaccinations are safe, then you will always be clueless..I am just saying it's a long list and no one can pinpoint every ingredient and purpose.nor has anyone ever tried.....even old wise one lady above...besides your listing one ingredient being ingested...that explains your ignorance....we are talking about hundreds of variety of ingredients INJECTED directly in the bloodstream....big difference then eating something and going through the All the variety of filter systems...

Not all Newborns and young children with under developed blood brain barriers, under developed and compromised immune systems, crappy diets, crappy environmental factors can handle a cocktail of unnatural substances injected DIRECTLY into the blood stream and straight to the developing brain...yeah that makes sense....especially a 4-6 month old brain and nervous system..three to five year old brain will develop and grow up to 60-80 percent adult size.....yeah ok great time to administer drugs into blood stream on a direct path the the brain....READ THE INSERT Vaccinations have already been linked to Autism by the company...you think they are going to spell it out anymore clear to the sheeple..



The sad thing is that you actually believe what you say.
Just because for whatever reason you don't have the ability to understand why certain chemicals are in vaccines it doesn't mean to say others don't.

And vaccines aren't injected directly into the bloodstream.
They're injected subcutaneously, intramuscularly or given as nasal or oral drops.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Pardon?
But radiation from x-rays isn't used in radiotherapy.
That's called being dishonest.

radiotherapy:


noun, Medicine/Medical
1.
treatment of disease by means of x-rays or of radioactive substances.
Also called radiation therapy.



originally posted by: Pardon?
And the link from (Un)naturalnews uses a newspaper article as its source.

So what?


originally posted by: Pardon?
And the title is extremely misleading.

How so?


originally posted by: Pardon?
And in the newspaper article are testimonies.

Good.

Testimonies are human beings speaking their truth.

Scientific data can be skewed or downright falsified.

Just because it’s scientific data doesn’t guarantee it’s better than testimony.


originally posted by: Pardon?
In the other link from that site it links to a study specific to contamination from antineoplastins.

What other link from that site?


originally posted by: Pardon?
You're not good at this science thing are you?

You would be more effective in your posts if you left out the personal insults.


I'll give you the first one even though Dr Bob meant general x-rays, not the focussed beam used in radiotherapy.

That newspaper article was an opinion not a scientific article.

The title is misleading.
Nowhere in the article does it show any pharmacists who have contracted cancer from dispensing chemo.
Nowhere.
But there's a nurse in the article who after working for 25 years with it thinks it has.
So how has she ruled out every other possibility and determined that?
The article doesn't mention that.

Testimonies are just people speaking.
Period.
There's nothing to determine whether what they're saying is truth or otherwise.

Here's the link found via one of the references on the unnaturalnews one you posted.
www.cdc.gov...


Whilst it's true that science can be skewed it can also be verified.
So far that hasn't been the case in the testimonies you've provided.
And is pretty much the same for the majority of testimonies on alternative "health" sites.


And you would be more effective in your posts if you posted some evidence now and again.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: nitetrain

Well, first you mentioned my post about my family and kid's school and called me an idiot. I just ignored it as I want to discuss things, not insult others. Then you mentioned my reply again and say it was a 'classic sign of simple minded people..couch potato etc..' which is why I mentioned my profession, as I am far from being what you said. And your last response indicates I have hit a raw nerve, eh? First you wanted to discuss all ingredients, now you don't 'need to debate with me about them', typical! Now that I was enjoying our interaction! lol

I have never read the US vaccine inserts (I assume you are from the US) but I have seen those in the UK, where I live and work.This is straight from the BNF, the British National Formulary book that all doctors and nurses use to prescribe and administer medication:


Reviews undertaken on behalf of the CSM, the Medical Research Council, and the Cochrane Collaboration, have not found any evidence of a link between MMR vaccination and bowel disease or autism. The Chief Medical Officers have advised that the MMR vaccine is the safest and best way to protect children against measles, mumps, and rubella. Information (including fact sheets and a list of references) may be obtained from: www.dh.gov.uk/immunisation


Regarding the Pertussis vaccine insert: did you actually take the time to read the whole insert yourself? Because after it mentions autism, it explains why they mention this 'possible' adverse reactions:

"(these) Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine"

They report them simply because some people have said the vaccines have caused that, not because they are telling you it may cause autism as shown by research. In fact many studies have shown that there is no link between vaccines and autism: LINK to research

(And I am going to say to you what you told Pardon?: "You would be more effective in your posts if you left out the personal insults". )



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?
I'll give you the first one even though Dr Bob meant general x-rays, not the focussed beam used in radiotherapy.

How do you know what he meant?


originally posted by: Pardon?
That newspaper article was an opinion not a scientific article.

Scientific articles include opinions, as in conclusions, as well.


originally posted by: Pardon?
Nowhere in the article does it show any pharmacists who have contracted cancer from dispensing chemo.



originally posted by: ConnectDots
From Natural News, "Pharmacists give themselves cancer from dispensing toxic chemotherapy chemicals":



That same article goes on to report more pharmacists, veterinarians and nurses who are dead or dying from chemotherapy exposure:

• Bruce Harrison of St. Louis (cancer in his 50's, now dead)
• Karen Lewis of Baltimore (cancer in her 50's, still living)
• Brett Cordes of Scottsdale, Arizona (cancer at age 35, still living)
• Sally Giles of Vancouver, B.C. (cancer in her 40's, now dead)



originally posted by: Pardon?
There's nothing to determine whether what they're saying is truth or otherwise.

Yes there is, if you have any intuitive abilities.

And scientific data can often be just a bunch of mumbo jumbo.



originally posted by: Pardon?
In the other link from that site it links to a study specific to contamination from antineoplastins.
Have a guess who uses antineoplastins as part of his therapy protocol...
Burzynski.
The one in your video.
That's what he bases his whole ethos upon.


You’re using the term “antineoplastins.”

I’m not familiar with that term so I looked it up. There is a term “antineoplastic” but not “antineoplastins.” And your link refers to “antineoplastic agents.” Is that what you meant to say?



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Scientific articles include opinions, as in conclusions, as well.


All you're showing is how scientifically illiterate you are. Only the ignorant would honestly claim that an article from a biased opinion blog such as naturalnews is as credible as a scientific study.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

You mean to say what ConnectDots told Pardon?






posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?



We already knew that measles attacks immune memory, and that it was immunosuppressive for a short amount of time. But this paper suggests that immune suppression lasts much longer than previously suspected," says study co-author C. Jessica Metcalf, assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and public affairs at Princeton University, NJ.

"In other words," she adds, "if you get measles, 3 years down the road, you could die from something that you would not die from had you not been infected with measles."


Assuming for the sake of argument that it is true that measles attacks immune memory, and assuming that the point of this thread is to advocate for the measles vaccine, I say one would have to balance that with the data on adverse effects of the measles vaccine before drawing any conclusions.

And one would have to know that the data on the measles vaccine is trustworthy. There is big pharma to consider.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Pardon?



We already knew that measles attacks immune memory, and that it was immunosuppressive for a short amount of time. But this paper suggests that immune suppression lasts much longer than previously suspected," says study co-author C. Jessica Metcalf, assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and public affairs at Princeton University, NJ.

"In other words," she adds, "if you get measles, 3 years down the road, you could die from something that you would not die from had you not been infected with measles."


Assuming for the sake of argument that it is true that measles attacks immune memory, and assuming that the point of this thread is to advocate for the measles vaccine, I say one would have to balance that with the data on adverse effects of the measles vaccine before drawing any conclusions.

And one would have to know that the data on the measles vaccine is trustworthy. There is big pharma to consider.


Why?
How will that alter the evidence found?
How will that change this research?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Pardon?
I'll give you the first one even though Dr Bob meant general x-rays, not the focussed beam used in radiotherapy.

How do you know what he meant?


originally posted by: Pardon?
That newspaper article was an opinion not a scientific article.

Scientific articles include opinions, as in conclusions, as well.


originally posted by: Pardon?
Nowhere in the article does it show any pharmacists who have contracted cancer from dispensing chemo.



originally posted by: ConnectDots
From Natural News, "Pharmacists give themselves cancer from dispensing toxic chemotherapy chemicals":



That same article goes on to report more pharmacists, veterinarians and nurses who are dead or dying from chemotherapy exposure:

• Bruce Harrison of St. Louis (cancer in his 50's, now dead)
• Karen Lewis of Baltimore (cancer in her 50's, still living)
• Brett Cordes of Scottsdale, Arizona (cancer at age 35, still living)
• Sally Giles of Vancouver, B.C. (cancer in her 40's, now dead)



originally posted by: Pardon?
There's nothing to determine whether what they're saying is truth or otherwise.

Yes there is, if you have any intuitive abilities.

And scientific data can often be just a bunch of mumbo jumbo.



originally posted by: Pardon?
In the other link from that site it links to a study specific to contamination from antineoplastins.
Have a guess who uses antineoplastins as part of his therapy protocol...
Burzynski.
The one in your video.
That's what he bases his whole ethos upon.


You’re using the term “antineoplastins.”

I’m not familiar with that term so I looked it up. There is a term “antineoplastic” but not “antineoplastins.” And your link refers to “antineoplastic agents.” Is that what you meant to say?


How do I know what Dr Bob meant?
Intuition
(it's blindingly obvious he uses the term x-rays as he knows everyone is familiar with having them done to create an air of fear).

It's not a scientific article though, just an opinion.
There is a difference although since you find it difficult to distinguish between testimony and evidence I can understand your confusion.

I'll say again, nowhere in that article does it SHOW any pharmacists who have contracted cancer from dispensing chemo.
It lists 4 names.
It doesn't say what they are, what they have or had and what caused whatever they have or had.
Even the study cited only shows an elevated risk, not specific causation.
Just meaningless words (in a scientific sense).


Burzynski's antineoplastOns (he changed the "i" to an "o" for patent reasons.
www.cancer.gov...

edit on 6/7/15 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Burzyinski is a charlatan whose methods have been tried by other scientists and nobody has been able to achieve the 'incredible results' he claims to have achieved. Scientists all over the world!!(LINK)... from your same link, Pardon?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?
Intuition
(it's blindingly obvious he uses the term x-rays as he knows everyone is familiar with having them done to create an air of fear).

You’re saying that he wanted to create an air of fear of chemotherapy in the interview he was doing? As though he thinks the general public is not already afraid?



originally posted by: Pardon?
I'll say again, nowhere in that article does it SHOW any pharmacists who have contracted cancer from dispensing chemo.
It lists 4 names.
It doesn't say what they are, what they have or had and what caused whatever they have or had.
Even the study cited only shows an elevated risk, not specific causation.
Just meaningless words (in a scientific sense).


By what they are, you mean occupation?

By what they have, you mean which organ has cancer? Does it really make a difference for purposes of the topic?

By what cause, you mean absolute proof it was the chemo drug?

Here’s how the 4 names were introduced into the article:


That same article goes on to report more pharmacists, veterinarians and nurses who are dead or dying from chemotherapy exposure:

• Bruce Harrison of St. Louis (cancer in his 50's, now dead)
• Karen Lewis of Baltimore (cancer in her 50's, still living)
• Brett Cordes of Scottsdale, Arizona (cancer at age 35, still living)
• Sally Giles of Vancouver, B.C. (cancer in her 40's, now dead)


Here is the Seattle Times article that Mike Adams of Natural News is referencing:

“Lifesaving drugs may be killing health workers”

Another source he used is:

“Lifesaving Drugs, Deadly Consequences.”


originally posted by: Pardon?
In the other link from that site it links to a study specific to contamination from antineoplastins.
Have a guess who uses antineoplastins as part of his therapy protocol...
Burzynski.
The one in your video.
That's what he bases his whole ethos upon.



originally posted by: Pardon?
Here's the link found via one of the references on the unnaturalnews one you posted.
www.cdc.gov...


From your link:


OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS AND OTHER HAZARDOUS DRUGS”

Again, I could find the term “antineoplastic” but not “antineoplastin.”

Please post a link to the term “antineoplastin” as an example.


originally posted by: Pardon?
With the greatest respect, having worked in chemical & medical science in various disciplines including research and clinical over the last quarter of a century . . .

Is this why you make disparaging comments about the scientific acumen of other members?



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
www.telegraph.co.uk...

First U.S. death from Measles in 12 years.
Lady was already immune compromised and had pneumonia. Did not discover she had measles till autopsy. I read somewhere else that she had been vaccinated for measles.

So you are damned if you do or you don't. Bla, bla, bla, herd immunity. Measles have different strains and they mutate. Fact is there will always be some forms of disease floating around as long as we live on planet earth.

We will always have some breakouts and there will be some that die.

We actually don't know what would happen if our society wasn't immunized at this point in time. I certainly don't see the flu disappearing. I don't hear whole countries in Africa dying of childhood disease.

Could be old diseases have waned. Just read that whooping cough vaccine may be the reason for a resurgence in it, since newly vaccinated are contagious.
Lots to ponder.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: SunnyDee I read somewhere else that she had been vaccinated for measles.


This has not been not confirmed, nor does it matter if she was because she was immuno-compromised.


So you are damned if you do or you don't. Bla, bla, bla, herd immunity. Measles have different strains and they mutate. Fact is there will always be some forms of disease floating around as long as we live on planet earth.


Had herd immunity actually been maintained, she would not have contracted measles in the first place.


We will always have some breakouts and there will be some that die.


Only when enough people stop vaccinating and herd immunity is lowered past the critical threshold, as we have seen with recent breakouts.


We actually don't know what would happen if our society wasn't immunized at this point in time.


We have a very good idea:





I certainly don't see the flu disappearing.


The flu is a very different beast as it mutates on a yearly basis.


I don't hear whole countries in Africa dying of childhood disease.


That is a very ignorant statement:


Every year more than 10 million children in low- and middle-income countries die before they reach their fifth birthdays. Most die because they do not access effective interventions that would combat common and preventable childhood illnesses.1 Infant immunization is considered essential for improving infant and child survival. Although global immunization coverage has increased during the past decade to levels of around 78% for diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis-3 (DTP-3),2 WHO’s African Region has consistently fallen behind, reaching only 69% DTP-3 coverage by 2004 (Fig. 1).


www.who.int...


Could be old diseases have waned.


They have in countries that have high vaccination rates.


Just read that whooping cough vaccine may be the reason for a resurgence in it, since newly vaccinated are contagious.
Lots to ponder.


[citation needed]



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?
Which chemo drug insert is that on?
And which therapy is it attributed to and at which dose?
I'd like to check it for myself as you're proving to be very unbelievable in your recent threads and posts.

In fact, I would suggest that you are lying.


The following information, from the website of the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH), is for the chemo drug CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE- cyclophosphamide injection, powder, for solution - Sandoz Inc.

Here is the “Principal Display Panel” for 500 mg/vial:



I have not been able to determine where this panel appears. It only has the statement “See insert for indications and dosage schedule.”

Here is what the box looks like:



It has the message “Should not be prescribed without thorough knowledge of dose, indications and toxicity as contained in accompanying literature.”

In the insert, under #5 Warnings and Precautions, there is a cancer warning:


5.5 Secondary Malignancies
Cyclophosphamide is genotoxic [see Nonclinical Toxicology (13.1)]. Secondary malignancies (urinary tract cancer, myelodysplasia, acute leukemias, lymphomas, thyroid cancer, and sarcomas) have been reported in patients treated with cyclophosphamide-containing regimens. The risk of bladder cancer may be reduced by prevention of hemorrhagic cystitis.


genotoxin



noun
1.
a toxic agent that damages DNA molecules in genes, causing mutations, tumors, etc.

Related forms
genotoxic, adjective



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Pardon?
Intuition
(it's blindingly obvious he uses the term x-rays as he knows everyone is familiar with having them done to create an air of fear).

You’re saying that he wanted to create an air of fear of chemotherapy in the interview he was doing? As though he thinks the general public is not already afraid?



originally posted by: Pardon?
I'll say again, nowhere in that article does it SHOW any pharmacists who have contracted cancer from dispensing chemo.
It lists 4 names.
It doesn't say what they are, what they have or had and what caused whatever they have or had.
Even the study cited only shows an elevated risk, not specific causation.
Just meaningless words (in a scientific sense).


By what they are, you mean occupation?

By what they have, you mean which organ has cancer? Does it really make a difference for purposes of the topic?

By what cause, you mean absolute proof it was the chemo drug?

Here’s how the 4 names were introduced into the article:


That same article goes on to report more pharmacists, veterinarians and nurses who are dead or dying from chemotherapy exposure:

• Bruce Harrison of St. Louis (cancer in his 50's, now dead)
• Karen Lewis of Baltimore (cancer in her 50's, still living)
• Brett Cordes of Scottsdale, Arizona (cancer at age 35, still living)
• Sally Giles of Vancouver, B.C. (cancer in her 40's, now dead)


Here is the Seattle Times article that Mike Adams of Natural News is referencing:

“Lifesaving drugs may be killing health workers”

Another source he used is:

“Lifesaving Drugs, Deadly Consequences.”


originally posted by: Pardon?
In the other link from that site it links to a study specific to contamination from antineoplastins.
Have a guess who uses antineoplastins as part of his therapy protocol...
Burzynski.
The one in your video.
That's what he bases his whole ethos upon.



originally posted by: Pardon?
Here's the link found via one of the references on the unnaturalnews one you posted.
www.cdc.gov...


From your link:


OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS AND OTHER HAZARDOUS DRUGS”

Again, I could find the term “antineoplastic” but not “antineoplastin.”

Please post a link to the term “antineoplastin” as an example.


originally posted by: Pardon?
With the greatest respect, having worked in chemical & medical science in various disciplines including research and clinical over the last quarter of a century . . .

Is this why you make disparaging comments about the scientific acumen of other members?


1: "Everyone knows that x-rays give you cancer". But does everyone know that radiation therapy isn't applied like x-rays and is specifically targeted?
Why doesn't he explain that part of it?

2. The first article which the Unhealthy Deranger referenced says "Lifesaving drugs may be killing health workers.
The second says "Lifesaving Drugs, Deadly Consequences" (and they're actually both the same article by Carol Smith).
Neither of them show that they actually have so in that respect I would say that they are fear-mongering.
Don't get me wrong, chemo drugs are toxic and should be handled with care but to put headlines like he does is disingenuous.
It's really only when you drill down into the links that you see that the procedure for handling them has changed to be more protective these days.
Again, that's not highlighted in Adams' piece.
Again, disingenuous.

3. And antinoeplastins?
You mean these?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

4. No. I comment on others who believe they understand science when it's clear that they don't.
In that specific case someone was actually pretending to be a "scientist". Read his post.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Pardon?
Which chemo drug insert is that on?
And which therapy is it attributed to and at which dose?
I'd like to check it for myself as you're proving to be very unbelievable in your recent threads and posts.

In fact, I would suggest that you are lying.


The following information, from the website of the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH), is for the chemo drug CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE- cyclophosphamide injection, powder, for solution - Sandoz Inc.

Here is the “Principal Display Panel” for 500 mg/vial:



I have not been able to determine where this panel appears. It only has the statement “See insert for indications and dosage schedule.”

Here is what the box looks like:



It has the message “Should not be prescribed without thorough knowledge of dose, indications and toxicity as contained in accompanying literature.”

In the insert, under #5 Warnings and Precautions, there is a cancer warning:


5.5 Secondary Malignancies
Cyclophosphamide is genotoxic [see Nonclinical Toxicology (13.1)]. Secondary malignancies (urinary tract cancer, myelodysplasia, acute leukemias, lymphomas, thyroid cancer, and sarcomas) have been reported in patients treated with cyclophosphamide-containing regimens. The risk of bladder cancer may be reduced by prevention of hemorrhagic cystitis.


genotoxin



noun
1.
a toxic agent that damages DNA molecules in genes, causing mutations, tumors, etc.

Related forms
genotoxic, adjective



At last, you've actually looked in to something in a bit of depth.
They're on the list as they've been reported (similar to vaccine inserts) and it doesn't say what dose or specific regimen and protocol those secondaries have been associated with.
So to state that chemo cause cancer from the basis of an insert is akin to saying aspirin causes anaphylaxis (which in my case it does).
Throw-away statements such as "chemo causes cancer" are made due to a number of reasons;
1. Ignorance
2. Fear-mongering
3. Ignorant fear-mongering

The fact that you never mention the benefits of chemo speaks volumes.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: ConnectDots




It has the message “Should not be prescribed without thorough knowledge of dose, indications and toxicity as contained in accompanying literature.


This is standard medical/nursing practice before prescribing any medication.

Regarding Cyclosphomide: yes, the risk of developing secondary cancer (especially bladder cancer) is three times higher in certain patients. In other patients is 1.7% higher (LINK)

Just like with all medications there are side effects and precautions. Cyclosphomide is right now a first class treatment for certain types of malignant tumours, as it's overall success rate is 25 to 40% (www.newevidence.com...).

It's clear to see that the benefits of Cyclosphomide greatly outweigh the risks with most patients.

I don't know how things are done in the US, but in the UK all doctors advise patients of the benefits and risks of all medication, treatments and procedures, as it is the patient's right to decide what to do with their bodies and health.

Do you know how chemotherapy drugs work and why they have side effects?

edit on 7-7-2015 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join