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.

 

Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 11:26 PM
link   
All of the big money and political power works against those that question the frequency and efficacy of vaccines. Big pharmaceutical and their bought and paid for politicians and researchers will do anything to suppress information that might harm sales.

My opinion is to limit vaccines to those that are critical and avoid those of little value and effectiveness like flu vaccines.
edit on 2015/10/8 by Metallicus because: fixed autocorrect




posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus


My opinion is to limit vaccines to those that are critical and avoid those of little value and effectiveness


Sounds like a reasonable approach to me -- reasonable precautions for reasonable concerns. Too much of anything is... well... too much. And just what constitutes "too much" can vary by person and circumstance. One-size-fits-all seldom truly fits all.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?


Feel free to split hairs over definitions if you wish.


Not splitting hairs; just not confining my definitons to the ones you want to use.

A definition is a definition, there isn't a your version or my version.


When I hear a medic talk about research, I expect it to be about reproducible peer-reviewed publications which stand up to in-depth critique and scrutiny.


Duly noted.


I don't expect it to be little more than opinion.
Otherwise how can it be qualified or quantified as expertise?



I would think for all the same reasons we're told to otherwise consult our physicians and trust their informed and educated opinions; I will be the first to admit however that medical professionals are often fallible, and we pay the price via our health.

The difference being that those medical opinion are based upon scientific facts, not opinions.
Which bit is too difficult to grasp?
Even accepting that, why do you choose to use those in the article?
What have they done to make you prefer their views to the 99.9999% of other doctors in the world?


In all fairness...you could've changed the title of the thread to reflect that.
But you didn't.



No, I couldn't; T&Cs require the use of the article title at the site.




You can name your own title then reference the article further down.
That's well within the t&c's.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Metallicus


My opinion is to limit vaccines to those that are critical and avoid those of little value and effectiveness


Sounds like a reasonable approach to me -- reasonable precautions for reasonable concerns. Too much of anything is... well... too much. And just what constitutes "too much" can vary by person and circumstance. One-size-fits-all seldom truly fits all.



It would be wonderful if you could prove that statement.
You know, lend it some credence.
Otherwise it's just opinion...



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

You're right, Pardon: This thread is all about opinions. The doctors' opinions. My opinions. Your opinions. Lots and lots of opinions. And, of course, everyone is free to accept whatever opinions they choose or not. Just like you!



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?

You're right, Pardon: This thread is all about opinions. The doctors' opinions. My opinions. Your opinions. Lots and lots of opinions. And, of course, everyone is free to accept whatever opinions they choose or not. Just like you!


I agree wholeheartedly.

Absolutely EVERYONE is entitled to have their own opinions.
However, everyone isn't entitled to have their own facts.
And when opinions have no base in fact then they are, in fact, worthless.

And for those who like memes, this one is pretty spot on.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

Right again, Pardon! Well, partly right... The part you got wrong is that not everyone believes we have a right to be listened to. I'm not one of those people who believe you must listen to my opinions or respond in any way... so please -- PLEASE!!! -- ignore me and my opinions to your heart's content. I assure you that I will totally and completely support your right to ignore me.

I'm not the one trying to force anything on you...



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Just a general observation, well, two:

1. No, everything is not an "opinion." For example, it is not an opinion that gravity works, it can be demonstrated, measured and experienced by everyone. What one thinks about gravity doesn't change gravity one whit.

2. I'd love to see actual scientific research that describes the dangers of vaccination compared with the benefits. However, all that is normally demonstrated is, as is the case here, opinion and faulty reasoning.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?

Right again, Pardon! Well, partly right... The part you got wrong is that not everyone believes we have a right to be listened to. I'm not one of those people who believe you must listen to my opinions or respond in any way... so please -- PLEASE!!! -- ignore me and my opinions to your heart's content. I assure you that I will totally and completely support your right to ignore me.

I'm not the one trying to force anything on you...



Unfortunately when people express an opinion and indeed put forward articles which try to disguise themselves as more than just opinion I have no choice other than to counter them.
Especially when those opinions are false.

EDIT: And if you don't want your opinions to be listened to or responded to then why do you post them on here?
It's a forum in case you hadn't noticed.
edit on 9/10/15 by Pardon? because: Added text



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Just a general observation, well, two:

1. No, everything is not an "opinion." For example, it is not an opinion that gravity works, it can be demonstrated, measured and experienced by everyone. What one thinks about gravity doesn't change gravity one whit.


My apologies if I suggested as much. I only intended to describe this op and thread as opinions.... some are more educated than others, but they are still opinions.


2. I'd love to see actual scientific research that describes the dangers of vaccination compared with the benefits. However, all that is normally demonstrated is, as is the case here, opinion and faulty reasoning.


I would too. Some of the doctors cited in the article would also. As I understand, there seems to be a couple problems with that. First, the lack of double-blind placebo studies which would allow for a direct comparison of vaccinated kids with unvaccinated kids. Instead, studies focus on and compare the use of one vaccination in one group with the use of another vaccination in another group. This is one of the things I was trying to research when I came across these articles. Second, the push to vaccinate all kids does not allow for a long-term "control" group of unvaccinated kids, although some doctors do speak anecdotally about their unvaccinated patients having greater overall health.

Also interesting to me is that doctors have spoken about the life-long extended benefits of natural immunity over vaccination, such as decreased allergies, even heart attacks. (i.e., children who receive measles immunity by having the measles, as opposed to children given a measles vaccination.) One more thing to add to my list of things to research further!



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Polio, smallpox, et. al. were eradicated by immunization*.

The benefits of immunization are fairly clear and have been for at least 70 years.

Study after study has demonstrated this.

/shrug


*Polio is considered 99.9% eradicated; World Health Organization
edit on 10Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:12:52 -050015p1020151066 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?

Right again, Pardon! Well, partly right... The part you got wrong is that not everyone believes we have a right to be listened to. I'm not one of those people who believe you must listen to my opinions or respond in any way... so please -- PLEASE!!! -- ignore me and my opinions to your heart's content. I assure you that I will totally and completely support your right to ignore me.

I'm not the one trying to force anything on you...



Unfortunately when people express an opinion and indeed put forward articles which try to disguise themselves as more than just opinion I have no choice other than to counter them.


Really? You have no choice? At all??? Someone states an opinion and you are compelled to "counter" that opinion? Is this a mental compulsion? Physical? Emotional? What a responsibility! Well, then you must be one very busy person...


Especially when those opinions are false.


Because you are all-knowing and all-seeing? Yeah, right, I believe that.


EDIT: And if you don't want your opinions to be listened to or responded to then why do you post them on here?


Those are your words -- not mine! I post for those who choose to listen and/or respond. I do not expect or demand anyone to do so. Even you. This is all your choice.... except... wait... no, it's not your choice... you have no choice. Sorry, my bad.


It's a forum in case you hadn't noticed.


Duh.

FYI: You and I both know that I personally sent you a link to this thread to post a rebuttal to the statements of the doctors cited in these articles in the interest of providing as much information and as many sides as possible. I really hoped for a good discussion about the many, many issues involved. I can't tell you how disappointed I am that you have used the opportunity to be as rude, insulting and obnoxious as you have. So be it. I will not respond to you again.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Polio, smallpox, et. al. were eradicated by immunization.

The benefits of immunization are fairly clear and have been for at least 70 years.

Study after study has demonstrated this.

/shrug


I wish that were true.

Many (perhaps all) serious diseases were in decline before WWII, and long before the widespread use of vaccines, due to greater understanding of nutritional needs, hygiene, food prep, etc. For example, Vitamin A's healing effects on measles have been close to miraculous, and massive doses of Vitamin A are now standard protocol in the treatment of measles by the CDC and the WHO.

Some of the decline is very likely just smoke and mirrors. For example, I've read many claims that decreases in polio are due to a redefinition of polio, but the paralysis associated with the former definition of polio is still happening, it's just called something new.

Others question the validity of these studies for various reasons, including samples that are far too small to draw any conclusions, the lack of true double-blind placebo studies, etc.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Pardon?

Right again, Pardon! Well, partly right... The part you got wrong is that not everyone believes we have a right to be listened to. I'm not one of those people who believe you must listen to my opinions or respond in any way... so please -- PLEASE!!! -- ignore me and my opinions to your heart's content. I assure you that I will totally and completely support your right to ignore me.

I'm not the one trying to force anything on you...



Unfortunately when people express an opinion and indeed put forward articles which try to disguise themselves as more than just opinion I have no choice other than to counter them.


Really? You have no choice? At all??? Someone states an opinion and you are compelled to "counter" that opinion? Is this a mental compulsion? Physical? Emotional? What a responsibility! Well, then you must be one very busy person...


Especially when those opinions are false.


Because you are all-knowing and all-seeing? Yeah, right, I believe that.


EDIT: And if you don't want your opinions to be listened to or responded to then why do you post them on here?


Those are your words -- not mine! I post for those who choose to listen and/or respond. I do not expect or demand anyone to do so. Even you. This is all your choice.... except... wait... no, it's not your choice... you have no choice. Sorry, my bad.


It's a forum in case you hadn't noticed.


Duh.

FYI: You and I both know that I personally sent you a link to this thread to post a rebuttal to the statements of the doctors cited in these articles in the interest of providing as much information and as many sides as possible. I really hoped for a good discussion about the many, many issues involved. I can't tell you how disappointed I am that you have used the opportunity to be as rude, insulting and obnoxious as you have. So be it. I will not respond to you again.


Nah, it's not a compulsion.
It's an inherent hatred of misinformation and lies which can at best harm a child and at worst kill one.
I really don't like that.
The fact that people looking into vaccination could stumble upon your posts or a post like that makes me feel I have to redress the balance.

If you would like to list the opinions in the article I'll happily go through each one and show you why they're wrong.
I'll do that for casual readers and those who are on the fence as you seem to be too intrenched to take any notice though.

And can you point out where I've been insulting please as I'm sure I can be more insulting than that?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Polio, smallpox, et. al. were eradicated by immunization.

The benefits of immunization are fairly clear and have been for at least 70 years.

Study after study has demonstrated this.

/shrug


I wish that were true.

Many (perhaps all) serious diseases were in decline before WWII, and long before the widespread use of vaccines, due to greater understanding of nutritional needs, hygiene, food prep, etc. For example, Vitamin A's healing effects on measles have been close to miraculous, and massive doses of Vitamin A are now standard protocol in the treatment of measles by the CDC and the WHO.


You're mistaking death rates aka mortality with morbidity and/or incidence rates.
Whilst deaths reduced due to a myriad of factors, hygiene, nutrition and advances in health care (funny how you lot forget that part) the amount of cases stayed pretty constant until vaccines were introduced.
This site is really good as it shows the impact in a graphical format and if you wish to look further it tells you were it has sourced the data from.
graphics.wsj.com...
Healthcare is really good at keeping people alive and well these days but slip on the vaccines and the incidence rates will go up and undoubtedly the death rates will creep up again. There's only so many people healthcare can treat at once.
Just look what happened in France only a few years ago because of decreased vaccination uptake.
wwwnc.cdc.gov...



Some of the decline is very likely just smoke and mirrors. For example, I've read many claims that decreases in polio are due to a redefinition of polio, but the paralysis associated with the former definition of polio is still happening, it's just called something new.

It would be really great if you could expand on that.
With verifiable citations, naturally.
However it would be difficult for you to show any citations as polio is not diagnosed through symptoms alone but with a swab test.
So it doesn't matter whether it's renamed, the polio virus is still the polio virus.



Others question the validity of these studies for various reasons, including samples that are far too small to draw any conclusions, the lack of true double-blind placebo studies, etc.


Which others question the validity of these studies?
The ones in your article?
What do you consider a "true double-blind placebo study".
What are your thoughts on this?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Or this?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
What about this one?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
And then there are these...
Pubmed

How would you deduce that sample size is too small in a particular study?

Talking of studies, Wakefield's had 12 subjects, wasn't randomised, used subjects who didn't meet the inclusion criteria, certainly had no control group and to top it all he fudged the data so I can only assume that you question other studies because of this.
I mean, surely you can't accept that given what you have posted above?



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
For example, Vitamin A's healing effects on measles have been close to miraculous


Please reference the above as I have never read any research that shows vitamin A being 'close to miraculous' regarding measles.

I know vitamin A is recommended, but that's because vitamin A is essential for our immune system to work properly and those with vitamin A deficiency are at greater risk of death and blindness if they catch measles, because their bodies are not well nourished. But vitamin A does not cure the disease and a well nourished body is not a healthy justification to avoid vaccination.

The best way is to prevent measles with vaccination and good nutrition (to avoid vitamins deficiencies).


edit on 9-10-2015 by Agartha because: Spelling.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Boadicea
For example, Vitamin A's healing effects on measles have been close to miraculous


Please reference the above as I have never read any research that shows vitamin A being 'close to miraculous' regarding measles.

I know vitamin A is recommended, but that's because vitamin A is essential for our immune system to work properly and those with vitamin A deficiency are at greater risk of death and blindness if they catch measles, because their bodies are not well nourished. But vitamin A does not not cure the disease and a healthy body is not a healthy justification to avoid vaccination.

The best way is to prevent measles with vaccination and good nutrition (to avoid vitamins deficiencies).



Just to reinforce what you said, giving vitamin A during measles will only have a positive effect if the subject is vitamin A deficient in the first place.
It will do nothing if the subject's level is normal which is generally the case in developed countries.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

Just to reinforce what you said, giving vitamin A during measles will only have a positive effect if the subject is vitamin A deficient in the first place.
It will do nothing if the subject's level is normal which is generally the case in developed countries.


Yep, spot on, thank you!

I have never heard of vitamin A 'healing' measles, hence I've asked the OP to provide evidence.

And I also know that children with vitamin deficiency are treated with intravenous vitamin A and immunoglobulin.
Most vitamin tables have been shown not to work as they are not absorbed efficiently.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha


For example, Vitamin A's healing effects on measles have been close to miraculous



Please reference the above as I have never read any research that shows vitamin A being 'close to miraculous' regarding measles.

I know vitamin A is recommended, but that's because vitamin A is essential for our immune system to work properly and those with vitamin A deficiency are at greater risk of death and blindness if they catch measles, because their bodies are not well nourished. But vitamin A does not cure the disease and a well nourished body is not a healthy justification to avoid vaccination.


Here's one that was handy:

WHO: Vitamin A supplementation to improve treatment outcomes among children diagnosed with respiratory infections


All children in developing countries diagnosed with measles should receive two doses of vitamin A supplements, given 24 hours apart. This treatment restores low vitamin A levels during measles that occur even in well-nourished children and can help prevent eye damage and blindness. Vitamin A supplements have been shown to reduce the number of deaths from measles by 50%.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Agartha


For example, Vitamin A's healing effects on measles have been close to miraculous



Please reference the above as I have never read any research that shows vitamin A being 'close to miraculous' regarding measles.

I know vitamin A is recommended, but that's because vitamin A is essential for our immune system to work properly and those with vitamin A deficiency are at greater risk of death and blindness if they catch measles, because their bodies are not well nourished. But vitamin A does not cure the disease and a well nourished body is not a healthy justification to avoid vaccination.


Here's one that was handy:

WHO: Vitamin A supplementation to improve treatment outcomes among children diagnosed with respiratory infections


All children in developing countries diagnosed with measles should receive two doses of vitamin A supplements, given 24 hours apart. This treatment restores low vitamin A levels during measles that occur even in well-nourished children and can help prevent eye damage and blindness. Vitamin A supplements have been shown to reduce the number of deaths from measles by 50%.


That doesn't mention it being a "miracle" cure though does it?
It just cements what I and Agartha posted.

Once again, if a child has a normal level of vitamin A, giving vitamin A will do nothing whatsoever.
And you still get the measles...and still possibly get complications...



new topics




 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join