Pushing Vaccines

Vaccines for dogs? No way, not on my dime. If someone wants to pay for it sure whatever.

reply to post by jjjtir


And anyone with a bit of medical background would be able to see that this paper isn't talking about hampering the entire immune system, or even all CD8+ cells, but rather that children vaccinated with multi-valent viral vaccines produce generalized CD8+ cells rather than strain-specific ones. This isn't a problem with regard to immunity, as the generalized cells work just as effectively against influenza A as the strain-specific ones.

Why do you people keep pretending you understand medical literature when it's blatantly clear you haven't a clue?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


RE: talking about vaccines.

….annual influenza vaccination is effective against seasonal influenza, but hampers the development of virus-specific CD8+ T cell responses.

RE: maternal mortality. The way I heard it, those problems spiraled when corporate male psychopath CEO types killed off all the midwives, healers and wisewomen for being "witches" - and skyrocketed when they turned medicine into an industry.

RE: Dogma versus Heresy.

Originally posted by soficrow

RE: maternal mortality. The way I heard it, those problems spiraled when corporate male psychopath CEO types killed off all the midwives, healers and wisewomen for being "witches" - and skyrocketed when they turned medicine into an industry.

I wasn't aware that CEOs existed in the early centuries CE. There is a very long history of high maternal death rates. Do a bit of historical research and you'll see that. Of course, that would require you to educate yourself using resources that Alex Jones and his ilk haven't provided you.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


I said CEO types. But even the "positions" existed back then, albeit under other titles. I'm sure you're familiar with Machievelli's The Prince, a well-known manual popular from Washington to Wall Street. It was written about 1513.

that would require you to educate yourself using resources that Alex Jones and his ilk haven't provided you.

If you bothered to click on any of the links I provide you'd find they usually lead to Pubmed citations - PubMed is the US National Institutes of Health Database for research. A great resource for those of us interested in actual knowledge, not hate-mongering and power-tripping.




to add

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

I said CEO types. But even the "positions" existed back then, albeit under other titles. I'm sure you're familiar with Machievelli's The Prince, a well-known manual popular from Washington to Wall Street. It was written about 1513.

The presence of authoritarian figures has absolute nothing to do with the presence of medicine. Modern medicine didn't exist until centuries later.

Are you ever going to actually address my point, that maternal death is much lower today than before modern medicine? Or are you just going to dance around with strawmen all day?

If you bothered to click on any of the links I provide you'd find they usually lead to Pubmed citations - PubMed is the US National Institutes of Health Database for research. A great resource for those of us interested in actual knowledge, not hate-mongering and power-tripping.

The few PubMed links you provide are then summarily misinterpreted by your comments. I have yet to see you provide a link without completely contradicting it in your interpretation.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by soficrow

RE: maternal mortality. The way I heard it, those problems spiraled when corporate male psychopath CEO types killed off all the midwives, healers and wisewomen for being "witches" - and skyrocketed when they turned medicine into an industry.

I wasn't aware that CEOs existed in the early centuries CE. There is a very long history of high maternal death rates. Do a bit of historical research and you'll see that. Of course, that would require you to educate yourself using resources that Alex Jones and his ilk haven't provided you.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

I said CEO types. But even the "positions" existed back then, albeit under other titles. I'm sure you're familiar with Machievelli's The Prince, a well-known manual popular from Washington to Wall Street. It was written about 1513.

The presence of authoritarian figures has absolute nothing to do with the presence of medicine.

"Authoritarian figures" have everything to do with the establishment of the industrialized medical industry - and I have NO interest in wasting any more time with your insult games.

Originally posted by soficrow

"Authoritarian figures" have everything to do with the establishment of the industrialized medical industry - and I have NO interest in wasting any more time with your insult games.

You're honestly blaming authoritative feudal lords for a medical system that didn't exist until centuries after their death?

What a strange, sad world you must live in. Do you blame your neighbor for things that will happen in the year 2411?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


The standard 'bibles' of CEO's and politicians are still Machiavelli's The Prince from 1513, and Sun Tzu's Art of War from somewhere around 300 B.C. - evidencing the continuation of a particular "authoritarian-cum-adversarial" approach to leadership. ...an approach that is quite evident in industrialized Western medicine, including the dominant but clearly inadequate and inappropriate approach to understanding and treating disease.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

The standard 'bibles' of CEO's and politicians are still Machiavelli's The Prince from 1513, and Sun Tzu's Art of War from somewhere around 300 B.C. - evidencing the continuation of a particular "authoritarian-cum-adversarial" approach to leadership. ...an approach that is quite evident in industrialized Western medicine, including the dominant but clearly inadequate and inappropriate approach to understanding and treating disease.

edit on 10/10/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

None of this has anything to do with the fact that many more women died in childbirth than today, and we can thank modern, Western medicine for the higher survival rate.

Honestly, why do you even post here if you're not going to interact with other members? All you do is go off on tangents and ignore the points others are making (unless, of course, they agree with your own, in which ase you laud them for being 'smarter' and 'open-minded' enough to see only your side of the coin).

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

The standard 'bibles' of CEO's and politicians are still Machiavelli's The Prince from 1513, and Sun Tzu's Art of War from somewhere around 300 B.C. - evidencing the continuation of a particular "authoritarian-cum-adversarial" approach to leadership. ...an approach that is quite evident in industrialized Western medicine, including the dominant but clearly inadequate and inappropriate approach to understanding and treating disease.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that many more women died in childbirth than today,

No - I am responding to your statements.

we can thank modern, Western medicine for the higher survival rate.

Maternal Mortality in the United States: A Human Rights Failure

With 99% of maternal deaths occurring in developing countries, it is too often assumed that maternal mortality is not a problem in wealthier countries. Yet, statistics released in September of 2010 by the United Nations place the United States 50th in the world for maternal mortality — with maternal mortality ratios higher than almost all European countries, as well as several countries in Asia and the Middle East.1, 2

Even more troubling, the United Nations data show that between 1990 and 2008, while the vast majority of countries reduced their maternal mortality ratios for a global decrease of 34%, maternal mortality nearly doubled in the United States.1 For a country that spends more than any other country on health care and more on childbirth-related care than any other area of hospitalization — US$86 billion a year — this is a shockingly poor return on investment.3, 4

Given that at least half of maternal deaths in the United States are preventable,5 this is not just a matter of public health, but a human rights failure.6

Honestly, why do you even post here if you're not going to interact with other members?

...Can you define interact?

All you do is go off on tangents and ignore the points others are making

I've spent the last page doing nothing but addressing your points.

(unless, of course, they agree with your own, in which ase you laud them for being 'smarter' and 'open-minded' enough to see only your side of the coin).

Are you a bot? It's okay sweetie, you can tell me.

Vaccines are a Scam

Western medicine is just another industry - controlled by global corporations - and does NOT serve public health.

reply to post by soficrow


*sigh*

Yet another case of Soficrow reading just one source and not questioning anything in it, or putting a bit of critical thinking into it. What a sad, but predictable, thing.

The reason American maternal mortality is higher than other Western nations is because we put more money and effort into saving high risk pregnancies. Women with class F diabetes are more likely to deliver living children here than anywhere in the world. The same goes for women with severe pre-eclampsia. Of course, carrying so many of these women to term also means we'll have more complications in the cases that don't go to plan.

This same statistic was discussed ad nauseum about 5 years ago when the WHO released their infant mortality rankings. Maybe you should keep up with the class and read a bit before posting old, already discussed data as some sort of "proof" of your flawed argument.

Vaccines Really Are a Scam

Western medicine is just another industry - controlled by global corporations - and does NOT serve public health.

The global medical industry does NOT serve maternal health in the USA either.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by soficrow

 

*sigh*

Yet another case of Soficrow reading just one source and not questioning anything in it, or putting a bit of critical thinking into it. What a sad, but predictable, thing.

*sigh*

And what a sad thing it is to resort to trashy personal attacks.

I also see the medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry as corrupt, greedy SOBs more intrested in making money from the pain and suffering of people than really helping; Then add in the stinking Insurance companies; in collusion with the pill pushers and pill mfg; Someone needs to review the Hippocratic oath!!

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by whaaa


If I, and other doctors, just wanted to "make money", why did I spend 9 years of post-college education just to make a fraction of what a decent investment banker makes with less than half of the education time commitment?

Why do I work 80+ hours per week for that salary, rather than less than 40 working in business or law?

Final post on raised flu issue. Just a messenger. No label fits everyone, all have some double standard somewhere..., logic isn't 100% tool for honesty, in real life logic is used to abuse itself and gain upper hand in dirty debates...

Here is original thread, with an interpretation quoted from CIDRAP(Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy, University of Minnesota)

Proof: Vaccines Can Be Harmful
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread751586/pg1

4th item on CIDRAP page.

www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/avianflu/news/sep0211newsscan.html

(...)

Annual flu shots may lower cross-protection, say Dutch researchers
Annual flu vaccination appears to blunt the CD8+ T-cell response in children, which may interfere with cross-protection against influenza strains not targeted by the vaccine, according to a study by Dutch researchers in the Journal of Virology. Scientists studied blood samples from 27 unvaccinated children (median age, 6.0 years; range, 2-9) and 14 children with cystic fibrosis (CF) who received annual flu shots (median age, 6.6; range, 2-9). They found that the unvaccinated children had an age-dependent increase of virus-specific CD8+ T-cell response that was absent in the vaccinated group. The researchers had previously shown in animals that the decreased CD8+ T-cell response correlates with lower immunity against other strains of flu, or heterosubtypic immunity. They write that annual flu vaccination is effective but may have underappreciated drawbacks. "By no means, do we suggest halting annual vaccination of children, especially those at high risk for complications such as the CF patients. . . . However, long-term annual vaccination using inactivated vaccines may hamper the induction of cross-reactive CD8+ T cell responses by natural infections and thus may affect the induction of heterosubtypic immunity. This may render young children that have not been previously infected with an influenza virus more susceptible to infection with a pandemic influenza virus of a novel subtype." They also write that using CF patients rather than healthy vaccinated children should not affect the study's outcome.
Aug 31 J Virol abstract

(...)

Not included in the original thread, a 2nd interpretation was on a 4 page newspaper, 2nd issue for a conference(The Fourth ESWI Influenza Conference — 11-14 September 2011 - Malta www.eswiconference.org)

Dutch authors of study attended.

page 3(Safety: still room
for improvement), bottom second column.

PDF www.eswiconference.org/Downloads/FEIC_news_2.aspx

Does annual vaccination hamper
natural immunity?

Dr. Rogier Bodewes of Erasmus Medical Center
gave a talk entitled “Annual vaccination against
influenza hampers development of virusspecific
CD8+ T cell immunity in children”. Since
2007, a recommendation had been issued in the
US and several European countries to vaccinate
all healthy children between 6 and 59 months
of age against seasonal influenza. Bodewes was
concerned that while vaccination is effective
against seasonal influenza, vaccination with
the inactivated virus might not induce immunity
against other subtypes. In animal models,
infection with the seasonal influenza A viruses
induces heterosubtypic immunity against (potentially)
pandemic strains. With widespread
vaccination using an inactivated virus, this effect
might be lost. In short, Bodewes suspected
that vaccination might prevent the development
of natural immunity.

In a study of 14 vaccinated children with cystic
fibrosis against a control group of unvaccinated
children, Bodewes and his team found no significant
differences in the virus-specific CD4+
T cell immunity and an age-related increase in
the development of virus-specific CD8+ T cel
immunity in unvaccinated children. They also
found a significant difference between vaccinated
and unvaccinated children in children
older than 5 years.

Bodewes’ hunch was confirmed. While annual
vaccination reduces disease in children, there’s
room for improvement.

“Children vaccinated annually should be vaccinated
with priority when a pandemic occurs,”
said Bodewes. “The results highlight the
importance of developing vaccines that induce
heterosubtypic immunity against multiple influenza
A virus subtypes.”

There’s an old maxim in law that says, “Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived”.

Unfortunately and as sad as it is, this is our collective level of consciousness on this planet. We still have no idea how to live harmoniously with one another, the planet or our environment. We see humans as more deserving of life than other life forms and we see our environment as a tool to be manipulated to our advantage in every way imaginable. As long as we continue down this path we should not be surprised when we encounter systems and institutions locked into a pattern of harm, deceit and profit. These poor front line workers, like our dear resident allopath, are victims just as with anyone else. In fact even more so. They will carry their indoctrinated beliefs with them to the grave and in most instances end up suffering greatly as a result. This is okay and unfortunately one of many lessons a lot of us must learn on this brief journey of many.

Ultimately choices are exactly that. Choices. Will you remove yourself from the decision making process and elect authority heads to do it for you? This is your choice. As long as we continue protecting our right to choose for ourselves – then we retain the ability to protect ourselves from many forms of madness that surround us every day.

Despite my gut feelings and anti-vaccine position (as outlined in the OP) - I know the big one is coming and will wipe out our healthiest, strongest and youngest. Not sure if that's a game changer but more here...

"Replikin" Vaccines Prevent Pandemics?