I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I really felt the need to share it after watching it tonight with my husband. It's lenthy (2 hours), but if you have the time, I strongly recommend it! The research in this lecture is amazing, and it is completely eye opening. Dr. Tent discusses the connection between vaccines and the dramatic increase in autoimmune diseases today.
Who is Dr. Tent. Who funded this video and what research is it based on? A quick Google could answer none of these questions for me.
There are many studies demonstrating that vaccinated children do not have higher rates of chronic disorders than vaccinated children. Why are those ignored over and over again?
Thanks. I don't have 2 hours to spend on what I suspect will be nonesense either - although I don't like dismissing things in that way, so I might try to continue to look for a skeptical review of what he says in the video.
If (as it appears) it's about him trying to sell supplements online, please could people view skeptically with that in mind. :)
Yes - I can see where there is a commonality between Paul Offit making multi millions off of his patent and a chiropractor that sells supplements.
PSM FYI in case you are not familiar with alternative practitioners - most of them sell at least a few supplements that they believe in. I spend 99% of the time I spend going to healthcare "people" in these kind of offices. I have 4 personal friends who are alternative practitioners themselves and all sell a few things. The practitioners who I see NEVER push or try and convince me to buy something from them and have no problem when I tell them I'd like to shop around and see if I can get something they recommend cheaper online. My personal friends have shared with me their profit margin on what they sell. The mark up is TINY. I assure you these people are not making financial windfalls off of what they sell.
Sure let's derail the post into talking about arrogant I am (and probably how I'm derailing the post from the issues) instead of discussing anything about the content of the video. That's pretty normal behaviour around here. :)
I watched the first 40 minutes ( I will watch the rest later and will only comment about what I have seen thus far). In the first 40 minutes there is absolutely no research presented. There is a good douse of governmnet bashing for laughs. he then agrees with michelle Bachman that some people don't have health insurance because they don't want it and that he is one of those people. I find this irresponsible, to have health insurance available to you and turn it down in the U.S. is irresponsible, vaccines are far from the only thing that can happen and I resent that if something happens to his family (car accident etc.) my tax dollars will pay for it because he refuses health insurance because of vaccination policies. But that is not much of the point of his discussion.
Then he puts forward a the accertation from the Mercola website that "The AmA site recommends mandatory participation in vaccine experiments". This is disingenious. The AMA site is recommend that. It comes from the January 2012 edition of the AMA journal of ethics which featyred vaccine controveries. One of the papers had that as the title and discussed the problems of using homeless as a vaccine. it is not a recommendation of the AMA nor of the "AMA site".
Then he gives a book report on a book by Edward T. Haslam called Dr. Mary's MOnkey: how the unsolved murder of a doctor, a secret laboratory in New Orleans and Cancer-Causing Monkey viruses are linked to Lee Harvey Oswald the Kennedy assisnation and Emerging global epdimeics. It is the recounting of a conpircy theory found on whale. Essentially the claim is that the Polio vaccine was grown on monkey kidneys and that everyone who received the polio vaccination was injected with thousands of monkey viruses that are the cause of cancers we have today. Also these are all sexually transmitted as well so they have been passed on. I didn't watch enough yet to know if Dr. Tent gets into how this is linked to the kennedy assiination.
My problems that he puts forward in the first 40 minutes of this discussion includes that he tries to downplay the seriousness of polio. If you feel the risk of polio is small enough that it doesn't outweigh the risk of the vaccine is one thing, to insinuate that Polio is no big deal is entirely another. He also claims that AIDS is a man made virus (I believe eventually his hypothesis is that we created it trying to create a vaccine). I hate HIV/AIDS conspiracies. He discusses at length how cancers are growing (which is allegedly because of vaccines) but never mentions that our life expectancy has grown as well. If everyone died before they got cancer it is logical that cancer goes up as we live longer.
But my biggest problem is the statement that condoms will not stop a virus. Yes, Yes they will. And I find it really irresponsible that he throws that line in this discussion. HIV is a serious deadly disease and telling people that a condom doesn't really protect is asinine for anyone, especially a healthcare professional.
I watched the first 40 minutes ( I will watch the rest later and will only comment about what I have seen thus far). In the first 40 minutes there is absolutely no research presented. There is a good douse of governmnet bashing for laughs. he then agrees with michelle Bachman that some people don't have health insurance because they don't want it and that he is one of those people. I find this irresponsible, to have health insurance available to you and turn it down in the U.S. is irresponsible, vaccines are far from the only thing that can happen and I resent that if something happens to his family (car accident etc.) my tax dollars will pay for it because he refuses health insurance because of vaccination policies. But that is not much of the point of his discussion.
Then he puts forward a the accertation from the Mercola website that "The AmA site recommends mandatory participation in vaccine experiments". This is disingenious. The AMA site is recommend that. It comes from the January 2012 edition of the AMA journal of ethics which featyred vaccine controveries. One of the papers had that as the title and discussed the problems of using homeless as a vaccine. it is not a recommendation of the AMA nor of the "AMA site".
Then he gives a book report on a book by Edward T. Haslam called Dr. Mary's MOnkey: how the unsolved murder of a doctor, a secret laboratory in New Orleans and Cancer-Causing Monkey viruses are linked to Lee Harvey Oswald the Kennedy assisnation and Emerging global epdimeics. It is the recounting of a conpircy theory found on whale. Essentially the claim is that the Polio vaccine was grown on monkey kidneys and that everyone who received the polio vaccination was injected with thousands of monkey viruses that are the cause of cancers we have today. Also these are all sexually transmitted as well so they have been passed on. I didn't watch enough yet to know if Dr. Tent gets into how this is linked to the kennedy assiination.
My problems that he puts forward in the first 40 minutes of this discussion includes that he tries to downplay the seriousness of polio. If you feel the risk of polio is small enough that it doesn't outweigh the risk of the vaccine is one thing, to insinuate that Polio is no big deal is entirely another. He also claims that AIDS is a man made virus (I believe eventually his hypothesis is that we created it trying to create a vaccine). I hate HIV/AIDS conspiracies. He discusses at length how cancers are growing (which is allegedly because of vaccines) but never mentions that our life expectancy has grown as well. If everyone died before they got cancer it is logical that cancer goes up as we live longer.
But my biggest problem is the statement that condoms will not stop a virus. Yes, Yes they will. And I find it really irresponsible that he throws that line in this discussion. HIV is a serious deadly disease and telling people that a condom doesn't really protect is asinine for anyone, especially a healthcare professional.
Why is it irresponsible to turn down insurance? If one has the financial capacity to pay for their own medical care, why should that bother you? People that can afford health insurance and turn it down are not where your tax dollars are going by the way.
Why is it irresponsible to turn down insurance? If one has the financial capacity to pay for their own medical care, why should that bother you? People that can afford health insurance and turn it down are not where your tax dollars are going by the way.
It doesn't bother me if they truly have the capacity to pay for their own medical care. $25K for a car crash or $200K for a heart attack, paid in full at the time of the occurrence. It's irresponsible for a person to choose not to to carry insurance but still expect doctors and hospitals to carry the note for care.
It doesn't bother me if they truly have the capacity to pay for their own medical care. $25K for a car crash or $200K for a heart attack, paid in full at the time of the occurrence. It's irresponsible for a person to choose not to to carry insurance but still expect doctors and hospitals to carry the note for care.
I don't entirely disagree - but these people are still on the line for their bills. Tax payer dollars are not covering their care and the hospitals and doctors will try and collect. I've seen families loose everything because they have drown in medical bills (these people didn't turn down insurance, they couldn't afford it).
I agree, and frankly, I think the number people who have cash reserves to cover ANY medical incident and still decline to carry insurance is small enough to not merit an argument.
For the people who can afford insurance but choose not to carry it, but can't afford to pay a hospital in full up front after a lifechanging event, I maintain that's an irresponsible choice. Hospitals can't refuse care, so they are in effect forced to carry the note. I think it's selfish to refuse insurance but demand financing. I also think (though I'm open to being corrected) that public hospitals are at least in part publicly funded, so taxpayer dollars are carrying the notes for folks who are uninsured. When that's a choice, it's not very admirable, IMO.
And yes, that does go towards the credibility of the presenter in the OP.
I agree, and frankly, I think the number people who have cash reserves to cover ANY medical incident and still decline to carry insurance is small enough to not merit an argument.
For the people who can afford insurance but choose not to carry it, but can't afford to pay a hospital in full up front after a lifechanging event, I maintain that's an irresponsible choice. Hospitals can't refuse care, so they are in effect forced to carry the note. I think it's selfish to refuse insurance but demand financing. I also think (though I'm open to being corrected) that public hospitals are at least in part publicly funded, so taxpayer dollars are carrying the notes for folks who are uninsured. When that's a choice, it's not very admirable, IMO.
And yes, that does go towards the credibility of the presenter in the OP.
Well rest assured Chickabiddy - with Obamacare coming these people will have no choice but to have insurance. Well I guess they could pay the fines, but that would make them dumasses IMO
I seem to get the impression you think that's a bad thing. I don't think it is. But we agree as to the outcome.
I seem to get the impression you think that's a bad thing. I don't think it is. But we agree as to the outcome.
sorry did not see your reply. You get the impression I think what is a bad thing? Obamacare? Yes I do for a variety of reasons that I won't get into here, but I do agree with you that if a person can afford to have insurance but cannot afford to pay out of pocket for a accident or catastrophic illness they should get the insurance and I agree it is irresponsible not to do so.
Follow Mothering