Follow the money....? - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 48Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 147 Old 05-25-2014, 03:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Still beats facebook and skeptic sites.

 

I'd like you to show me where I have ever suggested people should primarily do their vaccine research by browsing facebook??  I stated in this very thread that facebook is often inaccurate which is why I double checked the automated message before posting it to this thread.  Posting memes from facebook or other sites is for fun, it's certainly not research.  Linking to a skeptic site when they make a good point on a topic is not the same thing as trying to use that site as evidence. 

 

I do think pages like sciencebasedmedicine can be a good place to look into the vaccine issue, since they do talk about them pretty often there.  They may not be the most polite, but they are knowledgeable, qualified, accurate, follow the scientific method, and are objective about the merits of studies.  Unlike non vax websites that cherry pick studies and information that suites their position and claim that any study that shows vaccines are safe and effective are biased or influenced by big pharma.   

 

What exactly is Voices for vaccines trying to sell me for example? What is David Gorski trying to sell me? What is the skeptical raptor trying to sell me?  The only thing I've ever seen for sale on the SBM website is a single amazon ebook.  

 

Edit:  So you concede that you cherry pick information and studies from cochrane, pubmed, and the CDC that suit your position?  That's not very thorough or accurate "research" then is it? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#122 of 147 Old 05-25-2014, 03:51 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)

Lol.  No.

 

This is the debate/discussion forum.  If someone is asking a question or if I am trying to make a point of course I am going quote to link to what I want to say.  I do not consider that cherry picking, or if it is, it is the sort that is called for when one is discussing the specifics of a topic.  

 

As for myself, I have read the whole CDC pink book - numerous times.  I have read many other pages on the CDC site pertaining to vaccines.  I have read a decent amount on phac and a slightly lesser amount on NIH, WHO and Cochrane pertaining to vaccines.

 

In any event, I really am not interested in a merry-go-round with you.  You think all non-vaxxers base their decisions on non-vax sites.  I am telling you I do not, and I am also telling you that I am widely read on the subject from various mainstream sources.  I know you will not believe me as it does not fit the stereotype you have in your head and perhaps threatens the stereotype you have in your head, but once again that is on you.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#123 of 147 Old 05-25-2014, 04:09 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 537
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

I did not get that link from any site except for the NVIC.  I stated exactly where I got that link a few pages ago, and it was from a search of the term "Mercola" on the NVIC site.  Which came up with 10 pages of results.  That was the first one I clicked. 

 

I doubt he sells garlic, but he does sell Vitamin D supplements and zinc supplements on his online store.  He may have said sun exposure was the best way, but he certainly never said you shouldn't or couldn't also boost it in other ways.  Indeed, he sells Vitamin D capsules and Vitamin D sprays right on his website, along with a book about Vitamin D and a vitamin D "testing kit".  http://shop.mercola.com/catalog/categoryinfo.aspx?filter=&search=vitamin%20D&type=q&keywordoption=ANY&cid=2&fltrdesc=

 

Putting in "Zinc" into the search bar comes up with an article that says, after going into how important zinc is, that you can get it from X foods but... wait!  that doesn't actually work vert well in this case because of the "over processing" of foods: 

 

"Due to the issues I already pointed out about nutrients lost in the food supply chain, including possibly zinc, supplementation may be a consideration for protection against low levels.

But just like many other supplements I've reviewed and totally rejected over the years, there are some potential pitfalls facing you concerning zinc supplements." 

 

Hmmmm... wonder what the solution to this predicament is? 

 

"I could have easily settled for a zinc supplement that satisfied most of my key selection factors…

But I wasn't about to do just that… I wanted more. Instead, I put my team to task to work with a phenomenal supplement developer to create our own powerful formula to meet.

And one of the first things my team did, when working with the developer's scientists, was to ask for an enhanced formula… my team and I were not about to be satisfied with an ordinary run-of-the-mill single complex formula.

 

Here's a quick summary of the possible health benefits from a high-quality zinc mineral supplement… and why I only recommend Mercola Zinc Complex." 

 

http://products.mercola.com/zinc-supplements/

 

Shocking, I know.  He made his own zinc supplement and it happens to be the "only" one he recommends. 

 

But of course, there is no financial incentive for him to have an article about Zinc and Vitamin D being a great alternative to the flu vaccine right?..... 

 

 

Quote:
 

A pro vaccine doctor selling supplements isn't going to have articles like the one I posted a few pages  ago on the NVIC called "Healthier Alternatives to the Seasonal Flu Vaccine: Garlic, Zinc, and Vitamin D"  

 

 

Please show us the quote(s) on the page at the link you provided above where Mercola is selling HIS supplements in lieu of the flu vaccine.  I may have missed it (and if so please I would appreciate it if you could point it out..with actual quotes) but if it were my first time at that site thru clicking on your link, I would have no idea that Mercola sells supplements.  And supplements are not his first recommendation for any of the items he mentions.  Vitamin D, zinc, garlic.  

 

I have heard Mercola respond to the question as to why he sells his own supplements and he said it was because if he was going to recommend a supplement, he wanted to be sure of the quality.  He said that his critics would have a field day if the companies that made the supplements that he recommended were unscrupulous and/or found to not be using the best quality ingredients.

And really, all the haters should be happy he sells his own supplements.  Mercola can be sued if he is selling dodgy supplements.  Were any pharmacists sued over Vioxx?

 

The link for the article for zinc that is on the initial article at the link you provided above does not mention Mercola's zinc supplement.  In fact, he warns about taking too much zinc.  How does that fill his pockets?  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/03/03/is-zinc-really-good-for-a-cold.aspx

 

I would like to see you substantiate your initial claims about what we will find on the link above before moving on.   

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
#124 of 147 Old 05-25-2014, 04:47 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by samaxtics View Post
 

 

 

 

Please show us the quote(s) on the page at the link you provided above where Mercola is selling HIS supplements in lieu of the flu vaccine.  I may have missed it (and if so please I would appreciate it if you could point it out..with actual quotes) but if it were my first time at that site thru clicking on your link, I would have no idea that Mercola sells supplements.  And supplements are not his first recommendation for any of the items he mentions.  Vitamin D, zinc, garlic.  

 

I have heard Mercola respond to the question as to why he sells his own supplements and he said it was because if he was going to recommend a supplement, he wanted to be sure of the quality.  He said that his critics would have a field day if the companies that made the supplements that he recommended were unscrupulous and/or found to not be using the best quality ingredients.

And really, all the haters should be happy he sells his own supplements.  Mercola can be sued if he is selling dodgy supplements.  Were any pharmacists sued over Vioxx?

 

The link for the article for zinc that is on the initial article at the link you provided above does not mention Mercola's zinc supplement.  In fact, he warns about taking too much zinc.  How does that fill his pockets?  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/03/03/is-zinc-really-good-for-a-cold.aspx

 

I would like to see you substantiate your initial claims about what we will find on the link above before moving on.   

 

Wait, am I understanding your argument correctly?  That because the article doesn't hyperlink directly to his online store (even though the "shop" link is on the top of the same page) that means there isn't a conflict of interest in his recommendation of "healthier alternatives" to the flu vaccine that he happens to sell directly on his site?  

 

In any case, I did a word search for "Vitamin D" on the link in question and there was a hyperlinked "vitamin d" that linked to a page of a whole bunch of other mercola articles on Vitamin D.   I clicked on the first link I saw (I'm not going to spend hours going through each and every mercola link, sorry) and I'm sure you'll be shocked to find that while he says sunlight is the best source, he explains "Unfortunately, the amount of sun reaching most of the U.S. is only sufficient to generate a healthy vitamin D response for far less than half of the year. Most people don't live far enough south or high enough in the mountains to allow enough UV-B to reach their skin. So, for those times of the year when access to the proper amount of sun is not possible, you will want to consider an oral form of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol)."   Shocker!  He recommends the supplement when there isn't sufficient sunlight, which he claims is most of the year. 

 

It actually gets even better.  Down the page he gives an alternative to his supplements during winter months: tanning beds.  I kid you not.  I thought to myself that that was a really strange recommendation for a doctor to make so, on a whim, I put "tanning bed" into his website search engine and it all made sense: he sells tanning beds for thousands of dollars on his website.   http://shop.mercola.com/catalog/categoryinfo.aspx?filter=&search=tanning%20beds&type=q&keywordoption=ANY&cid=2&fltrdesc=


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#125 of 147 Old 05-25-2014, 05:44 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 537
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

What exactly is Voices for vaccines trying to sell me for example? What is David Gorski trying to sell me? What is the skeptical raptor trying to sell me?  

-Doctor knows best

-don't question authority

-science is static

-group think

 

Basically they are selling a paradigm that they have bought into or are profiting from.


"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
#126 of 147 Old 05-25-2014, 09:32 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Tea, can you provide specific, exemplar evidence that Kathy is cherry-picking data? That accusation gets thrown around baselessly, translating to little more than, "I don't like your data because it challenges my bias."

The accusation of somebody cherry-picking from the Cochrane Review, in particular, is something of an oxymoron because the organization's meta-analyses are rigorous, well-screened data in the aggregate. Cochrane does some picking, all right, but it's meticulous screening, not cherry-picking. Their researchers are looking for well-designed studies free from competing interests.

There will be times when I accept some data and reject other data. That's not because I like some evidence and not other evidence; science isn't a matter of personal preference or ideologies. It's because I'm going to defer to strong evidence over weak evidence. That's not cherry-picking, either. That's critical thinking. thumb.gif

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#127 of 147 Old 05-26-2014, 05:33 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 537
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Wait, am I understanding your argument correctly?  That because the article doesn't hyperlink directly to his online store (even though the "shop" link is on the top of the same page) that means there isn't a conflict of interest in his recommendation of "healthier alternatives" to the flu vaccine that he happens to sell directly on his site?  

 

In any case, I did a word search for "Vitamin D" on the link in question and there was a hyperlinked "vitamin d" that linked to a page of a whole bunch of other mercola articles on Vitamin D.   I clicked on the first link I saw (I'm not going to spend hours going through each and every mercola link, sorry) and I'm sure you'll be shocked to find that while he says sunlight is the best source, he explains "Unfortunately, the amount of sun reaching most of the U.S. is only sufficient to generate a healthy vitamin D response for far less than half of the year. Most people don't live far enough south or high enough in the mountains to allow enough UV-B to reach their skin. So, for those times of the year when access to the proper amount of sun is not possible, you will want to consider an oral form of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol)."   Shocker!  He recommends the supplement when there isn't sufficient sunlight, which he claims is most of the year. 

 

It actually gets even better.  Down the page he gives an alternative to his supplements during winter months: tanning beds.  I kid you not.  I thought to myself that that was a really strange recommendation for a doctor to make so, on a whim, I put "tanning bed" into his website search engine and it all made sense: he sells tanning beds for thousands of dollars on his website.   http://shop.mercola.com/catalog/categoryinfo.aspx?filter=&search=tanning%20beds&type=q&keywordoption=ANY&cid=2&fltrdesc=

Teacozy, 

 

Are you going to answer this question:" Please show us the quote(s) on the page at the link you provided above where Mercola is selling HIS supplements in lieu of the flu vaccine."?

 

I'm not going to play sixty degrees of separation with hyperlinks.  I'd like to see if you understand the premise of backing up what you say in your own argument before we discuss your comprehension of anyone else's argument.

 

​Show us the quotes or concede that you misspoke about him selling his supplements in lieu of the flu vaccine on the page YOU initially linked to.

 

Thanks.

Mirzam and applejuice like this.

"Practically every food you buy in a store for consumption by humans is genetically modified food"
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Astrophysicist/GMO defender
samaxtics is online now  
#128 of 147 Old 05-26-2014, 01:05 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

Well I guess teacozy is thinking about the cherry picking of Cochrane review results which are shared. 

 

For example, I think a search will reveal many postings of this conclusion 

 

"The preventive effect of parenteral inactivated influenza vaccine on healthy adults is small - See more at: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults#sthash.LWsIrJwN.dpuf"

 

Funny that these lines:

"The administration of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine is not associated with the onset of multiple sclerosis, optic neuritis (inflammation of the optic nerve of the eye) or immune thrombocytopaenic purpura (a disease that affects blood platelets). The administration of pandemic monovalent H1N1 inactivated vaccine is not associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome (a disease that affects the nerves of the limbs and body).

Evidence suggests that the administration of both seasonal and 2009 pandemic vaccines during pregnancy has no significant effect on abortion or neonatal death."

 

doesn't often get posted. That's from the same conclusions. 

 

I also don't see this Cochrane review posted much: 

"The efficacy of multi-component (≥ three) acellular vaccines varied from 84% to 85% in preventing typical whooping cough - See more at: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001478/acellular-vaccines-for-preventing-whooping-cough-in-children#sthash.4AAD6VXf.dpuf"

 

And this one seems to be totally ignored by many people on here: 

We could assess no significant association between MMR immunisation and the following conditions: autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, or bacterial or viral infections. - See more at: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004407/using-the-combined-vaccine-for-protection-of-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella#sthash.tXoWQ3gI.dpuf

 

(love that Cochrane provides the URL for more info any time you copy anything from any of their abstracts). 

teacozy likes this.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#129 of 147 Old 05-26-2014, 01:14 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

This article by Mercola (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/02/04/zinc-garlic-vitamin-d.asp - which tea linked up thread)

is about why Vitamin D, Zinc and Garlic are better for flu than having a vaccine and links directly to this page on Vitamin D supplements in his store:  http://vitamind.mercola.com

 

I guess it's pointing us to buy Children's Chewable multivitamins - only $50 for a 3 month supply: http://shop.mercola.com/catalog/multivitamins,130,0.htm

 

Actually the article is a pretty good reminder than healthy eating is a good idea in flu season. Although I see no reason why it can't be in addition to rather than instead of a flu vaccine. :) And there's lots of ways to do this without buying expensive supplements as we all know. 

teacozy likes this.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#130 of 147 Old 05-26-2014, 03:00 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Well I guess teacozy is thinking about the cherry picking of Cochrane review results which are shared. 



 



For example, I think a search will reveal many postings of this conclusion 



 



"The preventive effect of parenteral inactivated influenza vaccine on healthy adults is small - See more at: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001269/vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults#sthash.LWsIrJwN.dpuf"



 



Funny that these lines:



"The administration of seasonal inactivated influenza vaccine is not associated with the onset of multiple sclerosis, optic neuritis (inflammation of the optic nerve of the eye) or immune thrombocytopaenic purpura (a disease that affects blood platelets). The administration of pandemic monovalent H1N1 inactivated vaccine is not associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome (a disease that affects the nerves of the limbs and body).



Evidence suggests that the administration of both seasonal and 2009 pandemic vaccines during pregnancy has no significant effect on abortion or neonatal death."



 



doesn't often get posted. That's from the same conclusions. 



 



I also don't see this Cochrane review posted much: 



"The efficacy of multi-component (≥ three) acellular vaccines varied from 84% to 85% in preventing typical whooping cough - See more at: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001478/acellular-vaccines-for-preventing-whooping-cough-in-children#sthash.4AAD6VXf.dpuf"



 



And this one seems to be totally ignored by many people on here: 



We could assess no significant association between MMR immunisation and the following conditions: autism, asthma, leukaemia, hay fever, type 1 diabetes, gait disturbance, Crohn's disease, demyelinating diseases, or bacterial or viral infections. - See more at: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004407/using-the-combined-vaccine-for-protection-of-children-against-measles-mumps-and-rubella#sthash.tXoWQ3gI.dpuf



 



(love that Cochrane provides the URL for more info any time you copy anything from any of their abstracts). 

 



I think this argument would hold weight if I claim that all vaccines are dangerous and ineffective and point to the Cochrane flu shot review to make my case. THAT would be cherry picking.

But if we're debating flu shot effectiveness for certain demographics, yes, I cite Cochrane a fair amount. If we're debating flu shots for pregnant women, then it's reasonable to discuss the above quote about pregnant women. (Although note Cochrane's disclaimer about how many of the reviewed studies were tainted by competing interests. THIS is why I love Cochrane love.gif) If we're debating routine influenza vaccination for all healthy adults, including pregnant women, then I'm going to cite Cochrane data to attest to the vaccine's ineffectiveness. Or if side effects from MMR come up, it makes sense to cite that review.

In debate, context is everything. What's the saying? All generalizations are untrue, including this one.

I think I'll continue discussing this matter in the new cherry-picking thread if the opportunity arises.
applejuice and kathymuggle like this.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#131 of 147 Old 06-18-2014, 09:13 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,070
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
So I just caught word of a horrific outbreak of ebola in West Africa: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014...ntent=20140618


Unfortunately, those ever-benevolent drug companies don't consider developing a vaccine or treatment profitable enough.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/geor...b_5077462.html

Are we ready to stop pretending that drug companies are in the vaccine business out of heartfelt care for children's health? Do you really, really think that mandating routine chicken pox vaccination for every child in the first-world U.S.A. is more important than saving impoverished people from a violent, highly contagious disease with a 90% mortality rate?

Why are these priorities so backwards? Follow the money?

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#132 of 147 Old 06-19-2014, 11:43 AM
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,928
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Good point Turquesa.
applejuice likes this.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#133 of 147 Old 06-19-2014, 07:04 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,616
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Well, I dislike Mercola and I'm not particularly happy with the NVIC as the leading vaccine critical organization in the US. Hey, I also dislike Natural News and won't take anything said there seriously until I've followed up the links and read the original articles.

However, I have NEVER seen a vaccine supporter look critically at an article that provides positive info on vaccines. Never.

I've never seen a vaccine supporter take a tough look at the track record of a company like Merck, talking about Vioxx and why it isn't unreasonable to have questions about the safety and or efficacy of their vaccine line.

I have never even seen a vaccine supporter acknowledge the validity of the whistleblower lawsuit against Merck for faking the efficacy of the mumps portion of the MMR. For heaven's sake, we have had huge outbreaks of mumps in the vaxed population. That alone would make the lawsuit worth taking seriously.

Blinders. Some folks are wearing big floppy blinders. And they are not vaccine critics.
Deborah is online now  
#134 of 147 Old 06-19-2014, 10:57 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Try reading a book by Ben Goldacre.
prosciencemum is online now  
#135 of 147 Old 06-19-2014, 11:57 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
That is rather rude. What makes you think we have not read anything by Ben Goldacre?
applejuice is offline  
#136 of 147 Old 06-20-2014, 05:53 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post



 

 

 
What exactly is Voices for vaccines trying to sell me for example? What is David Gorski trying to sell me? What is the skeptical raptor trying to sell me?  The only thing I've ever seen for sale on the SBM website is a single amazon ebook.  
 
 
Um, they're selling the vaccination program--which now includes government-mandated flu shots for infants and health care workers, in spite of the fact that there is no consensus that it offers significant protection.

Actually, they're doing more than selling shots.

They're selling a two-tier caste society, based on vaccine status. Those who submit to 50+ vaccines, on government-determined schedule, are allowed access to pediatricians; they are allowed to participate in daycare, schools, and extracurricular school programs like sports, music, theatre, and field trips; as adults, they are permitted to hold jobs in the healthcare industry, government offices, schools, hotels, food service, etc.

Those who don't submit to the entire schedule, including the flu shot, are increasingly denied access to work, education, and a good chunk of society.

And v4v, DG, and SR are aggressively selling this, along with constantly denigrating and mocking everyone, EVERYONE, who criticizes or even questions vaccine safety/efficacy.
Taximom5 is online now  
#137 of 147 Old 06-20-2014, 07:15 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Try reading a book by Ben Goldacre.
You mean the Ben Goldacre who's Bad Science forum members are encouraged to make online attacks on medical professionals who use alternative methods not conventionally used by mainstream medicine and are encouraged to make complaints to regulatory bodies? One such attack on a doctor led to the suicide of a patient, because he was led to believe his doctor was a quack.

Is that the consensus you mean?

http://childhealthsafety.com/

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#138 of 147 Old 06-20-2014, 10:04 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
This link goes directly to the article Mizram is talking about:
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.c...december-2013/

(I had not seen this before )

(Edite to add: of course we cannot really know how true the story is or how much cyber-bullying played a part in the suicide; I do not doubt online adult cyber-bullying is a significant problem, though, with occasional awful consequences. )
applejuice and beckybird like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...


Last edited by kathymuggle; 06-20-2014 at 10:50 AM.
kathymuggle is online now  
#139 of 147 Old 06-20-2014, 10:51 AM
 
Good Enough Mum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
So I just caught word of a horrific outbreak of ebola in West Africa: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014...ntent=20140618


Unfortunately, those ever-benevolent drug companies don't consider developing a vaccine or treatment profitable enough.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/geor...b_5077462.html

Are we ready to stop pretending that drug companies are in the vaccine business out of heartfelt care for children's health? Do you really, really think that mandating routine chicken pox vaccination for every child in the first-world U.S.A. is more important than saving impoverished people from a violent, highly contagious disease with a 90% mortality rate?

Why are these priorities so backwards? Follow the money?
Why is that morally any different than the decisions any of us make to put our money, our time, our professional efforts into areas other than saving people from horrible diseases? I work as a doctor because of heartfelt care for other people's health, but the problems my patients face are relatively minor in comparison to the kind of problems faced in war zones or impoverished countries. Is the care I give to my patients less genuine because they're not the most needy people I could be helping? Most of us give what we can afford to charity, but we don't give more than we can afford. Would you bankrupt yourself sending money to charities that could be preventing illness, or expect any of us to do that? If you don't expect others to spend more than they can afford on preventing horrible illnesses in others, why should that decision suddenly be morally reprehensible when it's made by a pharmaceutical company?
Good Enough Mum is offline  
#140 of 147 Old 06-20-2014, 11:51 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 383
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 128 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
"The preventive effect of parenteral inactivated influenza vaccine on healthy adults is small - See more at: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD0012....LWsIrJwN.dpuf"
 
Adding a little more of the context and bolding that context:

The preventive effect of parenteral inactivated influenza vaccine on healthy adults is small: at least 40 people would need vaccination to avoid one ILI case - See more at: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD0012....7T6Affwv.dpuf

What does a 1 in 40 preventive effect mean?

I notice that they introduce the summary as a discussion of effectiveness, but their definition of effectiveness if vague and seems to entirely different from the definition used by CDC.

The CDC estimates effectiveness at 60%, the reduction in doctor visits with flu.

But Cochrane seems to have some other meaning and I can't find a clear definition. Perhaps only 1 in 20 get the flu without vaccination during the test period, so a 50% CDC effectiveness would result in a 1 in 40 Cochrane effectiveness?

Last edited by tadamsmar; 06-20-2014 at 12:49 PM.
tadamsmar is offline  
#141 of 147 Old 06-20-2014, 12:24 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
This link goes directly to the article Mizram is talking about:
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.c...december-2013/

(I had not seen this before )
Thanks for posting the direct link, I have no idea how to get a direct link from the website. There is more on Ben Goldacre and his ALLTrials campaign, the latest article was posted on June 17.

http://childhealthsafety.com/

The attack was more than cyber bulling, the members are encouraged to report doctors to regulatory boards, in this instance, a patient thought he would no longer be able to get treatment from his doctor, so he killed himself.
applejuice and beckybird like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci


Last edited by Mirzam; 06-20-2014 at 12:29 PM. Reason: Additional info
Mirzam is online now  
#142 of 147 Old 06-20-2014, 01:45 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
it is less about this (bolding mine)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Enough Mum View Post
If you don't expect others to spend more than they can afford on preventing horrible illnesses in others, why should that decision suddenly be morally reprehensible when it's made by a pharmaceutical company?
and more about this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Are we ready to stop pretending that drug companies are in the vaccine business out of heartfelt care for children's health?
Pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money. All companies are. That is not a conedmnation - it is fact. It is as true of McDonalds as it is of Jamieson Natural Supplements. Companies do not necessarily have your best interest at heart - which is why you must always be able to choose whether to use a product or not. Sadly, there are many in the world who face co-ersive vaccine practices.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#143 of 147 Old 06-20-2014, 01:58 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,616
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
I've occasionally argued that I'd be okay if there were two out of three.

1) If pharma could have immunity from lawsuits and school mandates but no profits from vaccines--I could live with that. There would be very little interest in vaccine making if it had to be a non-profit undertaking.

2) If pharma could have profits and immunity but no mandates--I could live with that. People would be able to turn down vaccines and persuasion would the only method available to sell the product.

3) If pharma could have profits and mandates, but no immunity--I could live with that. They would be sued out of the vaccine business in no time.

But the current system? Just asking for trouble and misbehavior.
Deborah is online now  
#144 of 147 Old 06-20-2014, 02:46 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
Adding a little more of the context and bolding that context:

The preventive effect of parenteral inactivated influenza vaccine on healthy adults is small: at least 40 people would need vaccination to avoid one ILI case - See more at: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD0012....7T6Affwv.dpuf

What does a 1 in 40 preventive effect mean?
Vaccine efficacy is determined by comparing the percentage of vaccinated people in the study who get the disease they were vaccinated for with the the percentage of unvaccinated people in the same study who get the same disease.

For example, with the flu, something like 1.4% of the vaccinated cohort got the flu, which sounds really fantastic, until you learn that only 2.7% of the unvaccinated cohort got the flu. 1.4 is ~60% of 2.7. Either way, only 97% got the flu.

According to Cochrane, the "mild benefit" from getting the flu shot amounted to having a case that lasted about 1/2 a day less.

Not exactly a good reason to risk Guillaine-Barre, paralytic, autoimmune and neurological disorders, and certainly not a good reason to mandate a vaccine for ANY group.
Taximom5 is online now  
#145 of 147 Old 06-20-2014, 03:15 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
3) If pharma could have profits and mandates, but no immunity--I could live with that. They would be sued out of the vaccine business in no time.
If my memory serves me right, this is what was happening in the early 1980s that caused the drug companies to lobby Congress for the 1986 law. The drug companies had lost lots of $ from the law suits from the 1976 swine flu vaccine fiasco and the establishment of the NVIC and media attention on DPT vaccine dangers had put all but two companies out of business here in the US. I believe only Merck is left now.
applejuice is offline  
#146 of 147 Old 06-20-2014, 06:39 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 6,616
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
If my memory serves me right, this is what was happening in the early 1980s that caused the drug companies to lobby Congress for the 1986 law. The drug companies had lost lots of $ from the law suits from the 1976 swine flu vaccine fiasco and the establishment of the NVIC and media attention on DPT vaccine dangers had put all but two companies out of business here in the US. I believe only Merck is left now.
Some of the shrinkage of companies is from consolidation. Not many were driven out of business by lawsuits.
Deborah is online now  
#147 of 147 Old 06-20-2014, 10:07 PM
 
applejuice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: hunting the wild aebelskiever
Posts: 18,692
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Pfizer gobbled up Parke Davis in the late 1960s after many lawsuits from the quadrigen vaccine and from the antibiotic chloramphenicol which was associated with aplastic anemia.

So, yes it was consolidation Sometimes vaccine lawsuits were involved..
Deborah likes this.
applejuice is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off