Whistleblower exposes MMR Autism link

[Spy Bee]

That all seems well and good, bu then the poster seems to validate this post:

 

"Yes, we don't vaccinate our children; vaccines are designed to kill and sicken.  Look what they are doing in Africa via Bill Gates and George Soros"

 

Are there any theories into why they are doing what is claimed? I mean, if they are designed to kill and sicken, then they are doing a shite job at it, as we all live older healthier lives.

[setreal]

 

This is an older video about this topic but it addresses some of the stuff from agenda-driven sources posted on this thread.

[Arl arse]

That all seems well and good, bu then the poster seems to validate this post:

 

"Yes, we don't vaccinate our children; vaccines are designed to kill and sicken.  Look what they are doing in Africa via Bill Gates and George Soros"[/size]

 

Are there any theories into why they are doing what is claimed? I mean, if they are designed to kill and sicken, then they are doing a shite job at it, as we all live older healthier lives.[/size]

[Son of L8]

 

Hahaha... Seriously? "Admits vaccines are used for human depopulation"? He did nothing of the sort. He said improvements in health care provision reduce the overall rate of global population growth. This might seem counterintuitive, but it's actually pretty simple with a bit of background in population health and demography (and a bit of not being a hysterical fanny):

 

For many decades, research has consistently demonstrated an inverse correlation between infant mortality rates and population growth. To put that in simpler terms: as children in a society become more likely to die before reaching adulthood, families in that society will have more children to compensate, and ultimately overcompensate, for the risk of mortality in childhood. Or in even simpler terms: if your first child only has a 40% chance of surviving to adulthood, you're going to have as many children as possible to ensure your family continues to the next generation, but if your first child has a 90% chance of surviving to adulthood, you'll probably stop when your family reaches a stable, sustainable size. So as children become less likely to die before reaching adulthood, families quickly begin to have fewer children as the risk falls away.

 

The provision of modern health care in developing countries, including vaccination against diseases that contribute overwhelmingly to infant mortality, causes the infant mortality rate to drop and allows more children to survive to adulthood. Ultimately, more children surviving to adulthood results in smaller, more stable families in the countries where the overwhelming majority of population growth is taking place. Therefore saving children from serious disease in the developing world would contribute to an overall reduction in the rate of global population growth.

 

So no, they're not killing your babies with health care.*

 

 

 

* - or maybe they are. Maybe all the billionaires keep a score-card like they're playing golf, and whoever killed the fewest children that year has to get the drinks in at Davos?

 

Seriously. There's a lot of fucked up shit that goes on in the world, we don't need to make imaginary shit up to get angry about, do we?

[lifetime fan]

To try and get slightly back on track...

 

Having worked for the NAS for 15 years I wouldn't allow a child of mine the combined MMR vaccine before 4 years old and would in all likelihood pay to go private and have the three vaccines given separately.

 

 

 

EDIT: I should add my opinion is the exact opposite of my employers.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

To try and get slightly back on track...

 

Having worked for the NAS for 15 years I wouldn't allow a child of mine the combined MMR vaccine before 4 years old and would in all likelihood pay to go private and have the three vaccines given separately.

 

 

 

EDIT: I should add my opinion is the exact opposite of my employers.

Why not?

[VladimirIlyich]

Ive been vaccinated,my wife,my kids,my sisters,my nieces and nephews and we are all healthy so why would I advise against anybody else doing it too?

Have they changed the formula?

[lifetime fan]

Why not?

 

Why would you when you can have single vaccines?

 

I just don't think it's worth the risk.

[Strontium]

What's the risk though? Surely it's better to have one wound to your arm than three.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I consulted a few medical professionals when the time came to have my boy done, I went with separate ones. Not because I believe the bollocks but because I succumbed to fear mongering.

[Rico1304]

This link shows how low vaccination rates in middle class America are threatening an epidemic.

 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/los-angeles-vaccination-rates/?mobile_redirect=false

[Arl arse]

This link shows how low vaccination rates in middle class America are threatening an epidemic.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/los-angeles-vaccination-rates/?mobile_redirect=false

Propaganda bullshit

[Rico1304]

Propaganda bullshit

Hahahahah, I don't have any problem calling you a crank!

[Arl arse]

Hahahahah, I don't have any problem calling you a crank!

 

The Hollywood Reporter, really?

 

And you call me a crank.

[Rico1304]

The Hollywood Reporter, really?

And you call me a crank.

I've no idea if the Hollywood Reporter is a decent local paper or not, but it's a story about LA in the local press. What's the issue? It's hardly likely to be covered by the Echo is it?

[Stu Monty]

Interesting to hear today how the development of new antibiotics has basically fallen off a cliff (even though they really might be quite handy given the possibility of superbugs) due to the limited capacity to make profit from them compared to other drugs.

 

So, you know, science as a tool for the benefit of humanity being corrupted by profit.

[Strontium]

That's not a failure of science, it's a failure, if anything, of the market.

 

This article was in New Scientist back in May

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25599-superbug-crisis-global-push-to-save-antibiotics-begins.html

[Stu Monty]

That's not a failure of science, it's a failure, if anything, of the market.

 

This article was in New Scientist back in May

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25599-superbug-crisis-global-push-to-save-antibiotics-begins.html

 

 

Nobody said it was a failure of science. The point was that it was science as a tool for humanity being corrupted by the need for profit.

 

Or, if you want to term it that way: a failure in the market, which is exactly the same thing.

[Boss]

Allopathic modern medicine is all about profit, hence why it's not possible to patent natural substances. Like for instance a component of broccoli may show promise at slowing down the rapid cell division in cancer, they'd have to take the chemical, make a completely synthetic version and then alter it's structure to be able to patent it so they can make money. It's the sickness industry, it's not about getting you well, hence why they make you take tablets for the rest of your life, it's about addressing the symptoms so they can make a profit and that transcends all fields of medicine.

[Dr Nowt]

Allopathic modern medicine is all about profit, hence why it's not possible to patent natural substances. Like for instance a component of broccoli may show promise at slowing down the rapid cell division in cancer, they'd have to take the chemical, make a completely synthetic version and then alter it's structure to be able to patent it so they can make money. It's the sickness industry, it's not about getting you well, hence why they make you take tablets for the rest of your life, it's about addressing the symptoms so they can make a profit and that transcends all fields of medicine.

 

Great post.

 

Many people routinely deride homeopaths, for example, but when you visit such "alternative" and "holistic" therapists, in addition to whatever primary treatment they provide they generally direct you towards a variety of relevant natural products and advice, including dietary, which often do a very similar thing to the equivalent medication produced by pharmaceutical companies, without the common toxic side effects, overall making the body a less fertile environment for illness.  The emphasis is on the patient as one whole entity, on them completely recovering their health where the problem is acute and becoming as strong and vital as possible where it is chronic, proactively looking for both solutions to the underlying cause of illness and ways of making the body strong enough to ultimately overcome it on its own, and a generally positive mindset and approach, while maintaining realism.  They will also look into ways of making the body better able to process pharmaceutical drugs where those are inevitable and genuinely required as there is no alternative, as is of course sometimes the case, rather than just tracking deterioration caused to the likes of the liver.  They are in the health business.

 

Most people with a long history of treatment via medical science who've seriously looked into alternative health as a supplement to their care will have stories to tell, many of invaluable mainstream support and a network which has been a huge positive in helping keep them on the planet, but also those regarding the ever-growing over-reliance on medication, a too often negative and doom-laden approach, which risks becoming self-fulfilling prophecy in constantly reinforcing the inevitability of both a lifetime of ill-health and things getting worse, even to those with a pragmatic attitude who understand their situation implicitly but aim for the best outcome possible regardless and recognise the crucial importance of mental approach to that process, and the oft troublingly casual attitude towards prescribing multiple medication for long periods without effective checks, which upon patient requested review regularly transpire not to have been needed for an age, sometimes even for many years. 

 

There's a balance to be found where an integrative approach between the two would be ideal, but over time things here have swung way too far in the favour of just dishing out pills, reactively managing symptoms and in the case of complex, multi-system disease, prescribing medication for one facet of the condition which causes major side effects with others, then prescribing further medication for that, and on and on.  In a very simple sense there's being unwell, not being unwell and being actively healthy.  The medical science approach only when dealing with long-term illness, particularly as it has become ever more in thrall to pharmaceutical medication, often stops people from being in either of the two more extreme groups and pegs them in the middle one, in my experience.

[Rico1304]

So does water have a memory or not?

 

I can completely agree with the sentiment that a longer consultation with a Dr, advice on healthier living, support etc improves patient outcome but the second you mention giving water a whack makes it medicine it all falls apart.

 

The overall experience you describe sounds a bit like going private ...

[Dr Nowt]

Going private gives you access to the same drugs, it improves the surroundings you're treated in, shortens the waiting list and other such things which make the overall experience far more refined. However, at least a large chunk of the doctors travel from their normal place of work at an NHS hospital to perform private consultations. It's still the same mindset, albeit much less in and out in a flash and therefore at times chaotic than a free hospital.

As an example, the other half blew a disk in her back around 5 years ago. Completely incapacitated her of course. My friend who's an Osteopath took one look at her and told her exactly what he could do to resolve it. She had private medical care through work and thanked him but said she'd pursue that first. After an examination under epidural they immediately advised her they wanted to remove the disk. She was 29 years old.

All of us as family agreed that was a non-starter, as remove a disk and ultimately the back can or will weaken again in around ten years or less, as many who've had such a procedure will no doubt attest - I know several who've done so and still have a lifetime's problem with their back. She went to see our friend who within a couple of weeks had her back around 80% improved. She now has a few days a year where it plays her up enough so she notices it. Cost her nowt but even without knowing him would have cost someone £140 for 4 visits, then the odd maintenance appointment once or twice a year.

That made me very suspicious of private healthcare, as it could be viewed they just wanted to perform the most costly operation first, when in my opinion such a drastic procedure should have been the last resort. Bearing in mind the bill for review was a thousand pounds for a couple of hours in the private suite and an epidural, I'm not going to guess how much a disk removal comes in at.

And I've no idea what water having a memory means mate. I wasn't advocating homeopathy per se. I was just indicating that often people who practice it have far more to their knowledge base and appeal than that one much derided form of treatment, and are very accomplished at healing people and making them well.

I know a good many very bright people who've been extremely unwell over a long period or been diagnosed with a significant illness, and who have improved greatly after spending time with such people. It's an easy thing for people to think that there's lots of idiots who'll just pay money for magic beans without any positive results because they're not discerning. As amusing an image as it is, it's often a small part of the reality, in my experience.

[Strontium]

There are two kinds of medicine: real medicine and fraudulent quackery.

 

Keep trying to formulate a longer reply to this thread, but it was enough of an effort to stop shaking my head long enough just to write the sentence above.

[Dr Nowt]

If you're shaking your head at my posts Dog, by all means share some first-hand experience of living with a serious condition and using both conventional and quote unquote alternative means to treat it, which qualifies you to be so dismissive of what I've written.

Overuse of pharmaceutical medication and reliance purely on conventional means to deal with a chronic condition carry their own dangers; a balanced, integrative approach is optimal in my experience.

If you're not referring to my posts, then I've misunderstood where that was aimed.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

That's not a failure of science

Stronts, is there any good science to back up this MMR/Autism link? To be honest, it has been so long since I've given a fuck, I've not even looked at it since. I'm guessing not?