Topic: Doctors agree with censored study that concludes unvaccinated children ... - page 3. (Read 3367 times)

LOL! You are promoting poison as a method of healing because it is a thing of nature? That's exactly the biggest thing the medical does.

Who cares what you said, or how many times you said it?

What you and yours say is as often as not a dead match for what Sharyl Attkisson in her TEDx talk here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

I've already said that I've listened intently to at least 100 presentations from real medical doctors and scientists who unhappy enough to torpedo their careers by speaking out.  And I've read a lot more.  In point of fact, it's getting obvious enough by this time that your rapidly expanding vaccination regime is fucking up a lot of people's immune systems and contributing to a cascade of problems.

Anyone who pays much attention to contentious scienctific debates in our time (vaccinations, GMOs, global climate change, etc) recognizes 'peer review' as a laughable circle-jerk which means little or nothing when corporate money is involved and corporate profits are on the line.

Do you have a particular problem that made you clip my rather common sense suggestion?"

Bolded by me.

You say "sicken yourself" but all the reputable data shows us that you are not in fact sickening yourself by getting vaccinated. You are actually protecting yourself and others by getting vaccinated. There are small children (too young to get vaccinated), not just people who have medical conditions that prevent themselves from getting vaccinated, and by refusing vaccination you are putting them at risk. You are sounding a little like you condone ethnic/genetic cleansing.

Your posts so far in this thread have been hyperbole/personal opinion, and you haven't added any actual evidence to back up your claims. At least I analysed the OP's article and showed the glaring holes in it, demonstrated how certain media outlets with a money making agenda profit from the disinformation and misleading sources, and posted some very thorough conflicting evidence that vaccines are relatively safe.

If they are so dangerous and cause diseases, where is the evidence for that? Where are all the people dying from vaccination, a common process in the modern world that is used on the vast majority of the population?

I already said that I believe that increasing diagnoses of ADHD and autism are almost certainly a result of increased understanding in the conditions, not due to any vaccination poisoning or other such unsubstantiated nonsense. In past, sufferers of conditions like these would have been branded "imbeciles", "idiots" or "cretins", and probably sent to psychiatric wards for the rest of their lives.

Smallpox was eradicated from the Earth due to vaccination (pretty much, some strains still exist in high security virology labs, but the general population doesn't suffer from it because it was destroyed through vaccination programmes). That in itself is a some pretty thorough evidence that some vaccines at least work as they should. Many other serious diseases are now under control through vaccination.

If you have any proper, reputable peer reviewed evidence that vaccines cause any sort of disease then why not post that, instead of your own personal conspiracy theories? And don't Gish Gallop, just post the single best piece of research/study/meta-analysis you can find and we'll analyse and debate its scientific trustworthiness.

Qualitatively at least you are telling me that I need to sicken myself in order to offset the risk of someone else who has a regrettable deficiency which I have nothing to do with.  Or simply the power to buy their way out.  Screw that!

Logically speaking, the tiny minority with the supposed deficiency should be the ones who are 'exiled to an uninhabitable island'.  Being a classical liberal rather than an indoctrinated collectivist totalitarian wannabe, however, I don't wish malice upon them and would favor more humanitarian conditions.

If I felt confident that the risk/reward of 'doing good' by someone who has misfortune was transparently and accurately calculated, I very well might do just that.  This is not AT ALL the case with the medical/industrial complex in this country at this time.  Fix that problem BEFORE you force-march people into the the clinic to get whatever big-pharma wishes injected into their bloodstream.  Or expect significant resistance.

That assumption is not entirely correct, since person has no right to risk lives of other people. There is a thing called collective immunity. One who are applying vaccination is protecting not only himself, but he also provides protection to those who either have weak immune response or can't be immunized due to medical contraindications. It is our civil responsibility to ensure that infection will not spread through us to the most vulnerable members of our society, such us children, elders or disabled people. If somebody denies that simple fact then he should be exiled to uninhabitable island.

The wealthy and affluent are the ones who are most resistant to vaccinating their kids.  They have the time are resources to do the research, and in some cases are probably well aware of the game and evil enough to be in favor of it.  And they don't need your stinkin' welfare checks.  The kids of this 1% class need to compete against others in their peer group so it is a non-starter to physically damage them with vaccines.  In fact the gauntlet that your average rich-kid runs (fast cars, quality drugs, etc) is already nearly as dangerous as most of the inner city youth face.

The rate set for 'herd immunity' is completely flexible and has varied a lot depending on pharma needs.  The elite 1% kids can easily be slipped into whatever cracks need to be opened up.  A handful of doctors can be chosen to issue waivers, and with 'privacy' laws things could be pretty much completely opaque.  A very interesting study even right now would be to compare the titer levels of the affluent teens vs. the 99%.

It's actually a rather clever system design to:

 - 'persuade' (aka, 'extort') the needy into poisoning their offspring using welfare checks as the carrot.

 - force the middle class to:

    - foot the bill for the welfare check extortion

    - sicken their own kids

    - join the ranks of the needy once all of their property and savings have been handed over to the 1%

Through it all the controllers can harvest the bizzaro autists who pop out.  Classroom bio-metric feedback collection anyone?  Being generally bereft of normal ethical potential and sometimes unusually bright in some ways, such 'human resources' can make very capable technocrats.  Just need to sieve them out.

When this cycle is complete and the middle class is history, the non-useful 'human resources' can be disposed of.  They'll have limited means of resistance being mentally damaged, sick, and totally dependent on the corp/gov state.

You're right in saying that we shouldn't just trust modern medicine/Big Pharma, because they have made huge mistakes in the past (eg the Thalidomide catastrophe) and are known to sometimes be corrupt (eg withholding data that shows their drugs to be ineffective, as is the case with Roche and their Tamiflu drug).

But that doesn't mean that everything Big Pharma makes is dangerous or ineffective. We just need to be careful, and study the actual data and evidence, rather than rely on hearsay.


Well, the eradication/control of many diseases such as smallpox, polio, yellow fever, measles and many more constitute a long term assessment that vaccines are effective. You can compare the data and see the correlation quite clearly.

There are also many studies/research into the side effects of vaccines (such as the research I linked in my post regarding autism), and the general consensus is that it's far safer to get vaccinated than not, even though there are minuscule chances for allergic reactions.

I don't like the idea of too much state involvement in people's personal lives, but I also don't believe herd immunity should be compromised because some parents refuse to vaccinate their children - it puts others in danger that may not be able to be vaccinated for real medical reasons (such as allergic reactions)

I don't think full on prosecution of parents is fair, but I do think they should be "persuaded" to vaccinate - for example some countries have started stopping welfare/benefits for parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. That seems like a good idea to me.

The prosecution is not correct. Person has the right to dispose of their health. Another thing is that if the person refuses vaccination, he represents the threat of the epidemic. He needs to pay for insurance in case of illness.

I'm not sure if this is irony or not.

Assuming that ''modern medicine" is always right is insane. Modern medicine may have preserved the life of many, but there have also been catastrophic mistakes, even advocated by highest rank authorities in the field (e.g. think of prefrontal lobotomy).

Vaccination related negative health conditions are a reality. Today they are assumed to be very rare, but comparative long term assessment of vaccination-related health status is largely unavailable.

Without commenting on the particular study in question, assuming a publication bias is at least plausible, because there is significant capital allocated in the vaccination industry.

The decision to receive vaccination or not should be made freely by every single individual.

Exactly. IMO, the government must prosecute the owners of these websites for attempting to harm the health of the people. Anyone who advocates against the usage of modern medicine deserves criminal prosecution.

OK, let's do some critical analysis on this article.

Firstly, it is well known (and pretty obvious) that naturalnews.com is a seriously questionable source when it comes to professional medical advice. You only need to look at how much they rely on dodgy ads (and a specific demographic of readers that lap up this anti-establishment/alternative medicine/anti Big Pharma journalism) to get an idea of how they make money. Just look at the sidebar ads on this page alone.

But let's give them the benefit of the doubt this time, and actually check the sources for the article. It claims, that a doctor (Jennifer Margulis, PhD) claims, that a paper was published in the journal "Frontiers in Public Health", and then removed without explanation. OK, so now we check what sort of a "doctor" Jennifer Margulis is.



source: http://kindredmedia.org/author/jennifer-margulis-phd/

Right, the plot thickens... she's not a medical doctor at all, just a journalist with a BA in Engish and Russian, and a doctorate in English. Hmm, this is where alarm bells start to ring.

Then we can look up some information on the journal itself, "Frontiers in Public Health". While it is a peer-reviewed journal, it has had many criticisms and even been added (albeit controversially) to a "blacklist of questionable publications" by another academic, Jeffrey Beall. source:

http://www.nature.com/news/backlash-after-frontiers-journals-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers-1.18639

So both the "doctor" and the journal are now both sounding less reputable than the article implies. But, lets give them both the benefit of the doubt and look at the details given on the paper itself:


Ding ding ding!! This is where we start to really see how unreliable the source for the article is. Any bonafide medical doctor or scientist will tell you that "parental surveys" are an incredibly questionable source of data for any study, (and I wouldn't be surprised if this was the reason that the paper was pulled from publication). Not to mention that the sample was taken from a rather specific section of the population, limited to a few of the more backward States of America (OK, OK, citation needed for that  )

The article doesn't quote any other studies, but goes on to mention a few other "doctors" that agree with the findings, that all seem just as sketchy as good old doctor of English and controversial journalist, Jennifer Margulis. I could probably find a bunch of dirt on them too, but I can't be bothered to investigate further as the article has already lost most of its credibility.

While I would personally agree that studies into the potential dangers of vaccination should continue (even if just to socially educate people), this article stinks.

I haven't done much research into vaccines causing "ADD/ADHD, asthma and other auto-immune disorders", but there are some very meticulous and thorough studies that suggest that vaccines absolutely do not cause autism. For example, here is the abstract of a meta-analysis of 10 studies involving over 1.2 million children:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559

And an article explaining it: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/final-nail-coffin-vaccine-autism-myth/

My personal opinion is that in recent years, a greater understanding of autism and ADHD type disorders has led to an increase in their diagnosis. Most children get vaccinated, and if even a small percentage of these children develop autism or ADHD, it's understandable (but incorrect) that the parents could make a false assumption that one had caused the other.

Imagine you started feeding your kid solid food, perhaps PB & J sandwiches for the first time in their life, and a few months later they got some weird disease. Then you read about other parents who did the same thing, and their kids got the same disease. That absolutely doesn't mean that PB & J sandwiches gave them the disease, it was just a coincidence, but these parents get sucked into this filter bubble/echo chamber, and suddenly everything they're reading and hearing is confirming what they suspected. It's called confirmation bias, and is extremely easy to succumb to on the internet.

Moral of the story is, check your sources thoroughly and be extremely careful with websites like "naturalnews.com" - they are using you as a means of making money, and they themselves probably don't believe the majority of the shit they post.

Doctors agree with censored study that concludes unvaccinated children ...







Read more and click the links at http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-01-08-doctors-agree-with-study-that-concludes-unvaccinated-children-are-healthier-than-vaccinated-children.html.