A Safer Vaccination?

[tex]

I'm still confused as to why his methods have not been published and reviewed at this point in the game.

That's an easy one. If you do some research you will discover that a number of his earlier research articles were published in prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals back in the 90s. But then he made the fatal mistake of choosing to set up a testing lab that offered it's services direct to patients, totally bypassing clinicians. Back in those days, doctors didn't do that. And to add insult to injury, he let his hair grow out and started promoting his hobby of writing rock and roll songs and performing with a guitar. That was so insulting to so many of the members of the Good Old Boys Medical Club that he was forever banned from publishing his work in medical journals. And yes I know that there are no written rules on that, but you can bet your sweet bippy that there are unwritten rules that are followed in the hallowed halls of medicine. And peer-reviewed approval of articles submitted for publication in popular medical journals is something that he will never be able to get because of his faux pas just before the turn of the century.

I happen to know that he attempted again, just a few years ago to get some of his research published. I reckon I don't have to tell you how that turned out.

And incidentally it's not very becoming to continue to refer to women who disagree with your position as "uneducated", "fearful", or some other arbitrary stereotype category. Believe it or not, one does not have to have a medical degree in order to be "educated", and personally, while a few of the mothers I know might be fearful (for valid reasons), and some of them may have even earned one or more of their degrees in the school of hard knocks, I don't know any mothers who are uneducated.

And besides, mothers outnumber pharmacists and farmers on this forum almost a thousand to one, and I'm concerned that one or more of them may decide to open up a can or two of
and use them on both of us.

Tex

[Gabes-Apg]

this will make for interesting TV...

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/b ... cine-link/

CDC Engaged in “Massive Corruption”

“This is a story of massive corruption within the CDC in an attempt to change research, protocols, and ultimately hide their own findings,” Swann says. “What I’m sharing with you is not theory…this is a documented case of massive corruption.”

Swann found that a famous 2001 CDC study, one that showed that kids with autism are “slightly more likely” to have gotten the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine, did not give the full details in its official report.

Language was changed to downplay risks of the vaccine, the documents show. In addition, the study’s results have also been into question as it was revealed that its protocols were changed about 5 times over the course of the study according to Dr. Brian Hooker, who was interviewed for the segment. As the CDC continued to see results that were not in accordance with their own narrative that vaccines are safe, they continually changed the way the studies were conducted, effectively changing the results as they went along.

[tex]

Gabes,

I hadn't seen that yet, but of course I'm not surprised. A heck of a lot of underhanded stuff goes on behind the scenes in the medical world (just like virtually any other industry where obsession over power and money can cloud the way that decisions are made).

As far as I'm aware, the clinician side of the industry is not nearly as prone to corruption as the CDC, but of course they are stuck with following the policies dictated by the CDC, so that sorta makes them (hopefully) "unwitting" accomplices, unfortunately. Usually the CDC and similar organizations can bluff their way out of most "situations", but that may be tough to do this time. I reckon we'll see how it goes, but I'm reasonably confident that as usual, they'll figure out how to bluff their way out of this one also.

Thanks for the link.

Tex

[Blueberry]

I don't follow the vaccine debates all that much, but remember one long articles on Dr Humphries sight, with mention on the CDC and corruption. Apparently a Dr. Thompson has come forward saying the books had been cooked when studying the MMR vaccine. As is typically the case though, doubt much will come of it.

"Response to “Isabella B’s” “Why Dr Suzanne Humphries, an anti-vaccine activist, is lying to you about measles” by Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Bystrianyk - "

http://drsuzanne.net/2015/10/why-dr-suz ... t-measles/

excerpt from her article:

...If you have not heard of Dr. VK Singh, his published medical studies[28] showed that autistic children compared to normal controls had enormously elevated anti-MMR vaccine antibody, anti-MV antibody, and antibodies against parts of the brain such as Anti-Caudate nucleus antibody, Anti-cerebellum antibody and markedly elevated anti-myelin basic protein antibody.

Dr. Singh made a plea to Congress in the year 2000 for funding to help the many autistic children who had these brain symptoms as a result of over reactivity towards the MMR vaccine. The result of his public request for money to continue his research was the drying up of his funds.

“This was most probably the first laboratory-based evidence to link measles virus and/or MMR vaccine to autoimmunity in children with autism. Collectively, these observations led me to speculate that autism may be caused by a measles or MMR vaccine-induced autoimmune response.

Unfortunately, due to lack of funding, I have not been able to extend this research and the progress has been hampered.”[29]

What followed were the fatally flawed studies done by CDC and Danish scientists, which supposedly debunked any connection between autism, brain damage, and the MMR vaccine. One of the lead researchers of the thimerosal-autism work recently had a pang of conscience and came forward to tell of the unethical and fraudulent data manipulation that he saw occurring in the 2004 study.

It remains to be seen what Dr Thompson will do next.

After Thompson’s confession to cooking the data books with the other scientists to bury over a 236% increased risk of autism in black children in the 2004 paper, Paul Offit described Dr. Thomson as having “psychological problems”.[30]

That’s pretty typical. Any scientist who dares to discuss science which questions the “vaccines are safe, effective and necessary and the science shows that” mantra is branded a quack, a fraud, psychologically unstable, a homeopath, or funded by the anti-vaccine movement.

Apparently to be credible, you have to quote only cherry-picked approved studies, and be funded by the manufacturer of vaccines, or occupy a university chair position funded by Merck....

- See more at: http://drsuzanne.net/2015/10/why-dr-suz ... uUPYt.dpuf

[tex]

Yep, that's how they handle dissenters.

And this sentence from that quote contains a lot of truth — they don't like troublemakers who stray from the flock.

Apparently to be credible, you have to quote only cherry-picked approved studies, and be funded by the manufacturer of vaccines, or occupy a university chair position funded by Merck....

There exists a vast body of verified research data that prove that the conclusions reached in most published medical research articles are false.

Odds Are, It's Wrong

Here's a link to the original article:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

And the problem has only become worse over the years — there continue to be new articles and editorials published in medical journals since then discussing the problem, but the industry doesn't seem to be interesting in healing itself.

But this is true of all of science, not just medicine. Remember back when Al Gore created the global warming myth? Most atmospheric scientists ridiculed the idea because it's nothing more than the result of weather and climate cycles that have been occurring since the planet was formed. But once the government adopted the concept as their own, scientists quickly learned that if they wanted to continue to receive research funding so that they could continue to eat, they had no choice but to get on board.

The bottom line is that the government determines which science is valid and which is not, because they control the purse strings.

Tex

[Blueberry]

Thanks for the links. It really, really is disturbing Tex on the amount of problems I read in the health field. That's something I've been spending time on, reading about fraud in health care. I've wondered how deep the rabbit hole goes. I tell myself I need to be careful in that if I think it is all wrong, that's what I'll find, or vice versa. It's hard to tell who is telling the truth basically. Trying to keep an open mind, I keep running upon person after person though, that held high positions in the health field raising alarms about what is happening. Former New England Journal of Medicine editor Maria Angell for example had this to say ~

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” Dr. Marcia Angell.

On a personal level it is infuriating. I'm one of those people that has fought this GI disease for around 30 years. During that time I had about a 7 year open window where I could function. I made the most one could during that time, which I'm fortunate for. The rest of the time I've struggled, with the gut but also with what I joke, having a slice of spectral disorder/autism. It does make me sad though for myself, and for those that struggle with chronic diseases, doing their best to deal with a health care system that could be much better than it is. Of late I've been doing much better. It has me upbeat. it will be interesting to see how much I heal, and how well I do getting back out into society in a larger way than has been capable for awhile. It has me a little nervous too.

I haven't read all that much about man made global warming. I realize it certainly is a political, big business science anymore. I enjoy reading the work of Pier Corbyn. If you have not heard of him, he's an astrophysicist from the UK that realized weather forecaster were ignoring factors from the sun. He has a weather service were he predicts the weather a month in advice. I've subscribed a few times and found his day to day forecasts decently accurate. As can be imagined he isn't a believer in man made global warming. That has made him an unpopular person in some circles I read. I guess the BBC will not interview him, despite his success and being the brother of the Labor party's leader.

If interesting, a little bit about him can be seen here.

"Watch “@Piers_Corbyn: Electrical Weather | Space News”"

https://weatheraction.wordpress.com/201 ... pace-news/

[tex]

We're not the only ones troubled by all the problems with the medical profession. I recently wrote an article about physician burnout. It's reaching unbelievable (and unsustainable) levels. Something is going to have to be done relatively quickly or we are going to be facing a huge physician shortage in this country in the near future. But the source of the physician burnout problem lies within our government. Obviously that's not a very comforting thought, either.

One of the big problems with politicians' decision-making abilities is that they are so used to being in the limelight that they develop the pathetic celebrity syndrome of thinking that just because people are fascinated by them, they are somehow magically more intelligent than everyone else. And their illusions of grandeur lead them to mistakenly believe that they are actually important, not only in their circle of influence, but in the universe in general, and they extrapolate that sense of self-importance to the entire species. So it's not surprising that they would reach the ridiculous conclusion that our piddling presence on this planet can actually influence the long-term cycles that determine weather and climate for the planet.

That has to be the height of conceit and vanity. Anything we are likely to do while living our normal lifestyle is pretty much insignificant compared with the energy output of a single large volcano eruption, and there are numerous volcano eruptions every year (and that has been the case since the beginning of time for this planet).

The atmospheric patterns that determine climate changes don't give a rat's ass whether Homo sapiens inhabits this planet or not. We could burn every last smidgeon of fossil fuels known to be available in less than a week and it wouldn't make a bit of difference on the climate 100 years from now. We're no more significant in the overall scheme of things than a gnat on an elephant's behind. The same cycles and weather extremes we have now were present millions of years before life began on this planet, and they will continue to exist long after we're gone.

For all I know Piers Corbyn may be an exception, but most meteorologists can't consistently and reliably predict the weather 2 weeks in advance. And yet they have the audacity to pretend that they can predict the weather a 100 years from now, or a 1,000 years from now. Gimmie a break.

For the last week or so we've had relatively seasonal weather in my neck of the woods, which should be a piece of cake to forecast. And yet both of the local weather forecasters that I watch following the evening news on TV have been consistently missing the nightly temperature forecast virtually every night. It's been from 5 to 10 degrees colder than they forecast, just as regular as clockwork. Why? Because they go by those stupid computer weather forecasting "models" (presumably the same type used to forecast "global warming").

And do they ever correct the data used by those models for forecasting the weather? Apparently not, because they continue to make the same stupid forecasting mistakes, night after night. Technology is great, but you have to know how to use it, and obviously most meteorologists have forgotten how to look out the window to see what's actually going on. They should get their kids to show them how to use a computer so that it's actually good for something, or turn the dang thing off.

Tex

[BearcatRx]

One of the lead researchers of the thimerosal-autism work recently had a pang of conscience and came forward to tell of the unethical and fraudulent data manipulation that he saw occurring in the 2004 study.

The thing is, thimerosal hasn't been in childhood vaccines since 2001.

[Blueberry]

Tex,

Interesting. If the article is on the MC foundation sight I'll take a look. I'd enjoy reading it. I can imagine, burnout would be a common problem for doctors. There might be help on the way. (My nephew would enjoy this as he is designing robots in his 8th grade. He's a bright kid, and is attending a national competition on robot design.) I read an article yesterday about how computers could replace most doctors in the future. That seems to be the hot topic these days, white collar jobs being replaced by computers. I'm not sure if health medical groups, politicians and doctors will allow that change to happen. If it happens though, it makes some sense, having computers make a diagnosis. Computers have been found to be more accurate. In some medical cases it would be easy too to call up, or log in and have your medical issues addressed. I did wonder who would be doing the computer programing. I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that though.

I read a damning statement about doctors in Readers Digest yesterday. This wouldn't help with burnout problems I imagine. The Feb. Readers Digest magazine has an article titled 50 Secretes Hospitals Won't Tell You. The 10th secrete says:

"I hear from surgeons all the time whose bosses are basically beating on them to do more operations. While some hospitals systems have moved to flat salaries, most still provide bonuses for more volume. Doctors have an incentive for over treatment. Dr. Marty Makary, a surgeon and the author of Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won't tell you and how transparency can revolutionize health care."

That isn't the first time I'd read something along those lines about over treatment for more payment. Rather sad though. I know of neighbors that had operations, that they did not feel were necessary but went along with. Some now regret the operation being done, due to being in pain and symptoms remaining.

I remember reading an article by one of the first scientists to mention man made global warming. I forget his name this morning. He basically said the science got out of control. It became the hot topic to jump into, to make money with, that green groups and the government would fund.

For awhile now I stopped paying attention to long range weather forecasts from newscasters. I figure they have a decent chance of predicting the weather the next day or two. Agree, after that the data is inaccurate. I wish too that more would be done to upgrade forecasting. Maybe Pier Corbyn's work, of another scientist's work I've read could lead the way. We can only hope.

Anyway, bit of a ramble this morning.

[BearcatRx]

I, too, have heard of doctors being encouraged to perform more surgeries, etc. That does concern me quite a bit. I will say that doctors being replaced by computers will most likely never happen. Mainly because they have no empathy, no sympathy. We are taught to "treat the patient, not the number." Meaning treat a patient by giving them medication to feel normal again or to function normally, not just reach some number set forth by guidelines. You can't program a computer to do that.

[Gabes-Apg]

in line with the discussion in this topic and physician burnout

came across this article today -
http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/big-p ... 2016-01-26

Big Pharma can celebrate a bright point. Arizona's top court ruled that drugmakers don't have an obligation to warn patients directly about safety risks of their meds. Raising those warnings with doctors is enough, the court determined.

how can a doctor in the 10-15 minute appointment, discuss test results /assess issues with a patient and recommend a medication and inform the patient of all the risk of that medication???
so sad to see the health system getting worse..

[BearcatRx]

how can a doctor in the 10-15 minute appointment, discuss test results /assess issues with a patient and recommend a medication and inform the patient of all the risk of that medication???
so sad to see the health system getting worse..

... and THAT is what I'm here for!

[Gabes-Apg]

Do you get enough time with each patient to discuss risks of medication?

and if the patient has the script and comes to you, isnt it a bit late by then?

[BearcatRx]

Do you get enough time with each patient to discuss risks of medication?

and if the patient has the script and comes to you, isnt it a bit late by then?

Not as much time as I'd like. Sadly, even pharmacy is mostly concerned with profit and thus, they only care about how many prescriptions I can pump out on a daily basis. I do try to spend time with patients who have specific questions. But it's not too late if they come to me with the prescription. If I discuss it with them and they aren't comfortable with it, they aren't obligated to take it. I can also call their physician at the request of the patient to change to something else.

[Gabes-Apg]

ok (the usa system is a bit different to the aus system)

just curious - does your professional indemnity insurance cover you for this?