ANDREW WAKEFIELD has been mentioned on this blog before (see here and here, for instance). He is, of course, the UK doctor who published false data about vaccination and autism in the Lancet, was struck off the medical register, and then moved to the US where he has become the darling of anti-vaxxers of all types, including Donald Trump, chiropractors and homeopaths. More recently, he seems to have become the star and guru of the growing cult opposing a vaccination against COVID-19, even before one has become available.
Already in March, Wakefield attended an anti-vaxx meeting and told those watching: “One of the main tenets of the marketing of mandatory vaccination has been fear. And never have we seen fear exploited in the way that we do now with the coronavirus infection.”
Citing what he called ‘unambiguous’ evidence that the coronavirus is no more deadly than seasonal flu, and claiming that the pathogen’s death toll had been greatly exaggerated, Wakefield more recently claimed that the crisis had led to ‘a destruction of the economy, a destruction of people and families, and unprecedented violations of health freedom… and it’s all based upon a fallacy’.
The disgraced ex-doctor noted that the COVID-19 pandemic is one big hoax: a cynical plot by pharmaceutical giants — aided by governments, scientists and the media — to force the world to be unnecessarily and dangerously vaccinated. Describing vaccines as ‘intrinsically unsafe’, ex-doctor Wakefield called on free-thinking people to refuse to be vaccinated against Covid-19 if and when a jab becomes available.
‘We have to stand and fight,’ the 63-year-old intoned. ‘As Nelson Mandela said at his trial, there are ideals worth dying for . . . I don’t want to get too dramatic, but better to die as a free man than live as a slave . . . We have to fight to preserve [our] freedom because it will be surely stripped from us in a very short space of time if we don’t.’
Convincing his disciples that he was the victim of a conspiracy by the pharmaceutical industry, medical establishment and media, Wakefield now neatly argues that the same shadowy cabal are lying to the public about coronavirus. Having terrified one generation of parents — leading, some believe, to a spike in measles among children and a number of deaths in countries where a minority have promoted his claims — Wakefield is spreading fear and misinformation again.
And the anti-vaxxers are proving alarmingly successful. It has been estimated that around 60 million people subscribe to anti-vaxx propaganda. It is conceivable therefore that these science-deniers could seriously undermine efforts to tackle the current pandemic effectively.
368 Responses to Ex-doctor Andrew Wakefield: “Better to die as a free man than live as a slave” (and get vaccinated against Covid-19)
Leave a Reply to Lenny Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
According to this recent article,
„as few as 50% of people in the United States are committed to receiving a [COVID-19] vaccine, with another quarter wavering” (Warren Cornwall, Science 2020)
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/just-50-americans-plan-get-covid-19-vaccine-here-s-how-win-over-rest
Scary numbers, but not surprising, given the anti-scientific and destructive presidency of Mr. Trump.
His recent campaign aiming at discrediting Dr. Fauci is a new low imo… and certainly in the best interest of paranoid zealots like Wakefield.
As a skeptic and a conservative, I find it extremely frightening how many conservatives are anti-vaccine. I have many friends that are so convinced that vaccines are filled with poisons and dangerous chemicals. Personally, I have been studying vaccines for over 6 yrs now. I found out that our twin granddaughters were not vaccinated and decided to investigate the safety of vaccines. My daughter in law (the twins mama), works for a chiropractor and we all know that MOST chiropractors are anti-vaccine. I try and talk to my friends in layman’s terms how vaccines are safe. No matter how many times I refute their incorrect arguments, they absolutely will not change their mind. I had the measles AND the mumps as a child and it was awful. I fear that more children will have to die before anti-vaxxers change their minds.
As a child I had Measles, German Measles (Rubella) Chicken Pox and Whooping Cough. The only one I didn’t catch was Mumps, and I don’t much want to get it now, as it’s more serious in adulthood.
Infant vaccinations in the late 1950s and early 1960s in the UK were less extensive than now – I’m not quite sure what inoculations I had, but I remember my last one was the new Oral Polio Vaccine.
I was lucky – I survived all those infectious diseases without permanent damage (though Whooping Cough made me very ill for weeks); with Measles in particular, many children are not so fortunate.
Kate,
Measles currently kills about 140,000 children per year. Those clearly aren’t enough deaths to have any impact on the anti-vaxxers.
I have been studying vaccines for over 6 years now. Six years ago our first granddaughters were born (twins). I was talking to my son about the idiots that don’t vaccinate their children and he told me that the girls were not vaccinated. I asked him why and he went on and on about the ingredients, big pharma etc. I started reading any book I could get my hands on. Dr. Paul Offit’s books are excellent. After ALL this reading I just don’t understand how parents can believe anti-vaxxer’s more than their own doctor. However, it is very difficult to unscare people once they are scared.
I knew the jig was up on chiropractor’s several years ago. First, some 90+% are anti-vaccine. You see, they really want to be your primary care doctor and anything that deviates from that goal is unacceptable. I was driving by a chiropractor’s office and there was a sign in the window listing all these medical issues that chiropractic could apparently solve. Here are a few of them; Bedwetting, ear infections, AUTISM, scoliosis, and many more. It was the Autism one that I started investigating because I knew this was baloney. I started looking into chiropractic and I discovered that the WHOLE thing is a total scam. It just burns my hide that these charlatans not only get to use the “Dr”, but chiropractic can also be incredibly dangerous or…..deadly. Need your neck cracked? Be careful, you might get a cervical dissection and have a stroke and die like Katie May did. If the claims are too good to be true, they probably are.
hear, hear!
@Kate Martin
Keep researching Kate…. If you haven’t realized yet that vaccines can be hazardous, you’re not there yet.
Someone in another thread posted an excellent quotation from American writier Upton Sinclair, perhaps worth repeating:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it”.
@kate Martin: ??? for your observational clarity!
Kate Martin on Friday 02 October 2020 at 18:18 said:
“As a skeptic and a conservative, I find it extremely frightening how many conservatives are anti-vaccine…”
Do you think it is possible that argument could reverse your view?
You know, it is not argument, as such, that should convince, but argument made strong by facts.
There has already been a link in this Blog, perhaps in this topic (I forget, and am much too indolent to check), to the somewhat splenetic but highly factual lengthy article by a trauma surgeon here: http://www.docbastard.net/2019/03/busting-vaccine-myths.html
David B on Saturday 03 October 2020 at 17:57 said:
“…it is not argument… but argument made strong by facts. [E.g.] somewhat splenetic but highly factual… here: http://www.docbastard.net/2019/03/busting-vaccine-myths.html
“
As you say he is “splenetic” e.g.
“…I have officially gotten sick and fucking tired of answering the same stupid points repeatedly, so I have decided to make this handy dandy little (not-so-little) compendium of Answers To Stupid Antivax Talking Points….”
Then this:
“What I will do is say “NO” and explain why it’s NO while citing sources, so you can’t just say “WELL THAT’S JUST YOUR OPINION”. Let me stress here that almost nothing here is “just my opinion”.”
Then, later, this:
“8) Vaccines cause autism!
I knew you would get here. The short version is “NO THEY FUCKING DON’T…”
Followed by this:
“…but that won’t satisfy you. Actually, nothing will satisfy you but I’m going to continue anyway.”
This author wants to be read while insulting his reader’s intelligence at the same time, via the reader’s sympathy for his (expected) failure for so doing.
That is why, historically, “highly factual” accounts stick to the formal third person e.g. “…the author’s experience is…” in presenting a non-self-conscious, dispassionate piece of writing.
The first-person does not turn a stranger into a friend, it is presumptuous and likely to have the reverse effect.
One might argue that style is irrelevant, only the facts matter – which is true of course, in which case, junk the style and present only the facts.
But he does not do that, why? Because he suspects those clinical trials do not convince, so he resorts to force (capitals and swearing). So let’s try and help him out: why not start his blog with a simple question:
Do you know anyone, personally who suffers from autism?
In other words, don’t even mention “vaccines” – if the answer is No! He has succeeded in implanting the seed of doubt in that class of person that he calls “anti-vaxxer”, he can go on from there with more, short facts.
Old Bob, the author of that Blog is writing a Blog, not a dispassionate medical journal article.
A blog is generally for personal expression and would sound odd written in a dispassionate third-person voice. I am sure that the author is perfectly capable of writing in that voice where appropriate – indeed he could not have qualified as a surgeon were he unable to do so. A Blog is probably a place to be passionate, not dispassionate.
I am sorry that you reproduced examples of the swearing here. I don’t think it was necessary to do so.
You suggest that the author insults the intelligence of his readers: I do not agree. I read the whole of that very lengthy article (twice), and his Coronavirus article, and did not feel that my intelligence was insulted. You will have noted, I am sure, that the Coronavirus article has two forms, one a ‘clean’ version, without the swearing. My personal feeling is that that is better. But it’s his Blog, and he can use such language as a literary device to express the strength of his feeling if he so chooses.
As I understand it, you suggest that he is only using such language to disguise his own misgivings about the studies he references. You are entitled to the opinion and suggestion. I think it is entirely wrong.
I can say no more about the Blog article. Interested readers can digest it for themselves and form their own opinion.
David B on Sunday 04 October 2020 at 14:29 said:
“…But it’s his Blog, and he can use such language as a literary device to express the strength of his feeling if he so chooses.”
Sure, that’s the deal 🙂
“I can say no more about the Blog article. Interested readers can digest it for themselves and form their own opinion.”
Which they will 🙂
“…You will have noted, I am sure, that the Coronavirus article has two forms, one a ‘clean’ version, without the swearing…”
No, it was a TL;DR for me so, encouraged by yourself, I read a bit more and hit number 22 where he says:
“22) It’s my child, so it’s my choice.
Well that’s a rather stupid thing to say. Of course it’s your choice, and no one is saying it isn’t…”
Except when they do:
https://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=51525460&itype=CMSID
Swearing is reserved for special occasions during warfare (parachute not opening? Unexpectedly out-gunned in a fire fight?) or other life threatening events.
This guy imagines he is in the van of some huge army, stretching all around the horizon behind him. He is bearing the vaccine flag and charging into the valley of certain death and suddenly, his head is unexpectedly blown off.
After the battle, when the bodies have been cleared away and the poppies are growing nicely in the peace, it is discovered that the enemy was not armed, he was shot from behind by friendly fire – (this with reference to his number 23: group rights override individual rights).
Reversing concepts such as “science-denier” and “propaganda” etc, do not reverse reality e.g. “coronavirus caused the financial crisis” is an attempt to reverse “Government caused the financial crisis” – like anaphylactic shock, the patient destroys himself.
Blaming an individual is another remove from reality, suppose Wakefield is destroyed, what difference will that make? Wakefield is not the problem, nor is the floating concept “anti-vaxxers” that is equally of type badge-of-honour as it is mark-of-disgrace, from want of rooting in reality.
There is only one principle at stake: who is to choose what goes into one’s body? Oneself or the State.
If you believe it is the State, you are doomed by your own hand.
If you believe that principles like that trumps [pun intended] reality you really don’t grasp science at all do you. Though I admit it is your hand…
@Old Bob
Let’s spin it this way and see what you think. You’re born with a problem with your immune system. Or you develop a form of cancer or have chemotherapy that wipes out your immune system for that matter.
A deadly virus is circulating around the country (or world for that matter). A vaccine for the virus is available. You can’t have the vaccine as you don’t have a functioning immune system. If you catch the virus you’ll most likely die.
90% of the population vaccinated means the virus won’t spread to you. Any less than that, it could potentially spread to you. Do you think it is so illiberal if the state want to intervene to encourage uptake of the vaccine to protect the vulnerable like you who can’t physically have the vaccine themselves?
This is my problem with anti-vaxx. Firstly, all the anti-vaxxers think it’s all about them which takes away from the fact that vaccines are in place to protect the vulnerable (mostly). Secondly, ‘liberty’ as you see it is clearly freedom to do whatever you want. Where I see as freedom to do whatever you want up until a point where it impinges upon the rights of others. And to be honest with you, I see a lack of uptake in vaccination as infringing upon the liberties of the most vulnerable.
What do you reckon Old Bob?
Toby,
As somebody who is immunosuppressed from malignancy and its treatment, and unable to produce any antibodies of my own, I am entirely reliant on herd immunity and / or isolation to protect me from many infectious diseases.
Athough “shielding” in the UK has now ended (a political rather than medical decision as far as I can see) I am likely to have to remain mostly confined to my house for a lot longer before a vaccine makes it safe for me to rejoin the community at large.
You may also be interested to know that measles has a profound effect on the immune system lasting for several years, wiping out immunity to many previously-encountered diseases due to its effect on immune memory. Non-specific excess deaths in children who have had measles are several times higher than deaths due to measles itself.
When it comes to Covid-19, it does appear that many people who recover from it don’t emerge unscathed and are probably going to suffer long-term consequences, such as permanent lung damage.
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Monday 20 July 2020 at 11:26 said:
“As somebody who is immunosuppressed from malignancy and its treatment, and unable to produce any antibodies of my own, I am entirely reliant on herd immunity and / or isolation to protect me from many infectious diseases… I am likely to have to remain mostly confined to my house for a lot longer before a vaccine makes it safe for me to rejoin the community at large.”
(Obviously, you meant “…before a vaccine for everyone else, makes it safe…” because you have no immune system yourself for a vaccine to work upon – clearly 🙂
How does that treatment work? What is destroying your cancer cells?
Old Bob
The short answer is some of my T-lymphocytes. If you want the long answer…
I have multiple myeloma, which is a type of bone marrow malignancy affecting plasma cells. These cells (which are derived from B lymphocytes) normally make antibodies: we all have millions of different lines of plasma cells, each making a different antibody, and when we encounter an infective agent the immune system co-ordinates the proliferation of clones of plasma cells making the specific antibodies active against that infection (also known as immunoglobulin or IgM); this takes several days, but afterwards there are memory lymphocytes on standby which can ramp up the production of antibodies at short notice (this time producing a IgG) to prevent the same infection taking hold in the future.
In myeloma, a particular clone of plasma cells turns malignant and the cells reproduce in an indiscriminate and uncontrolled way, churning out masses of identical useless antibody fragments known as paraprotein, which can clog up the kidneys, damage the heart and make the blood more likely to clot, among other things. The myeloma cells replace normal bone marrow cells, leading to bone marrow failure. They also erode the bones containing the marrow, weakening them and causing fractures and spinal collapse. Since bone marrow makes all the components of blood – red cells which carry oxygen, the various white cells which form the immune system and platelets which are required for normal blood clotting – once it starts to fail all aspects of the immune system fail, too.
Treatment for myeloma is usually very successful, in that the response rate to most types of treatment is 95 – 98%, and if the patient relapses after one line of treatment, the next is nearly always effective. Standard treatment is with a monoclonal antibody (bortezumib) plus thalidomide, which together have rather a complex mode of action, and this is followed by high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplant. It isn’t a long-term cure but most people remain healthy for many years.
Unfortunately I didn’t responde to bortezumib and thalidomide, nor to chemotherapy, nor to a third combination of drugs. I am now on fourth-line treatment with daratumumab and pomalidomide, with a slow partial response which has at least been keeping everything steady for the past three years.
Daratumumab is a monoclonal antibody (ironically, monoclonal antibodies of all kinds are made by fusing myeloma cells with hamster cells) and it attaches to a protein found on the surface of plasma cells, marking them for destruction (by one of the subtypes of T lymphocytes). This means that any normal plasma cells which have been left functioning by the myeloma are also destroyed, along with the capability of making antibodies.
Pomalidomide is a thalidomide derivative with multiple effects, and with my non-specialist understanding of the immune system (the most complex system in the body, possibly more complex than the brain) I don’t understand how it works well enough to explain it. Unfortunately it is also suppressive of the bone marrow in general, which means that cellular components of the immune system, such as lymphocytes and neutrophils, are also affected.
So I have a triple-whammy, with the myeloma, the daratumumab and the pomalidomide all affecting my immune system in different ways. As a result of this I have had quite a lot of hospital admissions for infections, one of which (epiglottitis due to Haemophilus influenzae) put me into ITU for a week after I lost consciousness from asphyxiation due to the swelling in my throat. Although this used to be a common problem, particularly in children, and often fatal (it is thought to have killed George Washington), epiglottitis is now very rare due to an effective vaccine being given routinely to infants. Haemophilus influenzae also causes a nasty pneumonia in the elderly, and it is now standard in the UK to vaccinate them, too.
As you can imagine, I have to be very careful about the new coronavirus, as people with myeloma do very badly indeed with it. However, one bonus of lockdown is that I don’t seem to be getting the minor infections (mostly gastrointestinal) which would otherwise put me out of action for days at a time roughly twice a month.
Two encouraging pieces of news – beta interferon and one of the vaccine trials – mean that there is some light at the end of the tunnel and I might be able to leave home again in due course.
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Monday 20 July 2020 at 19:28 said:
“The short answer is some of my T-lymphocytes. If you want the long answer…”
That is so sad, made the more powerful by the stoical telling – being unable to breathe is horrific (but thanks for the very interesting details of the treatments and what they do).
Old Bob,
Funnily enough, it wasn’t nearly as horriific as you might imagine, and I think as a result I am not so frightened of dying as I used to be. Though I would get quite anxious afterwards when I thought it through. I had just cancelled a trip to San Francisco for the American Society of Clinical Oncology symposium on genitourinary tumours, otherwise it would have happened on a plane full of oncologists, none of whom probably had ever performed a tracheostomy before and without the right equipment (to my mind a BIC biro doesn’t count).
I had made it to the casualty department of the hospital where I worked and about 10 minutes after I got there I suddenly couldn’t breathe at all, but it was a Thursday morning and by then the casualty consultant, the otorhinolaryngologist and the anaesthetist were able to get there immediately and the staff all maintained their air of calm professionalism.
I can tell you that it takes months to recover from a few days in ITU. I had been given so much dexamethasone that all my muscles were wasting away to nothing (this is a very common side-effect), even in my fingers and chest, and I couldn’t even stand up for the first couple of days afterwards. But all I needed was ventilation until the swelling had resolved – there was nothing wrong with my lungs or any other organs. I would imagine it is far worse for those people recovering from Covid-19.
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Tuesday 21 July 2020 at 14:49 said:
“…plane full of oncologists…”
🙂
“…I had been given so much dexamethasone…”
Dexamethasone! Recently rediscovered in the trials of coronavirus-complications! This I am guessing must have been no surprise for you? But then surely Dexamethasone would already be the drug-of-choice?
Old Bob,
I have a lot of experience of dexamethasone, both precribing and taking it. It is a corticosteroid, i.e. a synthetic version of the hormone cortisol, although weight for weight it is a lot more potent and the effects aren’t identical. It has very powerful anti-inflammatory effects and is immunosuppressant. It is also and important drug in cancer treatment – it is used in high doses to enhance the effects of chemotherapy in many haematological tumours (leukaemias, lymphomas and myeloma) and in low doses it can control prostate cancer when it is no longer responding to testosterone blockers. In combination with other drugs it prevents nausea and vomiting with chemotherapy, and it reduces swelling of the brain in people with brain tumours. If a tumour is compressing an important structure such as the airway or the spinal cord it can buy a bit of time while radiotherapy is starting to work. Of course its use isn’t restricted to cancer, but that is where my experience is.
Such a powerful drug has a lot of side-effects. Whatever is wrong with you it makes you feel better, and very often produces a kind of high, interfering with sleep. It commonly causes thrush infections (thrush is everywhere in the environment, kept in check by our immune system), it prevents wounds from healing, it causes profound wasting of the muscles, particularly in the thighs and buttocks, to a greater extent than many doctors realise (I have twice found myself unable to walk as a result), it causes the blood sugar to rise, it irritates the stomach and causes indigestion and ulcers, and sometimes it can trigger a psychosis (I have seen this three times in my career, and each time it took many months for the patient to recovery their sanity, making it difficult for them to continue their cancer treatment in the meantime). It is a very common cause of acute confusion, particularly in the elderly.
If you take dexamethasone (or any other corticosteroid) for more than a short time it switches off the body’s production of cortisol. If you then suddenly stop it, the body has no corticosteroids at all, and they are essential. Without them you can’t maintain your blood pressure, normal hydration and other vital functions and the result is an “Addisonian crisis” which can be fatal.
It is a drug that demands a lot of respect.
You can perhaps see why it might be tested in Covid-19, and why it is helpful only in the specific situation of sick patients requiring ventilation, and probably harmful at other stages of the infection.
Very interesting, thank you Dr. JMK for your insightful comments on Dexamethasone!
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Wednesday 22 July 2020 at 10:52 said:
Maybe you might enjoy writing up some more “informal notes” such as this, and put them together into book-form, linked by your stories?
Because this story is a revelation for me and explains e.g. why my dog had to have a carefully, tapered off relief from his steroids for a chronic ear-”infection”!
Dr Money-Kyrle, yes I remember us speaking previously and as always you offering fresh, poignant and eloquent advice. I can’t even begin to imagine how difficult/strange this time has been for people in positions such as yourself and hope this all passes sooner rather than later.
Very interesting RE measles and long-term issues with the immune system.
If you have any resources/reading around these. Please send my way 🙂
Toby on Monday 20 July 2020 at 10:40 said:
“…This is my problem with anti-vaxx. Firstly, all the anti-vaxxers think it’s all about them which takes away from the fact that vaccines are in place to protect the vulnerable (mostly). Secondly, ‘liberty’ as you see it is clearly freedom to do whatever you want. Where I see as freedom to do whatever you want up until a point where it impinges upon the rights of others. And to be honest with you, I see a lack of uptake in vaccination as infringing upon the liberties of the most vulnerable.
What do you reckon Old Bob?”
If vaccines worked perfectly and gave lifelong immunity and had no side effects whatsoever, everyone would be happy and your post above would not be necessary, but it is, hence they don’t, in which case the moral question is about altruism: should altruism be compulsory?
Do you feel comfortable about the State forcing altruism on you, or would you prefer to decide that for yourself?
It is true that lack of uptake will hurt the vulnerable, but so does ordinary living such as breathing out or driving a car or writing a comment on some blog, or buying something from China (funding their oppression) etc – but the important thing is that we all try, more or less to be social because we are biologically social animals and when it comes down to our family, our home and our home town, only we know best, not the State, what is required and how to fund it (using our own money, not other people’s).
@Toby
You are living in a panacea if you think that millions of people will go against what they perceive is most healthful for them, and even OTHERS !
Wouldn’t it be more successful in the long run to convince the vaccine developers to change ingredients ? That way the vaccines might be acceptable to those that don’t want them as is.
The problem here is the Pharma’s have already lost faith in millions of people like myself that have proved to us that their profits are more important to them than our health. They (Big Pharma) are the one’s that don’t care about the masses, they make the graves of those most venerable, because millions have lost trust in them. Put the blame where it needs to be, not on the anti-vaxers.
RG,
I think you need to buy a dictionary.
If millions of people hold false beliefs, isn’t it better to educate them, rather than enter their fantasy world?
Vaccines are made the way they are because the evidence shows them to be safe and effective. Changing the ingredients on a whim is not going to result in a better vaccine. Also I doubt that it would be an effective way of approaching the problem of vaccine hesitancy.
Your posts have time and time again demonstrated that you once held completely unrealistic expectations about what specific drugs could achieve. People with unrealistic expectations are inevitably disappointed when reality hits, but blaming reality for not being what you thought isn’t a very effective strategy for success in life.
Unfortunately you are right that the primary responsibility of pharmaceutical companies, like every other business, is to their shareholders, both legally and also because if it weren’t they would rapidly collapse. The answer to this is state regulation aimed at protecting their customers and the general public. However, from previous posts this seems to be something that you are against.
You can’t have it both ways.
Why not both? Because movement antivaxxers are child-abusing scum, who think nothing of lying and manipulating others to expand their own egos, power, and profits. Next to antivax extremists your average Big Pharma board looks like a choir of fricking angels; offset only by the fact that when Pharma does misbehave a lot more people tend to get hurt, because a lot more people rely on pharmaceutical products than listen to antivax hate and propaganda.
That said, if antivaxxers had their way, even that would no longer be true as measles, polio, pneumococcus, hep B, rotavirus and influenza run unchecked all over the globe, killing and maiming tens of millions.
Hey, it’s good to have goals in life. Except when that goal is to make millions of dead and disabled kids. Ghouls.
—
Shorter RG: “Oh now look see what you made me do.”
@has
Anti-vaxers want SAFE vaccines.
So the new Pfizer vaccine seems to have already drawn some controversy around safety.
Evidently Pfizer didn’t have time to study the reproductive safety, or they didn’t care…. being the drug lords that they are.
Haven’t we already learned long ago that expecting people to have protected sex in every situation is expecting too much of some people.
How about the women that may not know they are already pregnant…. has THAT ever happened… for even months.
https://www.ibtimes.sg/will-unprotected-sex-after-covid-vaccine-cause-genetic-change-birth-defects-how-pfizer-warning-54565
so,if you read the recommendations from the vaccine manufacture, they are advising what they are because they are admitting they don’t know the outcome…. hmmm.
Just how safe is that ?
has it occurred to you that time was a little pressing?
RG,
As far as I can tell that isn’t what they want at all. I am not even sure that they understand what safe means. They appear to be demanding that vaccines are proven to be completely safe, without realising that the only way to know that would be to vaccinate the entire population. Short of that, we can only estimate a level of safety: in other words that the rate of serious adverse consequences attributable to the vaccine within a given time frame in a specific population is no more than such-and-such.
If you have ever tried to measure anything you will know that it is not possible to be exact (though it is surprising how many people pay so little attention to what they are doing that they don’t realise this).
What a vaccine needs to be is not completely safe, but safe enough. How safe that is depends on the situation in which it is used.
Do you want a vaccine now, when it is clear that it will prevent a lot of deaths, and (we hope) put an end to the pandemic, or do you want to wait a year or two for further studies in pregnant women, bearing in mind a 40-week gestation period in humans and the fact that adverse effects on the fetus may not be immediately apparent at birth? Under the circumstances are you surprised that in the absence of data Pfizer are recommending caution in using the vaccine in pregnant women?
The wisdom of excluding pregnant women from the trials is a different question altogether. Drug trials of all kinds generally exclude pregnant women and children, and most of the participants are white males. This does make it difficult for doctors trying to extrapolate from the data when they are faced with a patient who doesn’t fit the same demographic profile as the trial subjects. There is an interesting discussion on this very topic in the current edition of Scientific American.
I think that in the interests of COMPLETE safety, the plant Arachis Hypogaea (peanuts or groundnuts) ought not to be cultivated or harvested anywhere in the world, considering the number of people who have very high IgE for Arachis proteins and have had anaphylactic reactions.
Peanuts are SO dangerous that a 20 year old girl, Myrian Ducré-Lemay, died after kissing her boyfriend who had eaten a peanut butter sandwich, even though he had subsequently brushed his teeth.
And think of Natasha Adnan-Laperous, who died after eating a sandwich that had sesame seeds, during a flight to France. Clearly sesame seeds ought to be banned, as they have killed.
My dermatologist told me that back in the 1980s there was a sudden increase in the incidence of anaphylaxis among nurses. It was eventually realised that the contributing factor was the sudden increase in the use of latex gloves for routine tasks, due to uncertainty about the nature and transmission of HIV. Some people are allergic to the protein in the sap of Hevea Brasiliensis, and the protein was evidently not sufficiently de-natured by processing into latex gloves.
So in the interests of safety, rubber has to go as well. And since proteins can be quite similar within groups of plants, it will be safest to ban ALL nuts. Many people react badly to seafood, so seafood has to go as well. And the protein in Cat Dander (microscopic particles of dried saliva and skin) is a potent allergen and makes many people ill with respiratory symptoms.
And what of the uncounted misery of hayfever? Clearly all grasses have to go, along with many other plants.
Only by taking these drastic but necessary steps can we be safe.
It is worth remembering, one feels, that the H1N1 virus at the end of world war 1 killed between fifty and a hundred million people in eighteen months (no-one knows an exact figure).
@EE
Absolutely Mr. professor
That said, many folks are already skeptical about accepting the vaccines. If added side effects lead to more issues…. will the general population (especially those that are already skeptical of vaccines) be all the more skeptical about accepting future vaccines ? …. hmmm
How do you think we already got to where we are now ? …. problematic side effects
*sigh*
RG, do you EVER read the stuff you link to?
It’s the manufacturers being cautious. You know. Sensible. No risk has been demonstrated but it pays to be careful, just in case.
Let’s also remind ourself how far down the list of potential vaccine recipients women of child-bearing age are: a long bloody way.
@RG: I have yet to see any antivaxxer define a “safe vaccine”. So feel free to step up and tell us all exactly what this safe vaccine of yours should contain—the full list of ingredients including quantities and preparation—and how your composition makes it safer than current vaccines while providing the same level of efficacy.
Oh, and while you’re at it, I strongly recommend also defining “safe seatbelts”, “safe ladders”, and “safe diseases” as those injure and kill quite a few people as well, and to focus exclusively on one of the safer human practices while ignoring all of the more dangerous ones might be interpreted as applying a double-standard; and I’m sure you don’t want to be accused of that now, do you.
By Pfizer’s own admission, they simply don’t know what the effects fertility effects are, on both men and women… time will tell, cross your fingers.
Nobody I know was ever forced to go up an “unsafe” ladder. I don’t agree with mandatory seat-belts…. never have, never will. That said, modern seat belts offer good protection, but the real issue is unsafe drivers…. not seat-belts. Stick to the problem.
has, I’m not a drug pusher attempting to gain profit from creating vaccines, I have not interest in how it works, just leave out the ethel-methel bad stuff. What ingredients am I referring to ? …. the usual suspects. Aluminum, mercury and formaldehyde for starters.
How is “safe” defined ?
Simple. No serious side effects, no fertility effects, no birth defects, no deaths.
I have no doubt the rushed covid vaccines for the Wuhan virus will lead to issues in some people. Keep your ear to the ground.
vaccinologists are working on the completion of the safety data.
what they have today is a start – but it is more than homeopath can offer fro their remedies.
according to your criteria, they have never been shown to be safe through rigorous tests.
[in this way, it is lucky that they contain nothing and are thus unlikely to cause wanted or unwanted effects]
@RG: “By Pfizer’s own admission, they simply don’t know what the effects fertility effects are, on both men and women… time will tell, cross your fingers.”
And by the same token, were you to ask Pfizer what the effects their vaccine will have on invisible purple buttmonkeys flying out your ass, they would have to confess they don’t have the numbers for that either. Time will tell, cross your fingers, and maybe shove a cork up it just to be sure.
Durrr.
What you are doing is called Begging the Question, where you presuppose that the vaccine has a non-trivial likelihood of harming fertility and framing your question on top of that unevidenced assumption.†
So please, before we proceeed any further, propose to us a viable scientific mechanism by which Pfizer’s COVID vaccine (or any other COVID vaccine) could [positively/negatively] affect fertility rates. Because there’s an infinite number of things Pfizer’s vaccine could do, but only a finite number of things it is likely to do at a frequency greater than homeopathic.
(Mind you, wouldn’t it be funny Pfizer’s COVID vaccine were discovered to increase fertility? Which is probably as likely as them reducing it. Move over penis pills; their ship would truly be in!)
What COVID vaccines certainly should do is improve our reproductive rates (number of pregnancies carried to term), as people stop dying of COVID and restart their normal lives after putting everything on hold for the last 18 months, returning to work and thinking about starting families and stuff. I wonder how antivaxxers will rationalize that uptick in babbies being made when all those squallers start dropping in 2022. So many decisions to make; so little facts to make them!
—
† Alternatively, you may not actually be that sophisticated, in which case you’re just slinging FUD. Which is the same brown stuff as before; just with no pretense that you’re doing for any other purpose than to scare people off.
“How is “safe” defined? Simple. No serious side effects, no fertility effects, no birth defects, no deaths.”
LOL. Life itself isn’t anywhere near that safe. Vaccine-preventable diseases alone have more than a 1-in-1000 chance of killing you. Then there’s congenital diseases, other infectious diseases, household accidents, traffic accidents, violence, suicide, war, starvation; good lord, I hope you’re not waiting for a vaccine that cures all the hazards inherent in just getting out of bed each day, because you’ll be waiting till the heat death of the universe! That’s just entropy for ya; the one thing that’s even more certain than Death and Taxes.
Congrats, now you can add Nirvana Fallacy to already the long list of debate tactics you’re totally rubbish at. You’re a fake, a puddle-deep fraud. The only way you can rationalize your antivax rambling is by lying about life itself and the risks inherent in that. No wonders Alties are such suckers for the money scam: who else could ever believe 1/1000000 is a far bigger number than 1/1000? Why, just look at how many more zeros it has!
@has
Thank you, you make my case for me
Old Bob, To parapharese your own question:
Who is to choose which side of the streets and roads to drive on? Oneself or the State.
If you believe it is you, you are doomed by your own hand.
Olle Kjellin on Saturday 02 January 2021 at 07:45 said:
“Who is to choose which side of the streets and roads to drive on? Oneself or the State.
If you believe it is you, you are doomed by your own hand.”
Only if one chooses against one’s own interest.
“Only if one chooses against one’s own interest.”
Aaaand once again Bob proves that Alties are narcissists who don’t give a crap for anyone else.
has on Saturday 02 January 2021 at 16:21 said:
“Aaaand once again Bob proves that Alties are narcissists who don’t give a crap for anyone else.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Wrong.
Ad hom: “Bob is wrong because he’s a narcissist.”
Not ad homs: “Bob is wrong.”, “Bob is a narcissist.”, “Bob is wrong and a narcissist.”
Though if your knowledge of language and logic is anything like your knowledge of science and medicine, it’s no surprise you’d get that wrong too. And that’s not an ad hom either.
has on Sunday 03 January 2021 at 08:32 said:
“…Bob is wrong because he’s a narcissist… Bob is wrong… Bob is a narcissist… Bob is wrong and a narcissist.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
@Bob: Cute, but I’m not a narcissist. You’d know that if you knew anything at all. Depressive, neurotic, misanthropic; sure. But to be a narcissist I would have be utterly in love with myself, and frankly I can’t stand my own company either. I put up with me only because I don’t have a choice in the matter, though can at least obtain some amusement by balling up the little bits of anger and hate and lobbing them at those who really deserve it: scammers, sadists, narcissists, and sundry other abusers, of which sadly our world has an abundance.
But hey, do keep playing. One of these days you might even be lucky and get mistaken for a grown-up.
has on Sunday 03 January 2021 at 12:58 said:
“…I’m not a narcissist. You’d know that if you knew anything at all….”
Sure, I understand that, because all of us are not-narcissist for one moment or another and then, milliseconds later, the opposite or anywhere in between – only dead people are constant-state.
“…Depressive, neurotic, misanthropic; sure. But to be a narcissist I would have to be utterly in love with myself, and frankly I can’t stand my own company either…”
Cool – just like the rest of us – there is only one antidote: 42 🙂
42:
See 42.
I wonder if Andrew Wakefield believes that an H1N1 virus killed between 50 and 100 million people in eighteen months at the end of World War 1. Or not.
Never trust a man who wears brown shoes with a dark city suit.
Would Mr. Wakefield continue to spread such misinformation if he became infected with the virus and ended up in intensive care?
Of course he would, because he‘s a twat! Even if he‘d almost die in hospital he would conclude that he preferred „a flu“ instead of autism (or whatever he asserts).
I might consider to volunteer for a Covid-19 vaccination test run over here in Berlin when it becomes available.
Anybody who wants to do a deeper dive into the Wakefield controversy instead of just reading the inaccurate smear of “false data” can go to this site:
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2019/10/17/how-the-media-lie-about-why-parents-dont-vaccinate/
Quote: “Life in the U.S. will not return to “normal” until a coronavirus vaccine is “gotten out to basically the entire world,” billionaire Bill Gates told “Fox News Sunday.”
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/bill-gates-coronavirus-outbreak-vaccine-pandemic
If you have a problem with this unsupported supposition then now is a good time to discuss the possibility of mandatory rushed poorly tested vaccines, because many people in power are discussing that eventuality. So Wakefield is not out of line doing so. Gates is the biggest funder of the WHO now that the USA has cut off funding.
Roger,
I have followed your link, and I can’t find anything there exonerating Wakefield. His Lancet paper was withdrawn because elements of the manuscript had been deliberately falsified. However, he was struck off the UK Medical Register for, among other things, experimenting on children (which included invasive procedures such as colonoscopies,biopsies and lumbar punctures) without being appropriately qualified, without the approval of the hospital’s Ethics Committee and against their clinical interests. The General Medical Council found in his Fitness to Practice hearing that he had failed in his duties as a responsible consultant, acted against the interests of his patients and acted dishonestly and irresponsibly in his research, at the same time bringing the medical profession into dispute.
The purpose of the GMC is to ensure that doctors are fit to practise; it is illegal to practise medicine in the UK without being on the register (and these days also having a licence, which needs to be reviewed and renewed at regular intervals). That is the sole purpose of their hearings, not to establish guilt or innocence, and not to punish; indeed very often they will temporarily prevent a clinician from practising until they have undergone a period of retraining in the expectation that they will be able to return to their profession and continue to make a useful contribution in the future. Wakefield’s actions, however, had shown that he was unfit to practise medicine at all, and he was therefore removed from their register.
An excellent summary which I endorse (GMC 1213753, no licence to practise. Note the spelling!).
I saw Wakefield at GMC London when he was up for his hearing and I was an expert on another Fitness to Practise Committee.
I recall he was wearing brown shoes then.
The bounder!
I wore my morning suit to a wedding once with one brown shoe and one black (with the bedroom curtains drawn they looked the same)…
A jackanapes, a mountebank, a cad, a poltroon!
No doubt there is available to researchers a substantial corpus of evidence-based peer-reviewed articles on shoe colour choice….
Joking apart, how horrible to think of children being subjected to unnecessary procedures (in one case, apparently, being held down) just because of mental pound signs flashing.
“Most of the study’s authors avoided Wakefield’s fate. In the face of the vitriolic uproar caused by their mere acknowledgment of the possibility, ten of Wakefield’s coauthors repentantly published a ludicrous statement in The Lancet with the title “Retraction of an interpretation”. In it, they stood by their study’s findings, emphasized the need for further research into the potential association between gut disorders and autism, and reminded that they had not claimed to have found a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. But because “the possibility of such a link was raised”, which had “major implications for public health” (euphemistically meaning public health policy), they felt it “appropriate” to “formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper”.[26]
There were eleven other well respected doctors involved in the study. Only one of them was sanctioned and his sanctions were reversed. Note that they stood by the studies findings. They retracted the “interpretation.”
Dysbiosis is now the subject of intensive study in autism and significant improvements have been seen in many children where gut issues have been resolved. As we know many neurotransmitters are only produced in the gut.
All the children in the study were volunteered by their parents who recognized the connection between the MMR vaccine that they recieved and their autism symptoms.
Roger,
A lawsuit was brought against the CDC asking them to produce the studies that had been done that showed that the 6 vaccines on the recommended schedule for the first six months of life did NOT cause autism. They produced exactly NONE. The studies have not been done. They produced a few questionable MMR and thimerosal studies instead.
So any time the CDC says that vaccines dont cause autism or anyone repeats that claim, they have no basis. It is said on Faith, like religious faith.
Meanwhile, the rate of autism is in the neighborhood of 1 in 35 children, the rise paralleling exactly the rise in the numbers of required vaccines containing neurotoxic ingredients. And parents report over and over and over that their child was normal and healthy until immediately after that vaccine…
“A lawsuit was brought against the CDC asking them to produce the studies that had been done that showed that the 6 vaccines on the recommended schedule for the first six months of life did NOT cause autism.”
is there evidence for this statement or is it just your fantasy?
Edzard on Monday 20 July 2020 at 06:14 said:
“is there evidence for this statement or is it just your fantasy?”
I typed:
lawsuit against the CDC
Into Google and got this:
https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/cdc-sued-to-disclose-restrictions-on-scientists-right-to-speak
(if that’s any help?)
which section of the link shows that “A lawsuit was brought against the CDC asking them to produce the studies that had been done that showed that the 6 vaccines on the recommended schedule for the first six months of life did NOT cause autism.” ???
https://www.icandecide.org/ican_lawsuits/stipulated-order-proving-cdc-has-no-studies-to-support-claim-that-vaccines-given-in-first-6-months-of-life-do-not-cause-autism/
“ICAN was therefore forced to sue the CDC in federal court, where the CDC finally conceded, in a stipulation signed by a federal court judge that it has no studies to support that any of these vaccines do not cause autism.”
The Emperor wears no clothes.
Roger
Edzard, I replied with a link to the article about the lawsuit and it disappeared. This has happened to two of my posts.
There is no such comment in the bin or spam bin.
https://www.icandecide.org/ican_lawsuits/stipulated-order-proving-cdc-has-no-studies-to-support-claim-that-vaccines-given-in-first-6-months-of-life-do-not-cause-autism/
“ICAN was therefore forced to sue the CDC in federal court, where the CDC finally conceded, in a stipulation signed by a federal court judge, that it has no studies to support any of these [six] vaccines [given in the first 6 months of life] do not cause autism.”
The Emperor wears no clothes
Roger
The CDC won’t have these studies because that is not what was studied. What was studied was whether vaccines DO cause autism. And this has not been shown. Time and time again. No matter what the tinfoil-hat brigade want to think. The CDC says this. Clearly. And with evidence.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html
According to this graph of the WHOs 2018-2019 program budget the UKs contribution is slightly ahead of the Gates foundation:
https://www.who.int/images/default-source/funding/f6.jpg?sfvrsn=ba32d995_2
But kudos to Gates for doing something useful with his wealth instead of funding loony rightwing organizations like some billionaires.
Note that this graph is for before the cut of US funding. We can expect some other countries to increase theirs so that the relative contribution of Gates will fall.
Watch the CorbettReport.com 4 part series on Bill Gates. Then tell me how wonderful he is.
BG is making donations to benefit himself in many cases. He has donated a lot of money to profit-making corporations that he is a partial owner of! Some charity! He is heavily invested in the vaccine industry and pushed the WHO to declare CoVid19 as a pandemic when it hadnt reached that level of severity. He is encouraging the line that we have to wait for (his?) vaccine for the world before we can get back to normal. BS!
He should just pay his rightful taxes and let govt use the money without Bill’s strings attached, like all of us who are not in his income bracket. Like Rockefeller before him, he uses his Foundation to avoid taxation and to manipulate society for his own ends. Perhaps you like govt of the people, for Bill Gates?
As far as I can see, Bill Gates is using his money in ways that your Government does not consider a priority, mostly concentrating on public health issues worldwide. Inasmuch as he might be manipulating society for his own ends, his own ends appear to be improved health for all (not just Americans).
Given his investment in the vaccine industry I would expect him to be aware that it is not a very profitable sector. As for the idea that we will have to wait for a vaccine before life can get back to normal, I don’t think very many epidemiologists or public health physicians would disagree with that.
I’m not sure what you mean by that, but I don’t like the way that the US Government is quite happy to pursue policies that affect people in the rest of the world without being answerable to them.
I find it extraordinary that the foundation of a single individual
(it should be noted that warren buffet has contributed to the gates foundation)
would show up in the top funders of an international organization of the
WHOs importance and scope.
This shows:
1) how pathetic the contribution of some nation states is
2) the concentration of global wealth in the hands of a few people
I would be far happier if there was a progressive tax structure that prevented
anyone from becoming a billionaire in the first place.
But given that other billionaires have funded a network of think tanks that have campaigned
for smaller government, lower taxes for the rich, denied climate change, against universal health care, for unlimited political contributions from businesses etc.,
I say again kudos to gates.
I think the saddest and most dangerous part of the conspiracy minded – like the vaccine deniers,
those who think viruses are spread by 5G towers, that gates wants to implant microchips in everyone etc –
is that by embracing views that are so obviously batshit crazy, what would otherwise
be legitimate criticism of the pharmaceutical industry and the effect of capitalistic practices on public life can be more easily ignored and dismissed.
If i were to indulge in a conspiracy theory of my own, i suspect the anti-vaxers are funded and encouraged by billionaires who’d far rather people waste their energies agitating against vaccines, than for, say, progressive tax policies.
Wakefield’s comments are completely barmy. He should know from his medical training and experience that they aren’t true. However, doctors are as likely as anybody else to go off the rails. Look at Harold Shipman, for instance, the most prolific serial killer, who murdered at least 250 of his patients and possibly hundreds more. Or Assad, who trained as an ophthalmologist in the UK before he became president of Syria.
Indeed. And a Doctor at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley was one of the pair responsible for the June 2007 Glasgow Airport attack….
Harold Shipman died in „ Her Majesty’s Prison Wakefield“, which is a Category A men’s prison, located in Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.
What exactly has he said that is barmy? You favor mandatory vaccination with these rushed vaccines in which you have no say? Arizona has already enacted a law that can declare vaccines mandatory at the behest of the governor:
C. In addition to the authority provided in subsections A and B, during a state of emergency or state of war emergency in which there is an occurrence or the imminent threat of smallpox, plague, viral hemorrhagic fevers or a highly contagious and highly fatal disease with transmission characteristics similar to smallpox, the governor, in consultation with the director of the department of health services, may issue orders that:
1. Mandate treatment or vaccination of persons who are diagnosed with illness resulting from exposure or who are reasonably believed to have been exposed or who may reasonably be expected to be exposed.
present present present present present present present present present
If you can’t see for yourself then I expect I would have a hard time trying to explain it to you, and I have better things to do.
I am quite frankly astonished at how many Americans are opposed to public health measures, and indeed I get the impression that a sense of public duty and responsibility to the community is not an important part of your culture, particularly among young adults.
I am in favor of individual health measures, not one-size-fits-all medicine. If you walked into your doctors office and he said, “Well, everyone else is getting this medicine. You have to take it too”, no matter what your condition of concern was, an injury or a cold or cancer, you would run out of there.
Saying [All] vaccines are safe and effective [for Everyone, All the time] is equally “barmy” to use a term. There are individual susceptibilities that have to be taken into account. That is why we have doctors, not bureaucrats doling out medicine, except in California where we now have bureaucrats overriding childrens’ doctors.
The CDC whistle blower Dr Thompson revealed that he and his colleagues cooked the data to hide the fact that Afro-American boys receiving the MMR vaccine had an 8x higher incidence of autism. Someone who has had an adverse effect from a vaccination should not be forced to take a subsequent vaccination as they are now. There are many reasons to tailor or exempt people from vaccinations, that are not considered in mandatory vaccination laws.
By the Intntl Covenant on Rights we are supposed to have informed consent for all medical experimentation. Giving any random person a vaccine is an experiment with unknown outcomes. But that is honored in the breach mostly. Doctors & Nurses dont even know enough about what they are giving to give informed consent and have no incentive to do so.
Roger
The reason for the boys having 8x higher rates of autism in that study was because those studied had to have an MMR jab prior to being accepted at specialist autistic schools. They had autism PRIOR to the jab. This has all been explained. Logically and sensibly. But, as we know, good sense and logic don’t really feature in your Worldview.
It’s also conveniently ignored by the antivax loons that the supposed rise in autism cases was only noted in African/American kids. Which rather pisses on their bonfires when they bang on about their own children. Because antivaxers are almost always white.
And that the thimerosal preservatives and aluminium adjuvants which they claim cause autism aren’t present in MMR either.
But, hey. Why let little things like facts get in the way of your delusions?
Lenny on Tuesday 21 July 2020 at 19:45 said:
“Roger …as we know, good sense and logic don’t really feature in your Worldview… antivax loons… Why let little things like facts get in the way of your delusions?”
How is this going to change the minds of “antivax loons”? If anything, it will only annoy them.
To change someone’s mind, you only need leave the link to prove your assertion.
My reply to you was deleted. I guess debate here has been terminated. I will move on.
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Monday 20 July 2020 at 11:14 said:
“I am quite frankly astonished at how many Americans are opposed to public health measures…”
Then I expect I would have a hard time trying to explain it to you, and I have better things to do. 🙂
Old Bob. A few things here.
Yes, it would be much easier if vaccines gave zero side effects but remember relative cost-benefit ratios of vaccinating a whole population vs not vaccinating. The science is clear. I recommend reading Peter Hotez’ Why Vaccines Did Not Cause Rachel’s Autism.
I also think you’re getting your philosophy mixed up and I’m unsure if you want to talk about moral philosophy or political philosophy. Your final paragraph is very libertarian about no government intervention etc. and you talk about economic externalities eg. pollution with cars
I think I understand what you’re saying but you’re effectively giving credence to an argument for intervention. It is because market allocation is often inefficient (such as pollution) that we have government intervention. It is to correct for this.
I’m really lost as to what your point is about altruism being compulsory. If you’re saying should the state make vaccines mandatory? Ideally, they wouldn’t have to as rational, well-read individuals can see science from fiction. The issue lies with the rapid and dangerous spread of disinformation and if you see rises in fatal cases of measles just as in the USA, this actually gives credence FOR mandatory vaccination.
Toby on Monday 20 July 2020 at 15:18 said:
“I think I understand what you’re saying”
No, reverse it all, it’s the opposite of what you think.
“I’m really lost as to what your point is about altruism being compulsory.”
Exactly, It’s a contradiction – a joke really, my bad, never use humour.
“If you’re saying should the state make vaccines mandatory?”
No, the opposite.
“The issue lies with the rapid and dangerous spread of disinformation…”
Dangerous and disinformed? By whose omniscient standards? E.g. would you take *my* word for it? (assuming that’s a no) – so why should I take yours? (no way).
I strongly support the words of Roger, earlier in this forum.
I’m very proud to be an anti-vaxxer (I’m a 61-year-old Englishwoman): I (as have many millions of other anti-vaxxers, worldwide) have carried out a very great deal of extensive, in-depth, scholarly research into ‘vaccines’. And my findings demonstrate that all you pro-vaccine people have less than no idea of the ACTUAL facts re. vaccines. You have less than no idea re. how very dangerous and ineffective they are. I’ll return to this in a minute.
But here I wish to mention Bill Gates. You pro-vaccine people were giving Roger a hard time, when he referred to BG in unglowing terms. And he was very right to refer to BG in unglowing terms. Why don’t you UNINFORMED pro-vaccine people find out just what Gates did to (in total) half a million children/teenagers in Africa and Asia. As a result of him forcing very dangerous vaccines onto them. Those vaccines caused many deaths, and many thousands of children were caused to be paralysed for life. The information is online; all you have to do is to carry out some ACTUAL research, into ‘vaccines’, as opposed to proving just how gullible and brainwashed you all are, by merely blindly-believing the propaganda.
There are plenty of high-quality, scholarly books out there which relate the ACTUAL facts re. the extreme dangers of ‘vaccines’. Many of them, I might add, having been written by members/former members of the ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment, who have chosen to become whistle-blowers, they having discovered just how dangerous those little things called ‘vaccines’ are. They are, in fact, a medical fraud/hoax/scam.
What a horror it is, to know just how many extremely gullible, brainwashed people there are, on Earth… why don’t you all care enough about the true facts re. vaccines, and not simply regurgitate the LIES given out, about them, by the corrupt Medical Establishment, worldwide. If you did carry out some research into this subject, you’d be shocked, I can tell you.
We anti-vaxxers have the historical, scientific and medical facts on OUR side, when it comes to the vaccine controversy.
And if you did some research, you’d be fully aware of that.
Here are just a few of the many high-quality books available which relate the veritable wealth of historical, scientific and medical evidences/facts/data which PROVE just how very dangerous ‘vaccines’ truly are.
“Disease, vaccines, and the forgotten history”, by Dr Suzanne Humphries (a Board-Certified doctor in the States; she is, or was, a nephrologist)
“Vaccination Voodoo: what YOU don’t know about vaccines”, by Catherine J Frompovich
“Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying”, by Dr Vernon Coleman (he is a now-retired, well-known, English GP (General Practitioner; ie, a doctor).
There are plenty more like those above. The first one listed, by Dr Humphries, is highly recommended; it’s choc-a-bloc full of the historical, scientific and medical evidences I referred to above, evidences/facts which PROVE just how very dangerous ‘vaccines’ are, and which PROVE that they, vaccines, ARE a medical fraud/hoax/scam, perpetrated by the very corrupt ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment.
And Dr Andrew Wakefield was lied ABOUT. You pro-vaccine people are very gullible about him, too.
Christine Thompson
Ms Thompson, as a non-medical person, I would find it very helpful if you could clarify:
1) Where the results of your own extensive, in-depth, scholarly research have been published;
2) The difference between ACTUAL facts and any other kind of facts
Christine
We’ve seen this sort of stuff so many times it becomes tiresome.
“I have carried out a very great deal of extensive, in-depth, scholarly research into ‘vaccines’”
Have you, now?
Would you let us know what background you have in science and medicine and the qualifications you have in immunology, physiology, pathology, microbiology and epidemiology which enable you to critically assess the material you have read? Are you able to link to the peer-reviewed studies published in high-impact journals which support your position? Where were the results of your “research” published?
Christine. What you have done is not research. What you have done is uncritically read a load of garbage published by a bunch of fringe antivax loons and watch a few YouTube videos.
You mention that Suzanne Humphries is a board-certified doctor. You forgot to mention that she now mainly works as a homeopath and thought-field therapist. Suzanne is an insignificant barnpot, as is Vernon Coleman, a man whose books are so poor that he has to self-publish them.
“We anti-vaxxers have the historical, scientific and medical facts on OUR side, when it comes to the vaccine controversy.”
No, Christine, you do not. Each and every fatuous argument you drag up has been refuted time and time again. That you are unable to accept this and have the temerity to believe that you know more about the subject than the true experts is a textbook demonstration of Dunning-Krugerism. The vaccine controversy exists only in the minds of the antivaxxers.
Oh, and Andrew Wakefield is not a doctor.
So. I will link to a site where a doctor refutes each and every antivax argument with links, where relevant, to the high-quality studies which support his position.
http://www.docbastard.net/2019/03/busting-vaccine-myths.html
Will you read or understand any of them?
No.
Confirmation bias is a dreadful thing, Christine, and you’ve gone too far down the rabbit-hole. Carry on in your little echo-chamber of insignificant ignorance.
Thank you for posting that interesting link! Certainly a comprehensive response (if somewhat rebarbative in tone, though perhaps understandably).
Dear Lenny,
I speak from my own experience, which I’m sure you will dismiss or scrub from this site. Vaccines are not safe for everyone despite the State trying to fit a one-size-fits-all strategy to this COVID pandemic. As noted in several journals (LANCET, JAMA, etc..), people experience a range of COVID symptoms – from nothing at all to pneumonia, Kawasaki disease-like-symptoms, stroke, blood clots etc… If we can agree that different people experience a unique and diverse set symptomologies from the same disease, then why is it so hard for you to agree that vaccines may also produce unique and wide-range of reactions (both positive and negative)?
Now I’m going to site a case-study, purely anecdotal first-person evidence. I got the MMR shot the first year it was mandatory. My parents ended up taking me to hospital within 36 hours as my stomach and back turned purple. The stupid doctors didn’t know what the f@*k to do. The diagnosis was purpura and the damage to my vessels eventually led to pancreatitis as the small vessels in my growing pancreas busted. So then I became IDDM. I was just 12.
As for proof that adverse affects occur in people, please see page 3 in the link below. It is pretty frightening and people should be given a choice because Merck is now shielded from liability.
https://www.fda.gov/media/75191/download
@Eva
Not surprised to hear, Merck has been guilty before of damaging their patients, sorry to hear it happened to you.
Merck will argue, as some here at this blog forum that it’s only a small percentage of the population that is negatively affected, perhaps one percent. So for the greater good, we should all be vaccinated. The statistics are that something close to one percent might experience negative reaction to the vaccine. And another one to three percent that will not achieve immunity after the vaccine.
The thing is so Covid-19 has about a 99% survival rate, so what am I missing ? …. Lenny.
A grasp of reality.
RG
What you are missing is an understanding that the real world is more complex and nuanced than your simplified view of it.
Minor side-effects from vaccines tend to affect a great many more than 1% of the people vaccinated, but they are self-limiting. Major side-effects are much, much rarer.
Most people find it difficult to accept that when bad things happen we often don’t know why, so they look for anything that seems plausible to them as a cause. If a health problem presents or is diagnosed following a vaccination then it is a common reaction to blame the vaccination. However, when two things happen one after another it is usually coincidence, not cause and effect. If a serious adverse event (defined as something happening during or after treatment, not necessarily caused by it) occurs at the same rate in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations then that tells us quite clearly that vaccination does not cause it.
I don’t know where you got your figure of 1 – 3% from. We don’t know what percentage of people will achieve immunity after a future coronavirus vaccine. With existing vaccines there is quite a wide range – measles vaccine, for instance, protects a much higher proportion of recipients than mumps. However, even if 20% don’t achieve immunity it would still be a worthwhile measure because that is enough to have a large effect on how the virus spreads (i.e. it will reduce the R number) and to end an outbreak. Vaccines don’t just protect those who achieve immunity, they also protect the unvaccinated and those with medical conditions (e.g. cancer treatment) who can’t be vaccinated and are more vulnerable to infection.
As for a 99% survival rate, where does that leave the relatives of the more than 145,000 people in the US who have already died of Covid-19? Those that die are not the only ones affected. Though we don’t actually know the survival rate at the moment, which in any case seems to depend on many factors such as age, sex and weight. Although you have not said so I am assuming that you are a man and that you are old enough for your age to be a significant factor. I know that you have a history of heart disease and some sort of rheumatological problem. I don’t know anything about your weight. However, on the basis of what I do know, your chances of surviving a Covid-19 infection are a lot less than 99%.
You are also ignoring the fact that many people who survive Covid-19 are left with serious health problems such as lung damage which are likely to be long term and will probably shorten their lives.
Well stated Julian. And i will be using part of your response the next time spinal manipulation and VAD comes up.
@Dr. JMK
doc said;”Minor side-effects from vaccines tend to affect a great many more than 1% of the people vaccinated, but they are self-limiting. Major side-effects are much, much rarer.”
I am most confident doc that totality of negative side effects from meds (&vaccines) are much greater than are ever reported… from ALL use of pharma drugs. There are many that are simply not reported, or if they are reported they are not documented.
In my case (Vioxx), aside from being rushed to the emergency ward of my local hospital, treated and followed up, nobody other than me and the people I’ve shared my anecdote would ever ever know. The only statistic I would have ever entered would have been the cardiac arrest death tallies. Merck and company, nor the FDA would have never known.
BTW doc – I do not now, nor ever had any cardiovascular issues, except as a result from consuming Vioxx for back pain. Please stop perpetuating this myth here, I am in good health at 65 years.
I know of at least three other cases reported to me from friends who vaccinated their children and reported similar anecdotes to what Ava has testified. One recent case (in the last 12 months) the family reported the averse reaction to the MD that denied any fault, but beyond that they are left with a sick child. They were not aware of the monetary fund to seek damage payments from the Pharma Industry. I pointed them in the right direction.
You will most certainly argue that these are small numbers. The fact is that many many cases go unreported. You need only read the white paper that Ava supplied via her link that to realize that Merck outlined a number of things that could go wrong with the vaccine, and likely there are even more that were not documented. That paper reports quite a list of potential averse reactions and interactions.
doc said; “I don’t know where you got your figure of 1 – 3% from.”
Those percentages are not covid-19 related… specifically. That only represents a conservative average percent of patients that do not achieve immunity from the average vaccine.
doc said; “You are also ignoring the fact that many people who survive Covid-19 are left with serious health problems such as lung damage which are likely to be long term and will probably shorten their lives.”
I would argue that over prescribing of useless medications by MD’s have created “serious health problems” in today’s society where much of the elderly population in inundated many times with numerous chronic diseases.
Christine Thompson said:
Sorry to hear that.
Alan Henness:
It’s your problem, not mine, if you are sorry to hear that I’m proud to be an anti-vaxxer. Because the historical, scientific and medical facts ARE on our side.
Below, you will see a short post in which I state that I’d attempted to post a very lengthy reply to the three of you who’d posted derogatory comments to my post of yesterday, but that it did not print. WHY, I wonder…? Censorship is still alive and well. I’d taken approx. 90 minutes to type it, so am understandably ‘miffed’ that it failed to print.
As said in the short note, I will re-type and attempt to re-post it: either later today, or, more likely, tomorrow.
See the link I did post to the 737pp pdf file relating the detailed scientific facts which REFUTE the words of pro-vaccine people.
Ms. Thompson, I find that it is a good idea, when writing a long response for a forum or discussion group, to write and save it as a Word document first. Then copy and paste into the forum or discussion group response. Sometimes things do get lost through a slip of some kind. I am sure many have had that frustrating experience. I certainly have.
If you have it as a Word document, you can try again.
Could I ask you to clarify the scholarly research you carried out by explaining:
1) Was it Primary, or Secondary research, or something else again? and
2) Where were the results of your research published?
David:
Thank you for your helpful advice. However, I don’t have Word software on my computer; I’m not genned-up on how to cut and paste from the software I DO have, to an online forum. Which is a pity, for otherwise I could have followed your advice and saved myself a lot of frustration. I don’t have time right now to re-type and attempt to re-post what I wrote a couple of hours ago. Will do so sometime tomorrow.
In answer to your question (which I’d included in my lengthy post of earlier today), I used the word ‘research’ to refer to reading up about a subject. I mentioned that I’ve been a very passionate, scholarly researcher of many BIG subjects in life since the tender age of 10; at that age, I borrowed from my then local library one hell of a lot of books intended for adults re. the [materialistic] ‘science’ of cosmology. All the way through the decades since then, I’ve continued to be a passionate researcher of many, very diverse subjects in life. I own more than 1000 [one thousand+] books, all of them being NON-fiction [I don’t read novels; I gave up doing that when a teenager], and covering a multitude of different subjects. My main passion being that of history; I own very many scholarly books covering many different eras, with a special interest in Ancient History, for eg, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, etc [AND of history even further back than that…].
So no, I did not mean I’d carried out original research of my own into ‘vaccines’. That’s not what I said, and not what I meant.
And please, no need for formality. Call me Christine, not ‘Ms Thompson’.
To repeat: I will re-type and attempt to re-post my lengthy reply, tomorrow. When attempting to post it earlier this afternoon, I’d included one hell of a lot of data to refute all the denigratory remarks made to me by other posters.
To start it off: I here re-post a link to a 737pp pdf file which relates in detail the findings of 1200 scientific studies/papers which REFUTE the claims of vaccine proponents:
https://wellnessdoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/1200-studies-The-Truth-Will-Prevail-v2.6_05-05-20.pdf
Christine,
I don’t know what sort of computer you are using, but if it is a Windows PC there are a number of standard shortcuts which work with most software (indeed, this is one of the requirements for software to be officially endorsed as Windows-compliant). CTRL+C (i.e. holding down the control key like a shift key and then hitting C) will copy onto the clipboard any highlighted or selected item, such as text, a photograph, a file, a portion of a graphic etc. CTRL+V will paste the contents of the clipboard into the currently open application, at the insertion point if the software has one.
So if you want to be sure of not losing a long post (which has happened to me more than once) you can begin by writing it in a word processor such as Word, or a text editor such as Notepad, and when it is complete you use the mouse to highlight everything that you want to include in your post and press CTRL+C to copy it. Next you switch to your Internet browser where you presumably already have the page open that you want to post to, click in the reply box to move the insertion point to the right spot, and press CTRL+V to paste.
Other useful shortcuts are CTRL+X to cut, CTRL+S to save and CTRL+Z to undo. There are many others, which are on the whole much quicker and easier than fiddling around with the mouse.
With regard to research, I don’t know about historians, but no medic or scientist would recognise the use of the term to refer to reading up about something.
If you do read reports of original research published in specialist medical journals, please remember that they are written for the benefit of others working in the field and they authors often assume quite a lot of background knowledge and practical experience in the reader (which even a medical specialist in a different field might not necessarily have). A good practical knowledge of statistics is also an important prerequisite for appraising research papers critically, and you would be surprised how often this is something that the authors lack.
Christine
I will ask you again..
Would you let us know what background you have in science and medicine and the qualifications you have in immunology, physiology, pathology, microbiology and epidemiology which enable you to critically assess the material you have read? Are you able to link to the peer-reviewed studies published in high-impact journals which support your position?
Being proud of being an anti-vaxxer is like being proud of being a motorist who drives at 70 mph in a 30 mph zone as the school gates open: it’s reckless, selfish and a danger to others.
I’ve just typed a very long response. But it has NOT been printed.
Typical, of this sceptics’ website. You can’t face the ACTUAL truths.
CENSORSHIP is still alive and well.
I may re-type my very long response, a bit later today, or even tomorrow.
Will it be printed then, I wonder.
I provided one hell of a lot of data to support everything (and more) that I referred to in my post yesterday evening.
typical of the victims of the Dunning Kruger effect not to be able to post a comment.
Edzard Ernst, you are a notorious sceptic of all (or most) esoteric subjects.
Do you get some sort of buzz out of making incorrectly derogatory comments to people, huh?
I will (as stated above) re-type and attempt to re-post my lengthy reply, either later today, or tomorrow.
I do have other things to do in my life, so am peeved (to put it mildly…) that my post failed to print.
thanks for the compliment
esoteric = designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone.
scepticism = the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism.
Just to re-start my re-post (I’ll do the rest of it either later today or tomorrow)
Here’s a ref. to a 737pp pdf file relating the details of 1200 scientific studies/papers which REFUTE the claims of pro-vaccine people:
https://wellnessdoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/1200-studies-The-Truth-Will-Prevail-v2.6_05-05-20.pdf
I’m not going to plough through all of that hyperbolic tosh that you link to. At the very start the author claims that by 2018, the incidence of autism would be 1 in 25.
By most recent figures for the USA citing the same sources that the author purports to use, it’s 1 in 54.
Oh.. And “Dr” Palmer, the author, is a chirpopractor. Say no more.
If this represents his abilities as regards statistical analysis, we can safely disregard the rest of his conclusions. It’s generally found that when it comes to science, antivaxers have an unerring ability to make 2+2=wheelbarrow.
“Chirpopractor”?
Chiropractor. I must learn to proofread better.
Sigh… Yet another case of a US chiropractor playing doctor. and doing his best to make people think he is one.
Regulatory legislation over there (US) really is abysmal. This charlatan gets away with calling himself “Dr.” in every other sentence and even “practicing physician”.
Just another American fake “Doctor” making money off the gullible and worried well by frightening them with false, misleading, cherry picked and hyped up information, to buy his supplements and services.
If there are no Chirpopractors, then there ought to be.
If Professor Montagnier can send electromagnetic information from biological samples down telephone lines and reconstruct them at the other end (or something like that) and Reiki practitioners can send healing to your aunty in Australia at 2:30 on Thursday, and homeopaths can impart vital spiritual essence to a liquid by succussion and have it imprinted in sugar when the liquid evaporates, then why can’t Chirpopractors improve an individual’s health condition by Tweet?
Christine,
While I have better things to do than to read your 737 page document I did at least have a look at it.
It starts by talking about Covid-19, and early on there is a link to a commercial site selling nutritional products that it claims can provide protection against this infection by boosting the immune system (whatever that means). Most of them have alreay been thoroughly debunked, though there is ongoing research into vitamin D, and we need to wait for the results of that before it can be recommended, particularly as high doses are toxic.
There then follows a section about detoxification. Unusually the toxins are actually identified – as heavy metals. There is another link to the same commercial site, this time to a page selling products for removing heavy metals, though it is not at all clear what they are. There is, however, already established effective treatment for heavy metal poisoning in the form of various chelating agents, which are mostly given by injection under medical supervision and (in the UK at least) are only available on prescription. On the other hand, I get the impression that Dr Palmer is happy to recommend detoxification treatment in the absence of a positive laboratory-based diagnosis.
Scrolling down, he then talks about medical mistakes, starting with the story of Ignaz Semmelweiss, who was the first person to realise that hand-washing could prevent disease transmission, and whose reward was to be consigned to a mental hospital where he died soon after from being beaten up there. He then goes on to list other incidents, such as the story of thalidomide, which of course happened 60 years ago and provided many lessons that the medical profession has learnt from. Then he talks about antibiotic resistance, but fails to mention the role of agricultural practices, where antibiotics are commonly included in animal feed to increase growth. This has long been illegal in Europe but is widespread in the USA and elsewhere. I should also add that doctors in the UK are also well aware of the risks of antibiotic resistance and there are nationwide policies in place restricting their use; I don’t know to what extent this is the case elsewhere.
Next there is a section discussing the increase in diagnoses of autism with time, and trying to correlate that with vaccine use. Almost anything can be correlated with time, so this is meaningless. The definition of autism has changed several times over the period in question as have diagnostic criteria and awareness. He shows a graph extrapolating the rise in autism diagnoses into the future…
There then follow many papers investigating the toxicity of various ingredients of vaccines. Most things are toxic in sufficient doses, so much of this is irrelevant – for instance formaldehyde is well known to be toxic but the amount in a vaccine is very much less than the body already contains. Many of the studies that he cites are in animals, but one important lesson that was learnt from the thalidomide story is that it is misleading to apply animal-derived toxicity data from one species to another, which seems to have passed Dr Palmer by.
So after skimming the first 100 pages of your document I have yet to find anything of worth and I am afraid that I am not going to examine it further.
As for Dr Wakefield, he was removed from the UK Medical Register by the General Medical Council because they found him unfit to practice as a result of fraud, falsification of research data, practising medicine in areas that were not within his competance and training and experimenting on children (including unpleasant and potentially dangerous procedures such as colonoscopy and lumbar puncture) without consent or ethical approval. The GMC exists to determine where somebody can practise medicine safely, not to reward or punish, and there is no reason to believe that they treated him unfairly.
@Christine Thompson
This is the typical response from this blog, discredit the person rather than focus on the subject of the moment. They speak of fallacy arguments of others when it suits them, but do the same in turn…. hmmm.
I do happen to agree with you on many points with regard to vaccines, I’m more against them than for them. If they would in fact make them safe, it would simplify the controversy much. I could most likely support safe vaccines.
Andrew Wakefield IS discredited. It was not this blog which struck him off the Medical Register.
Apart from the reasons which discredited his suitability to practice medicine, and for which the GMC removed him from the Register, an absolute plethora of well-conducted science carried out by multiple centres, comprehensively discredited Wakefield’s claims.
Please read the material for which Lenny provided the link. Here it is again: http://www.docbastard.net/2019/03/busting-vaccine-myths.html
If you knew just a little about vaccines, dear RG, you would know there are no completely safe vaccines, and never will be. Because vaccines are effective, they also can have adverse effects. That is true for all drugs.
Vaccines are tested thoroughly and only marketed when they have been shown to have an acceptable risk/benefit ratio. Vaccines are actually among the safest of all drugs. The biggest risk of being vaccinated is the journey to the medical center and back.
Why do you think we have not seen a Coronavirus vaccine on the market yet, even if several already have been made? Because they are still being tested!
This just came out on SBM: https://bit.ly/3gnZHv5
They must have been reading this thread 🙂
I will (attempt to) post my reply (which unfortunately did not print yesterday) later today. It is ready to post (type out…), but I have to go out now, so will not be able to begin it until later this evening.
RG: you are so right: these posts above ARE the typical response from such sceptics’ sites as this. Ad hominems are, more or less, all that they have to offer. The typical stock-in-trade of all who slavishly follow the ‘orthodox’ route in life, as opposed to discovering the REAL, ACTUAL facts of the very many ‘controversial’ subjects going the rounds, year by year by year.
And Bjorn Geir: that ref. which you provided a link to is to Gorski’s site: he being a notorious sceptic of all things that are not ‘orthodox’!!! If he did but know it, he is a laughing-stock. So-called ‘evidence-based medicine’ is a laughable travesty: you call toxic ‘treatments’ EVIDENCE-BASED???!!!??? You call the ‘conventional’ cancer ‘treatments’ of chemo’therapy’ and radio’therapy’ EVIDENCE-BASED??!!?? Such ‘treatments’ kill far more people than they cure.
And that is a well-established fact. To everyone, that is, apart from the many millions of gullible, brainwashed souls who fall for the evil lies given out by the immensely corrupt ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment, and so on, and so on.
“And that is a well-established fact. ”
EVIDENCE PLEASE!
? Talk of typical response. You might as well have copied this one from so many standard (and wrong) anti-Gorski blurbs ? Even dogs learn to know that repeatedly biting your tail is not good.
You say you have “researched”, Ms. Thompson. I see nothing but the results of uneducated dumpster diving in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and made-up misinformation that you cherry-pick to satisfy your selfish delusions of grandeur. Good luck with whatever your “research” leads you too choose for your own selfish needs, I hope you avoid harming yourself or others. But stop pestering normally intelligent people with your fractally wrong beliefs. You won’t need to elaborate on your opinions, we already know what they are worth.
@Christine Thompson:
Two quick comments from another slavish, mindless and evil sceptic:
* Using excessive numbers of question/exclamation marks do not make your statements more credible…. quite the opposite, actually. Some solid evidence, however, might do the trick, you should give it a try!
* You should not use the expression “brainwashed souls”, when you refer to evidence-based sceptics. You can call us brainwashed all day long, but the assertion that something as silly as a “soul” should exist (outside of peoples imagination, of course), is really mind-blowingly stupid.
😉
Christine
Yes, Christine. We do. Because they are. Just because you don’t understand them, please don’t try to think you know more than people who do. Please bear in mind before you start another load of sputtering that posting on this blog are oncologists, surgeons and cancer researchers who can tear your position to pieces. You simply have no idea of the depth of your own ignorance. This is not an ad hom, by the way. It is an evidenced statement. You yourself have provided the evidence above.
Another thing you fail to understand is what constitues an ad hominem. My comments to you are not ´ad hominem´. They are ´ad mores´, which means ´towards conduct´ – your conduct.
Evidenced statements of fact are not ad hominems.
I ask once again:
Would you let us know what background you have in science and medicine and the qualifications you have in immunology, physiology, pathology, microbiology, statistical analysis and epidemiology which enable you to critically assess the material you have read? Are you able to link to the peer-reviewed studies published in high-impact journals which support your position?
You have repeatedly failed to answer this question, from which I can conclude that you have no formal background in science whatsoever. You are sadly ill-informed as regards what constitutes research and how claims can be evaluated. And yet you feel you are in a position to challenge medical professionals on forums like this.
Arrogance, ignorance, hubris and Dunning-Krugerism all wrapped in one charming package of inadequacy and inconsequence. We’ve seen it before.
It is quite clear from their posts that many people contributing to this forum have no idea what they are talking about, yet somehow believe that having googled a subject, or perhaps read a few books written for the lay reader (and not necessarily by specialists in the field) they know more than somebody who has studied it at post-graduate level or indeed devoted a career to it. As an oncologist I find many of the things people here say about cancer and its treatment to be so wide of the mark as to be laughable, except for the potentially tragic consequences.
We smile indulgently when a seven-year old boy builds a rocket out of cardboard boxes, but here there are adults who seriously think they can fly to the moon in something equally unsound.
I once read an essay by Douglas Adams (author of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) in which he recounts converstions with his scientist colleagues. Adams was a fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge, but his subject was English, and for much of his academic life he had believed that all opinions were equally valid, because that is how things are in the humanities. When he realised that in the sciences the only opinion that mattered was Nature, and that there could be such a thing as objective truth (or at least an evidence-based approximation of it) it was a revelation.
It still amazes me how many successful and well-educated people are scientifically illiterate. My wife and I enjoy watching University Challenge, but it is quite clear that Jeremy Paxman, who presents it, clearly does not understand even the context for many of the science questions, showing himself to be only half-educated.
The Arts and the Sciences have a lot that they could learn from each other, particularly with regard to how to think. It depresses me that modern education has opened up such a chasm between them that few people are even aware of what is on the other side, let alone have any interest in bridging it. As an example I watched a TV program recently about Leonardo da Vinci, and the art historians presenting it marvelled at his boundless (and to their minds unique) curiosity and where it led him. It is quite clear that they had no concept of what contributions the likes of Newton have made to our understanding, nor indeed that this same curiosity is what has always driven great scientists.
@Dr. JMK
When all else fails, revert to the old playbook….. fallacy arguments.
@Dr. JMK
There is always more than one side to the issue.
https://www.mossreports.com/when-chemo-kills/
not always
RG: You’re absolutely right, of course!
RG,
I have followed your link and read the report. Dr Moss clearly does not understand much of what he is talking about here, either.
Christine,
Do you have any evidence to support your “well-established facts”?
I have spent my career studying and treating cancer, talking to my patients at length, and trying to keep up with research so that my management remained evidence-based (cancer treatment is changing so rapidly that I realised after a while that if I was treating my patients the same way as I was the previous year I was getting out of date). Chemotherapy and radiotherapy protocols are developed on the basis of a sound understanding of cancer biology, pharmacology and radiobiology, though our understanding is improving all the time, and on the results of carefully-designed clinical trials. They are based on the best evidence available, and if you believe otherwise I would be interested to know why.
Both chemotherapy and radiotherapy are toxic treatments, and their use in treating malignant disease is limited by what the patient will tolerate. All oncologists know that they can cure a greater number of patients with larger doses, but at the expense of unacceptable toxicity in at least some of them. Inevitably there will be some individuals who, either as a result of individual sensitivity to side-effects or just bad luck (and sometimes mistakes) will die as a result of their treatment. When this happens it is a tragedy and awful for all concerned, not least for the helath professionals treating them who have devoted their lives to helping people and who have to face the prospect of giving the same treatment to the next patient.
Both radiotherapy and chemotherapy are used as palliative treatment for advanced cancer, where there is no expectation or intent of a cure, and in this situation the aim is to relieve the distressing effects of the cancer and prolong life if possible. Since few of them are lucky enough to live many years after treatment (though against all expectation some do) I can see that a distorted view of the survival figures might count them as treatment deaths, but that is not the reality.
However, most patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiotherapy have potentially curable cancers and these treatments are given either on their own or more often in combination with surgery. Inevitably some patients relapse, but most don’t. Treatment is hard and takes a long time (a year from diagnosis to completion is quite common) but then they do return to normal life afterwards.
Most cancers are fatal when left untreated (although slow-growing ones such as most prostate cancers can take a long time before they start to have significant effects on health, and some are therefore best left alone). Chemotherapy and radiotherapy can do a lot to improve the outlook.
Over the course of my career cancer treatment has changed beyond recognition. Maybe your knowledge of chemotherapy and radiotherapy is simply forty or fifty years out of date, though even back then it was unusual for people to die as a result of their treatment.
Or maybe your beliefs about cancer treatment aren’t based on anything except superstition, rumour and prejudice. It is always a good idea to check your facts before posting, and indeed to check your sources for reliability.
In general, in fact, sooner or later, some infections can catch up much later than many people. They live as slaves. You can force the vaccine manufacturers to broadcast 24/7. And just imagine. No evidence that vaccines are controlling us. Don’t come up with tales, we could now swing our brains so much with such technology. And I would love to be super smart people.
Hi Christine,
Thanks for pointing out the book by Suzanne Humphries but I see she has another one out “Rising From the Dead” – if I had to choose, which one should I buy and why?
Old Bob:
Hi, Suzanne Humphries’ book ‘Rising from the dead’ is as good as her ‘Dissolving Illusions: disease, vaccines and the forgotten history”; the first one, Rising from the dead, relates, firstly, how she discovered, to her shock, that ‘vaccines’ are immensely dangerous: that they’re NOT what the Medical Mafia [the immensely corrupt, ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment] merely claims them to be. Further on in the book, she relates how she acquired the most life-changing knowledge (nothing whatsoever to do with vaccines!). I’ll refer to that, with some incontrovertible proofs, in my post (which I’ll address later this evening).
I plan to post later this evening with the reply I’d attempted to post a couple of days ago. That will contain a lot of unquestionable evidences which certain commenters here will be immensely surprised about. They’ll probably subject me to further ad hominems…
Old Bob, I should have clarified in my reply to your query, that if you want to acquire the detailed historical, scientific and medical evidences which prove how very dangerous vaccines are, and that they ARE a proven medical fraud/hoax/scam, then you’d be wise to purchase Dr Suzanne Humphries’ book, “Dissolving Illusions: disease, vaccines, and the forgotten history” (it’s choc-a-bloc full of incontrovertible proofs). The other one, “Rising from the dead”, is, as I mentioned in my post of less than 30 minutes ago, her relating how she discovered that ‘vaccines’ ARE a proven medical fraud, and re. her acquiring another huge, life-changing truth.
your mixture of pompous self-importance and utter cluelessness is very amusing. please keep it up.
To the people commenting on this (sceptics) website who’ve replied/commented re. my posts of the last couple of days.
I mentioned that when I attempted to post a lengthy reply a day or two ago, for whatever reason, it failed to print. So I have decided to do this post in a number of parts. It would be wise for the eventual full post to be read in its entirety, as opposed to merely commenting on different sections…
Part 1.
N.B., I reply in person to a number of commenters near the end of my piece; but will say here, to Bjorn Geir: I have ‘made up’ NOTHING in ANY of my posts; in a comment you made earlier today, you accused me of having done so. When I have NOT. People who actually KNOW me are fully aware that I am an extremely honest and genuine person, they know that I NEVER ‘make things up’, that I do NOT lie. So it would be wise for you to take that fact on board.
And a note to JASHAK: in a comment of yours, earlier today, you requested evidence. Well, if you read to the eventual end of my post (recall, I’ve just said, above, that I’ve decided to do it in Parts, so please wait until it’s complete before you venture to comment), you will find I will provide evidences for things which most people on this site would not even dream existed…
David B and Dr Julian Money-Kyrle: I thank you both for your advice re. how I could try to prevent the loss of my writing, before posting (as happened a day or two ago, on this site); however, I’m not that genned-up on computer usage, to be able to follow what you, David, and Dr Julian, imparted to me. My long-term partner would have been able to assist, but unfortunately he’s no longer on Earth (more of that later).
Initially, I’d made the point that I’m a 61-year-old Englishwoman, who is immensely scholarly by nature. I related that from the tender age of just 10, I’ve been a passionate scholar of very many BIG subjects in life; I mentioned that at that age, I borrowed, from my then local library, many books intended for adults about the [materialistic…] ‘science’ of cosmology. I voraciously read many such books. And from that point on, I passionately researched many, very diverse BIG subjects. I own more than 1000 [one thousand+] books, all of them NON-fiction, and covering a multitude of subjects [I stopped reading novels when a teenager]. One of my biggest passions, subject-wise, is that of history. I own many books on that topic, covering a wide range of eras. I’m most interested in Ancient History, ie, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, etc.
That preamble being merely to demonstrate my very scholarly mindset. That I’m most definitely NOT a ‘loon’ (as one of you claimed, very incorrectly, a day or two ago).
I then went on to state (very factually correctly, as it happens…) that ‘vaccines’ are immensely dangerous, and that they’re a proven medical fraud/hoax/scam. For they ARE. Plenty of people in the Medical Establishment have chosen to become whistleblowers, re. this. I wouldn’t, of course, expect the majority of people who post on such a site as this to accept that statement. For, in the main, people who post on such sites as this are immensely brainwashed, gullible, uninformed people who worship at the foot of ‘orthodox’, ‘conventional’ Medicine; such people think that the ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment and its [immensely corrupt] boss, the worldwide Chemical/Pharmaceutical Industry, are wonderful institutions, who can’t do anything wrong. More fool anyone who thinks like that.
In fact, ‘orthodox’ EVERYTHING has been proven to be false; and that happens to be a 100% factually correct statement, too (but it would take literally years to supply you with the evidences for that…).
In that reply which I’d attempted to post yesterday, I’d included the link to the 737pp pdf file detailing 1200 scientific studies/papers which REFUTE all that the pro-vaccine people merely claim.
It’s irrelevant that the doctor whose name was on that file is a chiropractor; the data in the file is 100% scientific and medical. Brainwashed people who worship at the foot of the ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment WOULD ‘think’ that a chiropractor is not worth listening to. But that would be a wrong assumption, too.
In that reply (which failed to print, yesterday), I’d included just three of MANY high-quality books published which provide a wealth of historical, scientific and medical evidences/facts/data which proves just how dangerous ‘vaccines’ actually are. It doesn’t matter that most people looking at this site will ‘disbelieve’ that statement; for mere ‘beliefs’ do not equate to PROVEN FACTS. Proven facts are what define facts. QED.
To conclude this Part 1 of my post, I’ll provide somewhat more than just three book titles on this subject:
“Dissolving Illusions: disease, vaccines, and the forgotten history”, by Dr Suzanne Humphries
“Anyone who tells you vaccines are safe and effective is lying”, by Dr Vernon Coleman (a now-retired English GP)
“Vaccination Voodoo: what YOU don’t know about vaccines”, by Catherine J Frompovich
“Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies: 400 important scientific papers summarised for parents and researchers”, by Neil Z Miller
“Vaccines: are they really safe and effective?”, by Neil Z Miller
“The Vaccine Papers”, by Janine Roberts
“The HPV vaccine on trial: seeking justice for a generation betrayed”, by Mary Holland
“Goodbye Germ Theory: ending a century of medical fraud”, by Dr William P Trebing
“Vaccination is NOT immunisation”, by Dr Tim O’Shea
“Vaccine Free: 111 stories of unvaccinated children”, by Andreas Bachmair
“Raising a vaccine-free child”, by Wendy Lydall
“Unvaccinated: why growing numbers of parents are choosing natural immunity for their children”, by Forrest Maready
“Vaccine-Nation: poisoning the nation, one shot at a time”, by Andreas Moritz
“Monumental Myths of the modern Medical Mafia and Mainstream Media and the multitude of lying liars that manufactured them”, by Ty Bollinger.
There are many others, too.
There is also a spectacular 9-episode docu-series called “The Truth about Vaccines”, produced by the aforementioned Ty Bollinger and his wife Charlene. It includes very many medical personnel and other scientists who chose to become whistleblowers regarding the extreme dangers of ‘vaccines’; they did not want to allow the blatant lies/false claims which are told/made, about vaccines, by the extremely corrupt ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment, to go unchallenged. And so they spoke out. Disseminating the ACTUAL facts, regarding those little things called ‘vaccines’.
I will post Part 2 in approximately half-an-hour.
Part 2.
In my lengthy reply which failed to print yesterday, I then went on to refer to Dr Suzanne Humphries’ excellent book, “Dissolving Illusions: disease, vaccines, and the forgotten history”. I mentioned that it provides a wealth of historical, scientific and medical evidences/facts/data which PROVE that ‘vaccines’ are immensely dangerous AND that they are most definitely a medical fraud/hoax/scam (as many properly-informed people, worldwide, are more than aware of…).
The book includes historical data and many graphs which demonstrate, visually, that ‘vaccines’ DID NOT ‘wipe out’ diseases such as whooping cough, diptheria, measles, polio, etc etc: the historical data and the academic facts which go with them PROVE that all the diseases which are merely CLAIMED to have been ‘eradicated’ by ‘vaccines’ had, in fact, been 99% reduced in number WAY BEFORE ‘vaccines’ were introduced: that they’d been eradicated due to such things as better sanitation, better hygiene, cleaner water, better diet, etc etc. And that the despicable, immensely corrupt ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment came in on the back of that and blatantly lied, and claimed that ‘vaccines’ were the cause of the eradication. When they most definitely WEREN’T.
One of you (I can’t recall who, sorry) ridiculed Dr Humphries, saying that she now mainly works as a homeopath. Yes, I already knew that. And my response to that is “GOOD for her!” (see in a minute). She chose to do that because she discovered (with a veritable wealth of proofs) that homeopathy CURES many diseases/ill-health conditions which ‘conventional’ medicine CANNOT cure. Oh yes, I know that most people reading this on this site will throw up their hands in horror and say “What?!? Stop talking rubbish!”. But it’s NOT rubbish. It happens to be proven fact. As you, too, would know, if you carried out independent, unbiased, research.
Let me tell you why it’s not nonsense. Why homeopathy does work.
Homeopathy works due to the fact that it works on the ACTUAL us; for, even though I bet that 99.9% of the people who post on this sceptics’ site will not be aware of the PROVEN truth of the following statement (and I WILL have absolute proof for you, later on in this lengthy post. A couple of examples of personal proof; as have many millions of other spiritually-enlightened people, worldwide), the physical body is NOT the REAL us. The real us is our eternal, immortal SOUL/SPIRIT BODY form; that is the thing which literally ANIMATES our physical body ‘coat’ whilst we live each [of many…] lifetime. For yes, some years ago, Dr Suzanne Humphries discovered the veritable wealth of multi-faceted evidences which PROVE that we all in very real truth SURVIVE (in our eternal, immortal soul/SPIRIT body form) the immensely illusory event that’s wholly incorrectly termed ‘death’.
I was not aware of that PROVEN fact until 1994. In that year, I was given cause to initiate a programme of extensive, in-depth, very scholarly research, to see whether there MIGHT exist any trustworthy evidence to show that we (our consciousness… the REAL us… see later here) might actually survive the death of our physical body. And since then, I’ve read more than 1000 high-quality books on this oh so vital subject. Countless millions of PROPERLY-informed people, worldwide, are fully genned-up on the veritable wealth of multi-faceted evidences (the evidences comprise more than 20 CATEGORIES of data) which truly PROVE that oh yes, we do all survive (I reiterate/clarify, in our eternal, immortal soul/SPIRIT BODY form… which has been seen, by many people, worldwide; a bit of info. on that coming up) the death of our physical body ‘coat’.
And it is important for you all to know that included in those countless millions of properly-informed, spiritually-enlightened people, worldwide, are many properly-informed scientists, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, lawyers, etc etc etc. For they, too, have discovered the cornucopia of amazing, 100% proven to be true, evidences which incontrovertibly demonstrate that we do all [including animals, birds, etc… for there exists a wealth of evidences which proves that they, too, survive the death of THEIR physical body ‘coat’] survive the immensely illusory, hugely misinterpreted event that’s been so wrongly given the term ‘death’. And, moreover, a large percentage of the many thousands of very high-quality books which have been published, which relate the proven facts re. Survival of ‘death’, have been written BY those properly-informed, spiritually-enlightened, scientists, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, lawyers, etc etc.
There are a number of reasons why we do all survive (in our immortal spirit body form) the death of our physical body ‘coat’. One being that our mind/consciousness is NOT (as medical/scientific ‘orthodoxy’ WRONGLY claims) merely a by-product of the physical brain; our mind/consciousness is something completely separate from the physical brain: it, consciousness, manifests/operates THROUGH the physical brain, yes, but is NOT created BY the physical brain. Which is why it – consciousness – the exact-same us as we each are, now, but without our physical body ‘coat’ – in truth SURVIVES the death of the physical body. And has been PROVEN to do so. I will return to this point, briefly, after another paragraph.
Let me here just say this: if you don’t ‘believe’ me, what I’ve said, above, then on the eventual days on which you each do what is so very wrongly termed ‘die’, all sceptics of Survival of ‘death’ will discover, in the most undeniable way imaginable, that oh yes, we really DO all survive (in our immortal spirit body form) that immensely illusory event.
We happen to live in a MULTI-dimensional cosmos.
Also, let me impart the following truth. Many, many people, worldwide, are lucky enough to possess the spiritual gifts of clairvoyant sight and/or clairaudient hearing. And when someone who possesses clairvoyant sight happens to be in the presence of someone who is about to do what’s wholly incorrectly termed ‘die’, then they, the clairvoyantly-sighted person, actually SEES (WITH their clairvoyant sight) that ‘dying’ person’s immortal SPIRIT body literally emerge from the dying PHYSICAL body; the spirit body appears JUST as the person’s physical body does/did, and then the spirit body ‘disappears’, as it (the person who is then [wrongly, by spiritually-unenlightened ‘orthodoxy’] said to have ‘died’) returns to the place which is our ACTUAL place of origin: the proven to exist Spirit world/Spirit dimension [of this MULTI-dimensional cosmos]. Let me also add, here, that quite a number of doctors and nurses, worldwide, possess clairvoyant vision, and as a result, when they are in the presence of someone who is about to ‘die’, they, too, actually witness that person’s immortal spirit body literally emerge from their dying PHYSICAL body ‘coat’: at the instant of [wrongly termed] ‘death’.
In Part 3, I will relate some personal examples of PROOF that my family members who are wrongly termed ‘dead’/’deceased’ have, in very real truth, survived the deaths of their physical body ‘coat’. Many millions of spiritually-enlightened people, worldwide, possess such personal proofs as I have.
I will post part 3 in approximately an hour; for I need a cup of tea right now.
I’ve just realised that I’ve seen something a bit like this before. Here’s a quotation from the great savant de Selby:
I’m afraid I don’t have a reference for the original publication of this comment; the only place I’ve seen it in print is as an epigraph to the Irish philosopher Brian O’Nolan’s finest work, published only after he himself had experienced the supreme hallucination.
I hope Ms Thompson returns, because she may be able to track down a copy of the original work by de Selby in her personal library.
Evidently De Selby may have been a homeopath, since according to Wikipedia: “In one footnote, he attempts to dilute water;…..” It is silent on whether he succussed…..
De Selby had some remarkable ideas. His Atomic Theory of the Bicycle, for instance.
Part 3
Dr Suzanne Humphries discovered the proven Survival (that being the technical term for survival of ‘death’) of ‘death’ truth, and discovered, with that, that that is WHY homeopathy works; for it, homeopathy, works on the REAL us: our spirit bodies. For yes, we not only have [ARE, in fact] an immortal spirit body, but we in fact ‘have’ several such etheric [a technical term] bodies: different levels, including the emotional [spirit] body, the mental [spirit] body, etc.
I stated in Part 2 that I acquired the very real Survival of ‘death’ truth as of 1994. I carried out one hell of a lot of in-depth research. There ARE, as I mentioned above, more than twenty different CATEGORIES of the multi-faceted evidences which provide the many proofs of its reality.
Eventually, in 2001, I had my first of what turned out to be more than 500 [what are termed] ‘readings’ with more than 180 different [each proven to be genuine] mediums, clairvoyants, and clairaudients. And, through the ensuing years, many of my (wrongly termed) ‘dead’/’deceased’ relatives (including, as of last year, my long-term partner; he sadly returned to the Spirit world in March 2019, he was 70) communicated with me, THROUGH the various mediums (N.B., the word ‘medium’, in this context, means ‘go-between’, ‘conduit’). In each and every case, they, the communicators in Spirit, provided the many different mediums with very specific facts about their [and my] lives, on Earth, data which proved that they WERE whom they said they were. Specific details which, in many cases, the mediums could NEVER have found out, on Earth, for the simple reason that many of the specific details given by my various family members (who now reside in the proven to exist Spirit world/Spirit dimension) were details that are not documented ANYWHERE on Earth. Hence they could not have been ‘unearthed’ by a dishonest medium. To give just one example of this (I have a far, far better example of ABSOLUTE PROOF of Survival, later on, here): our dad sadly did what’s wrongly termed ‘die’ in May 1982, aged just 49. LATER that year (I was 23 at the time of his ‘death’), I began to regularly consume Polo mints. Ie, whilst our dad had been on Earth, I’d never consumed Polos. It is NOWHERE documented, on Earth, that I’ve been consuming them for the past 37 and a half years. Well, in a reading with a Spiritualist Church medium (N.B., they, Spiritualist Church mediums, worldwide, are not allowed to work in their Churches unless/until they are able to 100% PROVE that they are genuinely relaying information from the very real Spirit world) that I, his eldest child, “was always consuming Polo mints”. And NO, the medium in question DID NOT see a packet of Polos on my person; for the reading took place over the phone. The ONLY way that my dad in Spirit could have known that is for him (ie, the REAL him; ie, the immortal consciousness that was my dad, in this lifetime) to have SURVIVED the death of his physical body ‘coat’; and then to have seen, from his vantage-point in the Spirit dimension, that I had, later on in the year in which he ‘died’, started to consume Polo mints. And here I need to explain that that souls who now reside in the Spirit World/Spirit dimension PROVE, to the countless millions of properly-informed, spiritually-enlightened people, worldwide, that they have the very real ability to watch us all on Earth, going about their daily lives. Millions of people around the world possess many personal proofs of this: one of the many spiritual truths of existence. People [souls] who now reside in the Spirit world tune into their loved ones on Earth regularly, watching what we do in our lives – where we go, what we say, where we go on holiday, good and bad events in our lives, etc etc. As part of this ability, they also prove to many people that they have the ability to see inside our homes, on Earth. They know what items are in our home, etc etc (I have a personal proof of this nature). They know where we move to, AFTER they’ve done what’s wholly incorrectly termed to ‘die’. They communicate very detailed information to people on Earth, through mediums, which PROVES that all that TRULY is so. And not only that, but they also (however it works) have the equally proven ability to see, IN ADVANCE OF EARTH-TIME, all the events [good and bad, major and minor] that will take place in our lives, in what we on Earth term the ‘future’. For, as I say, however it works, when we reside in the Spirit dimension of this MULTI-dimensional cosmos, we are then OUTSIDE this physical ‘space-time continuum’ [that – ‘space-time continuun’ – being a scientific term…], and are thus able to see, in advance of Earth-time, ALL events that will take place in people’s ‘future’.
A large percentage of the countless millions of spiritually-enlightened people around the globe possess many, many personal proofs of this: personal proofs that people [souls] who now reside in the Spirit dimension ARE able to see, in advance of Earth-time, all events that will take place in people’s futures.
I possess a number of such personal proofs. Let me relate to you here just one of them. It is a spectacular one indeed.
In a reading I had in July 2004 with a local Spiritualist Church medium, she relayed to me the words of my (wrongly termed) ‘dead’/’deceased’ dad, in the Spirit world. After she’d relayed information from him which proved that the spirit communicator WAS whom he said he was – my dad – she relayed his further words. He told me that his son (my brother) would, at some point in the then relatively near future, marry a younger woman, and that he’d go abroad to do so. He gave her name as Sherry. My dad also told me (through the medium: she was able to hear what he said because she possessed the spiritual gift of clairaudient hearing) that my brother would, by marrying Sherry, acquire a young step-daughter, whose name would be Shania. Dad also told me (recall, this was in July 2004) that when she was a bit older, Shania would wear her hair in plaits. Now, fast-forward a bit. In 2005, my brother ended the relationship with his then long-term partner, they’d been together for 13+ years. In 2007, he decided to take himself to the Caribbean island of Grenada, for a holiday. Whilst there, he met a young Trinidadian woman. Her name? Sherry… She had a young daughter; then aged just 3. Her name…? You guessed it… her name was Shania. Alan and Sherry fell in love, and married, there in Grenada, in 2008. They’ve lived here in the UK ever since. And yes, a few years later, Shania did indeed start wearing her hair in plaits… in the way many Caribbean females do do. My dad in Spirit was able to transmit this 100% factual information to me in July 2004 precisely because, from his vantage-point in the Spirit world, he was able to see, in advance of Earth-time, all events that would take place in what we on Earth term the ‘future’. And hence he was able to see, IN ADVANCE OF EARTH-TIME, the precise details of his son’s then future marriage to a young Trinidadian woman, and the fact that she had a then young daughter called Shania by a previous relationship.
Oh yes, we do most definitely all survive (in our immortal soul/SPIRIT body form) the immensely illusory event that’s wrongly termed ‘death’.
I will post Part 4 (there will be 5 Parts in total) in about an hour from now.
spiritism (spiritualism):
http://skepdic.com/spiritul.html
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spiritualism
Pete Attkins:
On the eventual day on which you do what is so very wrongly termed ‘die’, you will get the biggest shock; for when that day eventually arrives, for you, you will discover, in a way which it will be impossible for you to deny, that you HAVE survived the death of your PHYSICAL body ‘coat’.
It doesn’t matter that you don’t “believe” what I say; just you wait until that day arrives, for you. And on THAT day, you will be singing a completely different tune from that which you have very ignorantly manifested above.
There is something very wrong with the humans who think in the way in which you RABID sceptics do; you all blatantly refuse to address the veritable wealth of multi-faceted evidences (of which, as I have stated several times, in my posts on this site over the last few days, there are MORE THAN 20 DIFFERENT CATEGORIES) which truly do provide absolute truth for the fact of everyone’s survival of the death of their physical body ‘coat’.
And anyone on Earth who has even a modicum of intelligence is fully aware that Wikipedia is a deeply corrupt “information source”; that it ALWAYS takes an extremely ridiculing stance re. anything that is not ‘orthodox’/’mainstream’/materialistic/atheistic.
There will eventually come a day for each and every one of you immensely uninformed, materialistic people, when you will have to face the horrific truth that it was YOU LOT who were wrong, and NOT the many, many millions of properly-informed, spiritually-enlightened people on Earth. And when that day does eventually come, for you all, THEN you will have to take a long, hard, look at yourselves, and will have to face that there was something ‘missing’ in your system, something which prevented you from addressing the incontrovertible evidences (and that goes for the fact that ‘vaccines’ are a proven medical fraud/hoax, as well as the absolutely proven fact of everyone’s survival [in our immortal spirit body form] of the death of our PHYSICAL body ‘coat’).
I pity you all. You extreme sceptics. For there IS something ‘missing’ in your systems. Something which makes you all have a need to cling to the materialistic view of existence, which is why you are all forced to trot out all the (uninformed, pathetic) sceptic websites. Wikipedia/’rational’wiki, Skepdic, James Randi, Richard Dawkins, Chris French, Richard Wiseman, Ray Hyman, Peter Atkins [of Cambridge University], and so on, and so on. There will eventually come a day for the people who produce those ridiculing sites, and all the above ‘professional sceptics’, a day on which THEY will have to face that it was THEY who were wrong, and not the many people they ridiculed so vilely.
You are all pathetic.
“You are all pathetic.”
Reminds me of a joke:
man drives on a motorway and hears in the car radio a warming: THERE IS A CAR DRIVING ON THE MOTORWAY IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!
man turns off the radio and says to himself: WHAT DO THEY MEAN ONE? IT’S HUNDREDS!
Edzard:
On the eventual day on which you do that which is so wrongly termed ‘die’, you will have much cause to regret your vile ridiculing abuse. For when that day eventually arrives, for you, you will be forced to have to face that it was you materialistic sceptics who were wrong, re. the nature of ‘death’, and NOT us Spiritualists.
You uninformed sceptics ARE pathetic. As you will all have to face, on the eventual days on which you each go through that TRANSITIONAL event.
See you all in the afterlife, when I will receive the required apologies from each of you (for that IS how it works; the Supreme Creative Mind which creates the multi-dimensional cosmos and all life has made it be that that is so. And you will not be able to argue with that). You must all be ‘Darwinists’, too!!
https://edzardernst.com/2017/05/a-method-of-ending-discussions-with-belligerent-twits/
Christine calls us “Darwinists”.
So Christine is, presumably, an evolution-denying young-Earth creationist. Because she’s read a book about it. Maybe more than one.
Christine..
Is there other insanity to which you have subscribed having read a book which seemed plausible to your woefully-inadequate powers of reasoning? Are you a flat-Earther as well? A geocentrist? If not, why not? I can recommend lots of books which will tell you why both are the Truth.
Lenny,
I read an interesting article a few months back about why people believe conspiracy theories. I think it might have been in New Scientist or Scientific American (the September 2019 edition is entirely devoted to how we deal with uncertainty and is a very interesting read). Apparently most conspiracy theorists espouse all such theories, not just their pet one, even when they contradict each other. Though Christine seems to be quite an outlier in her views.
Regarding Suzanne Humphries, a little research (wink-wink) will reveal that she has indeed made it through medical education and specialisation as a nephrologist. But unfortunately it also reveals that she seems to have gone off her rockers after that. She started imagining that cases of renal failure must be due to vaccinations and her medical education has vaporised into promotion of homeopathy and various other quackery. One wonders why she seems to retain her accreditation? But then, American medical regulatory authorities seem rather incompetent, don’t they?
The book she wrote with another antivaccine crank named Roman Bystrianyk, “Dissolving illusions…”, is an absurd cavalcade of misrepresentations of medical and historical facts, cherry picked half truths and false information. Its contents is easily debunked and several articles are easily found online that deal with debunking this book in part or whole.
The only “incontrovertible proof” it provides is that even MD’s can loose their mind. We have discussed several such sad cases here. The White House head clown and his ilk actually made another one notorious the other day ?
Many mad MD’s, including Suzanne Humphries, have earned their very own page in the Encyclopedia of American lunatics along with Catherine Frompovich, another antivaccine crank our dear antivaccine afficionado refers to above.
https://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/11/783-suzanne-humphries.html
https://americanloons.blogspot.com/2016/03/1629-catherine-frompovich.html
You uninformed sceptics are pathetic. You can’t deal with the proven facts, so you have to resort to calling us ‘loons’.
Which reflects negatively on you sceptics, not on the countless millions of us NON-brainwashed (by the evil, immensely corrupt ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment) people, worldwide.
Calm down, love. There’s steam coming from under your tinfoil hat.
Lenny:
You think you are funny? Well, think again.
He is funny!
An interesting thing about supporters of AltMed is that none of them seem to have an ability to appreciate or write humour. They frequently post what they believe to be funny jokes or cartoons – Sandra Courtney is a great one for this – but the cartoons and jokes are entirely mirthlesss. Their posts here are almost without exception devoid of wryness, irony or wit.
I used to write jokes and humorous articles for money (not a lot) and have done a bit of stand-up in recent years. Comedy requires an ability to appreciate nuance and irony, to create mental juxtapositions and substitutions. AltMed fans seem to lack these thought-processes which seem allied to those of critical thought. There are many comedians who are supporters of critical thought and who mock AltMed in their routines; Robin Ince, Dara O’Briain and Tim Minchin are probably the biggest names who do so.
I am not aware of any alternative medicine comedians.
Perhaps they use homeopathic comedy. The original joke is repeatedly diluted down in many other neutral and unfunny words until the paragraph only retains the memory of the joke, which can then be read out. Although, according to the law of similars, such a homeopathic joke should be used to cure enjoyment and stop people laughing.
It works! Homeopathy is proven!
“An interesting thing about supporters of AltMed is that none of them seem to have an ability to appreciate or write humour.”
VERY WELL OBSERVED!
this has bothered me since decades.
Lenny,
Agreed, but I would say that this striking lack of humour goes beyond alt. med. advocates.
It seems to be very common for most people who hold irrational beliefs dearly. And of course, these people can laugh about all kinds of things (so they usually think that they have a GREAT sense of humour), but as soon as THEIR OWN belief is in the focus of the joke, all humour is gone in an instance.
Maybe they sense that humour can be an erosive force for dogmas and irrationality?
I would also add Jim Jefferies to your list of comedians. Last year, he invited several different conspiracy theorists to his show and cross-interviewed them. Quite funny imo. If you do not know the clip, here´s the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NiYeQ-LFl8
Part 4
Let me now provide you with just a very small representative sample of the many thousands of high-quality, scholarly books which relate the how, why, and the many multi-faceted evidences which PROVE that we most definitely do all survive (I reiterate: in our immortal spirit body form…) the death of our physical body ‘coat’. And please recall what I mentioned earlier: that a large percentage of the books published on this proven truth have been written by the many PROPERLY-informed, spiritually-enlightened scientists, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, lawyers, etc etc.
Some examples of that are shown below.
“Faces of the living dead”, by Paul Miller
“Your eternal self”, by R Craig Hogan
“Glimpses of eternity”, by Dr Raymond Moody (an American psychiatrist)
“The art of dying: a journey to elsewhere”, by Dr Peter Fenwick (a British psychiatrist)
“Death is of vital importance: on life, death, and the afterlife”, by Dr Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (Swiss-American psychiatrist)
“Forever ours: a coroner’s tales of life, death, and immortality”, by Dr Janis Amatuzio
“The Afterlife Experiments: breakthrough scientific evidence of life after death”, by Professor Gary E Schwartz (Prof. of
Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, Psychology, and Surgery, @ Univ. of Arizona, USA)
“Consciousness beyond life”, by Dr Pim van Lommel (Dutch cardiologist)
“Same soul, many bodies”, by Dr Brian Weiss (American psychiatrist)
“The Eagle and the Rose”, by Rosemary Altea
“Embracing Eternity”, by Tony Stockwell
“Irreducible Mind”, co-authored by Dr Bruce Greyson (American psychiatrist) and others
“The self does not die”, by Titas Rivas
“Evidence of the afterlife”, by Dr Jeffrey Long (American oncologist)
“A lawyer presents the evidence for the afterlife”, by Victor Zammit and Wendy Zammit (he, Zammit, being a now-retired District and Supreme Court lawyer in Australia)
The books above are just a small fraction of many thousands of similarly-excellent books which provide a veritable wealth of incontrovertible proofs that yes, we do all survive (in our immortal spirit body form…) the death of our physical body ‘coat’.
To return, here, to the Andrew Wakefield topic. He was NOT carrying out fraudulent research; he was VILELY lied about, by a number of people, including by a journalist called Brian Deer. There’s plenty of data available re. how Deer treated Wakefield. Very, very badly.
Moreover, Wakefield’s findings WERE replicated; by quite a number of independent scientists/doctors. But THAT fact is not disseminated by the lying ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment and the equally corrupt worldwide Mainstream Media, is it… no, of course it’s not, for that would go against their evil agenda, re. Wakefield.
Now, some replies to some of named people’s questions.
David B (a couple of days ago…) asked me what the difference is between ‘ACTUAL’ facts and ‘any other sort of’ facts.
Well, here is the answer to that question.
Some ‘facts’ are merely CLAIMED to be facts. To give just two examples, the following:
1) It is a merely CLAIMED ‘fact’ that vaccines are ‘safe and effective’.
Whereas the ACTUAL fact is that they, vaccines, are immensely dangerous, in most cases not effective, and that they have been proven to be a medical fraud/hoax/scam.
2) It is a merely CLAIMED ‘fact’, by ‘orthodox’ Science and ‘orthodox’ Medicine, that ‘death’ is the end of existence.
Whereas the ACTUAL, 100% DEFINITELY PROVEN fact is that NO, ‘death’ is most definitely NOT the end of existence, for there exists a veritable wealth, a cornucopia, in fact, of multi-faceted evidences which PROVE that we all survive (in our immortal spirit body form…) that immensely illusory, hugely misinterpreted, event.
There are any number of other examples of merely CLAIMED ‘facts’, and then the ACTUAL facts, which are the exact opposite of the merely CLAIMED ‘fact’, regarding whatever subjects one cares to mention.
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle: firstly, thanks for posting, in such detail, how I may protect my typing from being ‘lost in transit’. I’m not sure I’m computer-literate enough to be able to put into practise what you imparted to me, but thank you anyway.
\
In one of your posts a day or so ago, you wrote… “…. boosting the immune system (WHATEVER THAT MEANS)…”.
I find it quite horrific that ANYONE on Earth (other than, of course, babies/young children who do not yet possess that knowledge) , let alone an oncologist, could NOT KNOW the meaning of “boosting the immune system”.
Your words just go to illustrate what many properly-informed people are fully aware of: that students in ‘medical school’ (which are all funded by the immensely corrupt, worldwide Chemical/Pharmaceutical Industry… who are motivated by nothing but filthy lucre) are taught HARDLY ANY facts re. how correct nutrition is the basis of maintaining good health.
We’ve all been given an immune system for a reason; it is there to help stave off illnesses, and WILL do, if it is not damaged/weakened, by diet, chemo’therapy’, radio’therapy’, etc etc. Boosting the immune system means what it says: to take in substances (nutritious, health-boosting vitamins, minerals, and other phytonutrients) which will much increase the immune system’s natural ability to help fight disease/ill-health.
I have not taken any ‘orthodox’ so-called ‘medicines’ for more than 30 years. I absolutely refuse to. I’ve taken high-dose Vitamin C for more than 25 years, daily, and also take, daily, Vitamin D3, multi-vitamins and minerals, Vitamin B-Complex, and Chlorella (as do many millions of PROPERLY genned-up people on planet Earth who are equally informed regarding the right, correct ways to maintain good (and to correct bad…) health. Which is NOT to put into one’s physical body ‘coat’ the many disgusting, immensely dangerous pharmaceutical chemicals which pass for ‘treatments’ by the immensely corrupt ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment, worldwide.
I (as do millions of other right-thinking people on the planet) have an extremely low view of oncologists… I will say no more.
Bjorn Geir: a few more words to add to what I said to you yesterday, in response to your having posted a link to a Gorski site. “Evidence-Based Medicine”!! The immensely corrupt ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment (there’s a very good reason why it’s nicknamed ‘the Medical Mafia’…) and its even more corrupt boss, the worldwide Chemical/Pharmaceutical Industry, tell such vile lies, and all the gullible people, brainwashable people, worldwide, just fall for it, hook, line and sinker. However, there are many, many millions of people the world over who, like me, totally despise the ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment.
No-one in their right mind would voluntarily choose to allow their physical body to be subjected to chemo’therapy’ and/or radio’therapy’; those extremely dangerous, very toxic pharmaceutical ‘conventional’ cancer ‘treatments’ have caused far, far more deaths than they have cured. When, in very real truth, there are so, so many safe, effective, PROVEN natural treatments which have been proven (and medically documented…) to cure cancer; and the many thousands of NON-brainwashed people, worldwide, who wisely refuse chemo’therapy’ and/or radio’therapy’, and who choose to use one or more of the PROVEN [and, I reiterate, medically documented…] natural cancer treatments, more often than not, as a result CURE themselves of their cancers. Cancers which, in many cases, their ‘orthodox’ doctor (oncologist…) had CLAIMED was ‘incurable’/’terminal’. Many people have been told that their cancer is ‘terminal’, and told, by their oncologist, to ‘put their affairs in order’, but who have then chosen to use one or more of the many natural cancer treatments, and as a result they CURE their SUPPOSEDLY ‘terminal’/’incurable’ cancer, and, in some medically documented cases, have gone on living, on Earth, for several more decades!!
David B: I do not have any medical, scientific, etc, qualifications; one does not need to possess such, in order to discover the ACTUAL facts regarding any given ‘controversial’ subject, in life. And for you to claim otherwise merely illustrates just how brainwashed and gullible you are, following SO-CALLED ‘authority’.
If I’ve forgotten/overlooked any ‘points’ raised by any of you ‘sceptics’ who just love to criticise, mock, and, in many cases, dole out ad hominems to anyone who does not follow the (incorrect) ‘orthodox’ route, in life, then my apologies.
It did not require a Part 5 to finish posting.
@Christine
Thank for references to some of the book lists, I shall look at a few of the books about vaccines. Not that I have not studied the subject. I have been stating at this very site for over 18 months that anti-vaxers are neither sheep nor uninformed. We have investigated the subject far more than the average person that blindly accepts vaccines.
“anti-vaxers are neither sheep nor uninformed”
well, you could have fooled me!
RG
“We have investigated the subject far more than the average person that blindly accepts vaccines.”
You consider yourself to be informed.
How much study have you done in basic biomedicine? Anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, pathology, bacteriology, virology, pathology, immunology, pharmacology, statistical analysis and critical review, all fundamental to gaining an understanding of vaccines, what they are, how they work and the evidence behind them?
You have done none. Your “investigations” are a castle built on sand. Which is why your arguments are so easy to refute.
Christine
Thank you for the time you have taken to write those extensive posts. They demonstrate that you are so far down the rabbit-hole of delusion that there is no helping you whatsoever.
We had to get to the bottom of that screed to find the important bit.
As we all knew. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. A mountain of arrogance, hubris and Dunning-Krugerism all wrapped in one charming package of paranoia, ignorance, inadequacy and inconsequence. We’ve all seen it before, but probably not demonstrated on such a large scale.
I think I’ll save those posts for future use in teaching what the mindset of the true Alt-Med loon is.
Lenny: it is, in fact, all you many PRO-vaccine people, worldwide, who are “so far down the rabbit-hole of delusion”. One does NOT need to have any medical/scientific qualifications to be able to criticise ‘vaccines’, and utter statements re. their ‘safety/efficacy’ OR OTHERWISE.
In order to be able to correctly criticise ‘vaccines’, one needs only to discover just how very many deaths, disablements, and life-long ill-health, those little things called ‘vaccines’ have been PROVEN to cause.
All you immensely ignorant/uninformed pro-vaccine people must have no idea of, for eg, the very many babies/toddlers, worldwide, who ‘die’ literally seconds/minutes/hours after having been administered a ‘vaccine’. When that happens (and it happens very frequently, believe you me), most (but, sadly, not all) doctors are honest enough to admit that yes, it WAS the ‘vaccine’ which caused the infant’s ‘death’.
CARRY OUT SOME RESEARCH INTO THE DANGERS OF ‘VACCINES’, FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE!! As RG said, above, we anti-vaxxers DO do our research, whereas 99.9% of vaccine proponents DO NOT carry out any research at all into them; they merely blindly-believe what the evil, immensely corrupt ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment and their equally corrupt boss, the worldwide Chemical/Pharmaceutical Industry, give out, in the form of LYING PROPAGANDA, about them.
You can dole out ad hominems to me as much as you like, Lenny, but it will not change the facts one iota: we anti-vaxxers DO have the historical, scientific and medical facts on OUR side. All one needs to know, in order to correctly criticise ‘vaccines’, is to know of the very many ‘deaths’, disablements, and lifelong ill-health which they, vaccines, cause. They cause SO, SO MANY ‘DEATHS’!!! WAKE UP!!!
Just take a look at yourself. Do you not understand that you rabid sceptics (on WHATEVER the subject might be), spewing out ad hominems galore, merely shine a light on YOUR inadequacies??? For the doling out of such vile ad hominems reflect on the person spewing them out, NOT on the person/people to whom they are WRONGLY addressed.
SHAME ON YOU, for unleashing such bile, as a result of YOUR (wilful) lack of knowledge of the PROVEN dangerousness of ‘vaccines’.
Quote:”It did not require a Part 5 to finish posting.”
Wow. Even as an atheist, I have to say ‘thank god’ that you finished writing such nonsense.
You are too far out in your own separate reality for me, so good luck … And tell all the eternal souls and spirits you apparently meet in your world that I said ‘Hi’.
🙂
OK, before I leave you, I have one last, but important question that I forgot to ask. Since without any doubt, are an expert on the afterlife:
If such a thing like an “immortal soul” (or “ACTUAL ME”, or whatever you might want to call it…) indeed exists… Is there any possibility for my “ACTUAL ME” to opt out on surviving my physical death?!
Please advise, because I DEFINETLY would prefer simply being dead to spending eternity with the immortal souls of word-salad blabbering crackpots (no offense).
Jashak: the answer to your question is NO, there is NO possibility of opting out of surviving the death of your physical body ‘coat’. Everyone HAS to survive the hugely misinterpreted event, ‘death’; there is no way that one can choose to NOT survive it.
It’s always been a very noticeable fact that (rabid) sceptics of the proven fact of survival of ‘death’ NEVER address the veritable wealth of multi-faceted, incontrovertible evidences which PROVE it to be true; I notice that you, too, have not deigned to address the couple of personal proofs which I provided in my 4-part post, last night (which took me just over 2 hours to type, in total).
People who have a multitude of ABSOLUTE PROOFS to verify what they are saying (as we countless millions of properly-informed, spiritually-enlightened people, worldwide, DO most definitely possess) are NOT ‘crackpots’. I provided you with two SPECTACULAR personal proofs; and yet you STILL have ridiculed what I said, you have STILL (oh so wrongly) claimed that I wrote “nonsense”.
You uninformed sceptics truly do need to get ‘with it’. You do need to get some proven facts inside you all, re. the ACTUAL nature of life, ‘death’, existence, and the [multidimensional] cosmos.
When sceptics choose to ignore, and ridicule, the mountain-loads of incontrovertible evidences which exist (re. whatever the ‘controversial’ subject might be, but here I’m referring to the absolute proven fact of everyone’s survival of the death of their physical body ‘coat’), then it is THEY, the uninformed sceptics, who prove themselves to be the ‘crackpots’, THEY who write ‘nonsense’.
For the available multi-faceted evidences speak for themselves. If you are not able to cope with those incontrovertible proofs, then so be it. That reflects on YOU, and NOT on the millions of properly-informed people, worldwide, who have a more factual knowledge of the actual natures of ‘life’ and ‘death’ than all you uninformed sceptics do. There will, however, come a day for each and every one of you sceptics out there: and that day will be the eventual day on which you each do what is so very incorrectly termed ‘die’. When that day arrives, for each and every sceptic, you will discover, IN THE MOST UNDENIABLE WAY IMAGINABLE, that the many people, worldwide, who stated that ‘death’ is NOT what it merely seems to be, that we in fact SURVIVE (in our immortal spirit body form) that immensely illusory event, were in fact telling you all the 100% definite truth!!
And then, all you sceptics will have to face the unpalatable fact that it was you who were wrong, and not the people who told you that we survive that in fact transitional event.
(An illustration: go back ten years, and my brother [he’s now 54] was in the habit of ridiculing me abusively, on this subject, in a very similar way to the way in which you rabid sceptics abuse people, on the subject of survival of ‘death’. He subjected me to vile, uninformed abuse on this, too; and I answered him, each time, in the way I’m responding to you, here. WITH PROVEN FACTS. But guess what. Nine years ago, he experienced his own personal proof that yes, we DO all survive the death of our physical body ‘coat’. It absolutely stunned him. And, since then, his abuse/ridicule have been non-existent)
Quote#1: „ Everyone HAS to survive the hugely misinterpreted event, ‘death’; there is no way that one can choose to NOT survive it.”
Guess I am screwed then… (excuse my French)
____________________________
Quote #2:” I notice that you, too, have not deigned to address the couple of personal proofs which I provided in my 4-part post (…)”
That is because in contrast to you, I think that I do NOT have an eternal soul and therefore unlimited time to waste on discussing unfalsifiable, nonsensical claims, which are not supported by any reliable, scientific evidence, but only rely on mere speculation, fantasy story tales and anecdotes.
____________________________
Quote #3:” That reflects on YOU, and NOT on the millions of properly-informed people, worldwide, who have a more factual knowledge of the actual natures of ‘life’ and ‘death’ than all you uninformed sceptics do.“
I am hopeful (and quite confident) that your weird ideas are not shared by millions of people. Even if they were, this is not evidence for your claims, but a logical fallacy called “Argumentum ad populum”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
____________________________
Quote #4:” When that day arrives, for each and every sceptic, you will discover, IN THE MOST UNDENIABLE WAY IMAGINABLE, that the many people, worldwide, who stated that ‘death’ is NOT what it merely seems to be, that we in fact SURVIVE (in our immortal spirit body form) that immensely illusory event, were in fact telling you all the 100% definite truth!!
And then, all you sceptics will have to face the unpalatable fact that it was you who were wrong, and not the people who told you that we survive that in fact transitional event.”
Please promise me that IF our souls meet in the eternal afterlife: Do not rub it in for all eternity, that you were right and I was wrong. I am fine if your souls does this to me for, let´s say, a year or so, but that’s enough.
____________________________
Quote #5: “Nine years ago, he experienced his own personal proof that yes, we DO all survive the death of our physical body ‘coat’. It absolutely stunned him. And, since then, his abuse/ridicule have been non-existent“
Sorry to hear that your brother had an episode… or even lost his mind. Hope he gets better soon.
Jashak:
Do you have ANY idea of just how vilely abusive you uninformed, rabid sceptics actually are??
For you’ve now taken it upon yourself to even subject my brother to vile, totally unwarranted abuse/insult. Where do your vile abuses end, huh???
In response to your ‘bullet points’, above:
1) Yes, you are ‘screwed’, for yes, it is the proven, established truth that no-one can choose to NOT survive the death of their physical body ‘coat’. I’ll (eventually) see you in the very real afterlife, and will gladly accept your profuse apology from you: your heartfelt apology for having so wrongly subjected me to unwarranted, vile abuses.
2) The incontrovertible proofs for everyone’s survival of the death of their physical body ‘coat’ are NOT ‘nonsensical’, some of them (do the research, to find out which) ARE proven by reliable scientific evidences, the evidences are NOT ‘mere speculation’, the incontrovertible, multi-faceted evidences are NOT ‘fantasy story tales’ and they are equally NOT ‘mere anecdotes’.
DO THE RESEARCH, and then you, too, will find out that the multifaceted data truly IS incontrovertible in nature.
3) What I have related are NOT “weird ideas”, and there truly ARE countless millions of people, worldwide, who are (unlike you) PROPERLY-informed, and who thus are totally genned-up on the literal mountain-loads/veritable wealth of (as I say) multifaceted evidences which ABSOLUTELY PROVE that we do all survive (in our immortal soul/spirit body form) the death of our physical body ‘coat’. In my 4-part post, overnight, I even stated the 100% correct fact that a large percentage of the many thousands of high-quality, scholarly books which have been published, worldwide, which relate the 20+ CATEGORIES of the evidences which prove survival of ‘death’ to be an absolute fact, have been written by PROPERLY-informed, spiritually-enlightened scientists, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, lawyers, etc etc etc. And yet STILL you ridicule it.
All the countless millions, worldwide, including the PROPERLY-informed scientists, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, lawyers, etc etc, who are far more informed on you are, on the ACTUAL natures of the things we term ‘life’ and ‘death’, are NOT supporting “weird ideas”, they are informed on the veritable wealth of multifaceted evidences which ABSOLUTELY PROVE what we say, to be true.
So the fact that YOU are unable to accept that proven fact, merely reflects on you, it does NOT negate the absolute proven facts. QED (I wonder whether you know what ‘QED’ means…).
4) The way in which the afterlife works (the initial bit of it) means that yes, you and I WILL meet in the very real Spirit world. For the way it works, dictates that everyone who has ever WRONGLY abused someone HAS to apologise to that person, in the afterlife, before they are allowed to continue along their own path, in that afterlife. And NO, I have NOT ‘made that up’, I have NOT ‘fantasised’ that. It truly does happen to be another of the very many spiritual truths of existence. Spiritual truths which have been laid down by the Supreme Intelligent Creative Mind which created the [MULTI-dimensional] cosmos and all life. The Creative Mind which some people refer to as ‘God’.
People’s experiences in the afterlife demonstrate that this is how it works.
There is so very much objective evidence out there. It is a very great shame that you rabid sceptics on the planet refuse to address the said evidences, that you prefer to ignorantly ridicule them, your ridicule based merely on your own preconceptions and how you WANT existence to be, as opposed to how it ACTUALLY IS.
5) As I mentioned at the top of this post: now you have even gone so far as to despicably abuse and insult my brother. YOU QUITE OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO SHAME. I REST MY CASE.
Not sure how I insulted your brother, but I certainly did not mean to (as he most likely still is the more sane one in the family).
And relax, no reason to get so wound up… I am just having a bit of fun with you, because I dislike your proselytizing stories and your condescending tone towards us (rabid 😉 ) sceptics.
By the way, I always find it quite hilarious when tin-foil hat wearing, scientifically illiterate people (like you) tell us scientists to “DO THE RESEARCH”. It seems obvious that you are blissfully unaware of how to “do research”. Just one tip: reading books that fit your narrative is not research, but living in a bubble of ignorance.
As I said in the beginning, you are too far off from reality for me to start a serious discussion with you, therefore I see no point in continuing this lively exchange.
So: keep believing what you like about me, scientists in general, the universe, souls, spiritual enlightenment, multifaceted evidence, gods, vaccine conspiracies, “100% correct” (but alternative, I might add) facts, and whatever else your remarkably creative mind might come up with next… since any attempt of a rational discussion with you will certainly be a waste of time.
See you in the afterlife (and don´t forget: one year of berating me there max.!)
Jashak:
Re. your “|See you in the afterlife – and don’t forget: one year of berating me there max!”.
Actually, in the wholly real Spirit dimension there is NO ‘time’ as we understand that, here on Earth. In the Spirit dimension, everything is what’s officially termed “the Eternal Now”. Ie, literally every ‘second’ in the Spirit realms is exactly what we here on Earth experience when we say “NOW I am doing such-and-such”.
The Spirit dimension is OUTSIDE the physical space-time continuum (as I mentioned in my 4-part overnight explanatory piece, that, ‘physical space-time continuum’, is a scientific term), and THEREFORE there is NO experiencing, there, of what here refer to as ‘time’.
At least the industrious Ms. Thompson seems to have lightened the embittered soul of our friend RG. 😀
We can safely sit and muse at these fireworks of fallacies and grandiose delusions behind the safe distance of the interweb. But I feel deeply for family and health care professionals who may need to suffer such bedlam at close range 🙁
Bjorn: read my final note (in the brackets) in my reply to Jashak, above. Re. my brother. And I can add to that, in response to your very ignorant mere assumption, that 99% of the members of my family, and also most of my friends, are themselves people who DO know the proven facts re. everyone’s survival of the death of their physical body ‘coat’!!!
So your attempt at abuse falls flat.
Try acquiring some of those little things called FACTS re. the ACTUAL natures of ‘life’ and ‘death’ inside you. Instead of making mere ASSUMPTIONS, which are incorrect, on every count.
Ridiculing what happen to be proven facts does not change one iota the fact that they ARE absolute proven facts.
Thus your response reflects on your inability to assimilate facts which go against your mere beliefs. Which is pitiful. Shame on you.
The woman cannot even get the name of the website in question (Science Based Medicine) right and pompously accuses others of abusive judgement while spewing vitriol on others like there is no tomorrow. I hope she does not harm herself or others.
Bjorn: the irony is ultimate. It’s not ME who’s “spewing out vitriol”; at least one of your posts to me is full of nothing but vitriol…
And, wherever I referred to the uninformed, brainwashed by ‘orthodoxy’, Gorski’s site, I was NOT claiming that his site was called “Evidence-based Medicine”; I was merely using that term to make the point that all those ‘orthodoxy’-following humans who use it are so, so wrong in what they merely believe.
You can’t have been taught very much about fact, in your Icelandic schooldays. For, to fall for wrongly-termed ‘orthodoxy’ is demonstrative of not having actually learned anything, but is merely a demonstration of having blindly accepted the proven lies of the propaganda of the immensely corrupt ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment, worldwide.
And I’ll have you know that quite a number of my close family members are themselves anti-vaxxers. Including my young sister-in-law; now 35, in 2009 she was forced to take the so-called ‘Swine Flu’ “vaccine”. As a result, she was made very seriously ill. For a long time.
Not everyone on Earth is as uninformedly brainwashed and gullible as you totally uninformed vaccine proponents. So don’t tar everyone with the same brush; many more people than you think are seeing through the vile, blatant lies of the corrupt Medical Establishment. There’s a reason why they are nicknamed “the Medical Mafia”.
I called upon divine guidance and the call was transferred to an angel of a recently deceased pastor and amateur psychologist. Via a combination of Tarot cards and entrail readings (from a freshly killed salmon) she communicated that in her above response, Ms. T. unequivocally confirmed my own previous evaluation of the underlying problem, which I forgot to mention, was based on a numerical analysis of the occurrence of superlatives, capitalisations and references to questionable and irrefutably[sic] inaccurate sources in her contributions to this discussion.
She (the angel) hastened to add, before the entrails cooled off, that in addition to the main characteristic, the problem is exacerbated by an unusually extreme case of the Dunning-Kruger effect, rendering Ms. T. unable to recognise her own incompetence and illogical reasoning.
This conclusion, arrived at by a specialist spirit with divine access to our minds, is of course IRREFUTABLE (to use one of Ms. T’s favourite adjectives – and capitalised in her style). And furthermore, the entrails used are no longer warm and fresh so this particular angel is therefore no longer accessible.
I also asked the mountain trolls what they think of vaccines. They say they use them all the time as it keeps away dangerous diseases. They also said those made for and by humans are very safe so they use them. This is of course IRREFUTABLE, coming from such a reliable, non-human source.
They added though that you don’t have to vaccinate all your children only those you wish to keep. I find such witticism rather bad taste. But then troll-humour is always rather dark, even in my country where they are very intelligent and educated.
PS.
Here’s a small riddle, for fun.
In the above satirical reflections, I made a small logical ‘mistake’. Hint: To recognise it, you need to have paid attention in biology class.
Who will be the first to spot it?
😀
“Here’s a small riddle, for fun.
In the above satirical reflections, I made a small logical ‘mistake’. Hint: To recognise it, you need to have paid attention in biology class.
Who will be the first to spot it?”
I never took biology. Is it that the entrails would warm up, rather than cool down? The internal body temperature of the Salmon at sea or in river may be colder that the ambient air temperature….
Bjorn,
I didn’t realise that you were a haruspex.
Salmon are, of course poikilothermic, and their body temperature is not much different from that of the water they are swimming in. Depending on environmental conditions it is quite possible that the entrails could be warming up rather than cooling down after death.
Julian
Spot on David, logical thinking at its finest!
The Salmon is cold-blooded so the entrails would not normally cool after slaughter 🙂
Bjorn,
I have wasted too many hours and let my clinics overrun trying to reason with some of these people. Far from being obnoxious they are usually likeable, kind-hearted and on the face of it, reasonable, at least until they start talking. Curiously my experience has been that the strangest views are held by the most intelligent members of this group – I suppose because they are better able to rationalise their odd beliefs. But intelligence does not imply critical thinking and is no substitute for education.
Julian,
What I talked of in my 4-part post, overnight, are NOT “strange views”, it is all, 100% of it, 100% proven fact. And if you carried out some in-depth, scholarly research into it, you too would be possessed of that life-changing knowledge. The proven facts of everyone’s survival of physical death are NOT “odd beliefs”; i) they are NOT ‘mere beliefs’, they are absolute proven facts, and ii) they are NOT ‘odd’. Again, they truly ARE absolute proven facts. It is you uninformed materialists/atheists on the planet who do not carry out ‘critical thinking’!! For you very wrongly interpret everything in life at their very illusory, face-value mere APPEARANCE, rather than carrying out extensive research and discovering the ACTUAL facts of the matter.
There are literally countless millions of examples of [multi-faceted] evidences which literally PROVE that yes, we do all survive [in our immortal spirit body form] the death of our physical body ‘coat’. And, no matter how much you may ‘disbelieve’ that, I repeat what I’ve said in other posts on this site, in this regard: that, on the eventual day on which you do what is so very incorrectly termed ‘die’, you will discover, IN THE MOST UNDENIABLE MANNER IMAGINABLE, that what I’ve told you (re. survival of ‘death’) IS the absolute truth!! And then it will be YOU who has egg on your face!!
It is most definitely not clever to ridicule things which truly have been absolutely proven. And the fact of survival of physical body ‘death’ HAS most definitely been absolutely proven.
If you can’t cope with the implications of that fact, then that’s YOUR problem, of course. But it does not give you a right to spew out ridiculing, disparaging, insulting words, to those of us (and there are countless millions of us, including very many properly-informed scientists, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, lawyers, etc etc; as I said in my 4-part piece, overnight) WHO ARE FAR MORE INFORMED THAN YOU ARE.
“What I talked of in my 4-part post, overnight, are NOT “strange views”, it is all, 100% of it, 100% proven fact.”
WHAT ABOUT SOME EVIDENCE THEN?
Edzard:
Well, your question really does ‘take the biscuit’. For in my 4-part overnight post, I related to you two excellent personal proofs I possess. I related both of them in more than enough detail to make even someone with ‘half a brain’ be able to comprehend…
I also told you that the literally countless millions (I do not use that phraseology, ‘countless millions’, loosely, I use it 100% factually) of properly-informed, spiritually-enlightened people, worldwide, also have THEIR own personal proofs of the fact that we do all survive (I repeat, in our immortal spirit body form) of the death of our physical body ‘coat’. (I should perhaps elucidate: the reason why the many millions of spiritually-enlightened people on the planet refer to our physical body as a ‘coat’ is because it is PRECISELY that: ie, in exactly the same way as an astronaut has to wear a ‘spacesuit’ to go into a different environment to that of Earth – ie, into ‘space’ – we, as the eternal, immortal soul/spirit beings that we all are, originating in the very real Spirit world/Spirit dimension of the in fact MULTI-dimensional cosmos, need to ‘wear’ our own ‘spacesuit’ in order to exist, for a time, on Earth: ie, that ‘spacesuit’ being our physical body. Which is why most spiritually-enlightened people wholly correctly refer to our physical body as our physical body ‘coat’.)
I also made the wholly factual, truthful point that the mountain-loads of multi-faceted evidences which demonstrate unequivocally that we DO all survive the death of our physical body [‘coat’] are so very numerous and so different in aspect that they comprise MORE THAN 20 DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF THE SAID EVIDENCES.
The veritable wealth of those multi-faceted evidences are related, in extreme detail, in the many, many thousands of very high-quality books published on this vital topic. I also emphasised that a large percentage of those many thousands of high-quality books on this ultimate truth of existence have been written BY the very many properly-informed, spiritually-enlightened scientists, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, lawyers, etc etc.
I also related that one of the 20+ CATEGORIES of the multi-faceted evidences comprises this: that the many people, worldwide, who are lucky enough to possess the spiritual gifts of clairvoyant sight and/or clairaudient hearing are able, when they are in the presence of someone who is about to do what is wholly incorrectly termed to ‘die’, to literally SEE that ‘dying’ person’s immortal soul/spirit body literally emerge from their physical body ‘coat’ (our immortal spirit body being what literally ANIMATES our physical body whilst we live on Earth; that is also why the physical body becomes motionless, after ‘death’: because the thing which literally ANIMATED it – the immortal spirit body – has just departed from that physical body). I also made the point that quite a number of doctors, nurses, worldwide, also are the lucky possessors of clairvoyant vision, and that hence, when with a person who is about to ‘die’, they, too, literally witness that person’s REAL nature – their immortal soul/spirit body – emerge from the dying PHYSICAL body.
Another of the 20+ categories of the multi-faceted evidences is something termed ‘Peak-in-Darien death-bed visions’. Research that… if you dare.
Also, why don’t you do some reading of the amazing proofs of survival of ‘death’ which are received from some people’s Near-Death Experiences? Some incontrovertible proofs have been acquired, from that aspect of the evidence. Many people who have an NDE, whilst in that out-of-body experience, have another person approach them; these NDE’s and/or OOBE’s take place in the initial part of the Spirit world/Spirit dimension. A person comes up to them, and introduces themself. And tells them their name. And also provides them with some specific information. The person having the NDE then survives that NDE, ie, returns, still in their physical body (ie, still [physically] ‘alive’), to the physical Earth dimension, and they tell a relative that a person approached them, whilst in that NDE situation.
Let me relate, briefly, one such proof.
A young boy of 8 or 9 was ‘dying’ of leukaemia. A few days before his ‘death’, he had an NDE (ie, his immortal spirit body left his physical body, for a short time). When he returned to the Earth dimension, he told his mother that, during that out-of-body experience, a man had come up to him (ie, a man who was what is wholly incorrectly termed ‘dead’/’deceased’). And that the man had said to the young boy, “Hello, my name is – – – – – [I can’t recall, without tracking down the particular case, what his name was]. I’m a former boyfriend of your mother. Please tell her that I say hello, and please also tell her that I now have my leg back again. She will know what I mean!”.
The little boy told his mum that. And she blanched. And told him that, some years before he, the boy, had been born, she’d indeed had a boyfriend of that name. And that he had lost one of his legs in an accident. She didn’t know that he had ‘died’. So she made some investigations, and discovered that indeed, he HAD done what’s wrongly termed ‘die’, a few months earlier.
(There are many, many examples of people having an NDE, during which someone (a person now living in their spirit body form) approaches them, tells them their name (the name they had when they were most recently on Earth), and some specific facts (as per the man who told the little boy to tell his mum that he had ‘got his leg back’). Then, when those people who’ve had the NDE survive it, and return to the physical Earth dimension, and they tell people in their family of what took place, there is always someone in that person’s family who says, “oh my god, i know him/her. That is 100% truth…”. And they realise that it provides PROOF that that person HAD survived the death of their PHYSICAL body ‘coat’.
The little boy (in the example which I related above) had known nothing of any of his mother’s boyfriends before he was born.
The reason why the mother’s former boyfriend had told the boy that he, the man, had ‘got his leg back’, is because it happens to be an absolute spiritual truth of existence that when we each return to our ACTUAL place of origin (ie, the very real Spirit world/Spirit dimension), that, no matter WHAT physical injuries/illnesses/disabilities we may have had in our PHYSICAL bodies, whilst on Earth, when we each return, in our SPIRIT body, to the Spirit world, all those physical injuries/illnesses/disabilities, etc, no longer exist. Precisely because all illnesses/injuries/disabilities, etc, ONLY exist in our PHYSICAL body, NOT in our immortal soul/spirit body form.
So, everyone who, for eg, becomes blind, deaf, loses their ability to speak, loses one or more limb, or one or more finger or toe, develops cancer, multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, and any other illness you care to mention, etc etc, when they arrive back in the Spirit world, by then existing in their SPIRIT body, those disabilities/injuries/illnesses, no longer exist. So, for example, a blind person on Earth, after they ‘die’ and thus return to the Spirit world, will find that they can see again; and ditto someone who on earth became deaf: on return to Spirit, they will find they regain their hearing ability; for we have SPIRITUAL sight and SPIRITUAL hearing. Those senses, on Earth, are dependent on our physical eyes and ears, yes, but NOT when we arrive back in the Spirit dimension. THEN we re-discover our spiritual sight, and spiritual hearing. And so on, & so on, & so on.
On the eventual days on which you all do what’s wholly incorrectly termed ‘die’, you, too, will discover that all these statements are the pure and simple truth.
There’s a well-known saying, “There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio” (I can’t recall from what literary work it comes from).
you are so clueless that you do not even know what is evidence and what not
https://edzardernst.com/2012/11/what-is-and-what-isnt-clinical-evidence-and-why-is-the-distinction-important/
Christine,
It was from Hamlet. It is probably the best-known literary work where one of the characters is named Horatio.
What about brain injury affecting the frontal lobe, which changes the personality? Will brain-damaged individuals be restored to their original personality? What happens if such injuries occur early in life so that the adult personality results from the damage – will they be restored as the person they might have been? Indeed, what about genetic disorders – are people to restored to what they would have been if they had different DNA?
Leaving aside physical problems, what about psychiatric disorders (some of which have a physical basis, of course)?
Christine
“PROVEN FACT”
You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Proven life-after-death would be pretty big news if it HAD been proven. Science would be all over it. So would every news outlet in the World. Nobel Prizes would be awarded. The science books would’ve been re-written.
Hasn’t happened, has it?
Possibly this is because science and the media can’t bring itself to confront “PROVEN FACT” and is conspiring to suppress the truth.
(Although they’re not doing a very good job of it, are they, if you’ve managed to find all this stuff out and books have been published about it)
Possibly this is because it’s a complete load of imaginary twaddle and confirmation bias validated by a mutual circle-jerk of fringe fruitcakes which decent scientists have looked at, tested, and found to be utter cobblers.
I’m going with the latter. But, because I’m a firm believer in science and evidence, if robust evidence is provided, I will be happy to change my mind. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And none has yet been provided which is a PROVEN FACT!!!!!!!
Lenny: I suggest you read the piece I’ve just a few minutes ago posted to Edzard. A little bit up the page from here.
I also suggest you carry out some reading of this subject. In my 4-part piece, posted overnight, I provided just a very few (approx. 15, can’t recall, without looking back at my post and counting them) of the many, many thousands of high-quality books that have been published, all of which provide INCONTROVERTIBLE proofs.
If you read any of the few which I provided overnight, as a short representative sample, then you’d be stunned. For you’d realise that it has, indeed, been proven, that we do survive the death of our PHYSICAL body ‘coat’.
Current ‘science’ is, very unfortunately, materialistic/atheistic in nature. That notwithstanding, there is most definitely proof that ‘death’ is NOT what it merely seems to be, when interpreted on its immensely illusory, face-value mere appearance.
I also suggest you wind your neck in, and stop giving out unwarranted insults to people who possess far greater knowledge than you do. There are very many true scientists (ie, those who go where the evidence leads, NOT merely following the false materialistic paradigm) and doctors, worldwide, who have discovered that ‘death’ is most emphatically NOT what it merely appears to be.
Read some of the books about this vital subject. If you read even just two or three, your attitude would be changed overnight.
I also reiterate: read my post to Edzard, a little bit up the page from this, my reply to you.
Christine
I discussed this with Billy Two-Rivers, my astral guide, and he says you’re talking a load of bollocks.
I have also discussed the matter with expert in the field Professor Chris French after I’d read Sam Parnia’s The Lazarus Effect and he explained to me the biases, errors and omissions in the book which fundamentally undermined its premise.
Anyone can publish a book. Anyone can get a crappy journal article published. Anyone can post a YouTube video. They prove nothing.
Not that you care. You have your faith, your beliefs, your inconsequential echo-chamber. Stay there.
We seem to have wandered into a curious thought-swamp. I thought there was to be discussion of current scholarly research (hopefully primary research) carried out by Christine into vaccination science. Now, we are somewhere else entirely.
Christine, you appear to be on dubious terrain semantically, as well as in other respects. There is no difference between “actual facts” and “facts”. You are needing to employ the word “claims”, I think, if you want to refer to assertions that in your opinion are unproven.
According to my late Mother, my grandfather was fond of quoting a line by the poet Burns: “Facts are chiels that winna ding, and downa be disputed”. (In modern English, Facts are children that won’t be overturned, and are beyond dispute”.
There are some interesting comments anent the Burns line and science, in this research blog: https://hangingtogether.org/?p=431
I am reminded of Geoffrey Madan’s suggestion that all churches should carry a notice over their entrance saying:
“Important if True”.
Geoffrey Madan’s Notebooks makes interesting reading, listing many observations that he made over the course of his life on a great diversity of subjects (did you know, for instance, that there were four words in the English language that have no rhyme? Silver, orange, month and I forget the fourth…).
Well, two things happen to you as you get older: One is, you lose your memory. And I forget the other…..
Christine, amongst anti-vaxxers, what is the split between female / male? Does it tend to be 50 / 50 or not? If not, what do you think it is, approximately?
Old Bob:
How am I supposed to know what the “split” between anti-vaxxers is, female/male!!! What sort of a ridiculous question is that?!? There are male anti-vaxxers and there are female anti-vaxxers; what makes someone an ‘anti-vaxxer’ is the amount of factual knowledge which they possess, on the subject, as opposed to people who gullibly fall for the blatant lies given out in the form of propaganda by the immensely corrupt ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment and their equally/even more corrupt boss, the worldwide Chemical/Pharmaceutical Industry.
The latter (as I mentioned in my overnight post) have only one motivation for making the vile chemicals which they do: the acquisition of ‘filthy lucre’.
And that makes them disgusting examples of humanity: as countless millions of people who heartily despise the very corrupt, ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment, already know.
This is my reason (but it spoils your natural (possible) answer): both the UK and USA passed equality laws back in 1971 (or thereabouts) and yet even today, men are paid more… do you get my drift? (maternal vs paternal care)?
Here are some very relevant words (re. the horrific medical fraud of ‘vaccines’) from Robert F Kennedy Jr (a nephew of the assassinated JFK; Robert F Kennedy Jr’s own father, Robert Kennedy, was himself assassinated in 1968):
START OF QUOTE:
“Recent medical history overflows with other examples of the brutal suppression of any science that exposes vaccines’ risks; its casualties include brilliant and compassionate doctors and scientists like Dr Waney Squier, the railroaded British gastroenterologist Andy Wakefield, the steadfast father/son research team David and Dr Mark Geier, and Italian biochemist Antionetta Gatti. Any just society would have built statues to these visionaries and honored them with laurels and leadership. OUR CORRUPT MEDICAL OFFICIALS have systematically disgraced and silenced them.
In England a neuropathologist, Dr Waney Squier of the Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford, testified in a series of cases on behalf of defendants accused of inflicting ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’. Squier believed that, in these cases, vaccines and not physical trauma had caused the infants’ brain injuries. In March 2016, the Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal Service [MPTS] charged her with falsifying evidence and lying and struck her from the medical register. Squier appealed the tribunal’s decision in November 2016. The High Court of England reversed the MPTS’s decision, concluding, ‘The determination of the MPTS is in many significant ways flawed’.
Professor Peter Gotzsche co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 to remedy THE OVERWHELMING CORRUPTION OF PUBLISHED SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS BY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES. Over 30,000 of the world’s leading scientists joined Cochrane as volunteer reviewers hoping to restore independence and integrity to published science. Gotzsche was responsible for making Cochrane the the world’s leading independent research institute. He also founded the Nordic Cochrane Center in 2003. On October 29, 2018, pharmaceutical interests, LED BY BILL GATES, finally succeeded in ousting Professor Gotzsche. A stacked Board controlled by Gates fired Gotzsche from the Cochrane Collaboration after he published a well-founded criticism of the HPV vaccine. In 2018, the Danish government, under pressure from Pharma, fired Peter Gotzsche from Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen. His findings about the HPV vaccine threatened the pharmaceutical industry’s earnings”.
END OF QUOTE.
Robert F Kennedy Jr ???
you can’t be serious!
Edzard: Oh, I CAN be serious. What do you have against Robt Kennedy Jr.? He’s one of the very many indefatigable fighters for the dangerousness of ‘vaccines’ to be made known, officially.
nothing, except he’s an 18 carat loon
Certified.
https://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/05/204-robert-kennedy-jr.html
Dr Julian,
In response to your questions to me in your post approx. half-an-hour ago. The answer to all of those questions is YES.
WHATEVER people suffer/experience in their PHYSICAL body will NOT be experienced when they’re back in the Spirit realms, they by then being back in our essential form, ie, our eternal, immortal soul/spirit body form. It IS the way it is, and no matter how many sceptics may fight against accepting it, it is the truth. And, on the eventual days on which they return to the wholly real Spirit world/Spirit dimension, they will discover that that is so, in a way in which they will not be able to deny.
All physical sufferings – illnesses, disabilities, etc, will no longer exist, in the spirit body, and equally, no ‘psychiatric’/’mental’ sufferings will exist, either. So yes, people who have ‘psychiatric’ conditions will be restored to good ‘mental’ health. And so on & so on. There are plenty of documented examples, worldwide, which demonstrate that this is indeed the truth.
I am relieved to hear that. I expect Jashak will be, too.
JMK:
I can only reiterate: that on the eventual day on which you do what is wholly incorrectly termed ‘die’, you will be forced to face that it was you materialistically-thinking sceptics who were wrong, and that we better, properly-informed Spiritualists, were right. You will be in a position, on that day, when you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DENY IT.
See you there (eventually). I’ll gladly accept your graciously-made apology.
@Christine Thompson,
Quote:”See you there (eventually)”
How do we meet and even reckognize each other on the `other side´?
(You know, I´m afraid that I could do all the apologizing to a wrong spirit, maybe even the spirit of a former sceptic… how embarassing). Mmmh, not so easy without our “physical body coats” (and missing all of our senses, of course).
But I have an idea: I will carry the spirit of a daisy with me, so your spirit can easily identify my spirit. Does this work for you?!
Looking forward to your advice!
Jashak:
I’ve just come back to my computer, and have seen your post, with its question[s].
Okay, here are the answers (the 100% factually correct answers; what I say will NOT have been ‘made up’, will NOT have been ‘imagined’; what I’ll tell you is what the known facts re. this aspect of Survival actually are).
1) How do we meet/recognise each other, in the Afterlife (the Spirit world/Spirit dimension [of this MULTI-dimensional cosmos]/or, as you referred to it, ‘the Other Side’)?
I apologise for the fact that this will have of necessity to be a rather longwinded explanation; there’s no quick way of relating it.
When one is a soul/Spirit being in the Spirit dimension, all you have to do is to THINK of the person you want to see/or of the place you wish to be, and you will then instantaneously BE in that person [Spirit’s] presence/BE at/in that place. I hear you say “What nonsense!”. But NO, actually it’s NOT ‘nonsense’, it happens to be the very real truth; very many people have communicated, from after their [wrongly termed] ‘death’, with people on Earth (THROUGH a medium) (AND I, should add here, people who’ve had a Near-Death Experience and survived it, also have related what I’ve just said), and they impart the information that because the thing which ‘drives’ everything in existence is Mind, that, as a result, when one is in the immensely finer vibratory frequencies of the Spirit dimension (for it is a fact that literally EVERYTHING in the cosmos is energy, vibrating at different frequencies) – ie, the energy in the Spirit realms vibrates at immensely more rapid speeds than does the energy in a physical dimension [eg, here on Earth], that that fact produces the effect that WHATEVER one thinks of, will happen: LITERALLY INSTANTANEOUSLY.
So, if Spirit person A is in the Afterlife realm, and say, for sake of argument, that they wish to see and communicate with one or both of their parents [or spouse, or sibling, or grandparent, whoever] who’d returned to Spirit twenty or so years earlier, then all they have to do is to think of their parents, that they want to see them; what will then happen will either be a) that the Spirits of that person A’s parents will INSTANTANEOUSLY appear to Spirit person A; or b), Spirit person A will INSTANTANEOUSLY be ‘whisked’ away and find themself INSTANTANEOUSLY with their parents [the latter being in their spirit form, of course].
Exactly the same thing applies, if Spirit person A wishes to be in a certain place… all they have to do is think ‘I want to be in ……’, and they will instanteously be there.
And here I need to slightly expand those answers. I mentioned earlier in this post that not only have souls in Spirit communicated the above data to people on Earth, through the many proven genuine mediums, worldwide, but I also stated that people who’ve had a Near-Death Experience, and who survive that NDE, also relate what I explained above, with regard to how one ‘finds’ people/places, in the Afterlife; when in the Spirit dimensions, during an NDE, an experiencer will think of someone specific, or a place, and they will find themselves INSTANTANEOUSLY with that person, or in that place.
And, as a further fact, in this regard, when one is in the Spirit dimensions, whether it be after one’s [wrongly termed] ‘death’ OR during a NDE, people discover that if they think of a person who is on Earth, or if they think of a specific place on Earth, that, again, they find themselves (in either circumstance, they being in their Spirit body form, of course) INSTANTANEOUSLY with that person or in that place. So, to clarify what I mean by that, let me relate how people who’ve had an NDE, but survived it, tell their family members what they experienced. Say person A lives in Australia [it doesn’t matter where, I’m just choosing ‘the land of Oz’ for my example; I’d had a holiday booked to go to Sydney this November, but now it’s off, due to the fascist situation on the planet…], an adult, with their partner, and that person A’s parents live in the UK. Say that son or daughter in Australia gets into difficulties when swimming off Bondi Beach. And that difficulty causes them to ALMOST drown. That NEAR-drowning causes them to go into an NDE situation. IE, their immortal spirit body form (the thing which animates our physical body ‘coat’ throughout each lifetime) literally comes out of the physical body; by the way, the spirit body is attached to our physical body by a ‘cord’; a cord of pulsating energy; THAT CORD HAS BEEN SEEN, BY MANY, MANY PEOPLE, WORLDWIDE. That ‘cord’ keeps our spirit body and our physical body joined UNTIL it is our time to return to the Spirit dimension. When that ‘drowning’ person’s spirit body comes out of the physical body, during the NDE, and that person, in fear, thinking “oh no, am I going to drown, don’t let me drown….”, etc…, if they then think, “I hope I’m going to see my mum and dad again..”, then that act of THINKING about their parents will cause them to immediately be able to see their parents [who live in the UK]; person A sees their mother and father, at home in the UK, and sees, in detail, what they are doing. Person A then is saved from drowning (in my example, a Coastguard on Bondi Beach managed to get to them and save them, before it was too late). When, after that person A has recovered from their ordeal, and they telephone their parents, they relate how, when in the NDE situation, and they’d thought of them, his/her parents, and they tell them that they saw them doing whatever they were doing: in very specific, detailed terms. For eg, person A might say, “Mum, when I was in the NDE situation, and I thought of you and dad, I saw that you were in the lounge, laying on the sofa, suffering with a very bad headache; I saw that the curtains were drawn, for you could not cope with the sunshine, it made your headache worse; and when I thought of dad, I instantaneously saw him; he was climbing up the ladder to the loft; I heard him say to you that he wanted to find a box with some old photos in it”.
When person A relates to his mother the very specific things he/she had seen his/her parents doing, in the UK, whilst they, person A, was in the middle of an NDE in the sea off Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, the mother says “oh my god, how on earth could you know that??? At that very time I WAS laying on the sofa in the lounge, suffering with a very bad headache; I’d asked your father to draw the curtains, for the sun made my headache worse; and yes, your father WAS indeed climbing the ladder into the roof; he WAS trying to find a box with some photographs in it!”.
Many, many thousands of documented REAL examples exist, just like the fictional example I’ve provided above, to explain how it works. Ie, when one is in the Spirit dimensions, be it after one’s ‘death’ or temporarily, during an NDE, merely thinking about a person or a place will cause that person in the Spirit realms to instantaneously be with that person/see that person [even if they are in another country], or in the specific place which they’d wanted to be.
I apologise for the extreme longwinded-ness (or longwindedness?) of that explanation. But it IS the way it actually is. A plethora of documented examples exist, globally.
And no, Jashak, no-one, when in the Spirit dimension, is ‘without any senses’; when we arrive back there, we won’t have our PHYSICAL sight and hearing, no, but (as I’ve mentioned in an earlier post), we will all have our spiritual sight and our spiritual hearing. That IS how it is. It’s all ‘built in to’ the spirit body form. We’ll all REMEMBER exactly how it works, when we each return to our actual place of origin, the Spirit dimension [of this MULTI-dimensional cosmos].
Also, it should be clarified that, whilst some spirits, on their initial arrival back in the Spirit world, communicate, for just a short ‘time’, in the way we do on Earth – verbally – the normal way of communication when in the Spirit dimension is via telepathy. That is a 100% established fact.
Plenty of people who’ve had NDEs and survived them, and who, when in that Spirit world environment during the NDE, have met up with [wrongly termed] ‘deceased’ relatives, and/or other souls in spirit, testify to the fact that yes, communication is via telepathy. They say such things as “we communicated without speaking; we communicated via THINKING the words into each other’s minds”. There’s a quite well-known documented example of this; a five-year-old girl [I think her name was given as Katie in the documentation] who had an NDE, and who told Dr Melvin Morse (an American paediatrician who’s written a number of high-quality books on the Near-Death Experience) of how she communicated with spirit people during her time in the spirit realm whilst having her NDE: she told him (in her five-year-old’s way of expressing of what she’d experienced…) “We spoke with our think…”. Ie, telepathy.
Yes, a daisy will work fine, for me!!!
(You’d said, in your post at about 1.40pm today, 5th Aug., “I have an idea: I will carry the spirit of a daisy with me, so your spirit can easily identify my spirit. Does this work for you?!”.)
@ Christine Thompson,
I understand that you have very detailed ideas about the afterlife. However, I simply do not think that the reasons that you give for holding these beliefs (i.e. your epistemology, which includes things like Near-Death Experiences, spiritual mediums, etc. ) are sufficient to warrant your beliefs.
I do not have the time or interest to discuss this with you in detail, but since you are quite eloquent in communicating your ideas, I would suggest that you call-in a show called “Truth wanted”. It´s a friendly show and the guys there talk (in a polite manner) with the callers about their beliefs and why they hold them. It is live every Saturday around noon, US time zone (if my memory serves me right). Could be interesting for you (and the viewers).
https://www.youtube.com/c/TruthWanted/featured
Well, Dr. JMK, at least there is a glimmer of hope that I can then have a dicussion with her on equal terms. And a quite extended one as well! 🙂
Good thing that we will have an eternity to discuss things, because it will certainly take a vast amount of time for me to understand how Christine Thompson´s epistemologic methods, here & now (in this reality), could have been the correct path to the truth about an afterlife…
Dr Julian,
Thank you for clarifying from which literary work the ‘Horatio’ quote I mentioned, comes from.
Amongst my 1000+ books in my personal library, I do in fact have a “The complete works of Shakespeare”, but have not, as yet, begun to read any of it. So could not recall where the quote originated from.
And that brings up another ‘controversial’ topic…! There’s one hell of a lot of evidence that ‘the works of Shakespeare’ were NOT written by ‘William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon’. For centuries, debate has been carried out with regard to this question; I recall reading, decades ago, that on Shakespeare of Stratford’s marriage record in the local parish register, he could only ‘make his mark’; ie, merely a cross. That was what illiterate people did: merely make a ‘cross’ sign. If ‘William Shakespeare of Stratford’ HAD been the author of ‘the works of Shakespeare’, then he would most definitely have been able to sign his name, on the record of his marriage to Anne Hathaway.
Whilst there have been several possible contenders for who actually wrote the Shakespeare canon, one of the front-runners for a long time has been Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. And in fact, just a week ago I received in the post a 400pp+ biography of him, written with the aim of providing evidence which supports indeed, he, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604) was the ACTUAL author of ‘the works of Shakespeare’.
I’ve so far only read the Introduction. And in there is the most amazing data: detail of specific events in the life of de Vere which are literally the detailed events in many of the plays in the Shakespeare canon.
Here’s the words of Orson Welles, on the subject (from the aforementioned Introduction to the book cited above – author being an American, Mark Anderson):
“‘I think [the Earl of] Oxford wrote Shakespeare’, the film-maker and leading Shakespearean actor and director of the first half of the twentieth century , Orson Welles, told an interviewer in 1954. ‘If you don’t accept that, then there are some awful funny coincidences to explain away’. In the half-century since the screen legend uttered those prophetic words, countless scholars and investigators have compounded those ‘awful funny coincidences’ to the point that every corner of the Shakespeare canon has now been found to contain snippets or passages from de Vere’s life and times”.
Those ‘awful funny coincidences’ are then related in much detail. And that is just in the Introduction to the biography.
The ‘Establishment’ tells the world a pack of lies about 99% of the BIG stuff of life… even with regard to who the actual author of ‘Shakespeare’ was.
And Mozart couldn’t play a note…..
We seem rather to have strayed from scholarly research into the science of vaccination……
‘David B: there is NO ‘science’ behind ‘vaccination’. You merely THINK there is, because you are brainwashed into thinking so by the immensely corrupt ‘orthodox’ Medical Establishment (and their even more corrupt boss, the worldwide Chemical/Pharmaceutical Industry).
You ‘believers’ in ‘vaccines’ are so very, very naive. I pity you all.
Find out just how very many deaths, paralyses, lifelong disablements, and lifelong serious ill-health, worldwide, have been PROVEN, ADMITTED to have been caused by ‘vaccines’. And then I dare you to still support ‘vaccines’.
I think you are ascribing different meanings to English-language words from the meanings I understand them to have.
I’m rather a fan of American English, and I think the general meaning of “science” in American English is the same as its meaning in British English.
Judging from your claim however, that there is no ‘science’ behind ‘vaccination’, the word must have a different meaning for you from that which it has for me.
Christine,
May I recommend you add James Shapiro’s Contested Will to your library (and read it). It thoroughly debunks these and many other spurious conspiracy theories about the provenance of Shakespeare’s works. Shapiro is Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia University and one of the foremost Shakespeare scholars in the world. His work is far more enlightening than the conspiracy theories.
Alex
Alex:
If the James Shapiro is the one I think he is, then I’ve come across him, elsewhere. I’ll look up your recommendation, though do not promise I’ll read it. If he’s the chap I think he may be, then he is someone who frequently ridicules anything that is not ‘orthodox’.
If he is ‘one of the foremost Shakespeare scholars in the world’, then he quite obviously has his ‘official narrative’ to defend. Which means his writings may not necessarily be trustworthy. They may be, I grant you, but then again, they may not. I’ll take a look.
In the book which I mentioned to JMK yesterday (after he clarified for me the origin of the ‘Horatio’ quote I included in one of my posts), re. the very real possibility that “Will Shakespeare of Stratford” may not necessarily have been the author of the ‘works of Shakespeare’, not only did it quote (in the Intro.) the words of Orson Welles, uttered in 1954, in this regard, but it also elaborated on some of the many events in the life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, which are EXACTLY the same as so very many of the events described in the Shakespeare canon. And that was just in the book’s Introduction. See below. The book, by the way (I had a feeling, last night, that I may have forgotten to include in my post to JMK the actual title; I did mention the author), is entitled “‘Shakespeare’ by another name”, by an American, Mark Anderson. Published 2005.
After the citation, in the Intro., of the words of Orson Welles, re. the authorship of ‘Shakespeare’, on the same page, the author, Mark Anderson, writes the following. In fact, I will here repeat the paragraph quoting Welles’ words, for only then will the bit following it make sense. N.B., the author, Anderson, says that in the book, including in the section of the Intro. I’ll provide below, he types Shakespearean characters in capital letters, and the titles of Shakespeare plays in italics.
START OF QUOTE:
“I think [the Earl of] Oxford wrote Shakespeare”, the film-maker and leading Shakespearean actor and director of the first half of the twentieth century, Orson Welles, told an interviewer in 1954. ‘If you don’t [accept that], there are some awful funny coincidences to explain away’. In the half century since the screen legend uttered those prophetic words, countless scholars and investigators have compounded those ‘awful funny coincidences’ to the point that every corner of the Shakespeare canon has now been found to contain snippets or passage from de Vere’s life and times.
De Vere became entangled in aa love affair that led to an interfamilial war – Elizabethan Montagues and Capulets. While travelling in France, de Vere suffered the devilish whisperings of his own IAGO, who ignited de Vere’s jealousy over his wife’s alleged infidelities. De Vere lived in Venice and went into debt borrowing from the local loan merchants. De Vere’s first marriage produced three daughters who inherited their alienated father’s family seat while he was still alive [King Lear – in italics]. He had a close but rocky relationship with Queen Elizabeth – whom he portrayed variously as the witty and charming OLIVIA [Twelfth Night – in italics], the powerful vixen CLEOPATRA, the cloying VENUS, and the compromised CRESSIDA. De Vere’s father-in-law was the historical prototype for POLONIUS; de Vere’s brother-in-law wass the original for PETRUCHIO; de Vere’s sister the model for PETRUCHIO’S KATE; his first wife for OPHELIA, DESDEMONA, and HERO (among many others); de Vere’s second wife for PORTIA; his eldest daughter for MIRANDA; her husband for MIRANDA’S FERDINAND.
Perhaps the most autobiographical play in Shakespeare is Hamlet [typed in italics], with multifarious connections to de Vere’s life that are discussed in nearly every chapter of this book. For example, when de Vere was travelling through France at age twenty-six, he encountered a Teutonic prince who paraded his troops before de Vere’s eyes. Soon thereafter, de Vere boarded a ship that was overtaken by pirates, and de Vere was stripped naked and left on the English shore. In Act 4 of Hamlet [typed in italics], in a sequence that is in no known source text for the play, Hamlet first witnesses the invading PRINCE FORTINBRAS’S troops and then boards a ship that is overtaken by pirates, in an ordeal that leaves a humiliated Hamlet stripped naked on the Danish shore”.
END OF QUOTE FROM THE INTRO. TO THE BOOK
The only way you could even attempt to claim that the explanation for the above is that Shakespeare of Stratford (the CLAIMED author of ‘the works of Shakespeare’) was very pally with Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, that they frequently spent time together in the local taverns, knocking back pints, and that, during those social times, de Vere ‘just happened’ to relate to Shakespeare of Stratford all the many events of his life, in much detail, that the Stratford Shakespeare made a very detailed mental note of it all, in his head, and that he then went back home and, over whatever number of years, churned out ‘the works of Shakespeare’, including all the many, and extremely detailed events in de Vere’s life, which de Vere ‘just happened’ to have related to ‘Will of Stratford’, whilst they were ‘down at the tavern’.
It’s far more likely that de Vere is the ACTUAL author of ‘the works of Shakespeare’.
Alex:
I’ve just ordered a copy of the book you recommended me to read: James Shapiro’s “Contested Will: who wrote Shakespeare”. Thank you. I will [eventually] read it, though it’s very obvious to me that his vote for the authorship will go to ‘Will of Stratford’. I have a somewhat different view, from the little [but extremely evidential data] I’ve so far read of the scholarly biography of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. I will probably continue reading the latter, before I eventually address the Shapiro volume.
Christine,
The works of Shakespeare are probably among the most worthwhile reading in anybody’s library, though it is far better to see the plays performed.
I was at school with Charles Vere, now Lord Burford, and I am well aware of his campaign promoting his ancestor, the Earl of OXford, as well as other strange ideas about Shakespeare. The truth is that there is very little information preserved about Shakespeare the man which leaves lots of gaps to be filled in with imaginative theories.
Most people don’t like gaps of this kind, and it takes a particular kind of intellectual honesty to admit that there are things that we just don’t know without making up and then believing plausible explanations.
JMK:
Please read my reply to Alex Elmer, above.
The data which supports the very real possibility that the author of ‘the works of Shakespeare’ was Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and not ‘Will of Stratford’, is NOT ‘made up’!! Read my post to Alex, above.
The data which I typed out is merely from the Introduction to the cited book, and there are 400+pp of the actual text still to read. Text which provides even more supportive data (plus 100+pp of detailed notes, after the main text).
People who constantly ‘believe’ and follow ‘orthodoxy’, WHATEVER the subject matter, will, in 99% of cases, be on the wrong side. For it is very sadly the case that the Establishment on planet Earth has no intellectual morals; for the greater part of what comes under ‘orthodoxy’ is 100% incorrect. As very many people (those of us who know that ‘orthodoxy’ has things all wrong] are fully aware of.
‘Orthodox’ science is (in many areas) false; ‘orthodox’ medicine is (in very many areas) false; ‘orthodox’ religion is 100% false (the proven SPIRITUAL truths are, on the other hand, 100% proven fact); ‘orthodox’ history is [in many areas] false (and I happen to know what I’m talking about there, too, for my main subject of interest is history, as I mentioned in one of my early posts, a few days ago).
Etc etc etc
Between 1980 and 2001 I lived and worked in London. Separate from my actual paid work [I was in the Civil Service], I was a genealogist. I was a member of the Society of Genealogists, there in London.
The irony is that ‘genealogy’ is not true, either. Why?? Well, because that, too, is based on a materialistic assumption about the nature of ‘life’ and ‘death’. The ACTUAL fact is that not only do we all survive the death of our physical body ‘coat’, but reincarnation, too, is proven to be another spiritual truth of existence.
When I carried out one hell of a lot of genealogical research (I did some for other people, as well as my own family ‘lines’), and, in the case of my own ‘family history’, took back more than 70 families, on both our maternal and paternal sides, and got several lines back to the late 16th century, and most others to the 17th century and early 18th century, NONE of those “ancestors” are actually my ‘ancestors’ in the way that people who assume that life is merely materialistic, would merely assume. For, the fact that reincarnation is a proven fact, means that, for eg, when my maternal grandfather in this lifetime was aged 9 [he was born in 1907], ie, in 1916, the eternal soul that I am was actually living in a different physical body, and was a woman married to the soul of the man who was my longterm partner in this lifetime [he passed to Spirit last year, aged 70]; he, in that lifetime, was a soldier who got killed in France in the 1st WW. So I was a woman on Earth, at the same time as my future maternal grandfather in THIS lifetime was a mere kid of 9!
Those FACTS make a mockery of ‘genealogy’. And many wised-up people on Earth are aware of THAT, too.
The irony of you, JMK, making veiled (and not so veiled) mocking remarks to me, re. my telling you the proven fact of survival of the death of one’s physical body ‘coat’, is this: in an earlier post, I related the fact that people on Earth who are lucky enough to possess the spiritual gifts of clairvoyant sight and clairaudient hearing, when in the presence of someone who is about to do what is very incorrectly termed to ‘die’, will themselves SEE (WITH their clairvoyant sight) that ‘dying’ person’s immortal spirit body literally emerging from their physical body ‘coat’. And I added to that, that there are some doctors and nurses, round the world, who also are lucky enough to possess clairvoyant sight and clairaudient hearing. And that, as a result, when they are in the presence of someone about to ‘die’, they, too, witness that person’s immortal spirit body literally departing from the physical body ‘shell’.
So the irony which I mentioned, is this: that, when you worked as an ‘oncologist’, even though you would not have been aware, there may have been one or more doctors and nurses with whom you’ve worked, in your career, who themselves possessed clairvoyant sight, and who thus were aware, from personally witnessing the ACTUAL nature of that event, that it is not what it merely SEEMS to be. So, unless they’d mentioned it to you – which they would probably not have done, for they know that society en masse is not yet mature enough to accept the proven truth of Survival – you would be unaware that they had a (literally) different VIEW of ‘death’ than you have. Due to your not possessing the spiritual gift of clairvoyant sight and clairaudient hearing.
It’s not very clever to follow what passes for ‘orthodoxy’!
Lenny:
I’ve been away from the computer for several hours (as I DO actually have other things to do in my life, I don’t glue myself to the Internet all my life long…), so I’ve only just seen posts made in the last few hours.
And yours (made a few hours ago) was the first one I came to. There was no ‘reply’ button shown, to click on, so have had to open a post.
NO, for your information I am NOT a ‘Young Earth Creationist’. And neither am I a ‘Flat-Earther’.
What is wrong with you people who make such crass mere ASSUMPTIONS, about people, huh??
Just because someone says they don’t accept ‘orthodox’ ‘evolution’ (as per the ‘Darwinist’ claims), does NOT equate to “oh well, they must be a ‘Young Earth Creationist'”.
In fact, I heartily despise people who are YECs.
You people on here who blindly follow ‘orthodoxy’ have less than no idea, have you… there happens, in truth, to be NO objective evidence to support ‘Darwinism’. ALL that the ‘fossil record’ shows (FAR from showing a plethora of transitional forms – which it would HAVE to do, in order to prove its case), is STASIS!!
And the few honest people in the ‘Darwinist’ camp who have been candid enough to not simply trot out the “evolution is proven’ lies – for eg, the ‘late’ Stephen Jay Gould, and others – ADMIT that no, the ‘fossil record’ does NOT support the mere claims of ‘Darwinism’, not one iota. They admit that ALL that the ‘fossil record’ manifests is STASIS, STASIS, and MORE STASIS.
And, just to revert back to your equally despicable suggestion that I might be a ‘Flat Earther’. NO, I am of course NOT a ‘Flat Earther’; they, too, are totally barking up the wrong tree.
I have other things to do, this evening, so will probably not be looking at the computer again untill late tonight, or tomorrow. I will then address whatever other posts may be addressed to me.
But one thing, before that; why is it that ALL you people who post on these sceptic websites (back in 2013/2014, somewhere around that time, I locked horns with the vilest of vile scepticss on the RatSkep site. One which is notorious for spewing out the most disgusting abuse to anyone who does not follow the ‘orthodox’ route, in any sphere of life/existence) always spew out such vile, toxic words, huh?? (a rhetorical question…)
There is something very wrong with the way of thinking of all those in life who stubbornly choose to follow the ‘orthodox’ claims about major aspects of life (whatever those aspects might be), and then refuse to listen to anything which strays outside those mere CLAIMS.
The horror, of course, for all you blind followers of ‘orthodoxy’, is that on the eventual days on which you do what is so very incorrectly termed ‘die’, you will all discover (to your horror and shame and embarrassment) that we DO in truth all survive [in our immortal soul/spirit body form] the death of our physical body ‘coat’. You will discover it in a way which will make it impossible for you all to deny. Ie, you will all HAVE to face that yes, you will have survived the death of your physical body. And that will be where your shame and guilt will kick in: for having abused, so very vilely, a woman who was trying to educate you all into what happens to be PROVEN truths. But that you all very wrongly chose to reject what she told you; including the fact that not one of you has addressed any of the several examples of incontrovertible evidences which I’ve posted, over the last few days, re. the fact of survival of physical body death… but that is par for the course with materialistic sceptics… you all ignore the evidence, hoping that if you do so, that it will all go away, and then you could go on living in your little false bubbles of materialistic thinking.
Which is your problem.
Materialism HAS been disproven. With the countless millions of INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOFS of the fact that we do all survive (in our immortal soul/spirit body form) the immensely illusory event that’s wholly incorrectly termed ‘death’.
And it actually doesn’t matter that you ‘don’t believe’ what I say. For on the eventual days on which you do all do what’s so very incorrectly termed ‘die’, you will not be able to deny it any longer!!!
I have things to do. I will be back on the computer later this evening, or tomorrow. When I’ll reply to any other posts that may have been made, in the last few hours.
Christine.
You stated earlier:
I responded with a detailed summary of how chemotherapy and radiotherapy is used in practice (indeed I have undergone both of these treatments myself). I also asked you whether you had any evidence in support of this “well-established fact”.
Your answer?
Apart from being very rude, that is the response of somebody who doesn’t actually have an answer. It is also quite arrogant as there has been nothing in your posts to suggest that you have much idea of what goes on in a cancer centre.
Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised as you seem to have a low opinion of a lot of people. I was brought up to regard everybody as equals, and after a career in medicine, seeing people from all walks of life at their most vulnerable with all the masks stripped away I have never had reason to change my views on this.
I am inclined to agree with you here. I don’t think it is right to make assumptions about people and in any case it tends to be counter-productive. Sometimes you have to make assumptions about things, when it is very important that you are clear about what is an assumption and what isn’t.
I think you are the one making assumptions here, in this case about what Darwin said. “On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection” should be on everybody’s reading list as an example of clear, well-reasoned writing with detailed evidence supporting what were at the time very controversial views (his other books are also well worth reading – he was a very entertaining writer). His theory of evolution (note the scientific use of the word “theory”, which is quite different from how it is used in common parlance) does not rest on the fossil record, which in any case is very incomplete. If you want us to take your academic credentials seriously, you should at least demonstrate that you have taken the trouble to understand his arguments before setting out to refute them.
So do we all. I am going to get back to the Bach trio sonata that I am trying to learn at the moment. That is a meaty challenge which really stretches me.
Christine
Interesting. And yet you say
So you are stubbornly choosing to follow the ‘orthodox’ claims about major aspects of life WHATEVER THEY MAY BE – in this case flat Earth, YEC and geocentrism – and refusing to listen to anything which strays outside these claims?
How strange.
The Flat Earthers, geocentrists and Young Earth Creationists, just like you, have read lots of books, Christine. They, too have their INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOFS. They have their PROVEN truths.
Christine. As well as being a demonstrable fool, you are also a hypocritical fool. By your own words you have been damned.
I am no longer going to try to reason with you immensely materialistic people.
Your thinking on all the BIG, major aspects of life (ie, the ACTUAL proven natures of ‘life’, ‘death’, etc etc) is so very naive and uninformed.
What I have told you all are NOT my “mere beliefs”, they truly do happen to be proven. In my earlier posts on this site, over the last few days, I related, in detail, 2 personal proofs of the fact of Survival which cannot be refuted, cannot be ‘explained away’, and I also related an equally incontrovertible example, that of a little boy ‘dying’ of leukaemia, who, in an NDE he had a few days before his ‘death’, was approached by a man, who gave him his name and told him he was one of the boy’s mother’s former boyfriends, from before the boy was born. He told the boy to tell his mum that ‘he has his leg back’. Etc etc (I’m not going to RE-relate the account here, when I did it in full, 2 or 3 days ago).
Not one of you has even deigned to mention one of those MERE 3 examples of evidences. Evidences which are all totally incontrovertible.
I made the point that the countless millions (more than 1-2 billion+, more likely), worldwide, who are PROPERLY informed on the actual nature of ‘death’ have their own personal proofs, and I also correctly stated that there are countless millions of documented examples of incontrovertible evidences which PROVE that Survival is a very definite fact.
I reiterate: what I have told you, in my posts over the last few days, is NOT ‘mere belief’. You are WRONGLY claiming that what I’ve talked of are ‘mere beliefs’ BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL (UNINFORMED) MATERIALISTS/ATHEISTS, and who therefore do not want to have to face that YOU it is who are the on the wrong side of this wrongly-termed ‘controversy’.
AS YOU WILL ALL, ONE DAY, FIND OUT: THE EVENTUAL DAYS ON WHICH YOU DO WHAT IS SO VERY WRONGLY TERMED ‘DIE’. You will all discover, in the most undeniable manner, that all I told you WAS the literal truth.
I’ve also told you that numerous properly-informed, spiritually-enlightened scientists, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, lawyers, and all the jobs one cares to mention, are fully aware of the veritable wealth, mountain-loads, in fact, of incontrovertible evidences which demonstrate that oh yes, we do all survive (in our immortal spirit body form) the very illusory, hugely misinterpreted, ‘death’.
I’ve also informed you that a large percentage of the many thousands of high-quality, scholarly books published on the Survival of ‘death’ truth have been written BY those properly-informed, spiritually-enlightened scientists, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, lawyers, etc etc. I even listed some of the books written by such spiritually-enlightened scientists, doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, lawyers, in the short representative book list, a few days ago (there have been many thousands of books on this vital subject published, and they all provide very high-quality evidences [covering the TWENTY+ CATEGORIES of those evidences] which provide incontrovertible proof of the fact of Survival.
I also informed you of the many people on Earth who are lucky enough to possess the spiritual gifts of clairvoyant sight and/or clairaudient hearing; gifts which enable them, if they are in the presence of someone who is about to do what is so very wrongly termed ‘die’, to WITNESS that ‘dying’ person’s immortal spirit body literally emerge from the dying PHYSICAL body, and return to the Spirit dimension [of this in fact MULTI-dimensional cosmos].
I added, to that, the fact that some doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel, worldwide, also possess clairvoyant sight and/or clairaudient hearing, and that, as a result, they, too, when with someone about to ‘die’, have witnessed that person’s immortal soul/spirit body literally leave the physical body ‘coat’. I told you that there are innumerable DOCUMENTED examples of clairvoyantly-sighted people, worldwide, being a literal witness of the soul/spirit body departing from the dying PHYSICAL body; and that some of those witnesses of that event are doctors, nurses, etc.
But you have chosen to literally disregard ALL that I have said, on this. You have chosen to not even refer to the examples of incontrovertible evidences I provided, nor to even refer to what I’ve reminded you all of, above: ie, the clairvoyant witnessing, by many people, worldwide [including by clairvoyantly-sighted doctors and nurses]. of a ‘dying’ person’s immortal soul/spirit body literally emerging from the physical body, at the extremely misinterpreted event that’s wrongly termed ‘death’.
Because you have all chosen (as the naive materialists/atheists that you all are) to ignore the evidences I’ve related to you, and equally chosen to ignore the fact of clairvoyant witnessing of the immortal spirit body departing from the physical, at ‘death, there is no point in my continuing further on this site.
It’s a waste of someone’s good time to persevere with people who are adamantly materialistic and atheistic.
in the 1990s, I had an exchange of correspondence with the well-known Maltese-Australian, Dr Victor Zammit (he used to be a very high-level lawyer in Australia until his retirement); he being one of the well-known disseminators, worldwide, of the proven fact of Survival (his excellent book being on the short representative book-list I included in my 4-part piece, a few days ago, on this site).
And in the 1990s, he told me of an immensely sceptical group in Sydney. That they refused to accept we survive [in our immortal spirit body form, I keep having to reiterate] the very illusory ‘death’. Zammit told me that they said to him, “Even if you could prove it to us, Victor, we still wouldn’t believe it”.
THAT is the level of arrogant disbelief that you on this site are manifesting. Your attitudes are disgraceful.
And to JMK: I happened to read Darwin’s ‘On the origin of species’ when I was about 15 years old. A total waste of my time, reading that book…
That was twenty years before I became PROPERLY-informed about the actual natures of ‘life’ and ‘death’ and, thus, became spiritually-enlightened. I’VE been spiritually-enlightened for twenty-six years.
It is very plain to see that you lot will not become spiritually-enlightened UNTIL the eventual days on which you each do what is so very incorrectly termed ‘die’.
And then you will all discover, to your chagrin, that it was YOU LOT who were wrong, and that it was I who was right.
Au revoir!
“I am no longer going to try to reason with you immensely materialistic people.”
HURRAY!!!
Edzard:
I will see you in the proven-to-exist Afterlife; auf wiedersehen! (I did German for three years, when at school, back in the early 1970s)
And then I will gladly receive your graciously-offered profound apologies for having so wrongly ridiculed me.
one cannot wrongly ridicule someone who is profoundly ridiculous!
You are pathetic!
ALL you naive, uninformed people who childishly want to cling to FALSE materialism/atheism are intellectually pathetic.
Goodbye, all of you. Have fun, wallowing in your false materialism.
thank you for amusing us for a while; he had plenty of laughs about you and your delusions.
Ms. T. considers her own confidence to be valid evidence and INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF ?
“Also in the New York Times article So God’s Really in the Details? (May 11, 2002) by Emily Eakin: “Asked what he would say if God appeared to him after his death and demanded to know why he had failed to believe, the British philosopher and staunch evidentialist Bertrand Russell replied that he would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence.'”
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell
Christine,
I am surprised that you regard what you have been posting as reasoning. You have made a lot of assertions, but no arguments that might form part of a reasonable discussion. You must be aware that you views are unusual, and unfamiliar to many people (certainly to me), and yet you seem to have an expectation it is sufficient simply to state them, and anybody who is not thereby convinced is somehow at fault. You don’t seem to have much understanding either of human nature or of what constitutes academic discourse.
Unverified and unverifiable anecdotes do not constitute evidence. We have no way of knowing whether the events you describe may have been misreported, misinterpreted or indeed are completely fictional. I am not calling you a liar as clearly you believe that they are true, but neither is your own conviction evidence.
You are making assumptions about the various individuals who have posted on this thread, of whom only one has stated anything to suggest that they are an atheist.
How do you expect us to react to your report of a clairvoyant’s report of an experience that (if it actually happened) they interpreted in the light of pre-existing beliefs? Particularly as it describes something that is completely outside our own experience. Most people faced with such an account would conclude that you were in some way mistaken. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Even if you don’t accept his conclusions, it is well-written and entertaining, and is a good example of how to collect evidence and present it in a reasoned argument.
However, I can see that it was a waste of time as you don’t appear to have read it very carefully or to have understood it at all.
Seeya, Christine. Mind the door doesn’t hit you on your arse on your way out.
Why does a type-christine exist at all, against the type-tribal?
What is the emotional-driving-force, the evolved-behaviour, the evolutionary-advantage behind it?
I think it might be what an acquaintance of mine once described as a lithium deficiency.
Harsh, Dr M-K. But probably fair.
I’d be fascinated to know what a psychiatric specialist would make of her, though. Personality disorder? Straightforward mental illness? ASD?
The thought struck me long ago JMK but I dared not suggest a prescription. I hope proper care is forthcoming.
She belongs to type delusional. Whatever the cause is it does not lie in the stars or her genes.
Brian Deer’s book about Andrew Wakefield, “The Doctor who Fooled the World” was published a couple of days ago and makes very interesting reading. There are a lot of things that I hadn’t realised.
For a start, Wakefield arranged funding for his infamous study of 12 children from the Legal Aid Board, whom he managed to convince that he would use the money to develope a test for vaccine damage. At the same time he was negotiating wth biotech companies about going into partnership to supply such a test. This was before the first subject was even recruited to his study. When his results failed to support his hypothesis of a new syndrome of enterocolitis and autism, he simply fabricated new results for publication, and the Lancet took him at his word.
Then there was the attempt at a class action suit which eventually collapsed when the plaintiffs’ barristers advised them that that had no case, but not before the equivalent of $100,000,000 dollars had been spent by both sides, including the payment of large consultancy fees to Wakefield himself.
Now that he has been completely discredited in the UK (where he is regarded with much the same hatred and contempt as Dr Harold Shipman, a family doctor and serial killer who was responsible for murdering over 200 of his patients – a much smaller number than have died as a result of Wakefield’s frauds), he has moved to the US, where he has been spending his time stoking fear and guilt among parents of autistic and neurologically-damaged children by convincing them that their own decision to vaccinate is what led to their misfortune.
I don’t know whether he actually believes the ideas that he promotes – his self-importance seems to know no bounds, so perhaps he does – but he seems to revel in the attention and power that comes from spreading misery and from the measles outbreaks that have followed in his wake and which the WHO estimates killed 146,000 children in 2019, mainly in countries that have previously been almost measles-free.
It is quite remarkable that when charisma, self-belief, narcissism and lack of scruples come together in the same person just how wide-ranging the damage can be.
I have ordered the book; it is supposed to arrive tomorrow.
My impression has so far been that he does not believe a word he says.
I was rather surprised and flattered the other day to find that Brian Deer was following me on Twitter!
They’ve been publishing chunks of the book in The Times. I, too, was shocked at what seemed like a premeditated exercise in fleecing the British Legal Aid system.
Wakefield is a shameless, brass-necked egotist utterly devoid of either moral or scruple.
But he is the one getting to shag Elle Macpherson so what does he care?
Has anyone seen the movie “Vaxxed”?
A suspicious number of 10/10 gushing “reviews” on IMDB.com – apparently from anti-vaxxers, not film reviewers, as they only seem to have reviewed the one film!
I would not waste my time on a movie directed by Andrew Wakefield. This dead horse has been so thoroughly flogged that it’s reduced to a pile of pulp.
David B on Thursday 17 September 2020 at 14:05 said:
“A suspicious number of 10/10 gushing “reviews” on IMDB.com…”
By selecting “review rating” and “ascending order” (of 267 total) it showed:
1/10 (48 votes)
2/10 (2)
3/10 (1)
4 (1)
5 (2)
8 (4)
9 (4)
10/10 (205)
I.e. about a quarter against and three quarters in favour.
Of the 205 who awarded 10/10 – and for that matter the 48 who awarded 1/10 – how many, I wonder, are ardent movie fans, basing their review on cinematic considerations; lighting, camera angles, mise-en-scene, scripting, diagetic and non-diagetic sound, editing etc? And how many just have strong views on the subject of vaccination and are rating the film simply in support of their views.
We could find out by reading their other film reviews on imdb.
There is a review of Vaxxed in the British newspaper The Guardian here:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/02/vaxxed-from-cover-up-to-catastrophe-review
A general film review in Hollywood reporter here:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/vaxxed-cover-up-catastrophe-film-879960
And another Hollywood Reporter review, by a professor of Pediatrics:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/anti-vaccine-doc-vaxxed-a-882651
I’ve looked at the first 20 of the 10/10 reviewers of Vaxxed on imdb.com
Here’s how they break down:
17 have only reviewed the one movie, Vaxxed. None discuss cinematography or other film concepts.
1 has reviewed 5 movies
1 has reviewed 25 movies
1 has reviewed 2 movies: Vaxxed, and Vaxxed II
David B on Friday 18 September 2020 at 10:55 said:
“Of the 205 who awarded 10/10 – and for that matter the 48 who awarded 1/10 – how many, I wonder, are ardent movie fans, basing their review on cinematic considerations; lighting, camera angles, mise-en-scene, scripting, diagetic and non-diagetic sound, editing etc? And how many just have strong views on the subject of vaccination and are rating the film simply in support of their views.”
As you say, few folks, know anything about film production, even some of those in the business professionally e.g. the many current productions of “period” pieces using modern language spoken in “estuary”, like, know what I mean?
But that is not the point. The effect on the viewer is all there is: art – it’s artificial.
For example, does it matter if a punter listening to piano music, cannot really be enjoying it if they do not know music theory? Or EQ? But it could be that a pianist is being driven mad by it because it is running on TV at 25 frames per second? (25/24 sharper).
Criticism only speaks of the author, not the subject, for example, the Guardian review in your above link says,
“…When Vaxxed got yanked, the producers quickly four-walled a screen in Manhattan’s Angelika Film Center, and its first showing was, for 11am on a Friday, well populated.”
Whereas Wikipedia says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaxxed
“The film premiered at the Angelika Film Center in New York City on April 1, 2016[40] to an audience of “a few dozen”.[41]”
One review says “well populated” the other “a few dozen” – it’s the triviality that is the most telling: a bottom-of-the-barrel search for something, anything, negative, by the “experts”.
Meanwhile, a bunch of anonymous reviewers, have said what they feel, about the only film they can be bothered to review, despite not being fully qualified doctors or biochemists or government experts. They have only one thing going for them: they pay the bills – we all do.
“As you say, few folks, know anything about film production, even some of those in the business professionally”.
I didn’t say that.
The point I was making was that the 10/10 (and for that matter the 1/10) reviewers have come on to imdb.com, a film information and reviewing website, not because they are interested in reviewing movies, but because they wish to use iimdb.com as a platform to promote their views on vaccination.
David B on Friday 18 September 2020 at 14:28 said:
“I didn’t say that.”
Ok, I was trying to be hail-fellow-well-met, it’s a personal weakness.
“The point I was making was that the 10/10 (and for that matter the 1/10) reviewers have come on to imdb.com, a film information and reviewing website, not because they are interested in reviewing movies, but because they wish to use iimdb.com as a platform to promote their views on vaccination.”
I agree (I hope 🙂
This hard-split between anti-vaxxers and anti-anti-vaxxers is autistic in itself: happy, objective folks don’t write stuff that nobody cares about (or reads), only we, the autistic, do it – you don’t agree? Look at the rage, the personal attacks, it comes from inside little worlds that are cut off from the outside and impermeable to it.
From here:
https://ahrp.org/bmj-lancet-wedded-to-merck-cme-partnership/
“Is it just conceivably possible, that the BMJ’s decision to commission and publish Brian Deer’s series of articles attacking Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s personal and scientific integrity–and lend its unwavering editorial endorsement–without giving him an opportunity to defend himself–might be influenced by a SIGNIFICANT financial conflict of interest?”
…
“How about the discovery that in 2008, the pharmaceutical giant, Merck–using its trade name, MSD signed a partnership agreement with the BMJ Group that effectively gave the company control of 350 interactive continuing medical education courses in over 20 medical therapy areas?”
…
“Why did the BMJ conceal from readers– of the Brian Deer series of articles and the BMJ editorial excoriating Dr. Andrew Wakefield, charging him with deliberate fraud and financial conflict of interest– the fact that the BMJ had a partnership with Merck and GSK, the two manufacturers of the MMR vaccine, which is at the center of the Wakefield controversy?”
…
“The fact that BMJ and The Lancet— two of the most prestigious international medical journals would enter into a medical education partnership with the drug manufacturer whose staff drew up a “doctor hit list” to intimidate doctors who dared to discuss the lethal cardiac risks linked to Vioxx–is in itself a betrayal of trust of the worst sort…”
…
“Finally, the Statement about Competing Interests at the end of the BMJ Editorial claims compliance with conflict of interest disclosure requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. But the BMJ editor in chief and two deputy editors conceal rather than disclose the most relevant financial conflict of interest:
“Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years.”
“Posted by Vera Hassner Sharav”
Old Bob,
That is interesting. However, it does not exculpate Wakefield. And whatever the BMJ might have said, the General Medical Council found him unfit to practise on multiple grounds, including fraud.
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Saturday 19 September 2020 at 21:55 said
“…the General Medical Council found him unfit to practise on multiple grounds, including fraud.”
I tried to discover why from here:
https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2803.full
But I have to pay £184 to find out…
While trying to find another copy of this ruling, I tripped over this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17283751
“Prof John Walker-Smith carried out research with Dr Andrew Wakefield claiming there was a link between autism and the combined jab for measles, mumps and rubella.
The study caused a fall in vaccination rates, but was later discredited.
The judge quashed a GMC finding of professional misconduct.
Mr Justice Mitting called for changes in the way General Medical Council fitness to practise panel hearings are conducted in the future saying: “It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again.””
Old Bob,
If you are interested in the full story, Brian Deer’s book “The Doctor who fooled the world” was published a few weeks ago. It costs less than £184 and is very readable. It explains the GMC findings in more detail and also where Professor Walker-Smith comes in.
I am still not clear, however, to what extent Wakefield believes his own fantasies. He comes across as a narcissist who gets very upset if he is challenged over anything he says, and having come up with his ideas about viruses and autism perhaps regards them as true simply because they are his, even though the evidence from his own studies contradicts them. On the other hand, his behaviour does suggest that he never believed them to be true in the first place and they were (and remain) simply a convenient basis for fraud.
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Sunday 20 September 2020 at 15:14 said:
“I am still not clear, however, to what extent Wakefield believes his own fantasies. He comes across as a narcissist who gets very upset if he is challenged over anything he says, and having come up with his ideas about viruses and autism perhaps regards them as true simply because they are his, even though the evidence from his own studies contradicts them. On the other hand, his behaviour does suggest that he never believed them to be true in the first place and they were (and remain) simply a convenient basis for fraud.”
That’s what they said about Socrates.
I remember similar hatred against Barry Marshall in the Horizon programme of 1981 or thereabouts. Bloody stryne! Who the hell does he think he is! Nothing can live in the stomach!
The poor bastard had to wait over twenty years before they gave him a Nobel.
And now it seems that even that was too simplistic because maybe the majority of us actually need our H. Pylori, microbiome-wise, for health reasons? If the original hostility had never existed and stomach-surgeons tried Marshall and Warren’s regimen first, before operating, progress could have happened a lot sooner, more in keeping with reality instead of in black-or-white hostility.
Likewise Wakefield, as the film says: here are plenty of folks who have vaccinated some of their children and not the rest of them, do a study now on who is healthier to settle the matter without the that-would-be-”unethical” excuse.
and why do you think ex-doctor Wakefield does not conduct and publish such a study?
the burden of proof squarely rests on his shoulders.
“That’s what they said about Socrates.”
No it isn’t! Where did you read that they said that about Socrates?
Edzard on Tuesday 22 September 2020 at 14:23 said
“and why do you think ex-doctor Wakefield does not conduct and publish such a study?
the burden of proof squarely rests on his shoulders.”
Try telling that to those mothers, and see what happens.
why? does motherhood suspend logic?
David B on Tuesday 22 September 2020 at 15:59 said:
“No it isn’t! Where did you read that they said that about Socrates?”
Yes it is. The Sophists accuse Wakefield of their own disease: sophistry, by their own standards, because they know no better. Meanwhile Wakefield would rather die free than enslaved (see the above title).
Edzard on Tuesday 22 September 2020 at 18:58 said:
“why? does motherhood suspend logic?”
Yelp! I’m outta here!
Seemingly forgetting that it was Brian Deer who properly blew the lid off the Vioxx scandal as well.
But anyway. As you were.
Lenny on Sunday 20 September 2020 at 01:07 said:
“Seemingly forgetting that it was Brian Deer who properly blew the lid off the Vioxx scandal as well.”
I checked that out e.g.
https://briandeer.com/rofecoxib-index.htm
Deer himself says, “When in September 2004, Merck Inc withdrew Vioxx, it must have expected a deluge of lawsuits. But nobody could have predicted that, in August 2005, a Texas jury would hit the drugs giant with an award of a quarter billion dollars. This was also the moment for publication of Brian Deer’s investigation of the UK link. The Sunday Times, August 21 2005.”
It was not Deer who brought down Vioxx, it was Merck itself.
Likewise:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib
The FDA was also on the case: “Merck apparently received information about new research by the FDA that supported previous findings of increased risk of heart attack among rofecoxib users (Grassley, 2004).”
I have just watched Vaxxed 2, from here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4-PESiCApQ
Wakefield said, about this movie, that it was only necessary to rely on women’s natural intuition about their own children – this should send the “scientific community” into hysterics – but my guess is that even professors are just as afraid of their wives as the rest of us.
The first three quarters is highly depressing as members of the public come into the Vaxxed bus, off the street, to be filmed about their damaged children – it’s not Lawrence of Arabia long shots in the desert, it’s just inside the back of a bus, mostly, so that’s a zero for cinematography (whatever that means).
Then, in the last quarter, the mood changes as the unvaccinated are interviewed, especially the mothers of families that had their first children vaccinated, but not the rest of them, from about 01:20:00 onwards – one would need to watch this oneself to decide if this is true or not but, as the mother says from 01:28:41 onwards:
“…It’s not that we’re gaining anything by speaking out, we are losing family and friends – getting kicked out of doctor’s offices. It’s not to our benefit to speak out, but if my story, if any of our stories will help one child from being injured or dying, then it’s worth it.”
The biggest impression on me was during 01:05:07 – 01:07:52 on the dangers of the measles vaccination, mainly by Wakefield himself, he stands or falls by those two minutes.
As Wakefield said, the movie relies on intuition, the same intuition of the courtroom of the jurors about the witnesses and the accused. A dry report by the GMC or the BMJ does not compare to the living flesh – that is the movie’s strength.
I believe the antivaccine crowd got it all wrong. They are barking up the wrong tree. The great majority of children are vaccinated and most children with autism have as a result been vaccinated – but many have not.
Therefore I think that because autism does occur in children who have never been vaccinated, vaccination cannot be the cause of autism. It must be something else thst happens before the disease, logic tells us that if A happens before B then A must have caused B, right? Now, by the same logic, if A does not always come before B, then A cannot be the cause B, right?
I think autism must be caused by a combination of one or more of the following factors that always precede a diagnosis of autism:
Cutting the umbilical cord with scissors.
Breast feeding.
Using nappies.
Using diapers
Baptism or any of the religious naming rituals.
Why isn’t anyone researching this?!
And don’t forget! autism is more common in boys so circumcision must be a huge risk factor!!
Now prove me wrong!!! ?
I am uncircumcised and do not have Autism. That proves you are right!
and I was about to get circumcised in order to prevent autism!
One of us must be homeopathic……
From here:
https://7thchakrafilms.com/images/documents/1_Christensen_Memo.pdf
“PERTUSSIS VACCINE ENCEPHALOPATHY
The possibility that severe neurologic disorders might follow the administration of pertussis vaccine has been widely recognised since the report of Dyers and Holl in 1948 [1]… “
From here:
https://7thchakrafilms.com/images/documents/9_Bernstein_Memo.pdf
“After the reporting of the SID cases in Tennessee, we discussed the merits of limiting distribution of a large number of viols from a single lot to a single state, county or city health department and obtained agreement from senior management staff to proceed from such a plan.”
do you have a point?
has anyone ever claimed that pertussis or any other vaccinations are risk-free?
has anyone told you yet that, since the 1950s, vaccination safety has improved?
Edzard on Wednesday 23 September 2020 at 14:21 said:
“has anyone told you yet that, since the 1950s, vaccination safety has improved?”
Sometime later:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9345669/
very impressive: a control group of 23 children!
“…a control group of 23 children!”
And self reported data. As described in paper.
And important socioeconomic differences between groups, e.g. health. care access. As admitted in paper.
And contradicted. by previous research. As admitted in paper.
And published 23 years ago.
And contradicted by later research.
Impressive indeed – not.
Edzard on Wednesday 23 September 2020 at 20:27 said:
“very impressive: a control group of 23 children!”
Meanwhile over 23.1% of the other 1,242 children suffered episodes of asthma.
Attempting to minimise something, anything, even in the slightest, is not a good look: put yourself in their shoes, you have one or two children who have suddenly suffered episodes of something, just after some vaccine shot, and an expert minimises it, statistically…
Your marriage and career have been destroyed while you look after a grown adult who is still in nappies… your next question might well be, “Are you married? Do you have children?” etc.
They won’t ask if you are male because they assume that already, from your “autistic” fascination with only numbers and only big ones at that.
The other poster above was also “autistically” fascinated by the mechanics of cinematography over sentiment. Most posters here are male and likewise fascinated “autistically” in “mechanics”.
Wakefield’s genius is to understand this situation and to isolate this male-pattern from women’s natural intuition about what is true and what is not true: who is likely to have my child’s best interest? The “men-of-science” or me?
Now the scene changes from the SID of the child to the “men-of-science” searching the household and interrogating the mother as they prepare to take the remaining children into care, if they find the evidence for (or suspect) foul play.
The “men-of-science” have persisted, and still do with discrediting Andrew Wakefield rather than trying to discover why autism is so suddenly prevalent – why? Why is no one looking?
Evidently if no one is looking for a reason, they must know what it is already – that is the most telling question of all, (which was answered by Dr William Thompson in Vaxxed.)
The “men-of-science” are not looking because they already know the answer.
The “men-of-science” are not looking because they already know the answer.
????
REALLY?
Medline lists well over 1 000 000 research papers on immunisation (over 67 000 in 2019 alone).
Interesting how she seems to have an issue with the male gender?
Edzard on Thursday 24 September 2020 at 12:04 said:
“Medline lists well over 1 000 000 research papers on immunisation (over 67 000 in 2019 alone).”
It’s chaotic, so it does not matter how many “papers” there are, no one can know in advance what will happen. E.g. push some variable out of bounds and you might get a cytokine storm or epileptic fit etc or an auto-immune disease etc and no two individuals will respond in exactly the same way.
thanks for confirming that you do not understand research, evidence, immunity or science.
Old Bob,
If this assertion is true, then we would expect this to show up in the extensive body of research into immunisation. Could you therefore please provide some referrences to support your statement?
Edzard on Sunday 27 September 2020 at 16:09 said:
“thanks for confirming that you do not understand research, evidence, immunity or science.”
That is true, I think it was Einstein who said, “Of course we don’t know what we’re doing, that is why it’s called research!”
did Einstein also say that BS x BS = wisdom?
[because that seems to be the principle of your comments]
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Sunday 27 September 2020 at 18:46 said:
“If this assertion is true, then we would expect this to show up in the extensive body of research into immunisation. Could you therefore please provide some references to support your statement?”
It’s everywhere but especially in medicine where the “monte carlo” method is the only way to make any progress e.g. every covid trial expects something to go wrong, so no one thinks anything of it, it’s perfectly natural.
As Gerson said, physics is easy compared to the human body because it is infinitely more complex, but even physicists had to abandon their “perfect world” and adopt the trial and error of the monte carlo method to discover what would be fissionable during the Manhattan Project.
That’s why the more we know about genetics and epigenetics the more sure we are of its inherent unpredictability (the more we know, the less we know). Ultimately drugs will be designed *only* by AI because that is the only safe way to run a trial. No one will understand how the answer was derived, but then no one has to understand, it has been discovered and that’s that, exactly as all life has/(is) naturally evolved(ing): what works, works.
Old Bob,
Those reports are from 60 or so years ago. Medicine has moved on a bit since then. Among other things there have been very extensive studies of the relationship between pertussis vaccine and serious neurological sequelae, which I remember studying during my epidemology course in the mid 1980’s, and which concluded that the risk was no more than one event per million doses of vaccine.
As a very young schoolboy in the early 1960s, I caught pertussis -“Whooping Cough”. I survived it, obviously, but not by that wide a margin.
I lost the end of the summer school term, and most of the summer holidays to it, confined to bed, unable to keep any food down. There are photos of me taken by my mum at the end of that period, looking skeletally thin in teeshirt and shorts.
Any child of mine would be getting the Whooping Cough vaccine. There is an interesting account of the development of the vaccine, which talks of people’s desperation for one, here: https://www.history.com/news/whooping-cough-vaccine-pertussis-great-depression
David B on Thursday 24 September 2020 at 17:20 said:
“As a very young schoolboy in the early 1960s, I caught pertussis -“Whooping Cough”. I survived it, obviously, but not by that wide a margin.
…
Any child of mine would be getting the Whooping Cough vaccine. There is an interesting account of the development of the vaccine, which talks of people’s desperation for one, here: https://www.history.com/news/whooping-cough-vaccine-pertussis-great-depression
“
(That link is good for female-acknowledgement too – quite right.)
Sure, I used to agree with everything you say about vaccination: the thing that would seem to be the best medical idea ever: prevention by priming the immune system – that should be the Ideal.
And in a pure commercial world, only those vaccines that were the best e.g. with least side effects and greatest immunity, would survive (the same pattern as life itself: evolution by natural selection).
But when natural selection is prevented, then problems are bottled up for a future explosion – enter the 1986 act (NVCIA) protection-racket…
But there is a “surprise” solution: vitamin C e.g. Levy on whooping cough (pertussis):
pages 118 – 121 of Curing the Incurable, Levy found nothing by Klenner on pertussis so instead he cites:
Otani: (1936) – IVC 50mg – 200mg twice a day for 12 days,
Out of 81 patients:
34 / 81 remarkable.
32 / 81 improvement.
15 / 81 indeterminate.
Otani (1939) from 109 cases treated by IVC
80% “some efficiency / remarkable efficiency”
Ormerod & Unkauf (1937) – 150mg – 500mg oral C, 8 – 15 days
9 children + 1 adult gave “…definitely shortens severest symptoms…”
Ormerod et al. (1937) 350mg, 250, 250, 200, 200, 150, 150, 125, 125 (9 days) then 100mg maintained until complete remission.
17 cases gave “markedly decrease intensity, frequency and length…”
Vermillion & Stafford (1938) repeated work of the above on
“26 infants and small children with pertussis” was “strikingly effective… in all but two patients”
Sessa (1940) 100mg – 500mg IVC daily
“Appeared to reduce the compulsive coughing and accelerate the overall recovery…”
Meier (1945) used both IVC and oral C
“…coughing reduced with quicker restoration of appetite and disappearance of vomiting…”
Levy explains why vitamin C works universally for viral / bacterial infections and toxins at around 32:20 here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRweBPHk1Go
Surprise?
1936…1939…1937…1937…1938…1940…1945…and a Youtube video with a well known crank who claims Vitamin C “works universally”…
Move on folks, nothing to learn here.
Björn Geir on Saturday 26 September 2020 at 06:05 said:
“1936…1939…1937…1937…1938…1940…1945…Move on folks, nothing to learn here.”
Nothing to learn here?
Nothing to learn here
The old newspapers are long forgotten
Along with the sixty million
And Sinclair said it can’t happen here
But today it already has
Room 101 is a joke
Big Brother is a show of a game
The Media Nonspeak by rote
The State order no one must vote
Nothing to learn here.
“It was a cold morning and the clock had just struck thirteen.”
Nothing to learn here.
“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile first hoping it will eat him last.”
Nothing to learn here.
The Day of Trinity.
Nothing to learn here, move on folks.
From the YouTube video (at 34:40): “The nature of the root canal procedure makes it THE most toxic entity on the planet”. Really? REALLY? More toxic than Botulinum?
Anyway, how can a PROCEDURE be a toxic entity?
David B on Saturday 26 September 2020 at 10:12 said:
“From the YouTube video (at 34:40): “The nature of the root canal procedure makes it THE most toxic entity on the planet”. Really? REALLY? More toxic than Botulinum?
Anyway, how can a PROCEDURE be a toxic entity?”
He means numbers of folks affected by heart-disease and cancer etc caused by root canals as the “toxic entity” (I am not saying it, he is, or rather he references others e.g. Weston Price who said it first in the early 20th century).
Intrigued, I google:
pubmed root canal
The second entry on page 1 is:
Failure of endodontic treatment: The usual suspects – NCBI:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4784145/
I type the same
pubmed root canal
into Bing.com and the first entry on page 1 is:
Microbiology of root canal infections:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28826437/
The linked studies show the importance of ensuring that root canal work is carried out correctly in order to avoid complications.
I cannot see anything that supports the claim that “The nature of the root canal procedure makes it THE most toxic entity on the planet”.
David B on Sunday 27 September 2020 at 19:26 said:
“I cannot see anything that supports the claim that “The nature of the root canal procedure makes it THE most toxic entity on the planet”.”
You are right and he is wrong, the most toxic entity on the planet is human-progress:
1 Global warming
2 Global pollution of land, sea and air
3 Mass extinction.
In short, the anthropocene.
With what vertiginous celerity we asend from the particular to the general!
My point was that to make absurd statements in a presentation, as the Doctor does, seriously compromises his credibility.
David B on Monday 28 September 2020 at 09:43 said:
“With what vertiginous celerity we ascend from the particular to the general!”
The snag with the particular is loss of context, until eventually there is none leaving only farce e.g.
“How do you plead?”
“Not guilty.”
“Could you simplify that?”
“Guilty?”
(Frank Muir and/or Dennis Norden?)
With vaccine trials the excuse is that it would be “unethical” to have a non-vaccinated arm, hence none are done.
With vitamin C it is impossible to have a control-arm (otherwise the control arm would die) but they go ahead anyway at minimal doses e.g. 200mg per day, orally (what is the control-arm taking? That is unknown).
In other words the “particular” is evidently a pre-conditioned exercise to “find” something that is already presumed and/or to prove it e.g. in vaccine’s case, they are presumed working, in vitamin C’s it is presumed overdosed-in advance (why? – most other creatures make at least 100 times more than that when healthy and more again automatically when they get ill).
Men who look for the particular risk “tripping over the truth but hurry off without noticing…” e.g. Jerry Shay who swapped nuclea between cancer and normal cells and ignored the fact that the cancer went with the cytoplasm and not, as predicted by the SMT, the nuclei (see Tripping over the Truth by Travis Chrisstofferson).
Progress is only made by noticing the unexpected, not repeating the expected.
Erm…. I’m reminded of the Gary Larson cartoon with a school classroom of pudgy students, and one pudgy student raising his hand, saying “Mr Osborne, may I be excused? My brain is full”.
I don’t think I understood very much of this.
David B on Monday 28 September 2020 at 15:41 said:
“Erm…. I’m reminded of the Gary Larson cartoon with a school classroom of pudgy students, and one pudgy student raising his hand, saying “Mr Osborne, may I be excused? My brain is full”.
I don’t think I understood very much of this.”
Sorry about the sparse-compression above – I assume no one is interested, so don’t bother to write too much.
The SMT (Somatic Mutation Theory) of cancer is the “standard” that is self-evident to everybody: random mutations accumulate in the DNA by “carcinogens / bad luck” – JMK can explain it better than I – it is self-evident because, at that level, that is what cancer actually is…
…but rising above this to another level: energy or rather lack of energy, there is the metabolic theory of cancer that is the cause of cancer, in which case, all cancers become “the same” (violently denied by advocates of the SMT) as just a symptom, not a cause, from lack of energy in the cell…
The beauty of this is that it explains why most tumours have a variety of different mutations, even in adjacent cells (they should all be the same if derived originally from one “rogue” mutated cancer cell) i.e. as the mitochondria’s energy production starts to fall (for any reason e.g. old age) then all cellular activity declines including DNA-repair-mechanisms, and so mutations accumulate faster, in which case, different mutations happen in adjacent cells and hence the chance of different cancer cells appearing are higher hence the usual heterogenous mix in the same tumour.
The guy, Jerry Shay, reproduced an earlier experiment where nuclei from cancer cells were transplanted into healthy cells that had had their healthy nuclei removed, and then the whole cells where transplanted into specially treated mice and watched to see if they (as expected) turned into a tumour – but the experiment failed, no tumours, neither in the original experiment nor the reproduction by Shay….
So Shay tried putting healthy nuclei into healthy cells and repeated the experiment to test if the experiment itself was working – it was, the cells grew normally as expected, so the experiment itself was OK.
Then he tried the last combination, putting healthy nuclei into denucleated cancer cells and to the surprise of his team, 9 out of 10 (or thereabouts) mice grew tumours….
But Shay just dismissed this. Even he said later that he did not know why he did that (trip over the truth…)
In other words, he had accidentally proved the metabolic theory of cancer (as declared decades earlier by Warburg).
Everybody is susceptible to this kind of thing, when one’s belief is strong enough – look at all history!
Woss all this about nuclei?
I’m jus’ sayin’, When a guy stands up there and says “The nature of the root canal procedure makes it THE most toxic entity on the planet” the reliability of his entire presentation is called into question.
To quote Detective Arbogast, “If it don’t gel, it ain’t aspic”.
Old Bob,
This more-or-less ignores that last few decades of progress in the field of molecular biology (or possibly the whole field of molecular biology itself). Happily the biomedical scientists who have been developing new cancer treatments over the course of my career haven’t been taking your approach. Very happily, in fact, as I owe my continued survival to them.
With vaccine trials it is unethical NOT to have a non-vaccinated arm except in a few specific circumstances. Look up the protocols of the vaccine trials currently being conducted in Covid-19.
I don’t follow what you are getting at here. If a trial is looking at the effects of vitamin C supplements for treatment of anything other than scurvey (or less extreme forms of vitamin C deficiency), it is essential first of all to ensure that the control group is not vitamin C deficient.
What other creatures? Are you specifically referring to mammals, vertebrates in general or all animals (insects, worms, molluscs…)? Are you saying that “other creatures” make 100 times more vitamin C than humans, that they make more than 100 times the amount used in trials, that their blood level is 100 times higher?
Does the blood level rise when they are sick, or does synthesis go up because it becomes depleted? Is a rise in vitamin C (more properly in ascorbate, since by definition if an animal can synthesise something it isn’t a vitamin as far as that animal is concerned) a physiological response to sickness or a marker for something else? What kind of illness (for instance, the changes in the blood in humans is quite different for viral, as opposed to bacterial infections)? Does this rise apply to all species which can synthesis ascorbate or only a subset of them?
And can you point to some references to support these assertions as I would be quite interested to look them up?
The Monte Carlo method is not trial and error. It is a statistical tool for dealing with uncertainty.
That is certainly true. All measurements, therefore, are subject to very many unknown factors which behave randomly, and the correct statistical tools need to be applied to separate the effect under investigation from the noise.
You are making this nonsense up. Your time would be better spent taking a course in medical statistics and then at least you might understand something about how clinical trials are designed
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Monday 28 September 2020 at 21:17 said:
“This more-or-less ignores that last few decades of progress in the field of molecular biology (or possibly the whole field of molecular biology itself). Happily the biomedical scientists who have been developing new cancer treatments over the course of my career haven’t been taking your approach. Very happily, in fact, as I owe my continued survival to them.”
No one will follow my advice because it is not mine, it goes back to Hippocrates – blame him.
“With vaccine trials it is unethical NOT to have a non-vaccinated arm…”
That’s not unmeaningless 🙂 i.e. that is the same as “…unethical to have a vaccinated…” which if true would instantly destroy all anti-vaccine arguments: look, the vaccinated do better than the non-vaccinated – and that’s that.
“I don’t follow what you are getting at here. If a trial is looking at the effects of vitamin C supplements for treatment of anything other than scurvy (or less extreme forms of vitamin C deficiency), it is essential first of all to ensure that the control group is not vitamin C deficient.”
Exactly hence it’s a trial between vitamin C vs vitamin C with only the *dose* being trialled, not vitamin C (so you can engineer a failure by only using e.g. 200mg orally per day).
“What other creatures? Are you specifically referring to mammals, vertebrates in general or all animals (insects, worms, molluscs…)? Are you saying that “other creatures” make 100 times more vitamin C than humans, that they make more than 100 times the amount used in trials…”
Yes, multicellular life on earth could not have originated, as we know it, in Earth’s newly oxygenated atmosphere, without vitamin C e.g. the primates don’t make it because of the GLO mutation, otherwise we have the complete biologic pathway, disabled at the last, GLO stage, see here:
https://visionearth.org/downloads/THE-HEALING-FACTOR-v20150318-001.pdf
Evidently every mammal, vertebrate etc on Earth has not been tested because not all of them have even been discovered, but the genetic-record is clear. Some of those animals that currently have lost their ability to synthesis vitamin C, have lost and regained it multiple times in their history (Cathcart surmises that the primates with the GLO mutation would be able to out-starve their cousins during hard times (because at least 20% of glucose is consumed in the synthesis) helped by eating ‘clean’ fruit from the branch, not the ground, hence the mutation persisted).
An animal that has been tested is the goat, famous for eating anything without getting sick. He produces 13,000mg in his liver per day and increases that to 100,000mg when he gets sick.
“The Monte Carlo method is not trial and error. It is a statistical tool for dealing with uncertainty.”
Yes it is, both trial and error *and* statistical, they are not mutually exclusive.
For example, in electronics it is easy to design a perfect (active multipole, analogue) filter but in reality it could oscillate or go out of spec (with temperature etc). The solution is to repeat the “perfect” design but with some randomly chosen values within e.g. 5% and run it again, and repeat this thousands of time, if any of the results go unstable, then reduce the tolerance (of e.g. some components) to 2% or 1%, (or relax the spec’) by trial and error, so eventually, statistically, you can be more sure it is going to work in reality…
But, heh heh, it might then oscillate when built because of the small but always present, stray capacitances, inductances and even, when cold, resistances from condensation 🙂 etc. So during the trial and error, monte carlo runs, you try to give yourself an order of magnitude of safety at least.
Trial and Error is a primary, I think, from colliding galaxies to disintegrating particles and statistics is the only way to generalise it.
“And can you point to some references to support these assertions as I would be quite interested to look them up?”
There are 1,200 references in Levy’s book, Curing the Incurable – it’s not so interesting though, just a massive reference list, Irwin Stone is my choice.
“You are making this nonsense up…[the more we know, the less we know]”
Quote from page 132 of Tripping Over The Truth by Christoffersson:
‘Once showered with superlatives, TCGA[*] was proclaimed as the final chapter that would lead to a complete understanding of cancer followed by real and enduring cures. Now almost a decade old, it seemed as though the project had only stirred up a cloud of confusion and left a trail of unfulfilled promises in its wake. Watson and Vogelstein, the two who embodied the spirit of the project perhaps more than anyone, were leaving it behind.’
End of quote.
*The Cancer Genome Atlas
We seem to be rapidly sinking in the viscous mire of a thought-swamp.
I still think Dr Wossisname undermined his credibility when he claimed that that “The nature of the root canal procedure makes it THE most toxic entity on the planet”.
Don’t you think so too?
David B on Tuesday 29 September 2020 at 11:21 said:
“We seem to be rapidly sinking in the viscous mire of a thought-swamp.
I still think Dr Wossisname undermined his credibility when he claimed that that “The nature of the root canal procedure makes it THE most toxic entity on the planet”.
Don’t you think so too?”
What I think is irrelevant, but if Dr Wossisname is right about the dangers of root canals: heart disease, cancer of the upper body, etc then what does Google think? So I type:
Maximum killer on the planet
Into Google and get this as the first item:
https://www.google.com/search?q=maximum+killer+on+the+planet&rlz=1CAKEFG_enGB852&oq=maximum+killer+on+the+planet&aqs
Which begs the question, is Dr Wossisname right about the dangers of root canals? And, as above, searching Google and Bing, without asking a leading question, volunteers those unexpected links above about the difficulties involved in root canals…
If you want my meaningless opinion on that, which I doubt anyone wants, we only want our own opinions, not other people’s its this: I can’t afford it, so I just have it extracted (i.e. I can’t afford to have one anyway).
Still sinking, sinking…..
Old Bob. You need a lesson in how and for what to use Google. You also need to learn that Google is not a person and it does not think.
Maybe your local library has courses for old people?
I wonder what the search in your link brought up for you? When I clicked it, the search machine brought up reliable WHO data on main causes of global mortality. Nothing about root canals.
I hope this helps.
Björn Geir on Tuesday 29 September 2020 at 18:53 said:
“Old Bob. You need a lesson in how and for what to use Google. You also need to learn that Google is not a person and it does not think.”
He is so. His name is Barney, with the great big googly eyes.
Old Bob, you say “What I think is irrelevant”.
If that’s so, one wonders that you expend so much time and energy here telling us what you think.
David B on Tuesday 29 September 2020 at 21:21 said:
“you say “What I think is irrelevant”.
If that’s so, one wonders that you expend so much time and energy here telling us what you think.”
So do I.
That was a good reply, Old Bob!
@Bjorn … and friends
Old Bob, Sandra, Roger, Jim… a hand full of doctors….and RG(me)
Basically, if you/we have an opinion that doesn’t fit the narrative of the Edzard SCAM blog message board…. meaning you don’t buy into CON-Med…
You either “don’t understand”, “you need more education”. “you don’t know how to google properly”, “you don’t understand what evidence is”, “you’re missing the point”, you’re personal experience means nothing”, “you are daft”.
I could go on, you’all get the idea. If you don’t agree with CON-Med, the problem is YOU !
@RG
Most sensible thing you’ve posted in ages!
Lenny, one wonders that you dare show your face in here, considering the damage you must have done to humanity by way of a practice that is (we are told) “THE most toxic entity on the planet”!
RG, I think you are creating a ‘false dichotomy’.
I know. It’s a wonder how my patients have survived.
(The irony being that I do inject a few of them with the most toxic substance known to mankind. Botox is a useful tool in facial aesthetics..)
What’s the difference between a dentist and a brain surgeon?
About half an inch.
@Lenny
I’m still waiting to hear something sensible from you Lenny
Anthony Fauci takes vitamin D (6000IU per day) and vitamin C:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqZLMoLvhgk
Which is ten times more than the recommended amount of 600IU and D is the “dangerous” fat-soluble type – begging the question how much more of the safe, water soluble vitamin C is he taking?
He says “…a gram or two” for “…people” would be “…fine” here:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/14/supplements-white-house-advisor-fauci-takes-every-day-to-help-keep-his-immune-system-healthy.html
And this is without Medicine’s usual G6PD-deficiency and kidney-stones warnings, that he seems to have quietly forgotten. If his one or two grams is OK for other people, he must be taking Klenner-Sized-Doses himself.
Barbara Loe Fisher, from 01:55:46 onwards of 1986 the Act, says it best:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=1986+the+act+full+movie&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3d1986%2bthe%2bact%2bfull%2bmovie%26FORM%3dQSRE1&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=F5C8CE032C101819BB1DF5C8CE032C101819BB1D&FORM=WRVORC
“We hold them with wonder just moments after they are born. We love them in a way we never thought we could love anyone and they love and trust us in a way that no one else ever will and there is no power on Earth greater than that love.
We are here today to witness the suffering of children who have no voice and have no choice except the voice and choice that we the mothers and fathers give to them. Many of us who made the pilgrimage to be here know the pain of watching a healthy child die or regress after vaccination.
November 14 1986 was an historic day. We have been fighting for so long to protect the act from industry greed and government overreach, that we never saw the betrayal coming.
We did not know that the very same lawmakers sponsoring the act were already working behind the scenes to dismantle it.
Today the national childhood injury vaccine is nothing, nothing like the one, signed into law in November 1986.
The biggest public health emergency in America today is not 1200 cases of measles, it is the one being powered up by the government agencies working overtime with industry medical trade and mainstream media to distract, deceive, stonewall and restrict the freedom of Americans to take back control of their health.
If we do not get off off our knees tomorrow we will not be able to get on a bus, a train or plane enter a store or sports arena, obtain a driver’s license or passport, file our taxes or function in society without getting every vaccine that industry creates and the government orders us to get.
When the State considers one of us to be expendable then we are all considered expendable,
We will not be silenced, we will not go away, we will never give up.
We are the daughters and sons of liberty.
Our mission continues; no forced vaccinations, not in America.”
Dolly,
No doctor would deny this pain or suffering; this is what we went into medicine to alleviate.
However, two events happening in proximity does not mean that they are cause and effect. There have been enough large studies looking at the deterioration in health of children in relation to measles and other vaccines to know that there are virtually no differences in this respect between vaccinated and unvaccinated children and that serious vaccine damage, while it does occur, is vanishingly rare.
According to the World Health Organisation, more than 140,000 children worldwide died from measles in 2019, mostly in countries where measles was virtually eliminated prior to the antivax movement.
I said that doctors go into medicine in order to alleviate pain and suffering, but there are some exceptions. Harold Shipman was a family doctor in the UK who murdered over 200 of his patients before he was identified and stopped. Andrew Wakefield, too, seems to enjoy the attention and power to inflict paint that comes from convincing parents that they were personally responsible for tragedies that have affected their families, and that something that would have happened regardless was actually their fault. However, he is a very charismatic individual and people who have met him or heard him speak find it easier to believe that he is right than that he is a monster. My grandfather, a psychoanalyst who spent some time in Europe in order to study with Freud, heard Hitler speaking and described the same phenomenon.
????
1-in-a-million chance of injury vs 1 in 1000 chance of death? Only a true anti-vaxxer would declare “I’ll take death thanks”, but then they’re not choosing death for themselves but for someone else. Such courage.
“However, two events happening in proximity does not mean that they are cause and effect”.
Yes indeed. Following vaccination I grew to 6’1″ in height and weighing over 200lbs. Not quite immediately following, mind you…..
I enjoy visiting from time to time the wonderful website of Tyler Vigen http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations and I bought friends of mine his book as a gift.
How interesting about your grandfather, Dr M-K. I have a wonderful photography book called “Underexposed: Pictures can lie and liars use pictures” (Vision On Publishing in association with Getty Images). It contains, among many other fascinating things, a series of photos of Hitler taken by his personal photographer Heinriich Hoffman. They show Hitler carefully practicing his “spontanteous” poses and gestures alone while listening to a recording of one of his own speeches. The accompanying blurb says “Hitler ordered Hoffman to destroy the negatives; fortunately for posterity, Hoffman disobeyed. Such absurd images, had they been widely seen at such an early stage of Hitler’s political career, may well have pricked the ballooon of his shaky credibility”.
It seems that now, no matter how carefully and explicitly Andrew Wakefield’s culpabilities are exposed, some people have ‘picked thier pony’ and will believe no matter what. Sustaining his ‘charisma’ is no doubt part of getting this to work.
David,
That wasn’t my grandfather’s only brush with Hitler and his friends. He was also a pilot in the Royal Flying Corps (WWI) and the RAF (WWII) and had the dubious pleasure of being shot down by Goering (who flew a distinctive triplane). After the Second World War he took part in the Nuremburg trials in his capacity as a trusted senior member of the British establishment who was also had unique psychological experience (as an analyst) AND spoke German; he said this was the most difficult thing he had ever done. He went on to interview candidates for senior civil service positions in Germany, appointing those whom he felt were less likely to be prone to blindly following orders.
That’s fascinating. A person couldn’t be other than scarred by the evidence in the Nuremburg trials but perhaps your grandfather had, as an Analyst, at least some metal apparatus with which to process it, and everything that he had experienced in the two wars.
I have read about NVIC and Barbara Loe Fisher. What despisable organization!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Information_Center
RPGNo1 on Monday 12 October 2020 at 14:23 said:
“I have read about NVIC and Barbara Loe Fisher. What despisable organization!”
Are you for compulsory vaccination?
Only if someone discovers a vaccine for stupid
zebra on Tuesday 13 October 2020 at 09:37 said:
“Only if someone discovers a vaccine for stupid”
From here:
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2018/05/31/peds.2018-1036?versioned=true
“In this issue of Pediatrics, Moro et al4 report on the safety of the DTaP vaccine… Serious adverse events represented only 11% of the reports (and included death reports)…”
What hump? From here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leQiu_my1r0
It was only a few years ago (to any old folks) that so called “Global Warning” was just more misinformation.
@Old Bob
Did you actually read the editorial before extracting that phrase? because I don’t think it means what you think it does.
On a different note, I’m happy to report that I’ve just received my annual flu vaccination, and additionally a vaccine for pneumonia.
@Bob: Is there a point to your selective quoting? Do you even read what you post? Do you know Pepe Silvia by chance?
That paragraph in full (emphasis mine):
The only actual issue with acellular pertussis vaccines is that they don’t generate as strong and lasting an immune response as (the more effective but less safe) whole-cell pertussis vaccines, so require boosting.
Meanwhile, what about pertussis itself?
@Bob: Oh, and posting YT slop from AoA shill and grifter Mark Blaxill? Please.
Antivaxxers lie like pigs in sh*t. It’s their only notable characteristic other than a pulse.
zebra on Tuesday 13 October 2020 at 14:15 said:
“Did you actually read the editorial before extracting that phrase? because I don’t think it means what you think it does.”
Sure that applies to everything here, vaccine-wise, there is the artificial divide of believers vs non-believers expressed in anger and insults.
“On a different note, I’m happy to report that I’ve just received my annual flu vaccination, and additionally a vaccine for pneumonia.”
Which is one’s right to one’s own life.
Compulsion violates that right.
@Old Blob
Let me tell you a deep secret, known only to the pro-vaccine cabal. ??
Of course you don’t have to vaccinate all your children, only the one’s you want to keep.
Björn Geir on Tuesday 13 October 2020 at 20:38 said:
“Let me tell you a deep secret, known only to the pro-vaccine cabal. ??
Of course you don’t have to vaccinate all your children, only the ones you want to keep.”
Suppose your Spartan plan backfires from false premises and you wind up surrounded by those you did not expect to have to keep? 🙁
Old Bob,
I have no idea what you mean by this answer.
I also don’t know what you are trying to achieve by maintaining that vaccines are dangerous and illustrating that with a study showing that a particular vaccine is very safe. It isn’t the first time you have done this sort of thing and a reasonable person would conclude that you simply don’t read something before quoting it. Though I am tempted to wonder whether you actually have any views or are trying to provoke a reaction by confusing people. Henlan’s razor would favour the first explanation.
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Tuesday 13 October 2020 at 15:28 said:
“I have no idea what you mean by this answer.”
Believers cannot see anything wrong with “only…” “…death reports” – it’s the old wood-for-the-trees problem – from the outside, pertussis is just another preventable disease (page 118 of Curing the Incurable by Levy).
“I also don’t know what you are trying to achieve by maintaining that vaccines are dangerous…”
I have never said vaccines are dangerous, they should be the Ideal, but Statism always corrupts e.g. at 01:06:00 the treatment of Dr. Zimmerman and the Dr. Poling case that follows, it’s their treatment by the State that says it all (not I).
(I have just tried to confirm this from that link above but it has now been taken down i.e. banned).
“Though I am tempted to wonder whether you actually have any views…”
Sure I have views, but no one will ever be convinced by those! Does anyone here think that they can change the mind of what they call an “Anti Vaxxer” back to “Vaxxer” (we all start out as Vaxxers by default)?
It takes something extraordinary to make anyone switch their view from e.g. “Vaxxer” to “Anti Vaxxer” as Zimmerman and Poling discovered.
“…or are trying to provoke a reaction by confusing people.”
Or stimulate – if everybody agreed there would be no point to this blog.
Opinions on vaccines can be quite polarising. There is no doubt that vaccines in the past have saved lives and suffering. The problem now is giving children too many vaccines(up to 6 in the same shot) before their immune system has even had a chance to develop natural immunity. I am no anti-vaxxer but too many too young just messes with one’s immune system. It’s just common sense.
Be the guardian of your own health and decide what is good for your body.
“The problem now is giving children too many vaccines(up to 6 in the same shot) before their immune system has even had a chance to develop natural immunity.”
any evidence to show that this is a problem?
Imagine how many antigens babby’s immune system already comes into content with just upon getting pooped out. And then multiply by the number of antigens babby comes into contact with in and on every surface, food, and even air.
Scratch an anti-vaxxer will I can guarantee you’ll find a throthing, foaming purity cultist right underneath. Oh, and bonus if you scratch them with a rusty nail, ’cos Dog knows they all deserve that way more than any child ever does.
Antivaxxers don’t know the first damn thing about this world that already surrounds them. If they did, they’d crawl right back in that hole—screaming—and never ever again come out.
Lenny, Has,
I think maybe you are being a bit harsh on Tessa, who might just be a concerned mother who has heard conflicting and confusing messages.
Tessa,
Do you have any evidence to support that statement? It goes against the advice of most immunologists.
Unfortunately common sense is only as good as the information available to it, and when it comes to situations that you don’t routinely encounter it can be very misleading or even downright wrong. It is also a shortcut to avoid reasoned thinking, which requires a lot more effort but which is ultimately more reliable. Much of scientific progress has been a result of people questioning their own common sense.
Perhaps, but she hits all of their notes with a perfect pitch.
Given how antivaxxers spew lies like we breathe air, I really have no patience left for their disingenous nonsense. If Ms Ting has a problem with that, she should take it up with them for so thoroughly poisoning the well.
Tessa,
I think you have been misinformed about the way the immune system works. Natural immunity to these diseases is built up by catching them. The whole point of vaccination is to avoid this, because they are all unpleasant, many have long-lasting effects and some can be fatal. One of them (measles) is also profoundly damaging to the immune system and an infection is followed by a three-times increased risk in death from other infections as a result.
Our bodies are being bombarded by infectious agents the whole time. The fact that most of them don’t result in serious disease, or even illness at all (unless you are immunosuppressed) doesn’t mean that our immune systems aren’t constantly having to work hard.
These combination vaccines are used because large-scale clinical trials have shown that this is the safest way to give them.
No it’s not, it’s Immunology.
The mere fact you believe your “common sense” means squat in the face of one of the largest and most complex subjects in all of modern medicine only proves that on the great long curve of Dunning-Kruger, you haven’t even made it up to #NotEvenWrong yet, never mind to a level of competence where other people’s health and lives could be safely entrusted to you.
So here’s a protip: any time you have to start a sentence with “I am no anti-vaxxer but…” then yes, yes you are an antivaxxer; and your opinions on what is safe and healthy for children ranks alongside those of Andrew Wakefield and Cardinal Pell. A damn toilet block knows more about disease control than you, so feel free to stick your head next to one and ask it.
“I am no anti-vaxer”
Yes you are.
@Tessa Ting on Monday 23 November 2020 at 09:55
“Opinions on vaccines can be quite polarising.”
I don’t have an opinion about vaccines; I trust the overwhelming scientific (you must learn what that word really means) evidence which shows their efficacy. I went to school with kids who had suffered polio and it was not a pretty sight.
Perhaps you might like your kids to contract polio just to prove the evidence wrong?
@Frank Collins
As usual, the powers that be want to control the narrative by using fear tactics to control the populations…. nothing new here. What is surprising is that the sheep never learn.
The fact is the fear of Polio was overplayed…. as is Wuhan virus.
Polio can lead to paralysis or weakness in the arms, legs, or both; occurs in about 1 out of 200 people with poliovirus infection. This paralysis or weakness can last a lifetime. The key word… CAN.
So the statistics are about the same as the Wuhan Virus…. with a mortality rate of 0.05%. Covid-19 mostly effecting the elderly, Polio mostly effecting the younger population.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
I am beginning to wonder where you get all this misinformation from – oh yes, the Internet is a dangerous tool in the hands of morons.
what specifically are you contesting ?
RG,
It is true that the majority of people who contract polio do not experience neurological symptoms, or indeed any symptoms at all (which means that they can shed the virus without anybody being aware that they are infectious). It is also true that most of those in whom the infection spreads to the nervous system recover within a few weeks or months. However, that still leaves an appreciable number in whom the paralysis is permanent, or who die.
It is not only the muscles of the limbs that are affected by complete paralysis and profound wasting, but it can also affect the diaphragm and the intercostal muscles, making it impossible to breathe unaided. When I was a medical student there was a huge unit in Clapham (a district of South London) where those so affected were cared for. They had to spend their lives in a type of external ventilator known as an iron lung, which they couldn’t leave at any time; many of them had been there since childhood. Of course unless you are involved in their care you never get to meet them, so most people were unaware of their existence (this is true of everybody who is chronically sick or severely disabled – they never get to go out).
Also when I was a medical student I spent a couple of months in India, some of it attached to a hospital and some of it travelling. On every street corner there were beggars who had been crippled by polio. They were easily recognisable because the affected limbs had no visible muscles at all and were wasted to the point of appearing to be skin directly over bone.
Closer to home, my uncle contracted polio when he was a schoolboy. He was lucky inasmuch as only some of his leg muscles were permanently affected (though he had to spend a long time in bed as a teenager). Although he recovered the ability to walk he was lame all his life.
Then there were the girl I was at primary school with (until I was 11) who had to wear a calliper on her leg.
These people may only represent 0.5%, but when you multiply that my the number of people susceptible to this disease it still represents a huge number, permanently crippled, many of them unable to earn a living and some unable to live outside an institution. Even if you ignore the personal tragedies, think of the cost of their care, which has to be borne by society in some way or another.
These are the consequences of a disease that is completely preventable.
I don’t know where you get your statistics from. The fataility rate is difficult to calculate during a pandemic for many reasons. However, a recent study from Imperial College, London (as it happens, my own medical school now comes under their umbrella) suggests that in high-income countries the mortality rate is just over 1% of all infections. For low-income countries it is about a quarter of this, mainly due to differences in the age structure of the populations. The risk of death climbs very sharply with age (doubling with every 5 or 6 additional years), with those in their 70’s nearly 1,000 times as likely to die as those in their 20’s.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/
How old are you? Are you overweight? Do you have any pre-existing conditions (you have already told us about your coronary heart disease) that might increase your risk still further?
I should also point out that many people consider it offensive to refer to SARS-CoV-2 as the Wuhan virus, as this fans the flames of xenophobia and racism, and is unhelpful when it comes to dealing with it. But you probably know that already.
@Dr. JMK
Thanks for the reply doc, but you are wrong.
First of all, I’ll attempt to dispel the myth that I have a history of coronary heart disease. I never said such a thing, this message board continues to perpetuate that myth. I consumed high dose Motrin for the better part of two decades to attempt to live with severe back pain from an injury caused by lifting too much weight as a young man. When my MD decided to attempt to take me off the Motrin (for a more expensive drug but less effective med called Vioxx)….. I experienced the cardiac disruption, not before and not after. That was twenty years ago. Surly if I have coronary heart disease, it would have resurfaced by now as I am 65 years old. I have no health issues. If I have any poor health at all, it’s slightly low kidney function …. most likely due to consuming the pain medication I did for the better part of two decades. Thanks to our wonderful pharmacies & MD’s dolling out hazardous meds. I’ve never taken any other medication besides a few antibiotics and steroids. Please stop perpetuating the myth that I’m in poor health, I’m in great health, unlike some here that prescribe to the CONmed BS.
As to your anecdotes about your experience with Polio, save it doc. This forum does not accept anecdotes as evidence of anything scientific. Please don’t peddle more double standards. The statistics are what they are, regardless of the population size, a measurement indicated by percent of a population always includes the sample size.
As to the Wuhan virus statistics, I believe that they are wrong. In many many countries, including the USA, statistics are skewed towards higher death rates due to the fact that they are counting “Covid-19 deaths” as anyone that died and tested positive, but actually likely died from something other. This is easily observed when taking a look at historic illnesses such as the common flu, where death rates have PLUMMETED this year…. hmmm. Here in the USA, deaths from vehicle accidents and even gun shots were labeled as Covid-19…. please. The death statistics attributed to Wuhan virus are skewed, because people that died with the virus were counted as dying FROM the virus. When Joe Biden’s own party pushes him off a cliff, they will contend he died of Covid-19.
As for the Wuhan virus, you call it SARS-CoV-2 if that fits your PC stance. I care nothing for being Politically Correct, nor do I care if anybody is offended by the truth. The liberal biased media can be blamed for initiating the name of the “Wuhan Virus” to the current pandemic…. as they called it for weeks in the beginning of 2020. And many many nation states also mimicked the label. If it pleases you, I can post dozens, if not hundreds of links with the media referring to the pandemic as the Wuhan Virus. So take up your matter with the media, they are the ones that named the pandemic that began in Wuhan China the Wuhan Virus… not me. Now, the pandemic of 1918 WAS actually wrongly labeled… the “Spanish flu”, but I’m not aware of anybody calling that xenophobic or racist…. save it doc, your political opinions are as skewed as the statistics.
I will agree with you on one matter doc. Less than healthy populations are at higher risk to succumb to the Wuhan virus. This is the primary reason that the USA is failing in spite of a ridiculous amount of money spent here on healthcare…. the general population here is in terrible heath. We can thank the failures of CONmed for this tragedy…. to many people popping pills that provide little benefit, while at the same time causing chronic disease.
RG,
Thank-you for the clarification. You have previously stated that you nearly died as a result of a cardiac problem caused by Vioxx (rofecoxib). Rofecoxib is known to increase the risk of coronary heart disease, and on the basis of what you said I inferred that you had had a myocardial infarction (death of part of the heart muscle as a result of occlusion of a branch of one of the coronary arteries). If the coronary disease is limited, there is no reason why there should be further episodes in future, of course. However, as you have not specified the exact nature of your cardiac disruption perhaps I was wrong to draw the inference that I did.
It is true that anecdotes aren’t evidence. However, they are often useful to illustrate a point. Your statistic about the relatively small proportion of those contracting polio going on to have permanent neurological impairment does not give any indication of the impact that this has on their lives (you also seem to have ignored the fact that not everybody survives the initial infection). Furthermore, when you multiply that small proportion by the number of people who used to be infected with this once-common disease it becomes a serious public-health problem. Polio and its associated paralysis is something that everybody was once familiar with, and feared, because they encountered it all the time, affecting their friends, neighbours and family members. Now that it is rare, that fear has gone, along with the fear of many other diseases successfully controlled by routine vaccination.
Covid-19 deaths are defined as deaths occurring within 28 days of a positive test. The reason for this is that it is unambiguous, it clearly shows changes with time and it allows comparison between different regions. Certainly this means that cases where SARS-CoV-2 was not the primary cause are still counted. On the other hand, cases where there was no test, or where the test was negative, are not counted. This includes deaths in the community where the individual never got as far as a hospital, and also hospital admissions where the clinical features clearly point to Covid-19 but the virus is not found in pharyngeal or nasal swabs.
These actually account for quite a lot of deaths. The coronavirus is capable of infecting many different organs, particularly the heart, which has a lot of ACE receptors for the spike protein to bind to. This can mimic the symptoms of coronary heart disease, but also commonly causes ventricular arrhythmias, leading to sudden death. When the number of infections in New York was at its height, for instance, the rate of sudden death in the community rose to four times its usual number, and many cardiologists report seeing cases of acute chest pain with normal coronary arteries that turn out to be Covid-19.
Furthermore, I understand from speaking to my colleagues managing Covid-19 that as many as a third of patients ill enough to require hospital admission have negative viral swabs, simply because the virus is in body sites which are not readily accessible (the heart, the kidneys, or very often deep in the lungs).
Although the official way of counting Covid-19 deaths clearly does include some which most people would consider to have another cause, it misses a lot of deaths directly due to Covid-19, and over all probably underestimates the number of cases, which is certainly what the excess mortality rates over expected numbers suggest.
The number of cases of flu, and how dangerous it is, can vary a lot from one year to the next, and the season has barely got going so far. However, it does seem that social distancing, lockdown and other measures taken to prevent the transmission of the coronavirus are also effecting in reducing the spread of influenza.
I don’t know what you mean by liberal biased media. The media that I encountered didn’t use the term, but I don’t tend to watch, read or listen to US news services. My objection to the term “Wuhan virus” is not that it isn’t politically correct, but that it is inflammatory and fuels racism, and indeed the association of the pandemic with China has led to a number of attacks on individuals of oriental origin. I am quite happy to refer to infections with Borelia burgdorferii as Lyme disease, and acute myocarditis as being due to the Cocksackie virus, even though these both refer to places in America, because I don’t expect anybody to be racially abused as a result.
Poor diet, lack of exercise, smoking, obesity, social deprivation and and large portions of the population lacking access to healthcare have nothing to do with it, of course.
@Dr. JMK
doc, absolutely you are correct, people in the US are dying due to those poor individual health conditions…. with or without a virus to speed the process.
Social deprivation ?? … I dunno. Lack of access to healthcare ?? … not really. Anybody that needs emergency assistance is not denied attention at hospitals…. especially for the Wuhan virus. For the first part of the 2020, it wasn’t like healthcare professionals were exactly saving the world from the virus. The care happening in most of the world was largely unsuccessful.
If we refer to the 1918 flu as the “Spanish flu” …. and yet nobody believes it originated there, I don’t have an issue referring to SARS-CoV-2 as the Wuhan virus, since it DID originate in Wuhan. You call it what you choose, and so will I.
I’m not racist nor xenophobic towards Chinese people doc. I tend to enjoy most people from all over the world. However, I do have issue with the PRC government. For that, I’ll shove it up their arse every opportunity I get.
We refer to “Spanish Flu” because that’s the nickname the H1N1 epidemic of a century ago was given at the time, and it has stuck.
It got that nickname because Spain was neutral in the First World War, and reported honest casualty figures for the epidemic, while other countries disguised the true figures. This made it look as if the epidemic was worse in Spain (which it was not) and the nickname came about.
In 1918 very little was known about viruses; certainly not the differences between an H1N1 virus and a Coronoavirus. Viruses up until then, were mostly understood in relation to plant diseases, as far as I recall reading.
It seems invidious to me, to use something from a century ago to justify a turn of phrase today. It is good to know that you are not xenophobic or anti-Chinese, because you rather made it sound as if you are.
@David B
I find that interesting, because many doubt the PRC has reported honest casualty numbers from the pandemic, me included.
“It is good to know that you are not xenophobic or anti-Chinese, because you rather made it sound as if you are.”
This is the problem with putting labels on people you don’t know. You assume that because I say something that I must fit the label that exists … in YOUR mind. Perhaps those that feel the need to apply such labels to others are the true racist, bigots and xenophobes. I don’t know, I’m not calling anyone those names.
The problem was what you wrote – it made it sound rather as if you fitted a particular label.
I’m afraid I don’t know what the PRC is.
RG on Wednesday 25 November 2020 at 13:00 said…
…about folks labelling other folks
It is interesting how “immune” most folks are to their projection – but maybe that is the intention: to broadcast their “loyalties” for approval? – the no-man-is-an-island thing, which then becomes an embarrassment in itself (so you have to pretend to belong to avoid being found out as not belonging 🙂 – that’s the problem of being a social animal: being oneself without being oneself at the same time 🙂
This guy says it pretty well:
https://www.usna.edu/Ethics/_files/documents/stoicism1.pdf
@ Old Bob
What’s your point ?
I can’t accept the Chinese people with open arms if I hate the government ?
Or that I’m hiding something larger behind my vehement disapproval of a tyrannical regime ?
C’mon Bob, speak in plain terms and say what you mean.
RG on Wednesday 25 November 2020 at 15:31 said:
“What’s your point ? …speak in plain terms and say what you mean.”
You are right, I should have used “one” as in “oneself” and not the “you” – this is sloppy writing – it is not intended to be personal but to everyone including myself. But J.B. Stockdale, in that link, knits together a whole bunch of stuff into Stoic philosophy from his extreme life experience…
what specifically are you contesting ?
If you make a claim, please support with evidence.
Can anyone explain why this was “retracted”?:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697110960/fulltext#secd1366540e753
Quote:
“Interpretation
We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.”
end-of-quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
@EE
That’s the oldest trick in the book. Silence the opposition via false discrediting.
Control the media, control the news cycle.
@RG
Just because something contradicts your unevidenced beliefs doesn’t mean it’s false.
We also know what a loose grasp you have of what constitutes truth.
Oh and those allegations of widespread electoral fraud don’t seem to be coming to very much. Almost as if they too were a load of whiny, unevidenced horseshit from the orange liar-in-chief you worship.
Hahaha…. ?
Don’t you have something useful to do Old Blob? Like taking out the trash, rake leaves and chop wood for the winter?
Björn Geir on Tuesday 24 November 2020 at 08:16 said:
“Hahaha…. ?”
That would be a “no” then.
“The retraction stated:
We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However the possibility of such a link was raised, and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent”
Strange how we can click on links, but you can’t, OB
Lenny on Tuesday 24 November 2020 at 13:37 discovered that:
“The retraction stated:
We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However the possibility of such a link was raised, and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent”
Thank you Lenny.
As the retraction states, the reasons are “…major implications…” and “…appropriate time…” and “…according to precedent…” i.e. political reasons, not scientific.
You conveniently forgot to mention the primary bit of science there, Robert my dear old thing.
Continue to dream your dreams. Science doesn’t care what you think.
Lenny on Tuesday 24 November 2020 at 14:56 said:
“You conveniently forgot to mention the primary bit of science there, Robert my dear old thing.
no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism”
That would be case “disproved”, not “retracted”.
No, Signor Roberto. Are you being intentionally obtuse?
To quote mathematician Bertrand Russell:
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense”.
The burden of proof rests with the one proposing a theory. There is no burden of disproof on readers/listeners.
Because Wakefield’s article got some people rattled, however, scientists undertook the task of disproof, and comprehensively achieved it.
The article was retracted because, while it initially had seemed good enough for publication, it was later realised not to have been.
David B on Tuesday 24 November 2020 at 16:43 said:
“The burden of proof rests with the one proposing a theory. There is no burden of disproof on readers/listeners.
Because Wakefield’s article got some people rattled, however, scientists undertook the task of disproof, and comprehensively achieved it.
The article was retracted because, while it initially had seemed good enough for publication, it was later realised not to have been.”
How can anyone argue with that? It’s reasonable and gentle – everyone would have been happy because Wakefield would have asked for it to be retracted because the science had “comprehensively [disproved] it.” and the article only claimed that:
Quote:
“Interpretation
We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.”
end-of-quote
in the first place.
But instead there is all this aggravation e.g. the first line of the wiki link above says:
quote:
Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former physician and academic who was struck off the medical register due to his involvement in the Lancet MMR autism fraud, a 1998 study that falsely claimed a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism.
end-of-quote
Which is evidently slewed from Wakefield’s article’s “…generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers…” and the wiki page’s “…falsey claimed a link between measles, mumps and rubella…” – that’s the size of the PR problem the medical profession has created for itself.
The more the authorities try to “prove” anything by striking the doctor off, the more they martyr him and drive anyone with any slight uneasiness, into his video productions and his new book.
Also there is Brian Deer. There are also videos of him on youTube. Compare Deer to Wakefield… it’s not a good comparison, again, purely from a PR viewpoint.
The days of peer reviewed, academic sanctity are over. The world has gone mad and Twitter rules, which means that all that is required is a simple, two minute video WITHOUT ANY SHOUTING, that shows in a quiet way, *exactly* why vaccines are safe with good graphics and solid facts, ending with Andrew Wakefield commenting on them – if he is bananas, it will be obvious from his contradiction of these facts – job done.
The worse thing to do is the personal attack that just reflects back on the accuser.
Old Bob,
The paper did indeed claim that. However, it was a false claim as they did not actually find any gastrointestinal disease at all, nor was the temporal association with their proposed environmental triggers (measles vaccine) actually there in many of the cases cited.
The General Medical Council has one function and one function only, which is to ensure that a doctor is fit to practise. If he is not, then they either suspend him from the Register pending further measures (such as retraining), or else they stop him practising by removing him altogether. Their remit is not to punish wrongdoing, nor do they have the authority to do so. Their role is public safety.
There is no doubt that Andrew Wakefield is an extraordinarily charismatic individual. So was Hitler, according to my grandfather, who attended one of the Nuremburg rallies and after hearing him speak, and seeing the effect that he had on his audience, returned to England to prepare for war (he went back to Nuremburg after the War, this time to interview war criminals). In neither case has their ability to sway people any bearing on the truth of their words.
thank you for your many attempts to put warped thinking straight.
Dr Julian Money-Kyrle on Wednesday 25 November 2020 at 01:26 said:
“…In neither case has their ability to sway people any bearing on the truth of their words.”
I agree. Swaying people has nothing to do with presentation because people cannot be swayed, not even under hypnosis, against their own moral values. Anyone who appears to be swayed, was of that particular persuasion already (by definition.)
@David B – I think the PRC referred to in the comments at 06.49 and 13.00 on 25 November is the People’s Republic of China.
Ah yes, thank you! I have obtuse moments….