Is the US government good for our health?

[Truthseeker]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4030[/ATTACH]

So many strawmen!
I don't think smallpox was eradicated by just soap and water (Hygienic Helen).
I don't think vaccines are tools of the Illuminati (Loony Lucy).
I don't think vaccines were invented by the rich. Not to sterilize the poor children and depopulate the earth (Loony Lucy).
There are more.

[Sparko]

So many strawmen!
I don't think smallpox was eradicated by just soap and water (Hygienic Helen).
I don't think vaccines are tools of the Illuminati (Loony Lucy).
I don't think vaccines were invented by the rich. Not to sterilize the poor children and depopulate the earth (Loony Lucy).
There are more.

You are more like a combination of Autism Andy and Hoaxy Holly.

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

More evidence of Big Pharma malfesance: Roche's Tamiflu and GlaxoSmithKline's Relenza. Those manufacturers are dragging their feet on releasing trial data, like they have something to hide--that those drugs are not as effective as the reported results of the trials make them appear.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...-data/1699521/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0411091937.htm

In 2009, a lack of access to available trial data hampered the efforts of the Cochrane researchers to verify the safety and effectiveness of Tamiflu -- and led to questions over decisions to stockpile the drug while the risks and benefits remained uncertain.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/british-...wont-stop-flu/
(Not shown are more reports from other organizations.)

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

While I was trying to master this paper

"Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine," Clinical Infectious Disease, 2012; 54(12):1778-1783 Link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404712/

with the aid of the Internet, I discovered another paper

"Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0013085/

Here are some quotations from the paper:

Source: paper cited just above

Children (< 16 years old) and the elderly (above 65 years old) are the two age groups that appear to have the most complications following an influenza infection. . . .
We could find no usable data for those aged two years or younger.

Inactivated vaccines in children aged two years or younger are not significantly more efficacious than placebo. . . .
Variability in study design and presentation of data was such that a meta‐analysis of safety outcome data was not feasible. Extensive evidence of reporting bias of safety outcomes from trials of live attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) impeded meaningful analysis. One specific brand of monovalent pandemic vaccine is associated with cataplexy and narcolepsy in children . . .

© Copyright Original Source

Do read the Authors' conclusions.

To be honest with you, I'm tempted to say that the USFG is burying damning data from studies of children 2 years old and younger, perhaps the cohort that is most vulnerable to both the flu and vaccines against it. That could be why we lack information on what harm flu vaccination is doing to them.

If you disagree, you should give a good reason for the lack of clinical data. If you say a lack of money, why didn't the USFG shift money from other trials to fund trials for that cohort? If the USFG is bumbling, well, how long are we going to allow that?

[Truthseeker]

James Dale Davidson wrote about what Fernand Braudel, the great historian, said about the well connected and state power:

Source: Davidson's March 2015 issue

He saw from his study of history that it was typical for the well-connected to procure the assistance of state power in promolugating regulations that improve the profitability of their operations at the expense of others.

© Copyright Original Source

So, as I see things, the partnership between the USFG and Big Medicine, Big Agriculture, Big Pharma, etc. is NOT at all unusual. It's typical.

[Sparko]

Source: http://www.theonion.com/articles/pfizer-mercifully-puts-down-another-batch-of-trial,38114/

Pfizer Mercifully Puts Down Another Batch Of Trial Patients

NEW YORK—Following unforeseen complications during a trial of the company’s new cholesterol medication Lipodrin, researchers at pharmaceutical manufacturer Pfizer said they were forced to put down another batch of test patients out of mercy Friday. “Initially the results were very promising, but after a third of our patients showed troubling side effects we had to make the difficult decision to terminate the subject group—at that point, it was the only humane thing to do,” said lead researcher Richard Dunn, confirming that this was the second test group in a week that had to be eliminated, following a group of 30 arthritis sufferers who had responded poorly to a new 300 mg formulation of Celebrex. “This is often an unfortunate part of the development stage, but I can assure you that not all is lost; with what we’ve been able to learn from this now-deceased cohort, we’re almost certain to earn FDA approval after the next series of trials.” Dunn further expressed his dismay that, since there was no longer anything to compare them against, the members of the study’s control group would also need to be euthanized.

© Copyright Original Source

[Truthseeker]

Source: http://www.theonion.com/articles/pfizer-mercifully-puts-down-another-batch-of-trial,38114/

Pfizer Mercifully Puts Down Another Batch Of Trial Patients

© Copyright Original Source

Aside your amusing people (I think some may be offended, including me), I wondered what you realistically hope to accomplish.

I think you do agree that there are nasty side effects. Our disagreement concerning them is that you think they are worth risking (even death!?) and I fear that in some cases they are not. The flu vaccines, for example, are typically only 30% or so efficient, so they clearly are among the worst vaxes in the reward-risk balance.

Or perhaps it's a question of how much weight to give to anecdotal evidence. You would give no weight on the grounds it is not scientific.

Oh, wait. Pfizer "merciful"?? If we take the opposite position because this is an Onion piece, then it would be Pfizer = callous disregard toward the people of the world. Maybe you outfoxed yourself?

[Sparko]

wXFZq4z.jpg

[Truthseeker]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4284[/ATTACH]

Which anesthetic? Let's assume the most commonly administered kind. Please cite the medical literature as to safety. Please don't cite studies that were funded by Big Pharma, i.e., please cite independent trials.

Which adrenaline? Questions same as above.

It would be common sense not to prescribe an antibiotic for viral pneumonia. Let's skip that one because we don't have enough details.

Ventolin? I don't think I've seen that before. Anyway, questions same as for the anesthetic.

Is morphine now considered to be a Big Pharma product? I doubt it. If it is, questions same as for the anesthetic.

If you can come up with plenty of good citiations in 2 hours, [time mark=2:25 PST, so 4:25 PM PST], I will concede the graphic is justified.

At any rate, ridicule is not a good case for your side.

[lilpixieofterror]

Which anesthetic? Let's assume the most commonly administered kind. Please cite the medical literature as to safety. Please don't cite studies that were funded by Big Pharma, i.e., please cite independent trials.

Which adrenaline? Questions same as above.

It would be common sense not to prescribe an antibiotic for viral pneumonia. Let's skip that one because we don't have enough details.

Ventolin? I don't think I've seen that before. Anyway, questions same as for the anesthetic.

Is morphine now considered to be a Big Pharma product? I doubt it. If it is, questions same as for the anesthetic.

If you can come up with plenty of good citiations in 2 hours, [time mark=2:25 PST, so 4:25 PM PST], I will concede the graphic is justified.

At any rate, ridicule is not a good case for your side.

Ridicule is all you deserve. Isn't it interesting that when your nonsense vaccine denial started up; cases of diseases that were once done for in the US are making a comeback? How many people are going to have to die or end up with serious disabilities before you'll admit your vaccine denial nonsense is well... nonsense?

[Truthseeker]

Ridicule is all you deserve. Isn't it interesting that when your nonsense vaccine denial started up; cases of diseases that were once done for in the US are making a comeback? How many people are going to have to die or end up with serious disabilities before you'll admit your vaccine denial nonsense is well... nonsense?

It is now 7:54 PM PST. Still no citation of the medical literature. When Sparko posted that graphic that slammed anti-vaxxers, maybe he didn't have in his mind already laid-out and organized medical data that would justify the graphic.

Are you thinking that we can and should ignore nasty side effects of Big Pharma products? Unfortunately, we don't have data other than anecdotal evidence. I wonder why you are so certain that the answer to that question is an unqualified yes.

Could I guess that you posted, not he, to deflect an embarrassing situation?

[Sparko]

TS, the point of the graphic was this: You basically say "big Pharma" is trying to kill us for money by vaccinating us. Yet when it comes right down to it, you would gladly accept anesthesia and medicine from the same people you are paranoid about. If you were true to your principals you would refuse all medication no matter what. Need a leg amputated? Do it without Big Pharma's anesthetics!

The graphic is about anti-vaxxer's hypocrisy. Your hypocrisy. Just like you said you wanted the government (who is out to get us all) to pay you wind subsidies.

You have absolutely no credibility, TS. Everyone sees you as a conspiracy nut. This is how everyone imagines you:

index.jpg

[Truthseeker]

Disclaimer: "Buyer beware!" The government should have made the market a honest place, but that caveat is still necessary. The risks that you decide to take on are solely your responsibility. Whatever advice you take from my posts here has to be treated with due diligence. I cannot guarantee that I will never make a mistake, but your health or that of your dependents is still solely your responsibility.

Daylight Savings Time may cost health as well as money.
http://www.ajconline.org/article/S00...443-5/abstract
http://preventdisease.com/news/12/03...m_medium=email
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...CB32980.d04t01
http://www.uab.edu/news/focus-on-pat...ht-saving-time
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc0807104

[Truthseeker]

Yet when it comes right down to it, you would gladly accept anesthesia and medicine from the same people you are paranoid about. If you were true to your principals you would refuse all medication no matter what. Need a leg amputated? Do it without Big Pharma's anesthetics!

The graphic is about anti-vaxxer's hypocrisy. Your hypocrisy. Just like you said you wanted the government (who is out to get us all) to pay you wind subsidies.

I did and do not want the government to subsidize anything. I thought I explained things clearly enough before. I think I said, "I have to live in the world as it is, not as I want it to be." If I can't stop the government from getting its regular pelf (income taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, tariffs, etc.) I think I have a right to get a little back on the wealth that the government took from me.

You are sure making a lot out of my hypocrisy. Why? You found out that you couldn't refute my allegations by providing citations of the medical literature (now 1:39 PM PST of the next day), so decided to shift ground, attacking my hypocrisy?

You have absolutely no credibility, TS. Everyone sees you as a conspiracy nut.

More assertions without any citation of interviews you have done or some other source of data. Wow, you surely are pressing hard to maybe stop my posting here, like you are worried about something.

Please stop littering the thread. You might go so far as to push me into asking you to stop posting anything here.

[lilpixieofterror]

It is now 7:54 PM PST. Still no citation of the medical literature. When Sparko posted that graphic that slammed anti-vaxxers, maybe he didn't have in his mind already laid-out and organized medical data that would justify the graphic.

I have better things to do than wait for you to post online TS. Anyway, the data is pretty clear, your anti vaccine nonsense is precisely nonsense. Look at the latest outbreak in Disneyland for a perfect example. Almost all the ones that got sick, were those who had no vaccine despite the fact that thousands of people, who were vaccinated, were exposed to measles and only a hand full ended up getting sick. If that isn't a perfect example of just how bad your anti vaccine nonsense is utter nonsense well... I don't know what is.

Are you thinking that we can and should ignore nasty side effects of Big Pharma products? Unfortunately, we don't have data other than anecdotal evidence. I wonder why you are so certain that the answer to that question is an unqualified yes.

Do you have any evidence of any 'nasty side effects' of vaccines or are you just making up things in the hopes you'll be believed? Plenty of studies have been done on vaccines because they are some of the oldest medicine around (this journal dates from the early 19th century and you get to hear about the history of the smallpox vaccine). Vaccines existed before 'big pharma' did and well your ranting is well outright false because vaccines predate the target you are ranting against by hundreds of years. Hundreds of years of data that vaccines really do work or the rantings of an internet kook; who wants others to jump though hoops he's unwilling to jump though. Decisions decisions...

Could I guess that you posted, not he, to deflect an embarrassing situation?

I don't need to because you're wrong and very wrong at that. Isn't it interesting that outbreaks of diseases that were long gone here in the US have started back up again because of your anti vaccine nonsense? How many people are going to have to end up with serious disabilities or dying before you'll admit that your anti vaccine nonsense is not only bad science, but even dangerous?