At least seven _additional_ SEVERE diseases/viruses. This is the part I really find baffling from you vaccinate everything all the time people. No, it's not just 7 vaccines. It's 7 MORE nasty things than the body normally has to deal with, including a whole lot of various ingredients that the body has to process in terms of attenuation solutions.
These are not mild and easy to fight diseases and viruses which is why people figured it was a good idea to make vaccines for them. Today, we are giving kids 312% more vaccines than we did 25 years ago. How many long term studies do we have on the impact of vaccines in that time? Only what the manufacturers are giving to the FDA and CDC for the most part.
Again, if you think it's just 7 shots you are either a shill or insane. The Monsanto executive that claimed that vaccines are so safe you could get 10,000 vaccinations in a day. Yet he never accepted bets from a few people to get just 100 or 1000 in a day. Similar to the the guy from Monsanto that claimed Roundup was so "not harmful" you could drink a gallon and it would not harm you, yet he would not take a sip when the interviewer took him at his word and offered a glass.
There are certainly many factors that could be impacting increased physiological disorders. Average age is the only factor and we have ruled out everything else? Prove it!
Look at factors that have changed in the last 30 years along with the ~300% increase in autism, and there are several.
I await your amazing proof, and hope you validate the source. No! An opinion piece from WebMD or any other site does not constitute a study.
I picked on the Varicella vaccine for a reason, namely that I have done some hefty research on this. The only misinformation is yours, stop reading the first thing you find and believing it's the gospel. CDC's web site is full of many studies, some more recent than others. So lets clear up two of your completely false points
First, The varicella vaccine does NOT make you immune to shingles. That is a fairy tale, and if it's not on Snopes yet it should be. Manufacturers don't make the claim, and CDC states flat out that Shingles is not impacted by the vaccine what so ever.
Next, there is no such thing as immunity to chicken pox. People who have had the vaccine series still have a 10-20% chance of infection (depending on which study you read on the CDC's site). People who received the live vaccine will amazingly be able to transmit and have all of the chicken pox symptoms with a milder version, and still be infected by a more severe case due to natural exposure. The whole reason for the newer series of both varicella and MMR is that they were only 60-80% effective (again, choose a study). They "believe" that with a series of 3 there is an effective rate of 90%.
Yeah, pushing dubious vaccines is bad. I brought up some legitimate questions which you simply dismissed without doing ample research. "it's certainly not dangerous" is an outright lie. Here I quickly found that the odds for a "severe" reaction to MMR (not MMRV) is 1 in 250,000. Compared to the severe complications to the raw varicella virus, it s certainly more dangerous. I'll certainly be fair and retract the 1 in 30,000 (looks like the CDC removed that link) and go with the 1 in 250,000. My points are all still valid because the vaccine is exponentially higher risk.
Try actually searching the CDC site, and you can find some amazing information. Your page is quite different from this CDC page. Funny that attempt to call me a shill yet completely ignore the disclaimer on these pages. How did you miss the fact that the date of your information is from 2008, and provided by Merck. You do know that there are numerous manufacturers of different types of varicella vaccine don't you? And you only cover one.. shame on you.
The page I linked above has this:
(This information taken from MMRV VIS dated 5/21/10. If the actual VIS is more recent than this date, the information on this page needs to be updated.)
Amazingly you find yet more information on that link, I know.. research is hard.
This CDC page says 4 in 1 million. or 1 in 250,000 which is still how many times higher than 100 in 300 Million? I'm not able to find the 1 in 30,000 number at the moment, but I don't need to do so to prove that the odds of death are higher with the vaccine.. for a non-lethal and non-debilitating virus. Sure, I'll retract the 1 in 30,000 and replace it with 1 in 250,000 and you still have 24 times greater chance of death than with the virus (not considering how improvements in medical treatments would change the highest ever rated mortality rate for chicken pox.)
I await your retraction of false allegations and apology for shitty research..
Suddenly, you're born and you're literally being assaulted by every germ around you, with probably thousands of them being encountered by your immune system every day.
Are you attempting to agree with me? It is hard enough to come into the world and survive the first few months after birth. Do we need to be given a Hepatitis vaccine the moment you are born. No check for the baby's condition, no testing for health, just pump them with the vaccine is what we should be doing? You want to tell me that this relatively new procedure has nothing to do with childhood illnesses which have skyrocketed since put into practice?
Lets play the Socratic method. Ask your doctor this question: Would he recommend that you get any type of surgery while you have bronchitis? (I just picked a random common illness) If your doctor says "Is it life threatening?" breath a sigh of relief. If they say "Sure" then you should find a new doctor that understands the human body quite a bit better.
Simple fact, our immune systems are not always running at 100% efficiency. Another simple fact, everyone is slightly different. Stuffing 8-12 diseases into every single kid on their 2nd birthday, in a single sitting, is pure lunacy. That would be like claiming that every single patient with strep should have no problem undergoing a tonsillectomy. No, not everyone could withstand that procedure, and any MD with any level of training would be able to tell you this.
How are a *few* shots (7 may seem like a lot to you) going to compare against thousands of things all hitting the naive immune system of an infant all at once, starting from birth, every day?
Absolutely, kids are already inundated with viruses, diseases, and bacteria. Their bodies are learning about how to fight those things without people adding severe diseases and viruses to their system. Adding 1 new disease like we did for 40+ years seemed to be a reasonable number. Hell, when I had the MMR vaccine our Doctors asked us about our general health _before_ giving the vaccine. I will say, as with Polio and Small Pox, most people handled 3 assuming they were in good health.
The CDC entry on Varicella points to the MFR page, it's really too bad that people can't seem to do any of their own studies any longer, but I digress. Vaccine MFR.s all recommend that you are in reasonable good health prior to getting any vaccine. Are you going to tell me that every Walmart and Grocery store pharmacist is checking this with people before they give any vaccines? Or, are they mass pumping these things without checking because they get paid very well when they do? Many of the Doctors are in the same boat, because if they don't push the influenza vaccine (as one example) they can be reprimanded or face disciplinary action at certain medical facilities.
How about the fact that ALL vaccines are produced differently, with different ingredients and attenuation solutions. Some are made from animal and insect parts, others from metals, others from fetal or cadaver parts. That is certainly not to claim that "vaccines" are bad, but that not everyone will react to vaccines which are ALL made and contain DIFFERENT materials.
The simple fact is that In less than 30 years we have had a minimum 312% increase in childhood vaccinations. Autism rates have gone up just a hair under 300%, again according to the CDC. We read those two numbers clear as day, but we are not allowed to look at vaccines as a possible cause? Are you kidding me?
And you moderators censoring should be ashamed of yourselves!
There are some valid questions regarding our vaccine policy and it's impacts on health, which you can't find because shills on both side drown out any discussion.
People, including many medical professionals, are questioning two aspects of our policy.
1. Why have vaccines and autism rates both grown exponentially in the last 25 years? (no, detection does not come close to answering)
2. Why can we not separate vaccines into proper discussion?
The first question is related to how in 1989 Kids up until age 18 received 7 vaccines. Today, it is 72. That is a very drastically different number, and 10X is about the same rate that autism has increased. Correlation does not always equate to causation, but in this case the numbers are close. Some theories related to how many vaccines kids are getting in a single sitting. The body is having to react to the impact of a dozen diseases simultaneously depending on the series. Others relate to a change in practices where kids are getting vaccines on a schedule without evaluating their health. A body fighting off influenza is not going to be able to fight off Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Polio, Diphtheria, Varicella, and every other disease they attempt to stuff into a schedule.
The second part surely relates to the first, but is a different discussion. That is why are we attempting to force vaccines for so many diseases and viruses that are NOT deadly or debilitating?
For example: The highest rate of mortality for Chicken Pox is 100 out of 300Million. This was what could possibly be attributed, which means that most of these people were already fatally ill with things like Leukemia when they contracted the Chicken Pox. The mortality rate of the vaccine according to the CDC is 1 in 30,000. (The actual wording on the CDC site is that 2 out of 15,000 will have extremely severe reactions to the vaccine, and 1 of those will be fatal.
You can do the math, and validate those numbers with US Census and CDC information.
To carry that thought a bit further (again you can validate this on the US CDC) We must give 3 vaccines for Varicella to have a reasonable chance of immunity. So the chances of a fatality from a vaccine is actually much higher than 1 in 30,000. Again, for a disease that was not considered fatal, or debilitating in any way.
You can run the same comparisons for morbidity and mortality for influenza and see a similar set of numbers. Try again with Gardasil which Texas attempted to mandate for boys and girls.
What vaccines are you talking about when you make your claims makes a huge difference in how we hold a discussion. Let me see if your point is educated at all, or if you are just a noise maker.
Selective reading. How about "As someone stated above, if advertising didn't work nobody in their right mind would dump the hundreds of billions into advertising year after year after decade.. (you get the point). It works, they do dump the money. ".
Psychological manipulation trumps your freewill more often than you probably know.
"Dr. Oz is a quack" is not a fact, it's an opinion. It's pretty frightening that you seem to lack the ability to differentiate fact from opinion. That is what the site does over and over, as do you. You, and those sites are spending so much time poisoning the well and attacking that there is no fact, except that you appear to be a bunch of jealous juveniles without the ability for rational thought.
I am not passing judgement on him, because I lack the facts. I can however point out how irrational you are in your opinion.
It is impossible to argue with irrational people, come back after you mature and can present a fact bases opinion.
I very much doubt you will change this person's delusional opinion. I asked for facts to back the claim, and receive a frigging blog post. The same blog post linked in TFA, and it also contains no evidence. Ad hominem, appeals to emotion, no facts.
Are you so mentally deranged that you claim a blog post is evidence? No, it's not! Instead of wallowing in your pathetic OPINION step back and review FACTS.
Was he reprimanded in any way by any medical board? NO
Was he found guilty of any form of malpractice? NO
If the doctors want to claim he is a quack they must provide evidence. If you claim he's a quack YOU must provide evidence. No evidence == delusional opinion.
I read the letter, and the blog post TFA links to. I see no facts or evidence. I heard GW Bush claim Saddam had WMDs too, and that didn't happen did it?
The only way to prove their claim is demonstrating with evidence.
EVIDENCE! Good grief, this is not a difficult concept. Reading the one guys "blog" (trusted publication right?) I see the same claims, but zero evidence. His beef is that Oz is on the teaching staff for surgery. Did Oz teach surgeons wrong? Or is the guy jealous and bitching because Oz can cash in thanks to some help from Oprah. That is a fair question given the astounding (not really) lack of evidence and amount of ad hominem and appeals to emotion I see from him (and you, and another person in the thread).
Now, do you have any evidence to back your claim? A lack of evidence would make you the quack.
Show me the examples of him being a quack, or even a specific from the letter outside of "anti-gmo". You know, facts and evidence. The things you are supposed to have when leveling charges attempting to damage people. I see lots of ad hominem, and quite a bit from you as well. Pretty handy how you use several appeals to emotion so that anyone disagreeing with your opinion is either "HURRR DURRR" conspiracy theory or smearmonger.
If you want to claim a MD is a quack, you need to address specifics.
I have only seen his show a couple times and didn't see anything "harmful" or different than my doctor might. If he did something no other MD would do, lets see the evidence.
Sadly there are plenty of assholes that claim people are guilty because they have an opinion. Happens all the time here. Take a good whiff and make sure it's not you that smells. Facts and evidence are pretty important things to have, and I have seen nothing from you or the people who wrote the letter that resemble facts.
I see no substance to the claims of quackery, just empty claims. Yeah, he pissed off Monsanto or Bayer or one of those, because that is the only thing they will firmly claim.
Ask the important question: How long has he been on TV and just now someone want's to claim he's a quack? Sorry, his format has not changed, nor the advice he is giving out. Then look at cui bono, and it's obvious what is going on.
Sadly, there are many religious zealots who claim to believe in science, but can not differentiate fact from opinion. You will find plenty in this thread even. They were told all this stuff is good, and "smart people don't question", so they don't.
One out of how many modified foods? Every time people back GMOs they claim Rice is the great savior. You know, that rice that has been banned in most countries in Europe, and is being dumped on the poor Asian population. Meanwhile, Japan was able to create a flood resistant rice with a few seasons of hybridization and no genetic modification since Japan outlawed GMO foods. That was the first rice that was touted as the great savior of GMO reputation, but we didn't need the damn fungus and insect genes to do it!
And look, I'm not saying all GMOs are bad. I'm saying that not all of them have been good. Do you think that no science was used in the European countries who all banned GMOs? That, is called denial.
Why do you omit the most important fact when attempting to conflate genetic modification with evolution? You know, that pesky fact that evolution maintains balance because ALL creatures are evolving. GMO foods do not.
The second most important fact is that people in the US are not demanding a ban, they are demanding labeling so that they can choose. Your statements, nor the big GMO companies, address that simple fact. They treat the request for label as if it were a ban.
Lastly, evolution does not allow the types of modifications genetics is allowing. Look at how many GMO vegetables contain Fungus, Insect, and Animal DNA. Attempting to claim it's the same as evolution is an absolute lie.
You insult someone else as being ignorant as your last defense... pathetic, and transparent.
You are a rare type, that is why you understand where to put the blame. Bernays, Skinner and others proved that deception works very well in advertising. Subtle hints everywhere, instead of the big old phrase "SMOKE CIGARETTES" they just posted pictures with a woman smoking in the background to normalize it and make women think they should be smoking. This type of shit happens very often, and unless you know to look for things you can, and very often will be deceived into making a bad decisions.
A couple examples: Credit scores - pure scam to keep you in debt for points.
Food, Alcohol, and drugs are everywhere in advertising and "product placements" in movies. Not a little, every single movie made today has this.
As someone stated above, if advertising didn't work nobody in their right mind would dump the hundreds of billions into advertising year after year after decade.. (you get the point). It works, they do dump the money. Studies show that fascism works better, but advertising is still needed so that people know what the government wants them to purchase.
Yeah, I sat with my son as he was growing up and showed him. The "sex sells" ad campaigns which are still strong today, the Kent "hell sells" campaigns, he knows what to look for. Most people don't.
Up to TFAs points as to the MS vs. Google thing, MS has been a scum company using shady legal deals for decades. No shock they are doing it against Google, it should have been expected given their track record. MS are Cain and Abel? Hardly, more like two serpents that nip at each other to keep things looking like competition.
Drones were never immune to detection and shutdown. Nor is that their draw at present.
BS to both of those. Drones could not be seen or detected, hence used as assassination devices. Iran is successfully killing drones, they are no longer immune to detection. As a guess, you are going to attempt to claim that "cost" is the main factor. That is extremely wrong on every possible level. Study up on DOD and Military expenses, money has never been an object, ever in the history of the military.
To the last part, I think we are close to agreeing except for where you claim autonomous systems would still require humans. That last part is what certain people are trying to achieve. I gave the logic for why they want to achieve it. You don't discount the logic, and in fact you must agree because you have not countered it.
First part, drones were game changing when they were immune to detection and shutdown. No longer the case.
Second part, no there is nothing new here either. History is full of people holding power trying to use all kinds of tricks to "wipe out those other guys". Drones are no different than aircraft currently. They require a human to pilot and shoot, so morality still gets involved. Autonomous is the push because it breaks that, and I gave the logic for why people holding power want it. You seem to be pretending they are already here and in use, or ignoring the reality of current drones.
I personally don't see it as a game changer. Radars are detecting them easier, and jammers are bringing them down easier. Iran has dropped quite a few from the US and Israel.
It is a real moral dilemma having to kill someone, and especially if your life is not in danger. It is that dilemma which is leading to the desire for autonomous systems by people in power. No risk of guys like Manning or Snowden being disgusted with the morality of the situation and dumping information to the public. Immoral politicians will push the button themselves, or tell the immoral military guys they allow to stay on staff to do the work.
Too funny! I have 3 different translations of "The Republic" and have read far more. Try "The Cambridge Texts" version of "The Republic", it's an excellent linguistics translation.
I should add that I have seen a whole lot of bastardized translations. I have seen some pretty f-d youtube videos claiming to be about the subject too.
The history lesson I mentioned is also in Plato's works. Start with "The Apology" to see why Socrates was killed, and read the rest of Plato's works for what he thought of Athenians.
Since you attacked my post with a vague generalization, I'm guessing that you will simply dismiss the actual works and claim "no uh uh". Then again, I am occasionally wrong.
I am not the AC, but the analogy is quite powerful and I agree TFA does not touch it. Extremely paraphrased so missing a lot, here goes.
Imagine a Government that oppresses you, it tricks you daily to keep you oppressed. You, are in the dark on literally everything.
What happens when an oppressed person escapes? They are so shocked they become physically ill, but eventually will be amazed and explore. After a while, they will attemp to free others. Probably to their demise, because people are more content to be oppressed than to fight for freedom. So much so, they will kill the people that try and free them and argue that their oppression really isn't that bad.
Philosophy as defined by Socrates included the statement "seeks the truth at all costs". He also stated that it was a Philosophers duty to free people from their mental prisons, and that it would probably cost them their lives to do so.
Athens killed Socrates because he pissed off an rich asshole. The first of many stories in history showing the trend. People are so content in their oppression that they allow this to occur. Today is no different. You are in a cave too!
If you want to use the throw back arguments to the founding fathers, why do you neglect the fact that our founding fathers had no welfare system? I'm not claiming Welfare is a completely bad thing (our implementation is broken) but that financial burden did not exist for any US Citizens. Compare that to today, where about 20% of the population is receiving Welfare of some kind.
This is not some new problem or revelation, go read a few of Milton Friedman's books and spoke directly about the problems with immigration in the 1970s. The same exact problems we have today since it was never fixed.
Not a valid generalization any longer. The US Government is broken and opportunity does not exist any longer, it only supports the top.1%, and people see it. In fact I know quite a few natural born citizens who have fled the US for that reason. Well, that and the fact that our continued deficit economy and massive debt will have a massive crash.
Intelligent people from other countries see the problems better than US people do. Always easier to see and critique other people. Why would they want to trade problems in a foreign land, identical to what they have back home? They don't, but if the exchange rate is good they are happy to pull out some of ours and exchange it to theirs.
Why yes they are, at least a few of the people in the US. You only need to look at the tip top of wealth holders and read their biographies to find the answer to that question. I know, it's hard to take them at their word but read what David D. Rockafeller says:
Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - One World, if you will.If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it
Read Carol Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope", it has more of the answers.
Slashdot Mirror
At least seven _additional_ SEVERE diseases/viruses. This is the part I really find baffling from you vaccinate everything all the time people. No, it's not just 7 vaccines. It's 7 MORE nasty things than the body normally has to deal with, including a whole lot of various ingredients that the body has to process in terms of attenuation solutions.
These are not mild and easy to fight diseases and viruses which is why people figured it was a good idea to make vaccines for them. Today, we are giving kids 312% more vaccines than we did 25 years ago. How many long term studies do we have on the impact of vaccines in that time? Only what the manufacturers are giving to the FDA and CDC for the most part.
Again, if you think it's just 7 shots you are either a shill or insane. The Monsanto executive that claimed that vaccines are so safe you could get 10,000 vaccinations in a day. Yet he never accepted bets from a few people to get just 100 or 1000 in a day. Similar to the the guy from Monsanto that claimed Roundup was so "not harmful" you could drink a gallon and it would not harm you, yet he would not take a sip when the interviewer took him at his word and offered a glass.
There are certainly many factors that could be impacting increased physiological disorders. Average age is the only factor and we have ruled out everything else? Prove it!
Look at factors that have changed in the last 30 years along with the ~300% increase in autism, and there are several.
I await your amazing proof, and hope you validate the source. No! An opinion piece from WebMD or any other site does not constitute a study.
I picked on the Varicella vaccine for a reason, namely that I have done some hefty research on this. The only misinformation is yours, stop reading the first thing you find and believing it's the gospel. CDC's web site is full of many studies, some more recent than others. So lets clear up two of your completely false points
First, The varicella vaccine does NOT make you immune to shingles. That is a fairy tale, and if it's not on Snopes yet it should be. Manufacturers don't make the claim, and CDC states flat out that Shingles is not impacted by the vaccine what so ever.
Next, there is no such thing as immunity to chicken pox. People who have had the vaccine series still have a 10-20% chance of infection (depending on which study you read on the CDC's site). People who received the live vaccine will amazingly be able to transmit and have all of the chicken pox symptoms with a milder version, and still be infected by a more severe case due to natural exposure. The whole reason for the newer series of both varicella and MMR is that they were only 60-80% effective (again, choose a study). They "believe" that with a series of 3 there is an effective rate of 90%.
Yeah, pushing dubious vaccines is bad. I brought up some legitimate questions which you simply dismissed without doing ample research. "it's certainly not dangerous" is an outright lie. Here I quickly found that the odds for a "severe" reaction to MMR (not MMRV) is 1 in 250,000. Compared to the severe complications to the raw varicella virus, it s certainly more dangerous. I'll certainly be fair and retract the 1 in 30,000 (looks like the CDC removed that link) and go with the 1 in 250,000. My points are all still valid because the vaccine is exponentially higher risk.
Try actually searching the CDC site, and you can find some amazing information. Your page is quite different from this CDC page. Funny that attempt to call me a shill yet completely ignore the disclaimer on these pages. How did you miss the fact that the date of your information is from 2008, and provided by Merck. You do know that there are numerous manufacturers of different types of varicella vaccine don't you? And you only cover one.. shame on you.
The page I linked above has this:
(This information taken from MMRV VIS dated 5/21/10. If the actual VIS is more recent than this date, the information on this page needs to be updated.)
Amazingly you find yet more information on that link, I know.. research is hard.
This CDC page says 4 in 1 million. or 1 in 250,000 which is still how many times higher than 100 in 300 Million? I'm not able to find the 1 in 30,000 number at the moment, but I don't need to do so to prove that the odds of death are higher with the vaccine.. for a non-lethal and non-debilitating virus. Sure, I'll retract the 1 in 30,000 and replace it with 1 in 250,000 and you still have 24 times greater chance of death than with the virus (not considering how improvements in medical treatments would change the highest ever rated mortality rate for chicken pox.)
I await your retraction of false allegations and apology for shitty research..
Suddenly, you're born and you're literally being assaulted by every germ around you, with probably thousands of them being encountered by your immune system every day.
Are you attempting to agree with me? It is hard enough to come into the world and survive the first few months after birth. Do we need to be given a Hepatitis vaccine the moment you are born. No check for the baby's condition, no testing for health, just pump them with the vaccine is what we should be doing? You want to tell me that this relatively new procedure has nothing to do with childhood illnesses which have skyrocketed since put into practice?
Lets play the Socratic method. Ask your doctor this question: Would he recommend that you get any type of surgery while you have bronchitis? (I just picked a random common illness) If your doctor says "Is it life threatening?" breath a sigh of relief. If they say "Sure" then you should find a new doctor that understands the human body quite a bit better.
Simple fact, our immune systems are not always running at 100% efficiency. Another simple fact, everyone is slightly different. Stuffing 8-12 diseases into every single kid on their 2nd birthday, in a single sitting, is pure lunacy. That would be like claiming that every single patient with strep should have no problem undergoing a tonsillectomy. No, not everyone could withstand that procedure, and any MD with any level of training would be able to tell you this.
How are a *few* shots (7 may seem like a lot to you) going to compare against thousands of things all hitting the naive immune system of an infant all at once, starting from birth, every day?
Absolutely, kids are already inundated with viruses, diseases, and bacteria. Their bodies are learning about how to fight those things without people adding severe diseases and viruses to their system. Adding 1 new disease like we did for 40+ years seemed to be a reasonable number. Hell, when I had the MMR vaccine our Doctors asked us about our general health _before_ giving the vaccine. I will say, as with Polio and Small Pox, most people handled 3 assuming they were in good health.
The CDC entry on Varicella points to the MFR page, it's really too bad that people can't seem to do any of their own studies any longer, but I digress. Vaccine MFR.s all recommend that you are in reasonable good health prior to getting any vaccine. Are you going to tell me that every Walmart and Grocery store pharmacist is checking this with people before they give any vaccines? Or, are they mass pumping these things without checking because they get paid very well when they do? Many of the Doctors are in the same boat, because if they don't push the influenza vaccine (as one example) they can be reprimanded or face disciplinary action at certain medical facilities.
How about the fact that ALL vaccines are produced differently, with different ingredients and attenuation solutions. Some are made from animal and insect parts, others from metals, others from fetal or cadaver parts. That is certainly not to claim that "vaccines" are bad, but that not everyone will react to vaccines which are ALL made and contain DIFFERENT materials.
The simple fact is that In less than 30 years we have had a minimum 312% increase in childhood vaccinations. Autism rates have gone up just a hair under 300%, again according to the CDC. We read those two numbers clear as day, but we are not allowed to look at vaccines as a possible cause? Are you kidding me?
And you moderators censoring should be ashamed of yourselves!
There are some valid questions regarding our vaccine policy and it's impacts on health, which you can't find because shills on both side drown out any discussion.
People, including many medical professionals, are questioning two aspects of our policy.
1. Why have vaccines and autism rates both grown exponentially in the last 25 years? (no, detection does not come close to answering)
2. Why can we not separate vaccines into proper discussion?
The first question is related to how in 1989 Kids up until age 18 received 7 vaccines. Today, it is 72. That is a very drastically different number, and 10X is about the same rate that autism has increased. Correlation does not always equate to causation, but in this case the numbers are close. Some theories related to how many vaccines kids are getting in a single sitting. The body is having to react to the impact of a dozen diseases simultaneously depending on the series. Others relate to a change in practices where kids are getting vaccines on a schedule without evaluating their health. A body fighting off influenza is not going to be able to fight off Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Polio, Diphtheria, Varicella, and every other disease they attempt to stuff into a schedule.
The second part surely relates to the first, but is a different discussion. That is why are we attempting to force vaccines for so many diseases and viruses that are NOT deadly or debilitating?
For example: The highest rate of mortality for Chicken Pox is 100 out of 300Million. This was what could possibly be attributed, which means that most of these people were already fatally ill with things like Leukemia when they contracted the Chicken Pox. The mortality rate of the vaccine according to the CDC is 1 in 30,000. (The actual wording on the CDC site is that 2 out of 15,000 will have extremely severe reactions to the vaccine, and 1 of those will be fatal.
You can do the math, and validate those numbers with US Census and CDC information.
To carry that thought a bit further (again you can validate this on the US CDC) We must give 3 vaccines for Varicella to have a reasonable chance of immunity. So the chances of a fatality from a vaccine is actually much higher than 1 in 30,000. Again, for a disease that was not considered fatal, or debilitating in any way.
You can run the same comparisons for morbidity and mortality for influenza and see a similar set of numbers. Try again with Gardasil which Texas attempted to mandate for boys and girls.
What vaccines are you talking about when you make your claims makes a huge difference in how we hold a discussion. Let me see if your point is educated at all, or if you are just a noise maker.
Selective reading. How about "As someone stated above, if advertising didn't work nobody in their right mind would dump the hundreds of billions into advertising year after year after decade.. (you get the point). It works, they do dump the money. ".
Psychological manipulation trumps your freewill more often than you probably know.
"Dr. Oz is a quack" is not a fact, it's an opinion. It's pretty frightening that you seem to lack the ability to differentiate fact from opinion. That is what the site does over and over, as do you. You, and those sites are spending so much time poisoning the well and attacking that there is no fact, except that you appear to be a bunch of jealous juveniles without the ability for rational thought.
I am not passing judgement on him, because I lack the facts. I can however point out how irrational you are in your opinion.
It is impossible to argue with irrational people, come back after you mature and can present a fact bases opinion.
I very much doubt you will change this person's delusional opinion. I asked for facts to back the claim, and receive a frigging blog post. The same blog post linked in TFA, and it also contains no evidence. Ad hominem, appeals to emotion, no facts.
Are you so mentally deranged that you claim a blog post is evidence? No, it's not! Instead of wallowing in your pathetic OPINION step back and review FACTS.
Was he reprimanded in any way by any medical board? NO
Was he found guilty of any form of malpractice? NO If the doctors want to claim he is a quack they must provide evidence. If you claim he's a quack YOU must provide evidence. No evidence == delusional opinion.
I read the letter, and the blog post TFA links to. I see no facts or evidence. I heard GW Bush claim Saddam had WMDs too, and that didn't happen did it?
The only way to prove their claim is demonstrating with evidence.
EVIDENCE! Good grief, this is not a difficult concept. Reading the one guys "blog" (trusted publication right?) I see the same claims, but zero evidence. His beef is that Oz is on the teaching staff for surgery. Did Oz teach surgeons wrong? Or is the guy jealous and bitching because Oz can cash in thanks to some help from Oprah. That is a fair question given the astounding (not really) lack of evidence and amount of ad hominem and appeals to emotion I see from him (and you, and another person in the thread).
Now, do you have any evidence to back your claim? A lack of evidence would make you the quack.
Show me the examples of him being a quack, or even a specific from the letter outside of "anti-gmo". You know, facts and evidence. The things you are supposed to have when leveling charges attempting to damage people. I see lots of ad hominem, and quite a bit from you as well. Pretty handy how you use several appeals to emotion so that anyone disagreeing with your opinion is either "HURRR DURRR" conspiracy theory or smearmonger.
If you want to claim a MD is a quack, you need to address specifics.
I have only seen his show a couple times and didn't see anything "harmful" or different than my doctor might. If he did something no other MD would do, lets see the evidence.
Sadly there are plenty of assholes that claim people are guilty because they have an opinion. Happens all the time here. Take a good whiff and make sure it's not you that smells. Facts and evidence are pretty important things to have, and I have seen nothing from you or the people who wrote the letter that resemble facts.
I see no substance to the claims of quackery, just empty claims. Yeah, he pissed off Monsanto or Bayer or one of those, because that is the only thing they will firmly claim.
Ask the important question: How long has he been on TV and just now someone want's to claim he's a quack? Sorry, his format has not changed, nor the advice he is giving out. Then look at cui bono, and it's obvious what is going on.
Sadly, there are many religious zealots who claim to believe in science, but can not differentiate fact from opinion. You will find plenty in this thread even. They were told all this stuff is good, and "smart people don't question", so they don't.
One out of how many modified foods? Every time people back GMOs they claim Rice is the great savior. You know, that rice that has been banned in most countries in Europe, and is being dumped on the poor Asian population. Meanwhile, Japan was able to create a flood resistant rice with a few seasons of hybridization and no genetic modification since Japan outlawed GMO foods. That was the first rice that was touted as the great savior of GMO reputation, but we didn't need the damn fungus and insect genes to do it!
And look, I'm not saying all GMOs are bad. I'm saying that not all of them have been good. Do you think that no science was used in the European countries who all banned GMOs? That, is called denial.
Why do you omit the most important fact when attempting to conflate genetic modification with evolution? You know, that pesky fact that evolution maintains balance because ALL creatures are evolving. GMO foods do not.
The second most important fact is that people in the US are not demanding a ban, they are demanding labeling so that they can choose. Your statements, nor the big GMO companies, address that simple fact. They treat the request for label as if it were a ban.
Lastly, evolution does not allow the types of modifications genetics is allowing. Look at how many GMO vegetables contain Fungus, Insect, and Animal DNA. Attempting to claim it's the same as evolution is an absolute lie.
You insult someone else as being ignorant as your last defense... pathetic, and transparent.
You are a rare type, that is why you understand where to put the blame. Bernays, Skinner and others proved that deception works very well in advertising. Subtle hints everywhere, instead of the big old phrase "SMOKE CIGARETTES" they just posted pictures with a woman smoking in the background to normalize it and make women think they should be smoking. This type of shit happens very often, and unless you know to look for things you can, and very often will be deceived into making a bad decisions.
A couple examples: Credit scores - pure scam to keep you in debt for points.
Food, Alcohol, and drugs are everywhere in advertising and "product placements" in movies. Not a little, every single movie made today has this.
As someone stated above, if advertising didn't work nobody in their right mind would dump the hundreds of billions into advertising year after year after decade.. (you get the point). It works, they do dump the money. Studies show that fascism works better, but advertising is still needed so that people know what the government wants them to purchase.
Yeah, I sat with my son as he was growing up and showed him. The "sex sells" ad campaigns which are still strong today, the Kent "hell sells" campaigns, he knows what to look for. Most people don't.
Up to TFAs points as to the MS vs. Google thing, MS has been a scum company using shady legal deals for decades. No shock they are doing it against Google, it should have been expected given their track record. MS are Cain and Abel? Hardly, more like two serpents that nip at each other to keep things looking like competition.
Drones were never immune to detection and shutdown. Nor is that their draw at present.
BS to both of those. Drones could not be seen or detected, hence used as assassination devices. Iran is successfully killing drones, they are no longer immune to detection. As a guess, you are going to attempt to claim that "cost" is the main factor. That is extremely wrong on every possible level. Study up on DOD and Military expenses, money has never been an object, ever in the history of the military.
To the last part, I think we are close to agreeing except for where you claim autonomous systems would still require humans. That last part is what certain people are trying to achieve. I gave the logic for why they want to achieve it. You don't discount the logic, and in fact you must agree because you have not countered it.
First part, drones were game changing when they were immune to detection and shutdown. No longer the case.
Second part, no there is nothing new here either. History is full of people holding power trying to use all kinds of tricks to "wipe out those other guys". Drones are no different than aircraft currently. They require a human to pilot and shoot, so morality still gets involved. Autonomous is the push because it breaks that, and I gave the logic for why people holding power want it. You seem to be pretending they are already here and in use, or ignoring the reality of current drones.
I personally don't see it as a game changer. Radars are detecting them easier, and jammers are bringing them down easier. Iran has dropped quite a few from the US and Israel.
It is a real moral dilemma having to kill someone, and especially if your life is not in danger. It is that dilemma which is leading to the desire for autonomous systems by people in power. No risk of guys like Manning or Snowden being disgusted with the morality of the situation and dumping information to the public. Immoral politicians will push the button themselves, or tell the immoral military guys they allow to stay on staff to do the work.
Too funny! I have 3 different translations of "The Republic" and have read far more. Try "The Cambridge Texts" version of "The Republic", it's an excellent linguistics translation.
I should add that I have seen a whole lot of bastardized translations. I have seen some pretty f-d youtube videos claiming to be about the subject too.
The history lesson I mentioned is also in Plato's works. Start with "The Apology" to see why Socrates was killed, and read the rest of Plato's works for what he thought of Athenians.
Since you attacked my post with a vague generalization, I'm guessing that you will simply dismiss the actual works and claim "no uh uh". Then again, I am occasionally wrong.
I am not the AC, but the analogy is quite powerful and I agree TFA does not touch it. Extremely paraphrased so missing a lot, here goes.
Imagine a Government that oppresses you, it tricks you daily to keep you oppressed. You, are in the dark on literally everything.
What happens when an oppressed person escapes? They are so shocked they become physically ill, but eventually will be amazed and explore. After a while, they will attemp to free others. Probably to their demise, because people are more content to be oppressed than to fight for freedom. So much so, they will kill the people that try and free them and argue that their oppression really isn't that bad.
Philosophy as defined by Socrates included the statement "seeks the truth at all costs". He also stated that it was a Philosophers duty to free people from their mental prisons, and that it would probably cost them their lives to do so.
Athens killed Socrates because he pissed off an rich asshole. The first of many stories in history showing the trend. People are so content in their oppression that they allow this to occur. Today is no different. You are in a cave too!
If you want to use the throw back arguments to the founding fathers, why do you neglect the fact that our founding fathers had no welfare system? I'm not claiming Welfare is a completely bad thing (our implementation is broken) but that financial burden did not exist for any US Citizens. Compare that to today, where about 20% of the population is receiving Welfare of some kind.
This is not some new problem or revelation, go read a few of Milton Friedman's books and spoke directly about the problems with immigration in the 1970s. The same exact problems we have today since it was never fixed.
Not a valid generalization any longer. The US Government is broken and opportunity does not exist any longer, it only supports the top .1%, and people see it. In fact I know quite a few natural born citizens who have fled the US for that reason. Well, that and the fact that our continued deficit economy and massive debt will have a massive crash.
Intelligent people from other countries see the problems better than US people do. Always easier to see and critique other people. Why would they want to trade problems in a foreign land, identical to what they have back home? They don't, but if the exchange rate is good they are happy to pull out some of ours and exchange it to theirs.
Are they TRYING to destroy the country!?
Why yes they are, at least a few of the people in the US. You only need to look at the tip top of wealth holders and read their biographies to find the answer to that question. I know, it's hard to take them at their word but read what David D. Rockafeller says:
Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - One World, if you will.If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it
Read Carol Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope", it has more of the answers.