Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Kudos to the admin for the features of this forum compared to the other place. Your thoroughness is much appreciated.
Last edited:
Trump taps Vacine Skeptic RFK Jr. to lead safety commmision
- Thread starter Arjuna
- Start date
I'll go ahead and describe it to the ones that are dead because their parents took a stand against big pharma.
Good, solid, discussion?
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
I just wanted to share the words of the mother of one of my patients whose 16 year old son has autism. This is not to pat myself on the back because I am just doing what I have learned and it isn't about me, more about the work I have been fortunate enough to be able to provide my patients. This post is not meant for those who have already made up their minds and can't see beyond the nose on their face, it is for those who haven't. BTW, no crystals were used/harmed in the making of her testimonial. FWIW, I am seeing a 7 year old autistic boy today that this family has referred to me. Peace out.
"We have done quite a few different therapies over the last 14 years with our son since his Autism diagnosis at 2. Working with Dr. Evil (my change) has been one of the few times we felt like a piece of the missing puzzle is getting filled in. It's only been 5 weeks but we are excited to continue to see "breakthroughs" and progress in this very unique path our son is walking in. Many walk the road of Autism but each path is so very different that finding something that works consistently can prove difficult. The one constant in these kids is that they each must be dealt with in a unique way. There is no one size fits all! This is the 1st approach that uniquely addresses Sam. Looking forward to where this journey leads us all!"
"We have done quite a few different therapies over the last 14 years with our son since his Autism diagnosis at 2. Working with Dr. Evil (my change) has been one of the few times we felt like a piece of the missing puzzle is getting filled in. It's only been 5 weeks but we are excited to continue to see "breakthroughs" and progress in this very unique path our son is walking in. Many walk the road of Autism but each path is so very different that finding something that works consistently can prove difficult. The one constant in these kids is that they each must be dealt with in a unique way. There is no one size fits all! This is the 1st approach that uniquely addresses Sam. Looking forward to where this journey leads us all!"
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
It used to be a scientific fact backed by peer reviewed papers that cigarette's had no harmful side effects at all , Just ask RJ Reynolds they can show you all the proof you want . They can show you study after study ,decades worth of scientific facts that prove cigarette's have no harmful effects whatsoever and any independent study has skewed their own results. By the time you figure out that they lied , its to late.
Are you sure about that?
Or perhaps did one of the MOST common anti vax farces cloud your judgement?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...es-we-can-stop-that?client=ms-android-verizon
So sad.
Facts vs emotions can be a real zinger.
So sad.
Facts vs emotions can be a real zinger.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
never got a flu shot .. when i get that ill feeling a few shots of brandy .. turn on the furnace and lay over the floor duct and cover up with lots of blankets. wake up 6 to 10 hours later soaking wet and felling tons better ... but i did finally go get my shot to protect against cervical cancer .. i don't want that ...
spat
.700 Nitro Express
They need to make a pistol they just call "white"....
Maybe something in .45 and a raw aluminum casting look.....
You just know a certain demographic would love to carry a Walther White....
freddy
.308 Win
This vacccine debate needs a firm grasp of: Correlation vs causation.
As with many topics it so easy to arrive at an inaccurate conclusion because we confuse correlation with causation.
Occams razor too.
As with many topics it so easy to arrive at an inaccurate conclusion because we confuse correlation with causation.
Occams razor too.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Dude, If I make a mistake, or Im wrong, by all means point it out. But Don't call me a liar.
Why? I've been called one in this thread.
If someone disagrees with you, just fire out whatever you want. That seems to be the theme of this particular thread.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Fun facts:
IN 1946, THE RJ REYNOLDS Tobacco Company initiated a major new advertising campaign for Camels, one of the most popular brands in the United States. Working to establish dominance in a highly competitive market, Reynolds centered their new campaign on the memorable slogan, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” This phrase would be the mainstay of their advertising for the next 6 years. Touting surveys conducted by “three leading independent research organizations,” one typical advertisement proclaimed that according to “nationwide” surveys of 113597 doctors “from every branch of medicine,” Camel was the brand smoked by most respondents. It also asserted that this statistic was an “actual fact,” not a “casual claim.”
“The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice”: The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930–1953
Executives at tobacco companies knew they had to take action to suppress the public’s fears about tobacco products. “Tobacco companies asked themselves: How can we go about reassuring the public that particularly cigarettes, but also cigars and pipes, are not harmful?” Jackler told HemOnc Today. The answer was to use medical research and physicians to show the public that cigarettes were not harmful. Although the doctors in these advertisements were always actors and not real physicians, the image of the physician permeated cigarette ads for the next two and a half decades.
By the mid-1930s, Lucky Strike had some competition. A new advertising campaign for Philip Morris referred to research conducted by physicians. One ad claimed that after prescribing Philip Morris brand cigarettes to patients with irritated throats, “every case of irritation cleared completely or definitely improved.” This series of advertisements, along with others referring to “proof” of superiority, made Philip Morris a major cigarette brand for the first time in its history.
One of the most famous of the campaigns of this era was the “More Doctors” campaign for RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company’s Camels brand cigarettes. These ads, which appeared in magazines from Time to Ladies’ Home Journal, claimed that according to a nationwide survey, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette!” These ads pictured doctors in labs, sitting back at their desk or speaking with patients. “The idea was that if you show a physician being an enthusiastic partaker in smoking, the public gets the notion, ‘With what doctors know, if they choose to smoke this brand it must be a safer, better brand,’ or the public thought that smoking itself must be OK,” Jackler said.
“There were big ad campaigns with hundreds of ads in medical journals,” Jackler said. “For example, there is an ad showing a physician writing on a prescription pad, ‘For your patients with sore throats and cough, Phillip Morris cigarettes.’”
The pages of The New England Journal of Medicine and The Journal of the American Medical Association were home to many tobacco advertisements throughout the 1930s, 1940s and beyond. However, tobacco companies’ courtship of physicians did not end in medical journals.
Background: In January 1954, US tobacco manufacturers jointly sponsored an advocacy advertisement entitled “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” which appeared in 448 newspapers in 258 cities reaching an estimated 43 245 000 Americans. The advertisement questioned research findings implicating smoking as a cause of cancer, promised consumers that their cigarettes were safe, and pledged to support impartial research to investigate allegations that smoking was harmful to human health.
Objective: To examine (1) the extent to which cigarette companies fulfilled the promises made to consumers in the 1954 “Frank Statement”, and (2) the effect of these promises on consumer knowledge, beliefs, and smoking practices.
Methods: This study reviews statements made since 1954 by the tobacco companies individually and collectively through the Tobacco Institute and Tobacco Industry Research Committee/Council for Tobacco Research on the subject of smoking as a cause disease, and the industry's pledge to support and disclose the results of impartial research on smoking and health. Many of the industry documents evaluated in this study were obtained from a collection consisting of 116 documents entitled the “Statement of Defendants' Misrepresentations” prepared by attorneys representing the state of Connecticut in the Medicaid litigation against the tobacco industry in 1998. In addition, we searched for corroborating material from tobacco industry documents collected from the tobacco industry's document websites. In order to contrast industry statements on smoking and health with what smokers' actually believed about smoking we reviewed reports of public polling data on smokers' knowledge and beliefs about smoking and disease gathered from tobacco industry sources and from surveys conducted by public health researchers.
Results: Analysis of public statements issued by the tobacco industry sources over the past five decades shows that the companies maintained the stance that smoking had not been proven to be injurious to health through 1999. The public statements of the tobacco industry are in sharp contrast to the private views expressed by many of their own scientists. The tobacco documents reveal that many scientists within the tobacco industry acknowledged as early as the 1950s that cigarette smoking was unsafe. The sincerity of the industry's promise to support research to find out if smoking was harmful to health and to disclose information about the health effects of smoking can also be questioned based upon the industry's own documents which reveal: (1) scepticism about the scientific value of the smoking and health research program established by the industry; and (2) evidence that research findings implicating smoking as a health problem were often not published or disclosed outside the industry. Industry documents also show that the companies knew that their own customers were misinformed about smoking and health issues.
Conclusion: It is clear that the cigarette companies failed to fulfill the promises made to consumers in the 1954 “Frank Statement” advertisement. The failure of cigarette manufacturers to honour these promises has resulted in a public that even today remains misinformed about the health risks of smoking.
IN 1946, THE RJ REYNOLDS Tobacco Company initiated a major new advertising campaign for Camels, one of the most popular brands in the United States. Working to establish dominance in a highly competitive market, Reynolds centered their new campaign on the memorable slogan, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” This phrase would be the mainstay of their advertising for the next 6 years. Touting surveys conducted by “three leading independent research organizations,” one typical advertisement proclaimed that according to “nationwide” surveys of 113597 doctors “from every branch of medicine,” Camel was the brand smoked by most respondents. It also asserted that this statistic was an “actual fact,” not a “casual claim.”
“The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice”: The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930–1953
Executives at tobacco companies knew they had to take action to suppress the public’s fears about tobacco products. “Tobacco companies asked themselves: How can we go about reassuring the public that particularly cigarettes, but also cigars and pipes, are not harmful?” Jackler told HemOnc Today. The answer was to use medical research and physicians to show the public that cigarettes were not harmful. Although the doctors in these advertisements were always actors and not real physicians, the image of the physician permeated cigarette ads for the next two and a half decades.
By the mid-1930s, Lucky Strike had some competition. A new advertising campaign for Philip Morris referred to research conducted by physicians. One ad claimed that after prescribing Philip Morris brand cigarettes to patients with irritated throats, “every case of irritation cleared completely or definitely improved.” This series of advertisements, along with others referring to “proof” of superiority, made Philip Morris a major cigarette brand for the first time in its history.
One of the most famous of the campaigns of this era was the “More Doctors” campaign for RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company’s Camels brand cigarettes. These ads, which appeared in magazines from Time to Ladies’ Home Journal, claimed that according to a nationwide survey, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette!” These ads pictured doctors in labs, sitting back at their desk or speaking with patients. “The idea was that if you show a physician being an enthusiastic partaker in smoking, the public gets the notion, ‘With what doctors know, if they choose to smoke this brand it must be a safer, better brand,’ or the public thought that smoking itself must be OK,” Jackler said.
“There were big ad campaigns with hundreds of ads in medical journals,” Jackler said. “For example, there is an ad showing a physician writing on a prescription pad, ‘For your patients with sore throats and cough, Phillip Morris cigarettes.’”
The pages of The New England Journal of Medicine and The Journal of the American Medical Association were home to many tobacco advertisements throughout the 1930s, 1940s and beyond. However, tobacco companies’ courtship of physicians did not end in medical journals.
Background: In January 1954, US tobacco manufacturers jointly sponsored an advocacy advertisement entitled “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” which appeared in 448 newspapers in 258 cities reaching an estimated 43 245 000 Americans. The advertisement questioned research findings implicating smoking as a cause of cancer, promised consumers that their cigarettes were safe, and pledged to support impartial research to investigate allegations that smoking was harmful to human health.
Objective: To examine (1) the extent to which cigarette companies fulfilled the promises made to consumers in the 1954 “Frank Statement”, and (2) the effect of these promises on consumer knowledge, beliefs, and smoking practices.
Methods: This study reviews statements made since 1954 by the tobacco companies individually and collectively through the Tobacco Institute and Tobacco Industry Research Committee/Council for Tobacco Research on the subject of smoking as a cause disease, and the industry's pledge to support and disclose the results of impartial research on smoking and health. Many of the industry documents evaluated in this study were obtained from a collection consisting of 116 documents entitled the “Statement of Defendants' Misrepresentations” prepared by attorneys representing the state of Connecticut in the Medicaid litigation against the tobacco industry in 1998. In addition, we searched for corroborating material from tobacco industry documents collected from the tobacco industry's document websites. In order to contrast industry statements on smoking and health with what smokers' actually believed about smoking we reviewed reports of public polling data on smokers' knowledge and beliefs about smoking and disease gathered from tobacco industry sources and from surveys conducted by public health researchers.
Results: Analysis of public statements issued by the tobacco industry sources over the past five decades shows that the companies maintained the stance that smoking had not been proven to be injurious to health through 1999. The public statements of the tobacco industry are in sharp contrast to the private views expressed by many of their own scientists. The tobacco documents reveal that many scientists within the tobacco industry acknowledged as early as the 1950s that cigarette smoking was unsafe. The sincerity of the industry's promise to support research to find out if smoking was harmful to health and to disclose information about the health effects of smoking can also be questioned based upon the industry's own documents which reveal: (1) scepticism about the scientific value of the smoking and health research program established by the industry; and (2) evidence that research findings implicating smoking as a health problem were often not published or disclosed outside the industry. Industry documents also show that the companies knew that their own customers were misinformed about smoking and health issues.
Conclusion: It is clear that the cigarette companies failed to fulfill the promises made to consumers in the 1954 “Frank Statement” advertisement. The failure of cigarette manufacturers to honour these promises has resulted in a public that even today remains misinformed about the health risks of smoking.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Why? because Im not lying that's why. Mistaken possibly, but lying? No.
but Ok , then fuck you then. does that make it better?
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
My doctor smoked Camels, made house calls too. Many moons ago. He just passed away about four months ago, around 94.
Robin
Robin
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Im just saying that company's will down play any side effects of their products and obtain false medical reports to support their case.
swilliams
6.5 Creedmoor
This is my problem with the vaccine argument. I'm going to tell you a story, and feel free to point out that stories are anecdotal, but this is an important part of the discussion that's always left out.
My sister enrolled one of her kids in the trials for Rota Teq. He was two at the time and was developing normally. Three days after getting the vaccine, he stopped talking. Over the next week, he started crawling again, and would only walk when forced. His fine motor skills were diminished. When it was time for the follow-up to this vaccine, she was contacted by phone - by a hired company, not the vaccine maker. The person on the phone had a check-list of questions for her that went something like this. Did you child have a fever? Did your child vomit? Did your child have any joint pain? Etc. My sister kept trying to tell this woman about his regression, and the woman finally got mad at her and said, 'look, I just have this list of questions I have to ask'. What the hell kind of "research" is that?! Bullshit research, that's what. We shouldn't discount actual accounts from parents and kids this has happened to just because the pharmaceutical companies get to dictate what the term research means.
My kids have received most vaccines. Some I wanted them to have. Some I delayed. Some I had to cave on, in order for them to attend school. Some I refused. Until the FDA and pharma changes the way they "research", I don't think a parent should be forced to vaccinate, and even then I'm not sure.
Much better, at least you've brought it down to this thread's level now.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
In a special report published in the Oct. 16 issue of the journal Circulation, authors Elisa K. Tong and Stanton A. Glantz say that the tobacco-related documents they reviewed show how the industry initially worked to question scientific evidence about the harmful effects of secondhand smoke as a way to fight smoke-free regulations. More recently, they suggest, tobacco-company-funded studies have been conducted to support the development of so-called “reduced-harm” cigarettes.
“People should understand how hard the tobacco industry has worked to undermine scientific evidence,” said Tong, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the UC Davis School of Medicine and lead author of the study. “It's not just about fighting smoke-free regulations. Our analysis of the documents indicates an industry that also wants to influence the debate about how 'reduced-harm' tobacco products should be evaluated.”
Such studies, the authors also say, were often published in scientific journals that had industry representatives on their editorial boards. In one case cited by Tong and Glantz, the manuscript by RJ Reynolds' scientists was reviewed for Inhalation Toxicology by an employee of RJ Reynolds before its publication in 1998.
“The process was presented to the outside world as having peer review,” noted Glantz. “The true level of the tobacco industry's involvement in such studies was rarely disclosed in an adequate manner.”
Big tobacco and science... ─ UC Davis Health System Feature Story
“People should understand how hard the tobacco industry has worked to undermine scientific evidence,” said Tong, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the UC Davis School of Medicine and lead author of the study. “It's not just about fighting smoke-free regulations. Our analysis of the documents indicates an industry that also wants to influence the debate about how 'reduced-harm' tobacco products should be evaluated.”
Such studies, the authors also say, were often published in scientific journals that had industry representatives on their editorial boards. In one case cited by Tong and Glantz, the manuscript by RJ Reynolds' scientists was reviewed for Inhalation Toxicology by an employee of RJ Reynolds before its publication in 1998.
“The process was presented to the outside world as having peer review,” noted Glantz. “The true level of the tobacco industry's involvement in such studies was rarely disclosed in an adequate manner.”
Big tobacco and science... ─ UC Davis Health System Feature Story
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
Glad you approve, go suck a dick .
The point Im making ,that company's suppress information and scientific evidence is lost on you .It happens every fucking day.
If I didn't work for a data collection company for years, I might be surprised.
Standardized questions and responses are how it works. No conspiracy. No ulterior motive.
I worked for a company collecting data for a telecom company. We had a scale:
Outstanding
Very good
Satisfactory
Not so good
Poor
Period. I had to instruct respondents to use those answers. And nothing else.
If I heard even "very satisfactory", I'd have to repeat the scale.
And at the end there was an open comment section that we had to record word for word.
Just the way data collection works across the board.
Must have missed the part in this fine post where, back to the OP, vaccinations are a big conspiracy to make people rich/control the population/whatever other Alex Jones shit.
swilliams
6.5 Creedmoor
So if you agree that this is how it's done, then why do you continue to disagree about whether "science" shows vaccines are safe, as they relate to instances of autism or other defects? A huge part of that "science" is nothing more than marketing.
Twingy
.40 S&W
Quite the interesting thread here... I have my own opinions based on my own line of work and things I have read, but I must say I'm most inclined to agree with SigLady right off the bat. First and foremost, this is a decision of personal choice about what to put in one's own body. In the case of parent's it's their decision about what substances they allow their children to be exposed to.
People always want to talk about resurgence of measles because of anti-vaxxers... how many people die of measles? Those that do, if any at all, would likely die of side effects of the disease rather than the disease itself. Why are people always saying things like "keep your unvaccinated kid away from my kid!" If you're so sure about the effectiveness of the vaccine you shoot your kids up, then what's the problem with being around an unvaccinated kid?
I have worked as a paramedic for the past 12 years. Every year during flu season we see a slew of patients with debilitating flu symptoms. NOT ONCE has any of these people I have taken care of not gotten a flu shot. They all get the flu shot and they all wonder why they got sick despite that. I personally do not ever get a flu shot. I have gotten sick with flu like symptoms but it is never nearly as bad as what I see in people who have gotten the shot. I might be holed up on the couch for a day or 2 that's really about it.
The thing about vaccines is, they use an immunosuppressant carrier agent to introduce an inert of inactive variation of the disease which it is supposed to protect against, along with other chemicals and preservatives such as formaldehyde. The idea is to allow the inactive disease just enough foothold in the body that we naturally build up antibodies against possible future infections. It doesn't always work. A lot of the chemicals that are put in vaccines are REALLY bad for us. And I really don't know what would explain the sharp uptick in cases of autism. Yeah, it's existed for a long time and was only recently recognized as a medical condition, but not in the numbers we see today.
I'm also going to second SigLady's notion that we should be able to discuss these things like adults without having to always be right. Sometimes when you're wrong you learn something from someone with more knowledge in a particular subject and you end up better for it in the long run.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
People always want to talk about resurgence of measles because of anti-vaxxers... how many people die of measles? Those that do, if any at all, would likely die of side effects of the disease rather than the disease itself. Why are people always saying things like "keep your unvaccinated kid away from my kid!" If you're so sure about the effectiveness of the vaccine you shoot your kids up, then what's the problem with being around an unvaccinated kid?
I have worked as a paramedic for the past 12 years. Every year during flu season we see a slew of patients with debilitating flu symptoms. NOT ONCE has any of these people I have taken care of not gotten a flu shot. They all get the flu shot and they all wonder why they got sick despite that. I personally do not ever get a flu shot. I have gotten sick with flu like symptoms but it is never nearly as bad as what I see in people who have gotten the shot. I might be holed up on the couch for a day or 2 that's really about it.
The thing about vaccines is, they use an immunosuppressant carrier agent to introduce an inert of inactive variation of the disease which it is supposed to protect against, along with other chemicals and preservatives such as formaldehyde. The idea is to allow the inactive disease just enough foothold in the body that we naturally build up antibodies against possible future infections. It doesn't always work. A lot of the chemicals that are put in vaccines are REALLY bad for us. And I really don't know what would explain the sharp uptick in cases of autism. Yeah, it's existed for a long time and was only recently recognized as a medical condition, but not in the numbers we see today.
I'm also going to second SigLady's notion that we should be able to discuss these things like adults without having to always be right. Sometimes when you're wrong you learn something from someone with more knowledge in a particular subject and you end up better for it in the long run.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
swilliams
6.5 Creedmoor
Darth. They're eliminating any reports of complications that aren't on their form. They don't get to claim safe when they're excluding vital information.
No, they are collecting data on the items that need researched in that particular survey.
This compartmentalizes tons of information into quantifiable findings.
We used to get a bunch of surveys with different questions pertaining to the same topic so that the ABCD or E you punch in can be turned from "information" (random research results) to "data" (organized information sorted to be presented as results).
That's how call centers work.
I used to get "Are you reading off of a script?" all the time. Yes, yes I am, and they do that for a reason.
Nobody is burying any findings there.
swilliams
6.5 Creedmoor
So not allowing her to report the sudden non-verbalization and regression her son experienced isn't "burying findings"? This was the ONLY follow up. There wasn't anything else. If that survey had been only a part of what the vaccine's safety was based on, that would be an entirely different story.
I'll also add that kids in this country don't die from Rotovirus. It's not a necessary vaccine for us. Thankfully, it's not mandated. Yet. Sadly, that doesn't matter for my nephew, who will never be able to live without some type of supervision.
Correct, it's not burying findings in the same way not being able to write an essay during a multiple choice test isn't burying your knowledge of the subject.