Cleveland Clinic Doctor Fuels Vaccine Debate — Again

I know a few doctors who do not like all the vaccines they are pushing on kids. There are some who are willing to accept the initial monetary prize for talking a person into getting a vaccine though. I know people who work in doctors offices and know there is a reward offered for first time vaccinations. It is only about twenty five bucks, but get enough of them and it adds up quickly to pay nurses wages.

a reply to: tribal

I totally believe vaccines can cause Type 1 Diabetes, MS, Arthritis, and ALL other autoimmune diseases. What we need is some of the newer research that is being shown to cure diseases to be made available to the public! The profits of the big-pharma industry are far less profitable for the U.S.A. than it would be to JUST NOT HAVE SICK PEOPLE! If Donald Trump keeps his promises he made in his rallies and in his 100 day plan 2:37 video on Youtube, then he WILL make these cures available, and put a hold on the big-pharma ff.dd.aa. circus that's been keeping people sick for over a century in America.
If he doesn't, then I don't have a whole lot of hope for the health of America as a whole.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
What kind of idiotic person does not want to know the truth

WHich truth is that? the one made up by people who don't use science? Have quack webpages that talk about how the govt controls you through secret ingredients in vaccines?

People like you, like to be a mushroom and dictated to, like to be controlled.

Never heard that one before. But no, I read and investigate. And I'm quite fortunate that my social group involves a large number of scientists in both the bio and chemical fields so I get a lot of information from them. Of whom I trust. I don't trust you.

I have children, they are vaccinated, I didn't pretend there was no risk

Me too. See? Very smart.

I would prefer to hang around the unvaccinated that the sheeple

Why? That means you prefer to hang out with people who choose ignorance and stupidity over common sense and logic. But that's your decision, of course. I

a reply to: tribal

community of vaccine doubters.

wow...I'm amazed. They usually use something like...antivaxxer conspiracy theory nuts.

I'm feeling good about this.

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Ksihkehe

its perfectly reasonable in my opinion to characterize people as radical who cannot do anything other than attack this man for presenting a dissenting opinion as dangerous to society and almost the same as committing war crimes and the like. If you haven't read all of the responses this guy has gotten from apparently pretty smart people its rather telling. These people are in full emotional assault mode, hardly a logical counter claim to be found, just "quack", "hack", "nutter" and so on.


so yes, people who talk like that to me are behaving in a borderline or distinctly radical manner. People who believe someone should have their otherwise perfectly healthy and happy, children taken away for not vaccinating are in my opinion, radical. I could cite more examples, but youre a smart guy....take a peek from another perspective if you are able.

He is apparently a scientist therefore he would know that "opinion" counts for very little.
If he were to release a study backing up what he claims then people would listen to him but by his just regurgitating standard anti-vax rhetoric on a blog then he's going to get rightfully slated.
The fact that he doesn't even know the differences between the types of flu shot begs the question as to whether he knows anything at all about vaccines in the first place.
And then he talks about the "toxins" like formaldehyde...
Seems like this CEO of a medical clinic has been focusing on the administrative side of his title rather than the medical side for far too long.

And obviously, the anti-vaxxers in their droves (well, tens) will be lauding this as yet more "proof" that vaccines are bad whilst reinforcing the fact that for the most part they are scientific Luddites looking for anything, however tenuous, to bolster their neolithic belief system.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I know a few doctors who do not like all the vaccines they are pushing on kids. There are some who are willing to accept the initial monetary prize for talking a person into getting a vaccine though. I know people who work in doctors offices and know there is a reward offered for first time vaccinations. It is only about twenty five bucks, but get enough of them and it adds up quickly to pay nurses wages.

This "reward" is paid to the doctors by insurance companies as vaccinating people costs far less than treating them for the preventable diseases.
And as far as I know this only happens in a few countries.
The world isn't the USA.

a reply to: tribal

The Cleveland Clinic used to be respected in the 80s when it had a pioneering cardiovascular program, but not anymore. Now it has a 'wellness' clinic, run by a famous antivaxx (Hyman) and offering reiki, naturopathy and energy healing (none are obviously medicine based practices).

How can you take Dr Neides seriously when he advises people to visit foodbabe.com for information on 'toxins'? (in his blog entry in the OP). I think Dr Neides has realized where the money is and I see him trying to be the new Dr Mercola in the future.... after all Mercola became a millionare selling books, 'treatments' and supplements. We all know regular doctors never become rich practicing medicine.

Funny how Neides and chums believe in science blindly when it shows how dangerous a substance can be, but ignore the same science when it shows at which dose those substances can be harmful. They are so hypocritical and unfortunately scientific illiteracy don't allow their costumers to see the truth.

Neides and pals are nasty people who bend and twist real science to fit the product they are selling.

a reply to: Agartha

I would be interested in how it is you decided if someone references foodbabe it automatically discredits them. Isnt that a guilt by association logical fallacy? how about you try attacking the substance of something you disagree with rather than resort to intellectually lazy nonsense.

As to the Cleveland Clinic....i dont know much about it. You say its no longer respected, could you expand on that a little? Im actually interested. I dont know why having a wellness clinic that focuses on alternative therapies would detract from the legitimacy of other treatments in other departments which are more mainstream.

As to the issue of dosage dependent toxicity, please elaborate on that. I'm not a scientist and i am very interested in knowing how a substance that in almost every other field is considered toxic but if its found in a vaccine its a ok. Please educate me.

a reply to: tribal

please list these " objective " negatives that you " know " about vaccines

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
Bugger it, let Darwinism take its course.

If the anti vaccers wish to go through life unvaccinated then let them. They and their families will die and this will leave the rest of use disease free.

No point in arguing. Let's live or die by our choices.

Do you really believe this?

Most folks who get any/all of the diseases we vaccinate for will not die, and not even have any adverse long-term outcomes. They'll get sick, the disease will run its course, and then they'll get better again. Measles, chicken pox, mumps... even back before vaccines, most kids who got these diseases healed just fine. And those of us who did have these diseases have genuine natural immunity now. Not temporary synthetic "immunity." For those who actually considering risk vs reward, many of these vaccines are not worth it -- especially in a "one-size-fits-all jab 'em with as many as we can as soon as we can" scenario.

On the other hand, Polio would be one notable exception in a risk vs reward perspective. Tetanus is another... although tetanus is now only available in combination with Diptheria and pertussis, so getting a booster for the one means a booster for all.

There's far more to it than "let them all die then."

Darwinism? Okay. I will support anyone and everyone's right to get whatever vaccinations they so choose... or not.

a reply to: Ksihkehe

Youre right, i did say society had become radicalized and yes i did point to online comments as an EXAMPLE of that radicalization. Now, i will admit maybe i used the wrong word. I was also thinking about POLARIZATION where you see less and and less of a middle ground represented on an issue, especially loaded issues like vaccination. However, after looking up the definition and usage of radical/radicalization i think i still might have used it correctly, but i am open to adjusting my characterization of society as radicalized pending some good examples that i misapplied the term. From the wiki entry on the term it appears, if wiki's sources can be trusted, that i used the term accurately.

en.wikipedia.org...

There is no universally accepted definition of radicalization in academia of government. Therefore, not one definition can be presented here. One of the issue with defining radicalization appears to be the importance of the context to determine what is perceived as radicalization. Therefore, radicalization can mean different things to different people. [7] Presented below is a list of definitions used by different governments.

And in the "talk" section:

"Radicalization" can apply to the intensification of any ideology whether it is religious, political or secular. It is not peculiar to one generation, one system of belief, one geographic area.

So i think we will have to agree to disagree on the manner in which i used it. You dont like how i used it and unless you can provide numerous consistent examples that i misapplied the term i think i might be standing on pretty solid linguistic ground.

Now to your point of moving goalposts. I will admit i am rather new to the logic/reason/rhetoric discipline and am open to correction and learning from my mistakes. So if you would be willing to point out specifically how i am committing logical fallacies i would be grateful. I dont want to be anybodys enemy here, but i do enjoy some good verbal jousting so i suppose its inevitable that from time to time i will say some nasty or nonsensical things....comes with the territory.

I dont think talking trash can always be held up to the high standard of formal logic without losing the fun of argumentation and non formal banter. I think most of us here get that. However ,when it comes to addressing specific points about actual data or making a case for a particular thing i DO think we should try to employ the best possible logical standards if truth seeking is the goal.

Thanks for your input!

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Here's one for you to chew on.

www.cdc.gov...[/ur l]

I mean, i could probably find dozens but i simply dont have time for that. In princple, if there was enough of a problem for the CDC to admit it that establishes the precedent that a vaccine was known to be associated with or the cause of very undesirable health condition. I'm pretty sure if you actually WANTED to know about all the negatives you could do the research yourself instead of needing to be spoon fed.

Heres a great BBC documentary about a doctor in Africa that accidentally discovered that vaccines given in a certain order increased infant/child mortality in a statistically significant degree. If this subject is of as much interest to you as it is to me you cannot afford to ignore this one of the few really good MAINSTREAM examples of mishandling of sound data showing increased health and mortality risks from vaccination.

Pay special attention to how the WHO handled this situation....i think its rather telling.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00b1z47]the vaccine detectives


www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: Agartha

I'm so glad I saw your comment... I've been pondering something which may or may not have any validity...

Is it possible that those kids who have adverse reactions to vaccines are kids who would have adverse outcomes -- perhaps much worse outcomes -- to the disease itself if they had caught it naturally? And are therefore reacting to the virus in the vaccine, as opposed to the vaccine per se?

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, it's just a thought I've had, and I have absolutely no idea how we would be able to know anyway... so it just goes round and round in my head!

a reply to: tribal

doesage dependant tocicity ?

hey - lets start with formaledehyde :

a 5 kg baby already [ unvaccinated ] has 30 times the formaldehyde in its bloodstream that its vaccine will contain

formeldehyde is produced constantly - as a result of metabolic processes - and is broken down again within 20 minuites

so - what risk does vaccience formaldehyde pose ?

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
Bugger it, let Darwinism take its course.

If the anti vaccers wish to go through life unvaccinated then let them. They and their families will die and this will leave the rest of use disease free.

No point in arguing. Let's live or die by our choices.

Regardless of the efficacy of vaccines, with which all three of my sons have been thoroughly penetrated, to want other people to die for being cautious is quite evil.

Also, the cautious who do not take the word of a badge or labcoat are more intelligent. They know that not all professionals are divine.

Further, you believe in Darwinism and yet admit the vaccines thwart it. Interesting. I personally feel that those who require the vaccines are the ones nature is trying to get rid of... Think about it.

All those insulting a doctor for his professional opinion are the fools. If vaccines were perfectly safe and effective, they would require no defense and they would require no convincing.

Think about it, lest you prove yourself to be siding with the religion which demands that you must die and fade - natural selection.

Medicine is about fighting natural selection, by the way; it is not about supporting it.

Antibiotics destroy your gut, but they prove to be extremely helpful in dire situations. No one argues against the fact that antibiotics have the side effect of killing your internal ecosystem. Therefore, for people to claim that vaccines aren't destructive at all is a sign that many vaccines are possibly more harmful than we know.

Imagine this:. The U.S. government wants to train soldiers to fight ISIS. So the government picks up some living ISIS fighters and some dead ones. Then the government puts the living in one room and the dead in the other. Then they assign a squad to each room.

The room with the living ISIS people will erupt into chaos. All ISIS will die and possibly some soldiers. Surveillance may reveal some knowledge about ISIS which can be used to fight them in the future, but now those soldiers are radicalized against anything resembling those people. They will definitely defeat ISIS, but many innocents will die as well, causing chaos and bringing into question the consequences of such a strategy.

The room with dead ISIS will find soldiers ruminating about the dead enemy. Inspection of the bodies reveals less information than inspection with the live ones. Uniform is subjective. No clue how they speak or think, or very little evidence for deduction. The soldiers are desensitized to seeing the enemy dead, and therefore to seeing any human being dead. All people are now at a little greater risk because these soldiers have been convinced that's ISIS, but with little information to go on, paranoia can set in. The consequences aren't even predictable.

Live virus vaccine or dead virus vaccine, it doesn't matter. The body learns something about the enemy and might possibly develop a way to defeat it.... But at what cost? The body goes to war with itself if the battle is too easily won, if the body is confused over whether the enemy is hiding or not, or if the enemy is found soon disguised or morphed. As well, the vaccine may put the body into red alert when there is no need to be.

There is much to consider, but I think I've found a way to make this simple to understand.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

i liked your analogy. I find it baffling that the people who castigate non vaxxers and even vaccine skeptics as irrational junk science addicts dont even understand how immunity works and how herd immunity works. Its a given that if a person is unvaccinated they will be exposed to everything thats out there and their body will fight it and acquire a natural immunity. If the body fails at its job presumably they will get seriously ill and require intervention of they will die. So where are all the completely unvaccinated kids dying in droves? As to unvaxxed being carriers of pathogens well they arent the only ones now are they? One of the glaring facts about vaccination that science worshippers seem to miss is that INCOMPLETELY vaccinated people are FAR more numerous than completely unvaccinated people and they are just as likely if not MORE likely to be disease vectors. Should we talk about HPV for a moment? I mean, most adults dont get vaxxed against it so they are spreading it around like love sauce all over everything they touch and NO ONE is saying a damn word about it! HILARIOUS!

I could go on as im sure you could, but the Detractors refuse to acknowledge the most basic obvious evidence that vaccines not only are not perfect (nothing is) but that they do cause damage on a spectrum. The ones that will acknowledge problems will resort to a "yes but death is preferable" position which nullifies any of the other half hearted attempts they made earlier. No, death is not preferable to some conditions resulting from vaccine damage. Ever heard of this little thing called "quality of life"? Its the concept that people employ especially in later years or suffering from certain medical conditions that makes the prospect of living with that thing unbearable to the point of preferring death.

So far no one has really spent any time attacking the substance of the blog post or any specifics, preferring to engage in character assassination and ad hominems.

No dice.

Interesting thread on Metabunk about this Dr looking specifically at the too many too soon claim

www.metabunk.org...

each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time

originally posted by: tribal
I would be interested in how it is you decided if someone references foodbabe it automatically discredits them. Isnt that a guilt by association logical fallacy? how about you try attacking the substance of something you disagree with rather than resort to intellectually lazy nonsense.

Intellectually lazy nonsense is something I never do.

Foodbabe promotes lots of silly fears, for example fear to chemicals you cannot pronounce, which shows her ignorance as everything is a chemical and the dose makes the poison. The most common example to this is water, also known as dihydrogen monoxide, a compound that can save you and kill you depending on the amount your drink.

Foodbabe, just like all other quacks, is also a liar and a hypocrite: she promotes fear of aluminum (amongst others) because it can cause a range of conditions, from allergies to cancer. Guess what? Her 'Naturally Fresh' deodorant contains ammonium alum and potassium alum which are both aluminum (look it up and you'll see). She's such an snake oil salesman she doesn't even tell people she is also using aluminum in her products.

If Neides was an honest guy, he would know what kind of charlatan foodbabe is and wouldn't promote her in his blog.

As to the issue of dosage dependent toxicity, please elaborate on that. I'm not a scientist and i am very interested in knowing how a substance that in almost every other field is considered toxic but if its found in a vaccine its a ok. Please educate me.

The dose makes the poison and formaldehyde is the perfect example as Neides mentioned it. I see ignorante-ape has already posted about it, let me confirm that with doses and references:

- The highest amount of formaldehyde in a vaccine is 0.02 mg ( LINK 1 )

-As formaldehyde is a natural compound present in our bodies, a 2 month old baby would have 1.1mg in his blood. ( LINK 2 )

-We ingest 10mg to 20mg daily in our food ( LINK 3 )




a reply to: Boadicea

Hi Bo!

The viruses in the vaccines cannot cause the same reaction, because they are either 'live attenuated' and cannot replicate in a human host, 'killed inactivated' which means the virus is dead but still recognizable by the immune system so as to create antibodies, and/or 'subunit conjugate' which means only a fragment or portion of the virus is present.

a reply to: noonebutme

risk is something most people will avoid.

So then why are they forced to take vaccinations when the warnings run to some 30-40 known side effects. Why did the Federal Government in the USA pick up the tab for vaccine induced injury and not the vaccine peddlars?

a reply to: Agartha

Ahhhhh... thank you. Got it! I think. Do you know if that's why the dead or inactive viruses are used?

I figured someone who knew better than me had already considered this... I've just never seen it addressed and decided to finally ask about it instead of wondering!