It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Look at what Dr. Russell Blaylock has to say on the subject.
You mean the same Dr. Russell Blaylock who, conveniently, started marketing a miracle cure for the ailments he claims are caused by vaccines?
How ironic. Almost as if all his statements are part of some sort of marketing scam...
Originally posted by Roid_Rage27
Vaccines have not wiped out diseases. Better nutrition and cleaner living are the reasons. Check the CDC numbers, the diseases were on the decline before mass vaccinations.
Cmon...water filters?
5% of global deaths? I bet you anything most of those are from developing countries and the kids did not have clean water or proper nutrition
Again you work on the premise that vaccines are actually effective.
To say that vaccines have wiped out disease is analogous to saying my father has smoked for 50 years and he doesn't have Alzheimer's, therefore smoking prevents Alzheimer's.
Injecting a virus/bacteria directly in to the blood stream, bypassing the mucus membranes is natural?
Originally posted by Roid_Rage27
It's a brain repair formula for older people.
maximize your brain’s ability to heal and reduce inflammation (a central mechanism of these devastating neurological disorders)
I have added a mixture of nutrients known to promote DNA Repair, since damage to DNA is widespread in all neurodegenerative disorders.
Research also shows that the sooner we start a brain maintenance/repair nutritional program, the better protected we will be.
The good thing is I don't think anyone has died from his supplement.
Should we talk about all the prescription medicine and vaccine related deaths?
your industry oozes of corruption and greed.
You're a smarty pants, you must know something isn't right when every 3rd commercial is a drug I need to ask my doctor about.
Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Originally posted by Whitbit
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
Regarding your above post, asking from the POV of a skeptic/on thefence, would you recommend vaccinating for some things but not others?
In my opinion, they are all worth getting, but to answer your question, if you had to go "bare minimum" for some reason, you would want to have your child vaccinated with the MMR, DTaP, rotavirus, flu, and Hib vaccines. These comprise, by and large, the biggest killers of infants (Hib, flu, DTaP, rota) and the diseases with the worst complications (MMR).
Originally posted by star child
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
Thats fine, Now can you tell us all what you say to the parent who comes to see you AFTER
their child has been vaccinated and is ill. A child who was was normal and healthy before the vaccination but developed symtoms soon after.
Tell me, have you ever had these problems with a child that has not been vaccinated?
Have you never questioned how the pharmaceutical companies just happen to have Ritalin and and other companion drugs just at the right time for a comparatively new illness.
Do some research, deny lgnorance,
Originally posted by ptahotep76
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
Yes, but all the Doctors are bought by big pharma, and have you ever questioned the medicine you subscribe to your patients? No Doctor really questions if the new medicines are safe or tested properly or on the long run. They take all the info presented by the pharma at face value. And as you said they are not doctors. They are a business and every business has only one goal and it is to: MAKE MONEY. They did not make a Hippocratic oath to only help people they there to produce results the boss wants and to make money for the shareholders.
Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by soficrow
So, you have no evidence that "most researchers" have financial conflicts? Is that what I'm supposed to draw from your post? All I see is a revision of guidelines, which happens all the time to accommodate changing technology, trends, and environments.
Why can't you just provide evidence of your claim, rather than dancing around the point?
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has halted payments on a research grant to Emory University, following the revelation that the psychiatrist in charge of the research concealed hundreds of thousands of dollars in drug company payments, possibly in violation of university and federal conflict-of-interest rules.
NIMH director Thomas Insel, MD, assured Pascal Goldschmidt, MD, UM’s medical school dean that Nemeroff’s congressional investigation for unreported drug industry income and NIH’s termination of his $9 million grant shouldn’t stop the government funding spigot -- even as Insel personally revised NIMH’s “conflict of interest” rules.
But transparency is not likely. “The reviews are not publicly available, and the reason for this is that we provide confidentiality to everyone within the review process,” Lacey wrote in an e-mail.
“We’re all for academic freedom, but the tax payers of the U.S.—including you and me and your mom and dad—funded his research,” says Sucher. “Taxpayers have a right to know how the university came up with that finding.”
...in conjunction with the eminent Professor Henry Lai, Louis Slesin produced a highly detailed and well researched article documenting the apparent trend between the source of funding and the likely outcome of the paper in question. Whilst it was not so surprising to find that industry funded papers more often found a null or negative result, what was surprising was the proportion of papers published in a single journal, Radiation Research, that followed the same trend!