[back] Pharma trolls
[Here is the WDDTY
forum resident Pharma troll defending Allopathy
and playing 'Show us the Proof'. Show us
the proof and we will use it if valid is the lying song they have to sing to
hide the fact they have an Allopathic monopoly.
Even 1,200 citations on Vitamin C and infections isn't enough proof for this character, of course. The aim is to cast doubt on non-Allopathic medicine, and draw attention away from the dark side of Allopathic medicine, like its monopoly, iatrogenic deaths and disease, and no diseases cured except bacterial infections.
These characters are running a monopoly and they aren't going to give it up without a fight.]
See: Pharma trolls Anecdotes Show us the Proof Epidemiology
[Blog] Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?
The trouble with medicine
The science delusion
The Pharma troll song
Anyway, as I say, I am happy for alternative treatments to be used by anyone that wants them, provided they do not make claims that they have no evidence to support. I don't believe anyone should get away with that, pharma company, anyone. Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?
Anecdote don't count.]
With the greatest of respect, more anecdotal evidence. "one single incidence", "these two boys". Thes are anecdotes. Like I say, with all due respect, you're struggle to understand what I mean by evidence. A good read that makes you think "wow!" is not it!!! Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?
[An Allopathy wanting proof Homeopathic medicine works?? ]
As for being a Pharma Troll, I am simply asking for someone to provide some decent evidence that homepathy works. How can that possibly be a biased request? How could anything be more neutral? That's what scientists ask each other all the time, part of their job- providing evidence. Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?
[Only a vaccine, of course.]
Yes, we are still waiting for an aids "cure" (a vaccine most likely). Any idea why its not around yet? HIV is a complicated little virus that mutate very rapdily. Its difficult to design a vaccine for it since there are countless strains. Hopefully as we learn more we will get there. Or do you think Vitamin C or homeopathy will ultiamtely have better success in threating HIV/AIDS? For that you would need evidence.Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?
to Allopathy. Classic!]
Psychiatric drugs have helped millions! They are far from a cure, but my God, have you no idea how much antipsychotics have helped? People with major depression? The evidence that these drugs have helped millions is overwhelming. Of course they are not cures! No one has ever said that they are. But they have turned people lives around from the days when there were no treatment options at all. Again, what are you suggesting, that Vit C or homeopathy are more effective in treatment psychiatric illness? For that you would need evidence which so far says the opposite.Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?
My defence of these treatments is the evidence that they work. Publically avaiable, open access, reems and reems or corroborating evidence. If you disagree with it, or interpret the evidence in a different way, then say so. Provide example. Evidence is the only defense. Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?
[The old show-us-the-evidence.]
You know what I am going to ask for next- that's right, evidence! Go on, some peer-reviewed studies would be ideal really, but any evidence at all. We can all look at it then, judge it for ourselves and take nothing on faith or face value. Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?
[So you give him the
Levy book with 1,200 medical
references proving vitamin C will cure infections. Obviously Dr Levy
hasn't a clue, he's biased!]
Whale, if I read someone's book, it will lay out their argument. And I would have hoped, refer to the studied they rely on for evidence. And then I would have to look at those studied myself. I might agree with the book's author and I might think they are wrong. That's what data is for, so we can be impartial and not rely on one author or another, we can be unbiased.
I am interested in the original data. Not an author's book. Even if they are 100% correct and I agree with them anyway, don't you appreciate the difference? One lets me make my own mind up, the other presents the data as they see it. I would rather remain unbiased from the outset and make my own mind up. Wouldn't you? The trouble with medicine
When they can't answer the UK measles death stats they jump continent (see Vitamin wars: Saving us from what exactly?), and these made up stats are very useful for UK propaganda, not just their genocide efforts in Africa.
Measles deaths (from 1901/2, averaged) declined by 99.4% before vaccination in 1968. http://www.whale.to/m/measlesdeaths1.html Ref: Gov' very own stat CD
Q 1. Tell us how you figure out vaccination played any part in measles deaths decline? Remember parents believe vaccination saves kids from measles deaths.
As Clifford G Miller - trained scientist (physicist) & commercial attorney (not vaccine damage litigation) points out, measles deaths would have declined to one or two a year with or without the vaccine http://www.whale.to/v/offitt.html
If you follow the death graph line to today deaths would be 1-3 with or without the vaccine, see graphs http://www.whale.to/m/measlesdeaths1.html
FOIA shows in 1990 in the UK there were approximately 70 deaths associated with triple vaccines (DTP and MMR) Ref: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/miller333.html
media report 26 deaths http://www.whale.to/v/mmr101.html and the UK gov has paid out for deaths, as has the USA gov.
It is admitted even by gov only 10% of vaccine reactions are reported (more like 1-3%), so if you cut the 70 deaths in half, but say 20 as DPT is more toxic, then it wouldn't be a stretch to say 20 are killed by MMR. Whatever, it is certainly way more than would be killed by measles.
2. Q. What is the point of using a vaccine that kills more kids than the disease? Even assuming it eliminated deaths, which it didn't as the stats show.
See: [Nov 2007] Measles deaths down 91 percent in Africa