Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Children's Health
Philippines measles death toll
Previous  1  2  3  4



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Sara111




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Feb 27 2019, 4:44 am
imasoftov wrote:
I want nothing from you but silence, but I do hope that someone interviews Yael some day and asks her to explain why she bans some topics but allows this one. Have the Women of the Wall or their opponents killed any chidren? Does Chabad messianism threaten lives?

The followup question will be to ask her for her personal position on each of these issues.


You never did answer my question directed specifically to you, did you?
Of course it's easier to try to silence someone when one doesn't have an answer.
That kind of behaviour is standard from the Pharma industry and health authorities that have too many ties and conflicts of interest with them. But it does remind me of times in history and countries led by dictators where there was censorship of certain topics. Not sure why you would want to go backwards to such a thing. For a topic as important as this, you want there to be silence?? Why should it not be debated respectfully? Because you are ignorant on the topic and cannot contribute to a constructive debate?
Back to top

imasoftov




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Feb 27 2019, 6:50 am
Sara111 wrote:
You never did answer my question directed specifically to you, did you?

When did you stop beating your children?
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Feb 27 2019, 6:53 am
Sara111 wrote:
You never did answer my question directed specifically to you, did you?
Of course it's easier to try to silence someone when one doesn't have an answer.
That kind of behaviour is standard from the Pharma industry and health authorities that have too many ties and conflicts of interest with them. But it does remind me of times in history and countries led by dictators where there was censorship of certain topics. Not sure why you would want to go backwards to such a thing. For a topic as important as this, you want there to be silence?? Why should it not be debated respectfully? Because you are ignorant on the topic and cannot contribute to a constructive debate?


Pinterest is trying to eliminate the vaccine discussion from it's platform and Facebook is considering it. Apparently someone doing a search for information about why they should vaccinate will be bombarded with sites saying why they shouldn't and the person may not know which site is giving accurate information and base an important decision on misinformation.
Clearly there are times when a person should not vaccinate but the topic is so heavily polarized that internet searches may not give a fair and unbiased opinion.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Feb 27 2019, 7:45 am
I would also add that alternative medicine is also making lots of money and if someone wants to sell you a "safer" alternative to vaccines, beware because that person is probably as greedy as big pharma.

New topic but I feel bad when these alternative medicine sheisters take advantage of the poor and uninsured. I waiting for the rotten tomato award for this post.
Back to top

ora_43




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Feb 27 2019, 8:09 am
Sara111 wrote:
I don't know where you got the 1 death per 1,000 cases. It's much more like 1 in 10,000.

I get it from the CDC and similar agencies, and confirm it by comparing the rate of infection to the mortality rate. Data can be collected from recent outbreaks in Israel and Europe.

Quote:
This is very clearly shown in Dr. Neil Miller's study - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p.....0075/

(opens link) A notification that corrections have been made to this article? How surprising!

Let's see what the correction is. Hmm. That the writers - a "medical research journalist," by the way, not a doctor, and a computer scientist - were actually affiliated with, and funded by, an anti-vaccine organization.

Again, how surprising.

I love how anti-vaxxers can truly, honestly believe that the 99.9% of doctors who support immunizations are all either: 1. deliberately dishonest, due to financial interests, or 2. uninformed.

And yet, when anti-vax not-exactly-scientists go around: 1. making a living off of their anti-vax views, 2. continuing to not be medical doctors, or at very best, to be doctors in an unrelated field, 3. being deliberately dishonest about the above - somehow that's A-OK.

Anyway, this "study" (a generous term for what's basically a single graph) is garbage. For goodness' sake, they took a single year of information, ignored all other factors, and basically just drew a line on a piece of paper.

Quote:
I'm sorry that you don't take vaccine injuries seriously. Not surprising, guess, as it is definitely covered up and hidden from the public.

Annnnd we reach the inevitable conclusion - the assertion that, sure, all the data available to us might support vaccination, but somewhere out there is secret data that supports your point.

It's been fun.
Back to top

ora_43




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Feb 27 2019, 8:20 am
I just want to say, for the record, that I have nothing against researchers questioning the safety of vaccines, or against anyone who does the same.

I having something against these specific researchers, because they are dishonest charlatans and their work is laughable.

And I have something against people who argue against vaccines by straight-out lying about the effects of disease.
Back to top

keym




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Feb 27 2019, 9:02 am
ora_43 wrote:
I just want to say, for the record, that I have nothing against researchers questioning the safety of vaccines, or against anyone who does the same.

I having something against these specific researchers, because they are dishonest charlatans and their work is laughable.

And I have something against people who argue against vaccines by straight-out lying about the effects of disease.


To add, I also object to 1) people making claims without sources backing it up. You want to tell me all the dangerous stuff in vaccines, cite a source. Don't just say read the inserts. 2) the conflagration of all vaccines together. Some are more urgent than others, some are better tested, and some have more side affects.
Back to top

amother
Apricot


 

Post Wed, Feb 27 2019, 9:20 am
amother wrote:
You are ignorant for making this statement. Perhaps even taking a simple psychology class would lead you to an easy conclusion. I asked my professor questions backing up statements made and I was told it is deviating from class material and this is what the books say and is credible. I am sorry but if you explain something in class and I want to understand why in order to understand the science conclusion then I am deserving of an answer. But no, they dont have the answers. They were taught one way and they know what they read - not to think outside the box.

This is not just one professor. This happens a lot. People have so much work in college and many are there to pass so they learn what is in the book and have a nice day. I personally dont agree with a lot of things I learn because the science "backing" it is too vague to prove accuracy to me.

Now tell me something. When you take a medicine for year because it is "safe" because everyone else takes it, what do you say when it gets recalled years later? I think iit was tylenol for babies that just had this issue. This is scary stuff. Same is with a vaccine in Israel that was proven mishandled/damaged due to a crack in many vials. This is information we only know now through media. Imagine how much you will only find out years later.

For example a resturant. You go there for years and dont REALLY know what goes on in the back. You get served food and assume all is fine and dandy health wise and/or kashrus wise until proven otherwise. This is SO common and there IS hashgacha all the time! Now take vaccine indsutry. They dont need supervision, testing or anything. You trust them? Enjoy your day. Stop bashing those who know what this quackery is all about.

You know the saying, "sometimes its better not to know". Sometimes I wish I didnt know all the information but in the end of the day, this information leads me to do what is best for my family. Hashem created our body to fight the NATURAL occurrences. Vaccine toxicity is NOT natural. Measles is.


Well, you're talking to a medical professional. Someone who has been gone thru a rigorous medical curriculum - so I can straight out say that you've gone so far in your beliefs you don't even realize how much mistruths you are spreading.

Its so easy to believe certain stuff or to create your own truths when you have very little insight to the intricacies of systems and institutions. Even more so, when you set out with an agenda to prove.
Back to top

LittleDucky




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Feb 27 2019, 9:46 am
All the talk one poster gave about infant mortality rates and why the USA is much higher despite our wealth (she says it's due to vaccines)... Is nonsense. That whole statistic isn't as solid as it sounds.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/p.....a31f0

Why? Different countries report "live births" differently!
Do you count babies that don't live 24 hours? US does but not every country. Same with babies under a certain weight, length or if they are premature. So when countries don't include the most likely to die within the first year but the USA does- of course the USA will have a higher number of deaths!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p.....6058/

(Edited only to add the second website.)
Back to top

amother
Chocolate


 

Post Wed, Feb 27 2019, 12:37 pm
LittleDucky, the study quoted above did refer to that, pointing out that adjusting the numbers for the differences in reporting simply moved the USA from the 33rd in mortality to the 32nd.

The conclusion (if you read the study through), was that working to prevent premature births would help somewhat, but that it would also be worthy to study reducing the toxic load of so many vaccines and see if that would also reduce the mortality rates, considering that there is plausible reason to correlate number of infant vaccines and higher infant mortality.

I think that sounds very reasonable, and not so much anti-vaccine as vaccine-cautious.
Back to top

LittleDucky




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Feb 27 2019, 2:59 pm
amother wrote:
LittleDucky, the study quoted above did refer to that, pointing out that adjusting the numbers for the differences in reporting simply moved the USA from the 33rd in mortality to the 32nd.

The conclusion (if you read the study through), was that working to prevent premature births would help somewhat, but that it would also be worthy to study reducing the toxic load of so many vaccines and see if that would also reduce the mortality rates, considering that there is plausible reason to correlate number of infant vaccines and higher infant mortality.

I think that sounds very reasonable, and not so much anti-vaccine as vaccine-cautious.


You didnt obviously read either of the 2 articles I posted. It would be helpful to read them before commenting. Neither mentioned vaccines as a cause. Please provide quotes. Here is a nice snippet for you:
"Third, our data allow us to distinguish between neonatal and postneonatal deaths in our comparably-reported sample. The neonatal/postneonatal distinction is informative because the relevant causes of death during these two time periods are quite different (Rudolph and Borker 1987). Previous comparisons of neonatal and postneonatal mortality in aggregate data (such as Kleinman and Kiely (1990)) are diffcult to interpret given the differential reporting concern: specifically, in an unrestricted sample the US has much higher neonatal mortality than any of the European comparisons we analyze (World Health Organization, 2006), whereas our comparably-reported sample suggests that differences in reporting could be driving nearly all of that pattern...".
In other words the reporting differences make a huge difference! It just doesnt bring it from 33 to 32. Read the full article. It could account for the pattern! We count all live births as alive. No matter the size, weight, length or gestation period. We also try to keep babies alive longer- so by keeping them alive past 24 hours, 1 week or a month- it changes the entire comparison!
Back to top

amother
Chocolate


 

Post Wed, Feb 27 2019, 4:41 pm
Actually, it doesn't. Read these excerpts from the posted study, which addressed your very concerns: (IMR = Infant Mortality Rates)

Quote:
Preterm births

Preterm birth rates in the United States have steadily increased since the early 1980s. (This rise has been tied to a greater reliance on caesarian deliveries, induced labor, and more births to older mothers.) Preterm babies are more likely than full-term babies to die within the first year of life. About 12.4% of US births are preterm. In Europe, the prevalence rate of premature birth ranges from 5.5% in Ireland to 11.4% in Austria. Preventing preterm births is essential to lower infant mortality rates. However, it is important to note that some nations such as Ireland and Greece, which have very low preterm birth rates (5.5% and 6%, respectively) compared to the United States, require their infants to receive a relatively high number of vaccine doses (23) and have correspondingly high IMRs. Therefore, reducing preterm birth rates is only part of the solution to reduce IMRs.6,32


Quote:
Differences in reporting live births

Infant mortality rates in most countries are reported using WHO standards, which do not include any reference to the duration of pregnancy or weight of the infant, but do define a ‘live birth’ as a baby born with any signs of life for any length of time.12 However, four nations in the dataset—France, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Ireland—do not report live births entirely consistent with WHO standards. These countries add an additional requirement that live babies must also be at least 22 weeks of gestation or weigh at least 500 grams. If babies do not meet this requirement and die shortly after birth, they are reported as stillbirths. This inconsistency in reporting live births artificially lowers the IMRs of these nations.32,33 According to the CDC, “There are some differences among countries in the reporting of very small infants who may die soon after birth. However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States' relatively low international ranking.”32 Nevertheless, when the IMRs of France, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Ireland were adjusted for known underreporting of live births and the 30 data pairs retested for significance, the correlation coefficient improved from 0.70 to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.52–0.87).
Back to top

LittleDucky




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Feb 27 2019, 9:10 pm
Again, you didn't read the article from NIH I posted. Yours compares IMR and vaccine rates.
The article I posted says that the concept of using the reports IMR is not based in usable facts. IMR is a problematic ranking to begin with and therefore correlating anything to it is therefore problematic. Please read it. It is enlightening.
Back to top

Sara111




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 28 2019, 5:41 am
Ora_43: "I get it from the CDC and similar agencies, and confirm it by comparing the rate of infection to the mortality rate. Data can be collected from recent outbreaks in Israel and Europe."

The CDC touts this number but it is not played out in reality.
Nor was it the reality before the vaccine came out.

Also worth noting is that because children are not getting measles in childhood and receiving from it lifelong immunity, the disease is being pushed into the adult population where it is dangerous. Mothers having babies don't have antibodies to pass along to their babies which they would have had if they had been given the chance to have lifelong immunity. So small babies are at risk. The MMR vaccine is one of the few that has been effective, but it only protects a child for a few years. It comes with a price . . . that is perhaps too high to pay.

If all your information comes from google . . . . . G-d help you.
You can see how information is censored.
Just now, a study came out of Germany that compared the health of vaccinated children versus un-vaccinated ones. It was pulled quite quickly off the internet. The results were too damning.
Yes, when you're dealing with the most powerful industry in the world that has no liability over a product and profits enormously from it, they will do everything they can to stop anything that will threaten them.
Back to top

Sara111




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 28 2019, 5:46 am
Ora_43: "I love how anti-vaxxers can truly, honestly believe that the 99.9% of doctors who support immunizations are all either: 1. deliberately dishonest, due to financial interests, or 2. uninformed."

Doctors can't speak out against immunizations. They'll lose their license. They're in a system that will punish them if they question it.
I don't blame them. They've spent many years studying and building their career. They don't want to lose all of that.
Back to top

amother
Beige


 

Post Mon, Apr 01 2019, 7:23 am
FranticFrummie wrote:
I think the Japanese and Chinese have figured it out. To westerners the hospital masks look creepy, because we read faces so much. Most Asian people value their privacy AND their health, so the masks are not considered weird.

I have a friend who wears a mask every time she has to fly somewhere, and people always want to move seats away from her because they think she's contagious. She actually has a severely damaged immune system, and the slightest cold could put her in the hospital. (She also wipes down every touchable surface around her seat with alcohol wipes before she sits down.)


If they move away its great because she has more space around her LOL. I did it when my father AH was sick to avoid bringIng more problems to him. I know its an old post but I thought I pays to laugh
Back to top
Page 4 of 4 Previous  1  2  3  4 Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Children's Health

Related Topics Replies Last Post
“Peaceful college protests?” Anti semitic Death Threats!
by Cheiny
2 Mon, Oct 30 2023, 8:40 pm View last post
Anyone had near death experience?
by Tiye
10 Fri, Oct 06 2023, 2:31 am View last post
Anyone had near death experience?
by Tiye
0 Thu, Oct 05 2023, 8:43 pm View last post
by Tiye