• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Quacks & Pseudoscience

I am impressed with the patience being shown here, but the guy is clearly on a wind up or stupid.

Oh and if you disagree with him you have killed babies or you need to tell mothers their babies should die.

Please carry on as I am learning a lot from the sources and recommendations that provide evidence - just wanted to chime in and say I appreciate it.
 
Everything single vaccine data sheet warns us that we should be extremely careful of giving dangerous vaccines to people with weak immune systems. Ergo it is possible for vaccines to overwhelm immune systems.

therefore the theory goes like this.

Healthy baby has PCV vaccine. Gets serious chest infection - the very thing the vaccine is suppose to stop. For instance 19a which is increasing in PCV vaccinated babies. Baby's immune system is fudgeed up and overloaded by this and other vaccines.(manufacturer accept that their vaccine can overwhelm immune systems), Baby develops sepsis. 19a is antibiotic resistant. Baby dies. Ergo vaccine damage.

Your refusal to accept the vaccine damage is even a possible explanation or that unicorns controlling gravity is more plausible makes you look slightly dogmatic.
 
JPBB said:
The baby died of sepsis. Surely that is proof of the immune system being overwhelmed.
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite. Sepsis is evidence of the immune system doing precisely what it has evolved to do - it's the rest of the body that doesn't cope.

You still haven't shown how a vaccination can cause sepsis or "overload" an immune system.
 
Last edited:
JPBB said:
Everything single vaccine data sheet warns us that we should be extremely careful of giving dangerous vaccines to people with weak immune systems.
Click to expand...
Yes. If your immune system doesn't work, don't try and use it to form an immuno-response - it won't do it.

JPBB said:
Ergo it is possible for vaccines to overwhelm immune systems.
Click to expand...
No. That just doesn't follow at all. Saying broken immune systems are broken is not the same as saying vaccines can break healthy immune systems.
 
I am saying that it is possible for vaccines to break immune systems. Milo says I am a liar for saying that. You say that it is possible in rare circumstances.

Therefore the statement below is true (with caveats from you)

Everything single vaccine data sheet warns us that we should be extremely careful of giving dangerous vaccines to people with weak immune systems. Ergo it is possible for vaccines to overwhelm immune systems

And so my theory still stands as plausible even if you are happier with your unicorn conspiracy theory.

Healthy baby has PCV vaccine. Gets serious chest infection - the very thing the vaccine is suppose to stop. For instance 19a which is increasing in PCV vaccinated babies. Resulting in Baby's immune system is fudgeed up and overloaded by this and other vaccines.(manufacturer accept that their vaccine can overwhelm immune systems), Baby develops sepsis. 19a is antibiotic resistant. Baby dies. Ergo vaccine damage.
 
Last edited:
JPBB said:
I am saying that it is possible for vaccines to break immune systems.
Click to expand...
It's not. You can say that a broken immune system may not create an immuno-response to a vaccine but you can't (accurately) say that vaccines can break immune systems because they can't.

JPBB said:
Milo says I am a liar for saying that.
Click to expand...
No he didn't. He said you're a liar for saying the vaccine makers said that, which they didn't.

JPBB said:
You say that it is possible in rare circumstances.
Click to expand...
No I didn't, I said precisely the opposite. Just for clarification; VACCINES CANNOT BREAK OR OVERLOAD IMMUNE SYSTEMS.

JPBB said:
Therefore the statement below is true (with caveats from you)

Everything single vaccine data sheet warns us that we should be extremely careful of giving dangerous vaccines to people with weak immune systems. Ergo it is possible for vaccines to overwhelm immune systems

And so my theory still stands as plausible even if you are happier with your unicorn conspiracy theory.

Healthy baby has PCV vaccine. Gets serious chest infection - the very thing the vaccine is suppose to stop. For instance 19a which is increasing in PCV vaccinated babies. Resulting in Baby's immune system is fudgeed up and overloaded by this and other vaccines.(manufacturer accept that their vaccine can overwhelm immune systems), Baby develops sepsis. 19a is antibiotic resistant. Baby dies. Ergo vaccine damage.
Click to expand...
Everything you've said above is either unknown or falsifiable except the bits I've highlighted.
 
JPBB said:
Everything single vaccine data sheet warns us that we should be extremely careful of giving dangerous vaccines to people with weak immune systems.
Click to expand...

Show me a data sheet that describes a vaccine as dangerous?
 
She had a choice. I don't know what I would do if I had to make the decision.

I have seen people died in agony from cancer. Some had chemo, some didn't.

I don't think you are saying that chemo does not have significant adverse effects.
 
I see a quack paper is saying today that Pharma and medical establishment overstate the benefits and understate the adverse effects of their products.

The BMJ must a liar and stupid and doesn't understand science

And this will lead to the death of millions of people with their irresponsible reporting.
 
JPBB said:
I see a quack paper is saying today that Pharma and medical establishment overstate the benefits and understate the adverse effects of their products.

The BMJ must a liar and stupid and doesn't understand science

And this will lead to the death of millions of people with their irresponsible reporting.
Click to expand...

You really don't get this linking to what you are talking about thing, do you?
 
OK. It must be a fake story. Thank GHod.

But there is quite a lot of media coverage. These trolls are crazy making up stories. even the mainstream press are picking up on the story. Do they not check their sources?
 
Last edited:
JPBB said:
OK. It must be a fake story. Thank GHod.

But there is quite a lot of media coverage. These trolls are crazy making up stories. even the mainstream press are picking up on the story. Do they not check their sources?
Click to expand...
Is it that difficult to copy and paste a link?
 
JPBB said:
She had a choice. I don't know what I would do if I had to make the decision.

I have seen people died in agony from cancer. Some had chemo, some didn't.

I don't think you are saying that chemo does not have significant adverse effects.
Click to expand...

Nope I'm not saying that Chemo doesn't have adverse effects. Of course it does just like every other medicine on the planet (seriously I don't know how much longer we can keep saying this but you keep ignoring it - maybe that's your plan, ignore us into submission)

The point I'm making is that all scientific evidence that has ever been generated suggests that chemotherapy would have been a far superior choice for her treatment than Chinese medicine. If she'd gone with chemo, she had a better chance of survival. I've not reviewed the literature but I doubt very much there is a single correctly powered and designed clinical study out there that concludes Chinese medicine is useful treatment for cancer let alone one which is better than chemotherapy.

Basically this poor girl has been fed a lot of non-scientific flimflam, bought it and unfortunately paid the ultimate price for that with her life. Whoever convinced her to ignore the doctors advice and stick with Chinese medicine has blood on their hands IMO.

Can you see the similarities between this and the vaccine debate we are currently having?
 
I guess you think I am not listening to you and I think you are not listening to me. I guess first we should seek to understand each other.

As i understand it, she did not take chemo, then she did, then she died.

1. My understanding is that because you have a link to a study by a pharma company that says she has a better chance of survival if she takes their expensive product she should do it. That Pharma's view over rides her own wishes. And that she should be forced to have chemo for her own good.

2. I say, she has choice. She does not have do what a pharma company tells her to do. (except in California where you have to buy vaccines)

At the end of the day whatever route she takes, she dies.
 
JPBB said:
The BMJ is trolling? I guess they have darted to challenge Pharma. Now they are not to be trusted.
Click to expand...
So post a link to what you're talking about, so we can all read what they've got to say on the subject.

Looking at their website I can't see anything that seems to fit the bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back