Stuck in a tedious debate with a homeopath? Here’s how to settle it

As soon as I write something critical about homeopathy, some people start claiming that I am biased. And as soon as even the most respected institution publishes a report on the subject, homeopaths insist that it is fatally flawed. On such occasions, an almost stereotypical debate tends to ensue which could be stylised by the following dialogue:

Homeopath: the medical establishment is biased against homeopathy.

Sceptic: that’s because the assumptions of homeopathy are not just implausible but fly in the face of science.

Homeopath: never mind plausibility; the crucial question is whether homeopathy works or not.

Sceptic: agreed — and there is no good evidence to show that it does.

Homeopath: this is not true; here is a study that proves homeopathy to be efficacious.

Sceptic: yes, there are several such trials, but one must always consider the totality of the evidence.

Homeopath: you mean one should go by the results of systematic reviews?

Sceptic: yes.

Homeopath: guess what, there are several systematic reviews that arrive at positive conclusions.

Sceptic: I know, but either they are not of good quality, or they exclude important evidence.

Homeopath: if you praise the value of systematic review, you cannot deny their findings.

Sceptic: of course I can; have you seen who wrote these articles? They were written by homeopaths or commissioned by the homeopathic lobby – how can we trust such evidence? Look at systematic reviews which do not have these obvious flaws and you will find they all arrive at negative conclusions.

Homeopath: that’s because they were written by anti-homeopaths.

Sceptic: there is no evidence for this claim.

Homeopath: you just don’t want to see it, because you are biased.

Such exchanges can go on forever. In fact, the question whether highly diluted homeopathic remedies are more than placebos has been going on for the last 200 years. Consumers are often bewildered by this endless dispute and many feel that science should have long been able to settle it once and for all.

I believe there might be a way to do just that. What we need is a scientific tool for assessing the available evidence in such a fashion that neither the homeopaths nor the sceptics can possibly refuse to accept the findings. This tool was created some time ago by the Cochrane Collaboration, a worldwide network of volunteers who evaluate the trial evidence on specific subjects.

Several features make Cochrane reviews unique: they follow an extremely rigorous peer-reviewed protocol; the studies they include are assessed in a standardised fashion; the review-authors have to justify why they exclude certain trials; the team of authors always includes experts from the subject in question (which means that reviews of homeopathy are conducted with the help of homeopaths); the extraction of the data is done in a transparent, standardised way; the reviews are carefully peer-reviewed and regularly updated; all reviews are freely accessible for everyone.

Because of these features, there currently is a very broad consensus that, when it comes to judging the efficacy of medical interventions, Cochrane reviews are the best evidence available.

If that is so, it makes sense to ask what exactly Cochrane reviews tell us about homeopathy. Do they agree with the view of the homeopaths or do they confirm what sceptics say?

Currently seven Cochrane reviews are available which specifically focus on homeopathy. The research questions addressed, the number of primary studies included and the main conclusions of these seven articles are listed below:

Does homeopathy work for asthma?
Six trials with a total of 556 people were included. The authors concluded that ‘there is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in asthma.’

Does homeopathy work for dementia?
There were no studies that could be included and the authors concluded that ‘in view of the absence of evidence it is not possible to comment on the use of homeopathy in treating dementia’.

Does homeopathy work for the induction of labour?
Two trials, involving 133 women, were included. The authors concluded that ‘there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of homoeopathy as a method of induction’.

Does homeopathy work for ADHD?
Four studies with a total of 168 patients were eligible for inclusion. The authors concluded that ‘there is currently little evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy for the treatment of ADHD’.

Does homeopathy alleviate the adverse effects of cancer treatments?
Eight controlled trials with a total of 664 participants met the inclusion criteria. The authors concluded that ‘this review found preliminary data in support of the efficacy of topical calendula for prophylaxis of acute dermatitis during radiotherapy and Traumeel S mouthwash in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. These trials need replicating. There is no convincing evidence for the efficacy of homeopathic medicines for other adverse effects of cancer treatments.’

Does homeopathy work for irritable bowel syndrome?
Three RCTs with a total of 213 participants were included. The authors concluded that ‘a pooled analysis of two small studies suggests a possible benefit for clinical homeopathy, using the remedy asafoetida, over placebo for people with constipation-predominant IBS. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality of reporting in these trials, high or unknown risk of bias, short-term follow-up, and sparse data. One small study found no statistically significant difference between individualised homeopathy and usual care (defined as high doses of dicyclomine hydrochloride, faecal bulking agents and diet sheets advising a high fibre diet). No conclusions can be drawn from this study due to the low number of participants and the high risk of bias in this trial. In addition, it is likely that usual care has changed since this trial was conducted.’

Does homeopathic Oscillococcinum work for influenza?
The authors included six studies: two prophylaxis trials (327 young to middle-aged adults in Russia) and four treatment trials (1,196 teenagers and adults in France and Germany). They concluded that ‘there is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness’.

While the conclusions of these reviews do, of course, differ to some extent, collectively they show quite clearly that they fail to demonstrate that homeopathy works. In the case of the tentatively positive review (number five), the result is due to the inclusion of trials using homeopathic remedies which were not highly diluted. Such remedies can contain sufficient amounts of active molecules to be effective.

So, here we have it: irrefutable evidence showing that highly diluted homeopathic remedies are not supported by the best currently available evidence.

Crucially, this verdict was generated through the cooperation of leading homeopaths and experienced scientists. It should therefore be accepted by everyone; homeopaths who disagree are in denial of the truth. It now seems important to inform the public accordingly. Consumers must be aware of the facts:

— Homeopathy is not evidence-based.
— Claiming otherwise is neither honest nor ethical.
— Further NHS-funding of homeopathy would be a waste of money.

Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor at the University of Exeter, is the author of A Scientist in Wonderland and the awardee of the John Maddox Prize 2015 for standing up for science. He blogs at edzardernst.com.


  • Maryse Valiere

    How can you, Edzard Ernst, justify criticising homeopathy because it isn’t evidence based, when you are on the advidory board of an anti-alien invasion society called Lifeboat foundation (http://lifeboat.com/ex/alien.shield)? Please show me the evidence of aliens.

    • Mc

      You’re embarrassing yourself. I’d suggest you apply some cognitive and reading comprehension skills to the Lifeboat website, before you spout off again on this topic.

      • Maryse Valiere

        You might want to enlighten us on the Alien first contact protocol then? Or, actually don’t bother, my discussion is with Edzard Ernst, supposed expert in homeopathy who only studied it for 3 months as part of a multi-discipline degree!

        • Mc

          Yes, I realize your intellect (and probably your sanity) is just not up to the task – you have not the faintest understanding about Lifeboat.

          Your second sentence evidences a logical fallacy, much beloved among the illogical and the unhinged. For example, just because I have never studied, used or practiced homeopathy, does not mean that I am unable to realize that it is a load of cr@p.

          • rosross

            Now, what was that about a logical fallacy? Would you say that someone who had never studied, used or practised Law would be in a position to form a sensible position on the topic? Ditto for Economics, Allopathic Medicine, Engineering, Agriculture etc.

            Thank you for admitting you know nothing and your views are based on ignorance and prejudice.

          • Mc

            Yours, unsurprisingly, is also a logical fallacy. One’s ability to coherently comment on a topic depends on the nature of the topic. One doesn’t have to possess conventional medical training to convincingly and correctly argue that conventional medicine is underpinned by sound principles that are supported molecular biology, chemistry and physics among others. In the same way, it is clearly possible to convincingly argue that homeopathy is claptrap, without possessing homeopathic or scientific training.

          • rosross

            So you support people directing Allopathic medicine who have no training, experience or understanding of it. In other words they take the faith position that science says so therefore it must be and knowledge is not required.

            Such faith is fallacious and not at all logical particularly given the data now showing that most scientific medical research is just plain wrong.

            I am not sure how wrong research and distorted data can support anything. But your faith will no doubt see you through.

          • HeyHey

            I’m a scientist. In particular I’m a medicinal and pharmaceutical chemist, with a subsequent specialisation in microbial biochemistry. Homeopathy is as religion – simply misguided and sheepish hope due to an inability to understand and then accept the scientific and philosophical endeavours of millions of scientists in this age of enlightenment. What we are discussing though is an example of the danger of memes that are distributed recklessly by charletons who aren’t prepared to get a proper job. One day it will be criminalised and homeopaths and the like will be treated as common thieves and murders. Just give it up and find a job as double glazing sellers, for which you seem well qualified.

          • BBF

            Skeptics are fanatics – radical religious fanatics – that demand others follow their beliefs. It is very funny, when you look at it.

          • Andy Lewis

            Where can we see any sceptics demanding others follow their beliefs? One example will be fine. What sceptics of homeopathy actually do is argue from a position of evidence and reason in the hope that is sufficient to demonstrate the stupidity of homeopathic ideas.

          • rosross

            And it has failed for more than two centuries. Why? Because Homeopathy cures and people know that and they use it. End of story really. It is why Homeopathy has survived and thrived and will continue to do so.

          • Andy Lewis

            You use the word ‘thrive’ but I am not sure you use it in the same way as the rest of the English speaking human race.

          • Andy Lewis

            Plus, I asked to to say where we can see sceptics ‘demanding others follow their beliefs’? I suspect you have never seen this.

          • Sam Gilman

            Astrology has also survived and thrived.

            Do you believe in astrology?

          • But how do you know it ‘cures’?

          • Yeah, but a belief in robust demonstrable and replicable things. Who wants to live in a world like that??

          • rosross

            Ah, you have not heard that Allopathic science/medicine is largely wrong, corrupted, not replicable, they just lie and not even demonstrable.

            You should do a search on the farce of the peer review, double-blind, and the other so-called rigorous approaches of modern science, which seem to be not so rigorous after all.

            Who wants to live in a world of corrupt systems, lies and propaganda?

          • Sam Gilman

            Are you a qualified scientist, rosross?

          • rosross

            Can I ask how many hours you devoted to researching the modality? How many of the thousands of books written over more than two centuries have you read? How many of the Government reports from the 19th century onwards, detailing the efficacy of Homeopathy during epidemics.

            How many qualified MD’s who are also qualified Homeopathic doctors have you interviewed, spoken to, or observed?

            In other words, how informed are you. Being a chemist, pharmacist makes you knowledgeable in that field it does not make you qualified in all Allopathic medical fields and certainly not in non-Allopathic medical fields. Or do you think it does?

          • ‘non-Allopathic medical fields’ What a nonsensical phraseology!

            But Ros, how do you know it works?

          • Mc

            You’re trotting out another logical fallacy, this time a straw man argument. This is not surprising, because believing in homeopathy and similar bunkum requires one to have poor reasoning and skeptical skills.

          • rosross

            Game. Set. Match. You gazumped yourself and you don’t even know it.

          • Mc

            Says a homeopathic loon

          • There is no such thing as ‘allopathic medicine’. That you continue to use the term is indicative of your ‘ignorance and prejudice.

          • KittyBell

            Silly and irrelevant question. Ernst trained in a homeopathic hospital and had hands-on training. Your desperation in trying to smear him is a sad sight indeed.

          • There’s no such thing as “Allopathic Medicine”. There’s *medicine* and there’s *not medicine*.

          • rosross

            Medicine is medicine, but Allopathic medicine is not Homeopathic medicine, or Ayurvedic Medicine or Traditional Chinese Medicine, or Herbal Medicine or Nutritional Medicine etc. etc.

            Just as there are different variations on the theme of law, so there are different variations on the theme of medicine but yes, it is all medicine.

            Conventional Allopathic medicine now uses the term so quite why it makes some like yourself so hysterical when it is common in the industry, is the question.

          • And there you demonstrate your ignorance and prejudice.

        • HeyHey

          How much time does one need to study nothing?

          • Ken Lord

            The less you study homeopathy, the stronger it gets.

            … Literally. Since homeopaths profit from their patients being ignorant of the facts.

          • August Pamplona

            This comment wins the internet for today!

    • HeyHey

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/532c6dc91124ff53b4280c33e71f98bf63301de72d7665aee594e41fa46d107c.jpg It’s always a good idea to actually READ what you intend to use as a form of evidence. Though I appreciate that anyone supporting the use of nothing to treat illness and disease would have not realised that.

      • Maryse Valiere

        Very funny HeyHey! It is just as well that you didn’t pursue a literary career! Charletons indeed! ( you didn’t mean charlatans by any chance? HeyHey!). The thing which baffles me most is: How do you know whether I have read the contents of the Lifeboat website? Have the little Green men

        • HeyHey

          Did I make a predictive text error? Well that proves your case for homeopathy then. Homeopathetic!

          You obviously didn’t read the website or you’ll have seen its brief, which is not what you intimated. Or didn’t you didn’t read the screen shot I posted? But that figures – nothing ventured, nothing gained.

          I have nothing more to add. But I’m sure, against all of your homeopathic tendencies, that you have.

    • Ken Lord

      Hey Maryse, you do realize that it’s simple for anyone to look up Ernst’s qualifications right?

      Do you dare to show us your qualifications…. Or lack thereof? Or like homeopathy, do your qualifications get better by being more dilute?

      Edzard Ernst not only supported alternative medicines, but was the first person anywhere to become a university professor of complimentary and alternative medicines.

      Then as any good scientist would, he studied and tested various alternative methods, and was unable to find evidence that they work… So he changed his opinion, and redirected his life to educate people about the lack of evidence and false claims being made by various alternative medicines. This is an excellent example of being open minded, being willing to change when presented with better information … So why are you so closed minded and unable to change given the best available evidence?

      Are you a homeopath? Is your homeopathy paycheck more important than doing what’s best for people?

      … Here is Ernst’s qualifications and record. Post yours Maryse so we can compare.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edzard_Ernst

      • Maryse Valiere

        First of all, can E. Ernst speak for himself? Secondly, I wouldn’t necessarily trust references to qualifications on Wikipedia and thirdly any educated person knows that a multi disciplinary degree is worthless!

        • Kelsier

          We all know that you’re just a troll account created specifically to comment on this post. Your all four comments have been here. What’s next, pray tell? Will you bend over backwards and eat your own shriveled-up genitals to amuse us? Because that’d be the proverbial equivalent to what you’ve written here so far.

        • Ken Lord

          Hahahah hahah

          Can Ernst speak for himself?

          Hahahahaah

          You know that the article you are commenting on was written by Ernst right?

          Hilarious ignorance on your part there Maryse but thanks for the laughs. I had to screen shot that one and attach it in case you try to edit your embarrassing remark away.

          The rest of your remark is just as embarrassing since his credentials are available elsewhere… But I wouldn’t expect a homeopathic supporter to be able to do such simple research.

          • Maryse Valiere

            Dear Lord! Can you stay on point please? You were giving me an account of E.T.’s, no sorry E.E.’s bio (along with many of his little soldiers who’ve come to his rescue) so my remark was concerning the biography not the boring article above which he rehashes whenever he is short of a bob or two!
            My point of contention is not with what any of you have to say about homeopathy, it is to do with the legitimacy, coherence, honesty and credibility of the little man who wrote the article! Incidentally, he hated his mother (who treated him with homeopathy. Hem! I wonder! Could Freud have something to say about that?).

          • Acleron

            Are you claiming that homeopathy treatment makes you hate your mother?

          • Maryse Valiere

            No, the first proposition was that he hated his mother, the second was that she treated him with homeopathy,!

          • edzard ernst

            I loved my mother more than you can imagine – read my memoire before you write such awful lies

          • Maryse Valiere

            Oops! Looks as if I hit a raw nerve!
            Also, if you are the author of your own mémoire, surely your word should be good enough! (I wouldn’t read it anyway, I am afraid).
            The problem with you is that you give the impression of believing your own untruths. At the end of the day, you have to live with your own conscience though don’t you? like every one of us!

          • Acleron

            The typical quack promoter. Not going to read what anyone actually says but more than willing to spread lies and smears about them.

          • Mc

            Believers in homeopathy inevitably and inherently have a troubled relationship with truth and integrity

          • edzard ernst

            not a RAW NERVE but a BIG AND UNSUBSTANTIATED LIE

          • Maryse Valiere

            You need to heal your heart Mr. Ernst. You appear to have lost the human perspective. Behind the name HOMEOPATHY, thousands of kind, dedicated, very hard working people, with families, joys, pains and worries, like you and me, spend their time in a positive way, helping those who want, to restore their health, well being and equilibrium in a gentle way. They do it to earn a living also of course but not to get rich ( you can probably count the wealthy homeopaths worldwide on the fingers of one hand). They do it because they have a calling to heal people, that is not a sinister aim is it?
            The world is in the throes of really evil and sinister people right now, it has happened before as you well know, surely there are better battles to take on which would actually benefit people, enriching the soul rather than seeking to destroy it.

          • edzard ernst

            what a good idea!
            I will heal myself with positive thinking and homeopathy… but of what?

          • Acleron

            Sugar deficiency and dehydration?

          • Heavy-Wallet Syndrome?

          • Maryse Valiere

            Healing is a holistic process so if you heal your heart from deep hurt, pain or sadness, the rest will follow!

          • edzard ernst

            you don’t say!
            and what deep hurt, pain or sadness would that be?
            perhaps the deep hurt of constantly getting insulted by homeopathy apologists?

          • Maryse Valiere

            One of your supporters a few days ago, told me to “eat my shrivelled up genitals”, what do you think of that comment? Have you ever received a rude or crude insult from either a homeopath or a defender (apologist) of homeopathy?

          • edzard ernst
          • Maryse Valiere

            I am trying hard to understand. On reading your article ‘A ‘vision’ of good medicine’ and comparing it with Prince Charles’ ‘Integrated Health and Post-Modern medicine’, it strikes me that you are both basically making the same points, emphasising the importance of the ‘art of medicine’, ‘a more holistic approach’, ‘the best of science and technology…being harnessed and deployed…’These are the articles of two educated, intelligent men of similar ages and yet the worst of enemies over the benefits of a new holistic approach to medicine.
            I am still wondering therefore if there is a historical background to your fierce opposition. I came across your article ‘The Holocaust and Nazi (alternative) medicine; ‘the ‘Neue Deutsche Heilkunde’ and ‘Rudolph Hess Krankenhaus’ produced horrific exploitation and torture of human life not just through medical and surgical experiments but under the mantle of alternative medicine including homeopathy. These were heinous. revolting practices to, as you conclude, ensure ‘the dominance of the Aryan race’ unlike ‘CAM…concerned with the welfare of the individual. This is grim indeed! but is it fair to penalise and punish alternative medicine to express one’s horror and sadness at the crimes committed by evil people. Time to heal one’s heart!

  • KittyBell

    The first homeoquack to post here alleging homeopathy critics are in the pay of big pharma gets a homeopathic prize.

    • rosross

      Resorting to name-calling makes you look immature and reflects on no-one else.

      • KittyBell

        Accusing me of name-calling when I haven’t called anyone a name is a reflection of how desperate you are.

        • rosross

          Hmmm, not only do you know nothing about Homeopathy, I think you have mixed me up with someone else. I don’t allege critics are paid shills. In fact, if they were paid, one presumes they would make some effort to research and sound credible and informed.

          I suspect most are fear-driven fanatics with their own personal agenda, perhaps sourced in childhood trauma. That or robots.

          • Sindigo

            “Show me on the ZX80 where he touched you.”

          • You don’t have to know anything about parachutes to know that they work. The same is true for homoeopathy, except that it doesn’t work.

          • G.Shelley

            On what do you base the idea that the poster knows nothing about homeopathy? In my experience it is usually the homeopathic supporters that know little (and that is excluding the ones that do t know it isn’t just another word for herbal medicine)

          • ‘… not only do you know nothing about Homeopathy… ‘

            You have no idea what she knows about homeopathy. Why do you say that? Because you by default paint those who criticise it as having no knowledge of it. Which is a shite argument. in fact, it’s no argument at all.

          • ciaparker2

            A LOT of them are paid, and all they have to do is give the appearance that there’s a valid debate, even if there’s not and they don’t really give that appearance at all. I don’t know how they evaluate their job performance.

          • Acleron

            That is an allegation for which you have convincingly failed to produce any evidence.

          • A LOT of them are paid, and all they have to do is give the appearance that there’s a valid debate, even if there’s not and they don’t really give that appearance at all.

            Can you provide a link to where we sign up for this? I’m genuinely interested. Currently everyone I know that does this is doing it for the promotion of science and the consumer protection aspect of it. And apart from a small handful that are lucky enough to work for charities that are active in this area everyone does it on their own time. I can’t think of a single person that is paid by Big Pharma to specifically “combat” homeopathy (or any other alternative to medicine.)

          • JoeFarmer

            “Currently everyone I know that does this is doing it
            for the promotion of science and the consumer protection aspect of it.
            And apart from a small handful that are lucky enough to work for
            charities that are active in this area everyone does it on their own
            time.”

            Quoted for emphasis.

          • tomonthebay

            I too have been trying to find out where I go to get paid for posting about various topics. No luck so far yet I have been accused many times of exactly that.

          • I just have a personal vendetta. Bogeyman don’t exist so don’t use me as one, anti-vaxxers, thank you.

          • Ron Roy

            Promotion of science? lol

          • Damo

            And you are ignorant about the people you accuse of being a shill.

          • ciaparker2

            nail it down

          • Yeh, let’s nail down that proof of whether the people you call shills are in fact, shills.

            Are you going to?

          • There’s something seriously wrong with you. You should deal with that.

          • Cia, there isn’t a valid debate. I don’t really want to correct your nonsense all the time but there you go.

          • Jon Ardenoth

            “There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t work” ~ Richard Dawkins

            “By definition, alternative medicine has either not been proved to work or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work? Medicine”
            ~Tim Minchin

      • Sam Gilman

        What’s wrong with a homeopathic prize? Don’t you think it means anything? Are you suggesting them at there is no actual trace of a genuine prize in it?

        • Ron Roy

          58 Computer generated upvotes! What a scam.

          • Sam Gilman

            It’s possible that someone has decided to write a computer script to pick out slightly laboured jokes about homeopathy to upvote.

            Or it’s possible that lots of people are in agreement with mainstream science and think that homeopathy is (laughable) nonsense.

            What do you think is more likely?

          • Ron Roy

            Mainstream science / medicine? Oh yes that modality that kills over 300,000 people per year in the US alone. That mainstream science?

          • Sam Gilman

            You didn’t answer my question.

            Is there a reason for that?

          • Ron Roy

            I’ll answer your question if you tell me how you managed to rig your computer to give you 59 upvotes. Oh and who were you before you became Sam Gilman and how many strings do you have?

          • Aaron Oakley

            “rig your computer to give you 59 upvotes.”

            Your tinfoil hat is restricting the blood flow to your brain.

          • Ron Roy

            Your looking in a mirror that’s your hat your looking at.

          • Sam Gilman

            You realise that your idea is mad, don’t you?

            You’ve got a theory that one person has decided to go through the bother of registering fifty or so different accounts, set up highly sophisticated AI programmes in at least two different languages giving them the appearance of being different people with different interests, then waiting for several years as they all built up comment histories…

            …all so that they could be used to upvote one post among more than 2000 comments at the bottom of one article once about homeopathy.

            It’s this kind of paranoid junk thinking that leads you to also believe in homeopathy and in the idea that hundreds of thousands of people around the world every year sign up to medical school in order to kill people.

          • Ron Roy

            Paranoia? No it’s a fact.

          • Sam Gilman

            Ok, let’s look at this from another perspective.

            If someone has managed to write AI software good enough to run fake Disqus accounts that act in a manner indistinguishable from human beings, why hasn’t that been made public? The money that could be earned from such a discovery would be enormous.

          • Ron Roy

            ”If someone has managed to write AI software good enough to run fake
            Disqus accounts that act in a manner indistinguishable from human
            beings, why hasn’t that been made public?” Maybe it’s because this only recently happened of that it’s only happened twice ( that I know of )? Advice THINK BEFORE you post.

          • Sam Gilman

            What’s only happened twice?

          • Ron Roy

            A theory. Can You explain all these upvotes when it only has happened twice, on every blog / comments sections that I know of? I’ll be looking forward to your explanation.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Can You explain all these upvotes when it only has happened twice, on every blog / comments sections that I know of?

            Ron if you actually took your head out of your ass for more that a few minutes you would see there are comments on disqus with more upvotes than 68.

          • Ron Roy

            Johnny such language! I’m shocked. ( not really ) Did I get YOUR goat Johnnyboy. Upvotes on other topics but not on this topic. 15 guest votes that can’t be verified? I can understand some of the others because all some have to do is go to the next cubicle or shout over them and tell their coworkers to upvote on this subject. And speaking of having one head up their ass how do you manage to live like that? Must be uncomfortable to say the least.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Upvotes on other topics but not on this topic.

            You said any other blog that you knew of. Apparently your knowledge is pretty weak. 🙂

          • JGC

            Because only twice that you have noticed has a comment appealed to that number of people.
            Any other obvious explanations you need expressed?

          • Ron Roy

            ”Any other obvious explanations you need expressed?” You mean like the truth? Well yes.

          • 1)Nope. You didn’t need any of that to make the accusation so you naturally don’t need the information to support it.

            2)Have you still not learnt how the burden of proof works yet?

          • Ron Roy

            Jenny just google Whale / vaccine. I know you won’t but you just gave me another opportunity to let others know about Whale / vaccine. Thank You.

          • Acleron

            Lol, another chance to delve into the lunacy of antivaxxers. Roll up it’s all there, delusions, conspiracy theories galore, lizards ruling the earth, you name a fallacy or delusion and will be there.

          • Ron Roy

            I would have been shocked and you would have been docked if you didn’t come up with that reply. Whale / vaccine folks. At least look at what these pro-drug shills don’t want you to see.

          • Acleron

            Read it and laugh. It is the contempt it deserves. However, check every paper they reference. As has been shown here, they have a habit of lying.

          • Ron Roy

            Don’t forget It’s Whale / vaccine.

          • Sam Gilman

            Is that the whale(dot)to website?

          • Ron Roy

            Whale / vaccine folks see what Acleron doesn’t want you to see. Keep denigrating Whale I love it. It make people even more apt to go there out of curiosity. Again thanks. Sincerely Ron

          • I’ve already done that, thank you. Still waiting for evidence.

            And I did it a long time before this post.

          • Ron Roy

            Evidence? Go to Whale / vaccine.

          • Ron, it’s not that I’m not aware of Whale/vaccine – it’s that that is more claims. What you were asked for were evidence.

          • Ron Roy

            Don’t believe Jenny folks she’s paid to denigrate anything that goes against her bosses in the MEDICAL MOB.

          • Acleron

            This is your only argument, that anybody who shows anything that contradicts your idiocy is a liar/shill. Pathetic.

          • Ron Roy

            So this is YOUR only argument, that anybody who shows anything that contradicts YOUR idiocy is a liar Pathetic.

          • Acleron

            You’ve just lied yet again. Despite people quoting facts and logic and referencing them your main response has been to call them shills etc. The evidence for your behaviour is liberally splashed all over these and other comment threads.

          • Ron Roy

            Back at you.

          • Still waiting for that evidence of compensation.

          • Ron Roy

            Well kept secret hey. No one with a conscience would spend as much time as you do in promoting something that is knowingly harmful unless they are sociopaths or bring paid. Which is it Jenny?

          • False dilemma.

            “promoting something that is knowingly harmful”

            Of course, “knowingly harmful” – the problem is that it has yet to be established

          • Ron Roy

            This information is actually put out by big pharma in order to make you think not vaccinating is generating more profits for them but that’s a lie the opposite is true. If any agency would have charge anyone or any government agency, hospital, insurance company etc, $33,000 for anyone having the measles they would have been charge with fraud.

          • Costs to control the outbreak, Ron.

          • JGC

            While you’re at it google Whale / reptilian shapeshifters. Whale’s take on these is even more amusing than their misinformation regarding vaccine safety.

          • Ron Roy

            See how the MEDICAL MOB works. If there one book in the library that is weird, to say the least, than all the other books are of no value. If you don’t believe what the Catholics or Mormons or Lutherans or Baptists or Jehovah’s Witnesses preach than all of Christianity is wrong. Whale / vaccine folks ”The life you save may be your own” or that of a loved one. That’s Whale / vaccine.

          • Acleron

            Not all the books in a library are chosen by one person, neither are all the books believed by anybody.

            All the pig farmer’s articles are chosen by him and he believes everything.

          • Ron Roy

            Or maybe he just want;s to expose people to a variety of beliefs. The History channel has a show called ” Ancient Alliens, ” who’s theories are questionable to say the least, does that mean all the other programs on the History channel are questionable?

          • Acleron

            Aww the man is just exposing people to a variety of beliefs. Yeah, just as in his anti science nonsenses.

            The history channel has broadcast too much dross to be considered reliable on anything.

          • Ron Roy

            Whale / vaccine folks go see for yourself. You’ll thank me.

          • Ron Roy

            I just did wait a minute.

          • Aaron Oakley

            >>>that modality that kills over 300,000 people per year

            And how high would than number be if medicine was based on the unscientific nonsense that is homeopathy?

          • Ron Roy

            zero

          • Aaron Oakley

            Wrong. It would be much higher. Because homeopathy is junk science fraud.

          • Ron Roy

            Fist you shills say it can’t possibly work because it’s too diluted and now it’s killing people. Make up your mind.

          • Aaron Oakley

            “you shills” You lie. I am not paid by anyone to write this.

            Homeopathy will kill people because it is ineffective in situations where real medicine could save a life. I’m amazed I have to spell that out.

          • Renè

            I could also save people by keeping them away from pharmaceutical drugs, which has killed way more people than homeopathy.

            Nobody takes this stuff seriously anyway. In the back of their minds, nearly everyone knows it’s woo.

          • Aaron Oakley

            “pharmaceutical drugs, which has killed way more people than homeopathy”

            You would need to normalize that number by the number of people treated and positive outcomes.
            Real medicine comes out on top.

            “Nobody takes this stuff seriously anyway.”

            Unfortunately there are still people who take homeopathy seriously. I’ve been taking on homeopaths since I was an undergrad in the early 90’s.

          • Acleron

            10 Print “Kills ‘, Rnd x 1000000, ‘ a year’

            The level of science of idiots.

          • Damo

            You realize tht number is due to things like human error, people dying in the hospitable after they didn’t receive care, misdiagnoses, etc.

            Seeing as how many people are under the care of doctors, this is statistically insignificant.

          • Ron Roy

            See everyone how easily these shills brush aside a number as high as 300,000 per year. And those are ONLY the numbers they admit too. Now if anyone would die because they were treated by any other modality other than allopathy they would see to it that it made all the news media. This is how the MEDICAL MAFIA operates, It want’s TOTAL control. Like all criminal organizations they want to ban everything that they can’t control.They want to take away your freedom to decide what’s best for you and your loved ones. All they are is POWER AND CONTROL freaks. I will fight them to my dying breath.

          • Damo

            I am not brushing anything aside, I am giving context to the number. Those 300000 aren’t murders, they are mistakes.

          • Ron Roy

            You call them mistakes the people who lost their loved one call them murder but no matter what you call them they died at the hands of the MEDICAL MAFIA.

          • You’d defeat us a lot quicker if you’d hire those independent scientists.

          • Ron Roy

            Finding an independent scientists is like trying to find an honest politician or someone who would be willing to compete with the mob in the heart of their territory. Almost every scientist is connected to the MEDICAL MAFIA in one way or another and their livelihoods depend on their towing the line. The very few that have dared expose the MEDICAL MAFIA for what it is don’t seem to fair very well afterwards. But the truth is coming out people are waking up and the sheep are turning into lions.

          • Acleron

            All Ron is saying is that anybody who shows that vaccines are safe and effective and that homeopathy is a scam must be dishonest.

            That’s so funny.

          • Well…here’s another way of doing it:

            Repeatedly hire scientists and claim your financial interests are different each time and observe to see whether the results *always* match your financial interests or not.

            At this point, Ron Roy, curiosity compels me to ask if there is any possible evidence that would convince you to change your mind?

          • JGC

            you’ve got a numerator, Ron–now you need to identify the denominator (how many people benefit from mainstream science/medicine in a year in the US?) to get an meaningful measure of risk versus benefit.

          • Ron Roy

            It’s more likely your full of ……..

          • Sam Gilman

            My full of what, what?

          • greenthinker2012

            Add one more up-vote to Sam Gilman from me.
            Now 60 up-votes.

          • Ron Roy

            Another shill? WOW! greenthinker my butt. Real greenies oppose GMOs vaccines and most, if not all, pharmaceuticals.

          • Acleron

            It is a difficult concept for you but you can support a greener environment without being an idiot over GMOs, vaccines, medicine, nuclear power etc etc.

          • Ron Roy

            Tell that to the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc. They are ALL against GMOs and nuclear power.

          • Acleron

            Yes they are, so what? Their commonality also includes being unable to face facts, just like you.

          • Ron Roy

            I see your logic they’re wrong and I’m right. Could it be that they have done their homework and that there was only one true conclusion to be arrived at?

          • Acleron

            Greenpeace has admitted they are not interested in facts, just in getting their own way.

            All of them and you have lied about the safety of GMOs, vaccines, nuclear power etc.

            Their activism has become a religion where the belief allows lying to back the belief.

          • JGC

            But what do True Scotsmen oppose, Ron?

          • Ron Roy

            British rule.

          • Ann A. Jones

            Good answer, Ron!! I am a descendent of John Wallace, William’s brother!! Loved this!

          • greenthinker2012

            Ron,I thought I was a robot!?
            Thanks for letting me know that I am a person.
            Do you use your psychic powers to
            know what all other environmentalists think?
            Wow!
            Or is it like homeopathy where the more diluted your knowledge the smarter you are?

          • Ron Roy

            I never said you were a robot but that many of the upvoters to KittyBell’s post were, How do I know what environmentalists think well maybe because for years I was a dues paying member of Greenpeace and the Appalachian Mountain Club and maybe because I live within sight of the White Mountains of NH and the White Mountains are a hub of hiking and hikers. Many if not most hikers ARE environmentalist and being a former avid hiker I met and spoke to a large number of hikers. I hope that answers your question.

    • Ron Roy

      OMG 61 upvotes! From maybe a dozen people I suspect.

      • Acleron

        A conspiracist suspects a conspiracy. Cos’è una sorpresa?

        • Ron Roy

          Are my suspicions wrong? It’s already been proven that some shills have more than one profile / identity. Plus it’s hard for me to imagine that their would be that many ignorant people on any one blog.

          • Acleron

            You haven’t even proven the presence of shills, just made your usual claims.

          • Ron Roy

            Look in the mirror I guarantee you’ll see one.

          • shay simmons

            Burden of proof, Ron.

          • Ron Roy

            No need to prove the obvious. Wait let me ask my daughter……….. Yep she agrees with me.

          • shay simmons

            So…again you have no proof, just claims. Running true to form, Ron.

          • Ron Roy

            YOU look in a mirror you will also see one really.

          • shay simmons

            Proof, Ron. EVIDENCE. An alien concept to you.

          • At least get your daughter on disqus for herself, Ron.

            But it doesn’t really matter since so far all you have is an argumentum ad populum that isn’t even very populated.

          • Ron Roy

            My daughter would but unlike most of you she is not retired and she does have a busy life. Works 40+ hours per week takes online classes to become a teacher, cooks and cleans for a household of 6. If she did have time you would find her not quite as polite as I am. You see she gave in to pressure from a few people, and had my grandson vaccinated, and now he’s autistic. Yeah I guarantee she wouldn’t be very polite. She will be speaking out against vaccines when she becomes a teacher.

          • What evidence does your daughter have that the vaccine made your grandson autistic? I trust it is on some basis other than a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/409e8cee1ef729c545ede8de5dc1c1c714df7e997726183d93bfb35cf71c2d54.jpg

          • Ron Roy

            It’s people like you that really have motivated her to speak out AGAINST vaccines. By all means keep it up. I love her desire to inform people of the hazards of vaccines.

          • So? I’m not responsible for her behaviour.

          • Ron Roy

            Lets just say that anyone who would say they doubt that to her face wouldn’t have a face when she got done with them.

          • “I have this big stick” is not evidence, Ron.

          • No, Ron, Try again.

            https://youtu.be/Sr95PeH18to

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Hey Hackleron,

            Here is evidence of what you do.

            http: //consciouslifenews. com/. paid-internet-shill-shadowy- groups-manipulate- internet- opinion-debate. /
            If a poster wrote something close to “X,” we were supposed to respond with something close to “Y.” “You have to mix it up a bit, though,” said my trainer. “Otherwise it gets too obvious. Learn to use a thesaurus.” This section also contained a number of hints for de-railing conversations that went too far away from what we were attempting. These strategies included various forms of personal attacks, complaining to the forum moderators, smearing the characters of our opponents, using images and icons effectively.
            At first, like I said, my job was “meme-patrol.” This was pretty simple and repetitive; it involved countering memes and introducing new memes, and didn’t demand much in-depth knowledge of the subject. Mostly just repetitive posting based on the dialogue pairs in the “Strat” section of the first binder. A lot of my job was de-railing and spamming threads that didn’t go our way, or making accusations of racism and anti-Semitism. Sometimes I had to simply lie and claim a poster said something or did something “in another thread” they really hadn’t said or done I felt bad about this…but in the end I felt worse about the possibility of losing the first job I’d been able to get since losing my “real” job.

          • Acleron

            Thus showing you are even ignorant of the meaning of the word ‘evidence’.

            If I had 50p for every time I was falsely accused of being a shill, I’d be rich.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Hey Hackleron,

            Are you angry or not angry that the CDC scientists are all accusing their own agency of deep rooted fraud and corporate influence dictating their policies?

          • Acleron

            Yet to see you produce any evidence for this.

          • Ron Roy

            You must be wealthy.You’re just trying to hide it from the IRS.

          • Acleron

            LMAO, you do invent the most ludicrous garbage.

          • You have never proven a single thing. Ever. The problem with you and your ignorant ilk is that you really don’t even understand the definition of the word “proof.”

          • Ron Roy

            Oh I understand that unless that proof favors vaccines. or any other poison, it isn’t proof in your little corrupt world.

          • Acleron

            Thus conclusively proving FSMPastafarian’s point.

          • Showing yet again that you don’t understand the meaning of the word.

          • How is evidence we’re being paid evidence that would favour vaccines?

        • John

          I don’t usually agree with Ron but 61 UPVOTES?

          • Acleron

            Perhaps KittyBell’s comment has been reported on something like Twitter.

          • John

            I can’t understand all those upvotes.

          • Ron Roy

            Looks like the computer generated upvotes went haywire or someone forgot to stop the upvotes at a reasonable level. I suspect some profiles are simply computer generated profiles( bots ).

      • John

        Something fishy going on—61 upvotes,how much were they paid?

      • AutismDadd

        The whole vaccine marketing staff and counting

    • Ron Roy

      15 guest votes +4 from people with nothing on their profile plus many votes from people who haven’t commented, according to their profile, for months and some for years and a few have never commented at all yet their votes are here? What a scam.

  • ReallyGoodMedicine

    I guess the author of this article doesn’t know that ALL studies on conventional drugs are conducted by the drug companies that want to sell and profit from the product. These studies are published in journals of conventional medicine which are financially supported by drug companies. Some studies of homeopathic medicines have been conducted by people who began the study with bias. Some were conducted by people without even the basic knowledge of homeopathy. These types of studies were bound to fail, and they did. Far more show that homeopathy works and works beyond placebo.

    Homeopathy does work. On top of that its curative where conventional medicine fails. It’s non-toxic, safe and creates no iatrogenic diseases. It’s inexpensive.

    People who would like to know what it can do for them will find hundreds of cured case records of chronic disease by googling “homeopathy cured cases”. These cases are documented by objective test results including CT scans, x-rays, blood work and histopathological reports……….the very same tests used by conventional doctors to determine whether or not their own treatments have helped the patient.

    • If it does work, why the most rigorous reviews don’t find evidence of it?

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        You haven’t read the most rigorous studies.

        • You look over Thomas’s shoulder every time he’s reading these reviews? How else could you know he’s not read the most rigorous studies? That’s just a little creepy…

          Instead of posting a useless claim, you could provide links to these studies.

          • Sweet or savoury popcorn?

          • Savoury for me please.

          • A wise choice, sir.

          • Looks like I need to send out for more. Same again?

          • Oooh! Can I have some caramel popcorn if you’re doing a popcorn run please? 😉 ;P

          • Tetenterre

            Permit me to help you here, Gold. The HRI (https://www.hri-research.org/resources/homeopathy-the-debate/essentialevidence/clinical-trials-overview/# ) touts five out of six meta-analyses as being positive. Let’s look at the conclusions of those five so-called “positive” meta-analyses:

            Kleijnen et al. 1991: ‘… not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias’

            Linde et al. 1997: ‘…we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition.’

            Linde et al. 1999: ‘We conclude that in the study set investigated, there was clear evidence that studies with better methodological quality tended to yield less positive results.’

            Cucherat et al. 2000: ‘… the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies…’

            Mathie et al. 2014: ‘The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings.’

            And these are the best *positive* ones! One can only imagine what the negative ones concluded.

        • I have, and understood them. So has Prof. Ernst. Rigorous is not a synonym here for supportive.

        • Could you please send the links to those studies you’re talking about?

        • Ken Lord

          … And no, rosross can’t provide the supposedly rigorous homeopathic studies that show it to work.

        • You haven’t read the above article.

        • Hi ReallyGoodMedicine. I am really eager to read the studies you are talking about. Could you please share links? Thanks

    • Sam Gilman

      No, not all trials are conducted by drug companies.

      Here, for example, is the page of Standord University’s clinical trials. There are several trials there on drugs.

      http://med.stanford.edu/clinicaltrials/

      I found that very quickly on Google.

      Would you like to explain to people why you have come into this page to make false claims?

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        So Stanford is accepting patients for clinical trials it’s conducting on behalf of drug companies. They receive payment from drug companies for the trials they conduct not to mention the fact that their entire research program is funded by grants from big pharma. Not really independent trials are they?

        In fact, big pharma funds most medical schools.

        • RGM, how would you propose funding for trials be done? What sort of funding process would be needed for you to accept a trial as being uninfluenced by the ultimate funding source?

          • It must be funded exclusively by Big Placebo.

        • Sam Gilman

          I asked you why you told a falsehood about only drug companies carrying out clinical trials.

          You didn’t explain or even apologise. Instead you changed your position to what is another false claim: that only drug companies find clinical trials.

          So what about all the charity-funded clinical trials? What about trials funded by NIH and NIMH?

          Why are you telling people lies, RGM?

          • rosross

            Can you explain why former editors of two of the world’s top medical journals, The Lancet and The New England Journal of medicine have both said most research is wrong, cannot be trusted and is distorted by the influence of vested agendas as RGM has claimed?

            At this point s/he is simply repeating what respected medical professionals are saying.

          • Sam Gilman

            No, RGM has claimed that first, all clinical trials were performed by drugs companies, which was blatantly false. Then, RGM claimed that all clinical trials were funded by drug companies. Again, blatantly false.

            If you want to talk about problems in peer review, that’s fine, but it has to be done on the basis of facts, rather than the smears thrown about by people like RGM.

            The most powerful critics of the way clinical trials are handled are people who support conventional medicine and who are critics of “alternative” medicine.

          • Ken Lord

            Why rosross? Because science is hard. But you’d know that if homeopaths actually did science.

          • What’s the relevance to homeopathy?

          • shay simmons

            Because they haven’t said this. Lying again, ros?

          • How about RGM is actually repeating what someone told her they said.

            Most research is wrong, duh. That’s how science works and this is one of the reasons that post-publication replication is so important.

        • Ken Lord

          Well you sure aren’t going to pay for the studies… Of course drug companies should be the ones that pay to prove their drugs! Someone has to!

    • Ken Lord

      “homeopathy does work”

      Well there you have it, who needs evidence when a person with a fake name in a forum says it works.

      And wow, hilarious… Ya, its so evil that drug companies actually research their drugs, having to spend their money to do the research! … How else do you expect it to happen? At least they do research, unlike the fake studies run by some homeopaths that are so often intentionally unblocked and uncontrolled.

      Whenever their tests are properly blinded homeopathy fails. Usually when that happens they spread misinformation about the placebo effect and say “look, it worked as well as a placebo!”

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        My dear Ken Lord: There is no such thing as an “unblocked” study. I take it that by using the word “uncontrolled” you’re referring to placebo controlled studies. Studies of homeopathy have been published in many major journals of conventional medicine. Some are The Lancet, the BMJ, Cancer, Rheumatology, International Journal of Oncology, Pediatrics, and Archives of Emergency Medicine. Do you really believe or want other readers to believe that the editors of those journals would publish “fake” studies or studies that are inadequate in any way?

        Drug companies DON’T spend their own money on research in total. Guess you haven’t noticed that they’re continually asking their patients to walk in marches and conduct other fund-raising benefits for them. It’s really a laugh — one of the wealthiest, if not the wealthiest, industry in the world is asking its patients to pony up money for it.

        • Ken Lord

          Notice how the homeopath focused on my obvious typo (unblocked should have been unblinded, and has now been corrected) instead of actually dealing with the point I made.

          Then he again simply asserts that homeopaths do good studies but doesn’t provide any good studies for us to assess … Either he can’t, or he knows we’ll simply expose the flaws in his supposedly good studies minutes later. I bet he replies next telling us to do our own research, that we aren’t trying hard enough if we can’t find the unicorns he’s talking about.

          But the most ironic part is that homeopaths do everything that he accuses actual scientists of doing. Homeopathic remedy makers pay for their studies, they start with severe bias, they design studies that maintain their bias instead of minimizing it, and to ensure the studies work, they rarely attempt to properly blind the studies. Then most often they just publish the results in ‘journals’ they own.

    • Isilzha

      The only thing it can do is hydrate you since it’s nothing but water.

      • And the dried sugar pills can’t even manage that since at that point there’s not even any of the water that doesn’t contain the original substance left.

        But seriously, it depends on the dilution. IIRC, some homeopathic manufacturers got in trouble over their belladonna teething tablets containing….bellladonna.

        • Acleron

          Nelsons got into trouble because their machinery that put a drop of the pure water into the vials of sugar pills was missing one in six vials. Nobody noticed.

    • Mike Abbot

      You say all this like homeopathy is not big business. Hilarious. It’s a multi billion dollar industry. The profits alone from selling water and sugar pills is off the charts. Are you going to try and tell us there are no paid shills? Are you going to try and tell us all they don’t fund studies? It’s about as corrupt as business can get.

      • rosross

        Sorry, in which country do you live where useful medical modalities are offered for free and no-one pays anything for them?

        Everything is a business. Homeopathy is a minnow compared to the whale of Allopathic pharmacy but more importantly, it cures without killing and injuring. and it is cheap, cheap, cheap by comparison.

        • Sam Gilman

          It doesn’t cure, and you charge for medicines that contain no active substance.

          Boots charges £1.59 for 100 aspirin: medicine that works.

          Homeopathic tablets: arnica 30c £5.20 for 84 tablets.

          They charge £4.49 for arnica 6c. They charge more for stuff that has less in it.

        • Ken Lord

          Yup so here rosross says that it’s fine when homeopaths do exactly what he says is wrong for actual scientists to do.

          … You know that we can read all the comments here right?

          Hahaha then he says homeopathy us cheap! For products that are indistinguishable from water and sugar, that cost far far more than water and sugar, while having no measurable benefit beyond placebo.

          But the highest cost of homeopathy is the time it steals away from people where they could be getting evidence based treatments that could actually help… Just ask Steve Jobs about this. Oh wait, you can’t. Because he delayed proper treatment for 9 months to use homeopathy, letting his cancer progress until it killed him.

        • Tetenterre

          We’ve been here before. Homeopathy is not a “medical modality”. It is a “marketing modality”. For snake-oil.

          The “skill” of a “good” homepath lies in “treating” self-limiting (or, better, non-existent) ailments with nothing. For profit. Then you have the other kind of homeopath. These will pretend to be able to treat anything from malaria to cancer with nothing. For profit.

    • RGM, there are three problems with homeopathy.

      First, there is no reason to suppose ot should work. Like does not cure like, symptomatic similarity is not a basis of cure. No credible evidence has ever been provided to show that symptomatic similarity is curative in any way.

      Second, there is no way it can work. No property of matter is consistent with homeopaths’ claims, no independent findings in other areas of inquiry yield similar results. Homeopathic theory is a walled garden with no links to the real world.

      Third, there is no proof it does work. There is independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively shown to have cured anybody of anything, ever. All studies are consistent with the null hypothesis. Ioannidis shows why P=0.05 is invalid for implausible treatments, but even if it were not, that % still means that the results can be explained by the null hypotheiss. Clinical trials, especially “pragmatic” trials of the kind beloved by homeopaths are inherently incapable of refuting the null hypothesis.

      So, no reason to suppose it should work, no way it can work, and no proof it does work. The universe has a long history of failing to back belief, however sincere. You’re in the same place as creationists on this.

  • rosross

    Since Allopathic drugs are the major killer, iatrogenic number three on the kill list, Edzard Ernst seems to draw a long and prejudiced bow about other medical modalities.

    Homeopath: the medical establishment is biased against homeopathy.

    Sceptic: that’s because the assumptions of homeopathy are not just implausible but fly in the face of science.

    The correct answer is because the theories about Homeopathy are implausible in terms of the current level of scientific knowledge, although, strictly speaking, as an objective system of enquiry, nothing is implausible for science, surely. Neither can something fly in the face of science since science is simply a method of enquiry at a particular point in its evolution.

    Science said Acupuncture was implausible but as science developed it discovered it was wrong. Quantum Mechanics when first mooted was implausible. Guess what?

    Homeopath: never mind plausibility; the crucial question is whether homeopathy works or not.

    Sceptic: agreed — and there is no good evidence to show that it does.

    This is patently untrue because, if it were true, not one MD, hospital, medical school, university or Government State health system would touch Homeopathy and many do. Clearly they have the good evidence you have missed.

    Homeopath: this is not true; here is a study that proves homeopathy to be efficacious.

    Sceptic: yes, there are several such trials, but one must always consider the totality of the evidence.

    If one considered what is called the totality of the evidence then Allopathic medicine would be banned because of its high kill and injure rate.

    Homeopath: you mean one should go by the results of systematic reviews?

    Sceptic: yes.

    Since the science/medical system also says such reviews cannot be trusted – note Dr Richard Horton, former editor of The Lancet and Dr Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, your yes, seems a tad optimistic and hypocritical.

    Homeopath: guess what, there are several systematic reviews that arrive at positive conclusions.

    Sceptic: I know, but either they are not of good quality, or they exclude important evidence.

    Oh, you mean like the sort of reviews which allow Allopathic drugs onto the market where they kill and injure? That sort of good quality evidence?

    Homeopath: if you praise the value of systematic review, you cannot deny their findings.

    Sceptic: of course I can; have you seen who wrote these articles? They were written by homeopaths or commissioned by the homeopathic lobby – how can we trust such evidence? Look at systematic reviews which do not have these obvious flaws and you will find they all arrive at negative conclusions.

    Ernst excels himself with yet more blatant lies. Keep up the good work.

    Homeopath: that’s because they were written by anti-homeopaths.

    Sceptic: there is no evidence for this claim.

    Ah, sadly there is and it makes scientific research a travesty on many counts.

    Apart from which, after many years of discussing Homeopathy, the questions Ernst says he gets and the responses don’t fit. But then it is all fabricated anyway.

    • Guess what? Acupuncture doesn’t work either… https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/acupuncture-doesnt-work/

      Quantum Mechanics on the other hand, if it didn’t work your phone, PC, TV, etc, etc, wouldn’t work.

      • BBF

        Another flat-earther. Stamp your feet louder, maybe you will make a difference.

        • KittyBell

          I need your address so I can bill you for a new irony meter.

      • rosross

        You must quickly send a note to the US military who are using it for battlefield trauma and as an alternative to opiates. And get yourself a list of major hospitals around the world who use it and let them know. Be quick. They cannot have heard.

        • Ken Lord

          Argument from popularity Fallacy. The fact that it is used does not mean it works and does not negate the utter lack of good quality evidence that it doesn’t work.

          If you… Or anyone… Could produce good quality, replicatable evidence that homeopathy works and has a non trivial effect, we’d stop fighting you.

          But the best homeopaths can do is repeat the same old unblinded and uncontrolled preliminary work over and over, publishing it in homeopathic journals that aren’t scientifically peer reviewed.

    • Jodi Compton

      The #3 killer worldwide is COPD, not “allopathic medicine.” It ranks behind heart disease (#1) and stroke (#2). This is according to World Health Organization figures. Medical errors do happen, and do cost lives, but it’s not even in the top 10 causes of death.

      • rosross

        The WHO is, like the UN in general, a corrupt organisation. It survives on donations from vested agendas, i.e. pharmaceutical and vaccine companies.

        I suggest you avoid it and do a country by country search on iatrogenic (Allopathic iatrogenic) injury and death, most of it from prescribed medication and you will find I am right and you are wrong.

        • Sam Gilman

          The WHO does not survive on donations from vaccine or pharmaceutical companies.

          You’ve made this up.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            You’re right. They don’t survive on big pharma donations. They thrive on them.

          • Sam Gilman

            No, they don’t. That’s the fourth clear lie I’ve caught you telling here, RGM.

            The WHO gets one quarter of its funding from compulsory contributions of member states. Three quarters is from voluntary contributions, which is largely from member states and charities.

            Everyone can see who donates in this document here:

            http://www.who.int/about/finances-accountability/reports/A69_INF3-en.pdf

            RGM, why did you need to tell lies about the WHO? What is so weak about your case that you need to lie to people here?

            Do you think lying like this gives people confidence in the “alternative” cures you promote?

        • Ken Lord

          Translation of rosross’s reply…

          The WHO says something homeopaths don’t like so homeopaths make up crap about the WHO.

          … Homeopaths. The Donald Trumps of Medicine.

        • Evidence for the WHO being corrupt and surviving on donations from vested agendas would be what, exactly?

          I mean you do actually have some.

          Oh and by the way, your claim = your responsibility to prove yourself right. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/03ead76900f1c9d792d52e6321d87a1f3f13bbb5bf3005929d96652787f35f1a.jpg

    • Just because you make a claim, doesn’t make it so. Where is your evidence?

    • The idea that medicine is the third biggest killer depends on some highly dubious assumptions. The most obvious of these is easily illustrated by considering the case of a patient admitted to hospital with a ruptured aneurysm. This is a very poor surgical risk, and a high proportion of patients will die in surgery. These are all included in the “death by medicine” stats, but without the high risk surgery the chance of death is 100%.

      However, that is actually irrelevant to your case because problems with reality-based medicine validate homeopathy in precisely the same way that plane crashes validate magic carpets.

      • Tetenterre

        It is also the case that “iatrogenic harm” statistics include things like giving the wrong treatment. Every person who suffered harm because s/he was given some species of quackery instead of medicine is part of the “iatrogenic harm” cohort.

    • Tetenterre

      “Since Allopathic drugs are the major killer, iatrogenic number three on the kill list, ”

      You keep making that untruthful claim and you keep being corrected on it. Let’s look at the WHO fact sheet on this (I assume that, when it comes to health issues, reasonable people will give more weight to a WHO factsheet than to an opinion piece in a business rag). Oh look, iatrogenic harm doesn’t even make the top ten.

      http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310.pdf

      Why do you think that is?

    • Still spinning your distorted statistics and statements, eh?

      But Ros… how do you know it works?

    • shay simmons

      Hey, ros! I see you’re still blathering about the #3 killer on your imaginary list, in spite of having been corrected in every single forum you tumble into.

      Lying, short term memory loss, or are you merely ineducable?

  • Larry M

    The frequency with which Ernst publishes anti-homeopathy propaganda articles just makes him look desperate. Far from scientific, Ernst’s agenda is both political and personal. He is a fundamentalist promulgator of scientism, which is the antithesis of true science.

    • rosross

      He was insightful in his choice of the name for his book. Wonderland indeed.

    • Sam Gilman

      Hi Larry,

      Do you see a connection between your anti-vaccine views and your pro-homeopathy views?

      • BBF

        Sam, do you see a connection between putting your head in the sand and your refusal to see the truth?

        • Mike Abbot

          How about your refusal to see the truth? Oh sorry I forgot, it doesn’t work like that only you know the truth and we’re dumb sheeple. You can’t possibly be wrong. It has to the thousands of scientists that are paid millions by big pharma to tell lies. Somehow though, you just know the truth.

        • Sam Gilman

          The truth of what?

          Are you promoting a religion?

    • So applying the scientific method to a scientific subject makes one a promulgator of scientism?

    • Ken Lord

      The frequency is due to Ernst actually studying homeopathy and changing his mind to follow the best available evidence.

      Apparently Larry thinks that True Science should act with a closed mind, holding on to failed ideas like homeopathy when evidence can’t be provided to support them.

      Larry why do you think that virtually all studies that show homeopathy to work are unblinded and not properly controlled to remove the bias of the researchers? Why do you think Homeopaths never want to improve the quality of their studies to get closer to the truth, instead just running the same old uncontrolled trials over and over?

      • BBF

        Rather he’s following the money.

        • KittyBell

          Haha! You win the prize, ros. Knew it wouldn’t be long before resorted to posting lies about people because at the end of the day, that’s all you’ve got.

        • Acleron

          An easily exposed lie. His university chair was mainly funded by a supporter of altmed. If he was following the money he would have found in favour of the scam.

          • BBF

            Prove it.

          • Acleron

            Prove what? The finances supporting his chair are public records. Haven’t you looked?

      • Larry M

        That’s an interesting interpretation but I’m gonna havta disagree. Ernst grew up with homeopathy, saw how well it worked, and chose to become a so-called expert in alternative medicine. To his surprise, he met with professional disapproval. Being the weak ego-driven person that he is, he saw an opportunity to still come out on top. He sold his soul in exchange for the notoriety that he now receives for being the crotchety old homeopathy hater that he has become. As with all homeopathy haters, his fundamentalist zeal is evidence of his secret self-loathing and fear that his true beliefs will be found out. It’s no different than the evangelical preacher who rails against gays only to be eventually found out to be a closeted gay.

        • ReallyGoodMedicine

          Excellent analysis!

        • Acleron

          Thanks for the laugh. Prof. Ernst has had to withstand the combined assault of not only homeopaths, acupuncturists, chiropractors (gosh there a lot of these merchants) but also their establishment followers. To call him weak is so ludicrous it is funny.

        • A new blog post from Prof Ernst addressing your many fallacies, errors and silly attacks…

          Homeopathy and the ‘closeted gay’ ???

          http://edzardernst.com/2016/09/homeopathy-and-the-closeted-gay/

    • The frequency with which Ernst publishes anti-homeopathy propaganda articles just makes him look desperate.

      The ease with which respected outlets publish @edzardernst:disqus’s pro-science articles them makes him look credible.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        But he isn’t! Who could be credible after claiming for years to be qualified in homeopathy but then admitting “I never completed any courses.”? Not to mention not taking the German Medical Board exam which is a pre-requisite.

        • But he isn’t!

          Asserting it doesn’t make your position valid.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Asserting a lie doesn’t make your position valid.

        • Sam Gilman

          Where did he claim to be qualified in homeopathy?

          He never has. He has made this clear for people on his website.

          Why are you spreading falsehoods, RGM? This is the third straightforward false allegation I have seen you make on this page.

          What does that say about your reliability?

    • Mike Abbot

      Don’t make me laugh

    • Al Baker

      I don’t think you know what scientism is.

      Scientism is an excessive belief in the explanatory powers of science: that is, a belief that science can answer questions that, in fact, it can’t (such a question might be whether it’s right or wrong to clone a dinosaur).

      Science is absolutely well placed to answer the question of whether or not homeopathy is medically effective.

    • Homeopathy is important in science communication because it is a great example of a false belief that persists despite it being implausible at every conceivable level. That is why it is discussed so often. It does not take deep knowledge of science to understand why homeopathy is delusional, or why belief persists despite this well established fact.

      It is not skeptics who are anti-homeopathy, it is reality. And even that is misleading: it’s more that homeopathy is anti-reality.

    • And what the feck does anti-science you know about ‘true science’?

  • Anne

    Realistically, the anti homeopathy activists such as this author have a minuscule sphere of influence worldwide. Since Hahnemann’s time, these activists’ opinions have been unable to stop the manufacture & distribution of homeopathic remedies; the private practice & licensing of homeopaths; the schools, universities, organizations and private groups
    that teach it; the privately and government funded research studies & surveys; the publication of books, journals and magazines for public and student consumption; the social media sites that educate curious health care consumers about it, and the cured patients who sing its praises to family members, co-workers, causal and longtime friends. The National Center for Homeopathy in the U.S. recently noted that the interest in their website grew by a “whopping 600%” over the past two years.

    • Sam Gilman

      Climate science denial websites are also popular. Does that make climate science denial right?

    • Ken Lord

      … And yet the number of homeopathic hospitals in the UK has shrunk from hundreds to just one or two, NHS funding for homeopathy is being slashed due to the lack of evidence of effectiveness, homeopathic charities are under review for violating the requirement of being supported by evidence, and the question is being raised about whether or not homeopathy used by veterinarians amounts to animal abuse because it hasn’t been shown to work.

      … But sure, it’s very exciting that some bot somewhere keeps refreshing a homeopathic website hahahah

      • BBF

        And those critics bullying their view will be roundly criticized in the future for denying those poor people the right to have their own health choice. Shame on you s(k)eptics.

        • KittyBell

          Nobody is denying their right to buy themselves their overpriced sugar pills but they can’t have them at the expense of other people’s lives, which is what happens when you waste public money on homeopathy instead of on treatments that work.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Didn’t you know that in 2010 the NHS spent 2 Billion pounds on treating the side effects of drugs and 10.2 Billion pounds on the drugs that caused those side effects? It spent 152 thousand pounds on effective, safe, side-effect-free homeopathic medicines. Clearly, the NHS is spending money on conventional drugs that create diseases when it should be expanding its safe and effective homeopathic services. The NHS is spending huge amounts of money on drugs that are the third leading cause of death in the U.S. The fact that drugs are both creators of disease and lethal makes a good case for their being the real waste of public money. More importantly, they are the cause of needless deaths and lives needlessly impaired by disease.

          • Sam Gilman

            Sugar pills are safe.

            They do bugger all, and taking money from people for them with the pretence that they work as medicine is a form of fraud.

          • KittyBell

            This is probably the most moronic comment I’ve ever seen you make. Drugs are prescribed for medical conditions. Unlike homeopathic sugar pills, the drugs contain active ingredients, treat conditions and save lives. because, unlike homeopathy, drugs with active ingredients have actual effects, some of them unwanted but, fortunately, some of these can be relieved with other drugs that have active ingredients.

            I work with people whose lives have been saved by drugs and who live pain-free because of drugs. Drugs do not “create disease” and the number who’ve been harmed by them is dwarfed by the number of lives that have been saved. Homeopathy, by contrast, does nothing but faith in homeopathy has cost many lives.

            Finally, the third leading cause of death in the USA is not drugs but medical error, defined as “an unintended act (either of omission or commission) or one that does not achieve its intended outcome, the failure of a planned action to be completed as intended (an error of execution), the use of a wrong plan to achieve an aim (an error of planning), or a deviation from the process of care that may or may not cause harm to the patient.

            Your mendacity is no more than I have come to expect from people who make a living scamming the public.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        The NHS is being privatized, and the use of homeopathy is strong among the British people. In fact, 42% of British doctors refer patients to homeopaths. Whatever cuts have occurred have not occurred because of lack of efficacy. Patients at those hospitals offering homeopathy are very strong in their views that it has done good things for them and that they are happy with it. They have publicly expressed those views and have asked that those services continue to be available to them.

        If you take a look at The Good Thinking Society’s web site, you’ll see it states that the Charities Commission has refused to take homeopathic charities off their list.

        The facts are that homeopathy is used today by more than 550 million people making it the second most used system of medicine in the world while your conventional treatments are the third most used. Additionally, the use of homeopathy is growing every year at rates of between 10% and 25% in countries around the world because it’s safe, effective — often curative where conventional treatments fail — and inexpensive. And that’s proven by both scientific studies and clinical evidence.

        What has been proven NOT to work are 89% of the 3,000 conventional treatments analysed by the British Medical Journal. Only 11% of those treatments have been proven to be effective, and they come with serious side effects.

        Why aren’t you campaigning against all those conventional treatments that don’t work and are the third leading cause of death in the U.S.?

        • Tetenterre

          ” In fact, 42% of British doctors refer patients to homeopaths. ”

          That claim is not a “fact”. Which is probably why you failed to support it with any evidence.

          “The facts are that homeopathy is used today by more than 550 million people”

          Even if that is a fact, what can we learn from it. Only that, after over 200 years, it has managed a global population penetration of an amazing 7.6%.

    • Sandra Hermann-Courtney (AKA Anne) : Realistically, the anti homeopathy activists such as this author have a minuscule sphere of influence worldwide.

      The evidence suggests otherwise. c.f. homeopathic hospitals in the UK.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        Sorry, Gold: hospitals in the UK are a very tiny sector. They certainly don’t represent the attitude of the rest of the world to homeopathy. In fact, homeopathy is used by more than 550 million people making it the second most used system of medicine in the world today. On top of that, its use is growing annually at rates of 10% to 25% in countries around the world because it’s safe, effective — often curative where conventional treatments fail — and inexpensive.

        Googling “homeopathy cured cases” brings up hundreds of documented cases of cures of serious, chronic conditions from gangrene to type 2 diabetes to addiction to conventional drugs.

        Conventional treatments are the third most used system of medicine, and people are turning away from it because is cures almost nothing but is the third leading cause of death in the U.S. Most likely that number is the same in the U.K. and other countries.

        The British people have a long history of using homeopathy and have welcomed to London the clinics of Dr. Batra and the Drs. Banerji.

        • Sorry, Gold: hospitals in the UK are a very tiny sector.

          Then why do you and the rest of the anti-science brigade rally against any attempt to have it removed from any public spending?

          Regardless of that though, while hospitals in the UK are a very tiny sector they do reflect the wider trend when it comes to public health spending and you have to ask yourself why that is. Why that is is actually made very clear in any case where the decision has been made also. It’s not hard to find the data you’d need. In short though, it doesn’t work. That’s why public spending on it is being cut.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            The wider trend is that more and more people are using homeopathy and it’s being covered by more and more governments — the U.S. and Switzerland being the two most recent to add it to their national health insurance programs. There are now 21 governments which recognize homeopathy as a medical specialty or system of medicine and/or include it in their national health care programs. The reason for this is that homeopathy works, is safe and inexpensive. Conventional drugs are the third leading cause of death in the U.S. Most likely the figures in the UK and around the world are similar.

          • discripplemation

            I don’t know where you come up with this bollocks that the U.S added homeopathy to the national health insurance program. All the ACA says is that insurers cannot discriminate against licensed health care providers,
            including those who practice alternative medicine, such as naturopaths, massage therapists, chiropractic, and acupuncturists. But that isn’t the same as REQUIRING COVERAGE. Which is why most insurers DON’T cover a lot of alt med of any sort, and no insurer covers homeopathy.

        • Michael McCarthy

          In fact, homeopathy is used by more than 550 million people making it the second most used system of medicine in the world today.

          Sorry, but even if only 1/2 of China alone uses traditional Chinese medicine, it beats that 550 million number.

        • Christine said:

          “The British people have a long history of using homeopathy and have welcomed to London the clinics of Dr. Batra and the Drs. Banerji.”

          Oh? Did they?

    • G.Shelley

      It is sadly true. Despite Hahneman having. No reason to think it would work, modern science demonstrating it can’t work by any scientific method and trials failing to demonstrate any effect, it does remain popular.

    • Take That, Medicine

      Hi, Sandy (@BrownBagPantry). Why are you posting comments under a pseudonym? You may deny as much as you want, but the fact is that homeopathy is losing its hold slowly but steadily in the public health service.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        Hi, Take That Medicine — Why are posting under a screen name?

        • Michael McCarthy

          Why are posting under a screen name?

          Every single person using the disqus platform is using a screen name. Derp.

        • Hi, Take That Medicine — Why are posting under a screen name?

          Says a person posting under a screen name…

          There is no way to mistake “ReallyGoodMedicine” or “Take That, Medicine” as real names. Sandra typically posts under “BrownBagPantry” or her real name. To take on a pseudonym that could easily be mistaken for a totally different real person is deceptive. It’s a shame that you are unlikely to be able to get you head around that simple concept.

    • Anne, aka Sandra: The National Center for Homeopathy in the U.S. recently noted that the interest in their website grew by a “whopping 600%” over the past two years.

      So, given that your source has released their latest NCH Annual Report and it only claims a 45% increase in traffic will you be updating your claim?

      I know you like people to do their own “research” and to “google it themselves” but I’ll save you, and tehm the trouble… Here’s the report;
      http://www.homeopathycenter.org/sites/default/files/NCH-2015-Annual-Report-091416-web1.pdf

    • The National Center for Homeopathy in the U.S. recently noted that the interest in their website grew by a “whopping 600%” over the past two years.

      SandraAnne, now that your source, the NCH, has released their Annual Report will you be correcting the %age increase you claimed? 45% != 600%

      http://www.homeopathycenter.org/sites/default/files/NCH-2015-Annual-Report-091416-web1.pdf

  • Anaussieinswitzerland

    “Washington, D.C., 27 September 2016 (PAHO/WHO) – The Region of the Americas is the first in the world to have eliminated measles, a viral disease that can cause severe health problems, including pneumonia, brain swelling and even death. This achievement culminates a 22-year effort involving mass vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella throughout the Americas.”
    http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12528%3Aregion-americas-declared-free-measles&Itemid=1926&lang=en

    • BBF

      If you go back to the 1950s you will find this was not the case. Death from MEASLES was rare, and a joke that they can rewrite history like this. Go back and look at the historical record. It doesn’t lie.

      • KittyBell

        Provide a source for your historical record.

      • Mike Abbot

        History. During the 1950s an annual average of greater than 500,000 cases of measles and nearly 500 deaths due to measles were reported in the United States. The record does not lie.

        Impact of measles in the United States.
        Hinman AR, Orenstein WA, Bloch AB, Bart KJ, Eddins DL, Amler RW, Kirby CD.
        Rev Infect Dis. 1983 May-Jun;5(3):439-44.
        PMID: 6878996

        • ciaparker2

          That’s the number which were reported by doctors, but the real number was three to four million cases a year, the entire birth cohort. Most patients with measles never saw a doctor, as it was a routine, universal, usually relatively mild disease which all children got (99% of American kids had serological immunity by the age of 18). No one born before 1958 in the US has to ever get an MMR because it is presumed that they have natural immunity from having gotten the disease.

          • Sonja Henie

            The death numbers are verifiable, cia, as measles has been a reportable disease since about 1912.

            Actually health care workers born before 1957 who do not have either titers or confirmed evidence of disease may need to be vaccinated.
            http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html

            At least one of the Disney cases was >70, e.g. born before 1945.

          • Acleron

            Same in the UK.

          • Mike Stevens

            The real number of measles deaths was also greater, Cia.
            Don’t forget that!

          • sabelmouse

            they probs would have laughed at the idea of calling a doctor for childhood illnesses.

          • Acleron

            Most would not be able to afford a doctor for any member of the family.

          • sabelmouse

            depends on where and who. this includes people like my family who have insurance, live somewhere with healthcare.
            in the usa possible. that still doesn’t mean they would have as it was so common, people knew what to do.
            the rich/better off would have, we know what they’re like.
            that the poor couldn’t afford a doctor even when they actually needed one [though they might have gone without to pay one. shame on avaricious doctors in that case]is heart breaking.
            then again , some doctors were better than others and would have helped anyways, or taken payment in kind.

      • Ah, refuted antivax trope #127. Yes, mortality declined as secondary infections became treatable with antibiotics. Morbidity remained the same. Incidence of measles declined only after vaccination became widespread. Measles can kill directly, it can also cause encephalitis leading in some cases to blindness. There’s also a chance that it can resurface later in life as subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, an incurable degenerative condition that is usually fatal.

        Redux: measles is dangerous, even deadly, highly contagious, and has been effectively controlled for decades only through immunisation.

        • ciaparker2

          Measles is very contagious, but very rarely dangerous. Parents need to give the appropriate dose of vitamin A as soon as they recognize that it’s measles, one more dose 24 hours later. Give NO fever reducers of any kind. Keep patient warm and comfortable in bed throughout, and well-hydrated. Keep quiet at home for two to three weeks after the day the rash appears, to avoid secondary infections. And then enjoy the lifelong benefits.

          Five years ago, see first link, there were nine measles deaths in Europe out of 26,000 cases, a death rate of three in 10,000. Second link shows incidence and deaths in the UK for every year since WWII: in the ’80s it was one or two per 10,000 cases. Third is Dr. Langmuir’s article: less than one death in 10,000 in children between three and ten in 1960. In other words, rarely dangerous, but very beneficial.

          http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/low-fatality-rate-in-european-measles-outbreak-cdc-report/#.VkVL3rnluUk
          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1522578/pdf/amjphnation00499-0004.pdf

          http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

          http://vaxtruth.org/2012/01/measles-perspective/

          • Sonja Henie

            Stop, stop, STOP with that practicing medicine without a license, cia.

            Lurkers: Measles is NOT beneficial. It can be disastrous. 30% of cases have some sort of complication, which can range from diarrhea to pneumonia, to hearing loss, vision loss, loss of mental capacity, and if you’re really unlucky, SSPE. At least two of the above links are to wacko anti-vax websites.

          • JoeFarmer

            How about putting together a graphic using the study that Ivan linked to the other day? The one about how parents of autistic children are significantly more likely to have mental illness.

            Which makes sense when you read posts from ciaparker, Autism Dudd, et al.

          • AutismDadd

            JoePharmer has resumed his career as a clown.

          • Hmm…I don’t make them. I just post them.

          • ciaparker2

            P. Aaby et al./Vaccine 21 (2002) 120–126

            Hence, it was hypothesized that measles infection was associated with long-term immunesuppressionanddelayedmortality,andthatthispost-measlesmortality could be prevented by immunisation [2,3,7]. Thebelief in persistent immune suppression was stimulated by increased mortality after high-titre measles vaccination[8,9].

            When the present study was planned, measles was believed to be associated with delayed excess mortality[2,3,10] and the study was initiated to identify the risk factors forsevere disease and its long-term consequences. However,in the interim, reanalyses of other data set have made these assumptions untenable. When the analysis adjusted for immunisation status, measles infection was not associated with long-term excess mortality [10–14] nor was there any indication of persistent suppression of T-lymphocyte sub-sets [10,11].

            http://www.academia.edu/12907021/Low_mortality_after_mild_measles_infection_compared_to_uninfected_children_in_rural_west_Africa

            And so, once again we see how the vaccine defenders lie. Renowned vaccine researcher Dr. Peter Aaby carried out a study in Somalia which put the lie to this false assumption. In reality, measles depresses immune function to an unusual degree, but only for two to three weeks after the day the rash appears. Measles patients should stay quiet at home recuperating during these weeks to avoid contagion with a possibly dangerous secondary illness. But the belief that measles decreases immune function past that time period is false: it does not.

          • Acleron

            This has already been rebutted. You are just repeating the same cherry picking that was exposed the last time. Are you experiencing memory loss from all this dangerous chelation quackery?

          • Sorry, cia, if we don’t get to use third-world death stats, you don’t get to use third-world studies. Next.

          • Acleron

            A palpable hit madam or sir.

          • ciaparker2

            nail it down hard

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            Oh, not this shyt again! You know Mike tore apart that study, cia.

            You also know it is a flat out LIE that measles does not suppress the immune system.

            I know Halloween is coming, but stop, stop, STOP that witchcraft, too!

          • Ron Roy

            The vaccine suppresses the immune system for up to one year:”A study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases

            which shows that the measles vaccine (yes, the single measles-the one that

            most folk believe is safe if given alone) interferes with interferon

            production. Big deal, you say?

            Well, turns out interferon is a necessary chemical produced by lymphocytes (a

            type of white blood cell). Interferon assists the host to be resistant to

            infection and interferon’s production is stimulated by infection with a

            virus. Production of interferon is a good thing because its purpose is to

            protect the body from superinfection by some other micro-organism.

            In the study, one-year-old infants were vaccinated with the measles vaccine.

            This caused a huge drop in the level of alpha-interferon produced by

            lymphocytes. Not only that, this harmful reduction in interferon production

            lasted for an entire year, at which time the experiment was ended.

            Conclusion: The study showed that the measles vaccine produced a significant

            long-term immune suppression.”

            J Infect Dis. 1989 Sep;160(3):543-4

          • Acleron

            Who are the authors and what was the title of this paper?

          • Michael McCarthy

            Whale gives the PMID number 3143767
            Nakayama T, Urano T, Osano M, Maehara N, Sasaki K, Makino S. Long-term regulation of interferon production by lymphocytes from children inoculated with live measles virus vaccine
            (from the title, I’d say this doesn’t support Ron’s plagiarized summary)

          • Acleron

            Right, it isn’t a paper but a reply to a letter in correspondence.
            http://m.jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/3.toc

            I don’t have access.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I got this to come up today for some reason
            http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/3/543a.extract

          • Acleron

            Thanks. So far it is a discussion on the definition of interferon-alpha and -gamma. Perhaps the next page will turn up soon.

          • Acleron

            Sorry I forgot to say thank you for your dive into the cess pit on behalf of everyone else.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I’ll admit, it burned, it burned.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            I like how you AVs will not post a live link, even on forums where they are allowed. You want to make us do all this work, probably because the article doesn’t say what you think it does, and you don’t want anyone who understands it reading it. I can’t find the article; I can’t find anything remotely resembling the article on Google Scholar. Post the link! OTOH, I can find this about measles DISEASE: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6235/694

            “Immunosuppression after measles is known to predispose people to
            opportunistic infections for a period of several weeks to months. Using
            population-level data, we show that measles has a more prolonged effect on host resistance, extending over 2 to 3 years. We find that nonmeasles infectious disease mortality in high-income countries is tightly coupled to measles incidence at this lag, in both the pre- and
            post-vaccine eras. . . . By preventing measles-associated immune memory loss, vaccination protects polymicrobial herd immunity.”

            Now post the link.

          • Course either the link or the PMID number will do.

          • Ron Roy

            Highlight (J Infect Dis. 1989 Sep;160(3):543-4) click copy then paste onto your browser and look for yourself. It’s easy really just try it.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            I did that last night, did it again this morning, not taking me to the article. I did it in several different ways as well. Can I just have a live link? You know what my first hit was when I did that?

            “Toxoids of streptococcal pyrogenic exotoxin A are protective in rabbit models of streptococcal toxic shock syndrome”
            I think you’re making this up.

          • Acleron

            That was an interesting paper, more so than Roy’s which is a letter in correspondence to the editor. No wonder he wouldn’t give a proper link

          • JGC

            Ron’s citation is to Nakayama et al’s Long-term regulation of
            interferon production by lymphocytes from children inoculated with live measles virus vaccine
            J Infect Dis. 1988 Dec;158 (PMID:
            3143767), which was published as a comment and for which no abstract is available.

            The text preceding the citation is taken verbatim from whale-to’s ‘summary’ of Nakayama—i.e.,it represents a conclusion drawn whale-to’s editors, not by Nakayama et al.

            MMR vaccination causes multiple changes which affect the recipient’s immune response, upregulating some genes and down-regulating others (including alpha-interferon). The down-regulation of alpha interferon has not been found to cause long term immunosuppression as the editors at whale-to suggest.

            See, for example, Immune activation at effector and gene expression levels after measles vaccination in healthy individuals: a
            pilot study
            PMID: 16571413

            Abstract:

            Cellular immunity to measles vaccination is not fully understood at the effector response and gene expression levels. We enrolled 15 healthy individuals (15-25 years old) previously vaccinated with two doses of measles-mumps-rubella-II vaccine to characterize their cellular immunity. We detected a spectrum of lymphoproliferative response (median stimulation indices of 3.4), low precursor frequencies of interferon-gamma (median 0.11%) and interleukin-4 (median 0.05%) by Elispot, and cosecretion of Th1 and Th2 cytokines after measles virus stimulation. Further, global gene expression was examined in five subjects from this cohort after vaccination with an additional dose of measles vaccine (Attenuax, Merck) to identify the genes involved in measles immunity. Linear
            mixed effect models were used to identify genes significantly up or
            downregulated in vivo between baseline and Days 7 and 14 after measles vaccination.

            Measles vaccination induced upregulation of a set of 80 genes, which play a role in measles immunity, signal transduction, apoptosis, cell proliferation, and metabolic pathways. Among the 34 genes that were downregulated, only interferon-alpha is known to have a direct role in measles immunity. This study suggests that measles vaccination leads to activation of multiple cellular mechanisms that can override the immunosuppressant effects of the measles virus and induce immunity.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            Well that’s not the reference he gave anyway. Thank you.

          • JGC

            That’s the study Whale-to summarizes as

            “In the study, one-year-old infants were vaccinated with the measles vaccine. This caused a huge drop in the level of alpha-interferon produced by lymphocytes. Not only that, this harmful reduction in interferon production lasted for an entire year, at which time the experiment was ended. Conclusion: The study showed that the measles vaccine produced a significant long-term immune suppression.”

            J Infect Dis. 1989 Sep;160(3):543-4 according to Pubmed would be Green’s comment in response to Nakayama.Virus induced immune interferon contains both interferon-alpha and -gamma, PMID: 547883.

            (Looks like Ron can’t even cut and paste from whale-to accurately)

          • Dan Holdsworth

            And this, Ladies and Gents, is why we prefer vaccination over infection.

            Imagine, if you will, a child that has a mild latent infection of some sort. Unvaccinated, if it catches measles then not only will the combination of two infections make for a very sick child, but the immuno-suppressive effects of measles will let that latent infection flare up after said child has recovered from measles.

            Thus if you want to capture the full horror of rampant measles infections, you not only need to look at mortality immediately caused by the measles infection, but mortality several months afterwards, and developmental effects months to years afterwards. These are going to be most marked in Third World environments where infections are rife, nutrition is poor and general medical care is poorer than in the West.

            It isn’t even as if there is any difference between immunity caused by infection and immunity caused by vaccination; in each case the person’s immune system is only ever seeing fragments of the disease organism. Antibodies generally only target fairly small areas of any antigen, so it doesn’t matter a jot whether the immune system sees an infection or merely fragments of the disease organism in solution.

          • Pmid number or it didn’t happen.

          • Acleron

            I’ve been through every article title in Vol 160(3) and cannot see anything relating to either measles, rubeola or interferon.

            A one year study published in two pages? Is this a letter?

          • Michael McCarthy

            Ron, when you’re going to copy pasta something, it is customary to link to the source.

          • Ron Roy

            I’d gladly link the source If I was sure the moderator wouldn’t delete my post if I did. I’m not ashamed of the info on Whale / Vaccine. I encourage everyone to read all the vaccine info on Whale.

          • Michael McCarthy

            If you’re that afraid, you could deform the URL so people can still see your source. And, I’ll bet dollars to donuts you didn’t read the letter (it isn’t a research paper, FYI) that the analysis is based on so you are assuming that it supports the position.

          • You should be ashamed to cite whale. That fact that you’re not speaks volumes.

          • Ron Roy

            The fact that you don’t like it speaks volumes.

          • Yes it does.

          • Jonathan Graham

            ….about preferring good evidence to poor evidence.

          • Ron Roy

            Good evidence definition according to Johnny: Anything that favors his employers( the drug industry ). Bad evidence anything that’s critical of the drug industry.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Nope. Good evidence – that which is statistically strong. Poor evidence is not. You would be unable to find a single instance of my rejecting something statistically strong. You on the other hand do this pretty much every day.

            So please, everyone check out the Internet’s largest database of comedy…and see how dumb Ron Roy really is.

          • Ron Roy

            Johnny you reject anything that isn’t made by the drug industry or the chemical industry. Now go have some more chips and coke.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Please show one example of my denying statistically strong evidence. If not, you’re lying.

          • DigMed

            Here’s the title of the article your link takes us to (emphasis added):

            Low mortality after mild measles infection compared to uninfected children in rural west Africa

            If all measles cases were mild and uncomplicated then there’d be no need for vaccines to prevent the disease. But it’s the “not-mild” cases, especially where this
            “study” was done, that are devastating. Don’t you people ever get tired of getting the science wrong?

          • Acleron

            It’s not so much.there inability with science, more their inhumanity.

          • BBF

            We’ve toyed with vaccines against the measles, and what did we get? A mutated virus that can harm the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated. Get your science right before you start pointing fingers, DigMed.

          • ciaparker2

            In rare cases measles can be disastrous, but it simply is not disastrous, but beneficial, in children who are well-nourished and previously healthy, who are well-nursed (bed rest, vitamin A, no fever reducers, adequate hydration, and three weeks recuperating at home after the day the rash appears).

            My links: the first is to CDC statistics on a measles outbreak in Europe in 2011: nine deaths out of over 26,000 reported cases. The second is to the Dr. Alexander Langmuir article, with charts and statistics, on measles in the US in 1960. The third is to official UK government charts on measles incidence and mortality by year from 1945 on. The fourth is an interesting article from one of my favorite sites, on how silly it is to fear measles. I like it. Those who fear contagion from vaccine sanity should by all means avoid opening it.

            “Can be” is the crucial phrase. Anything “can be” dangerous, especially if you don’t act with the appropriate care. Most measles complications are mild: pneumonia is usually viral, mild, and self-limiting, and when it is bacterial can usually be treated with antibiotics. Diarrhea, ear infections, conjunctivitis, bronchitis, are common, but rarely severe. SSPE is very rare, and can be caused by the vaccine as well as by the disease:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27634625

            J
            Pediatr. 2016 Sep 12. pii:
            S0022-3476(16)30738-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.08.051. [Epub ahead of print]

            Subacute Sclerosing
            Panencephalitis: The Foothold in Undervaccination.

            Holt RL1, Kann D2, Rassbach CE3, Schwenk HT2, Ritter JM4, Rota PA5, Elbers J6.

            Author information

            1Division of Child Neurology, Department of
            Neurology, Stanford Children’s Health, Stanford, CA.

            2Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases,
            Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.

            3Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine,
            Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

            4Infectious Diseases Pathology Branch, Division
            of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology, National Center for Emerging and
            Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA.

            5Division of Viral Diseases, Centers for Disease
            Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.

            6Division of Child Neurology, Department of
            Neurology, Stanford Children’s Health, Stanford, CA. Electronic address: jelbers@stanford.edu.

            Abstract

            Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a fatal complication
            of measles infection. We present a case
            of a fully vaccinated 3-year-old boy who was diagnosed with and treated for
            autoimmune encephalitis before arriving at a diagnosis of SSPE. We
            discuss the challenges of diagnosing SSPE in developed countries.

          • Sonja Henie

            In no case is measles remotely beneficial. Even if the patient (usually a child) has no complications and no suppression of his/her immune system, s/he is still miserably sick for 10 days to two weeks.

            Not all the complications of measles are mild. Pneumonia is the most common cause of hospitalization IIRC. Ear infections can lead to deafness. Vision problems can be lifelong. Encephalitis can cause neuro-mental problems that are permanent.

            Knock this off cia!

          • ciaparker2

            And then there are the lifelong complications caused by the MMR. Autism, bowel disease, etc. Encephalitis. Thrombocytopenia. Death.

            I need to add to this list, but this is the one I”ve put up several times on the benefits of natural measles. I need to get the ones on how it prevents cancer, has cured cancer and eczema, and prevented many other diseases.

            Kubota Y, Iso H, et al. Association of measles and mumps
            with cardio-vascular disease: the Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC study.
            Atherosclerosis 2015 Jun 18; 241(2): 682-86. Having measles and/or mumps in
            childhood protects against deadly heart attacks and strokes during adulthood.

            Rosenlund H, Bergstrom A, et al. Allergic disease and atopic sensitization in
            children in relation to measles vaccination and measles infection Pediatrics
            2009 Mar; 123(3): 771-78. Children who contract measles are significantly less
            likely to develop allergies than children who are vaccinated against measles.

            Same findings, different study: Shaheen SO, Aaby P, et al. Measles and atopy in
            Guinea-Bissau. Lancet 1996 Jun 29; 347(9018): 1792-96.

            Kucukosmanoglu E, Cetinkaya F, et al. Frequency of allergic diseases following
            measles. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) 2006 Jul-Aug; 34(4): 146-49. Children
            with a history of measles are significantly less likely to develop allergies
            than children without a history of measles.

            Also: Kuyucu S, Saraçlar Y, et al. Determinants of atopic sensitization in
            Turkish school children: effects of pre- and post-natal events and maternal
            atopy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2004 Feb; 15(1): 62-71. Same findings as
            previous one.

            Kondo N, Fukutomi O, et al. Improvement of food-sensitive atopic dermatitis
            accompanies by reduced lymphocyte responses to food antigen following natural
            measles virus infection. Clin Exp Allergy 1993 Jan; 23(1): 44-50. Several
            children with a food-sensitive allergic skin disease had a clear improvement in
            their symptoms after they contracted measles.

          • ciaparker2

            Here’s one:

            “Having measles not only results in life-long specific immunity to measles, but also in life-long non-specific immunity to degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, sebaceous skin diseases, immunoreactive diseases and certain tumours as demonstrated by Ronne (1985).”

            Ronne T. 1985. Measles virus infection without rash in childhood is related to diseases in adult life. Lancet; 5 Jan: 1-5.

          • Mike Stevens

            What would you rather your child have, Cia?
            Death or encephalitis from measles, or a slightly lower risk of getting a disorder of the sebaceous glands when she is older (that is a sebaceous skin cyst btw).

          • AutismDadd

            Frightening

          • PMID number please, Cia.

          • So what is your plan to prevent the rash part of measles then?

          • Sonja Henie

            Lies, lies, and more lies.

          • Acleron

            Incredible.

          • AutismDadd

            Wow quite the whiz aren’t you?

          • Sonja Henie

            Lie, lie, lie, lie, etc lie. Lie. Lie. Lie.

            Are you so stupid that you STILL believe that the MMR vaccine causes autism and bowel disease?

            Are you so stupid after all these years posting that you don’t know that the rates of these others are HIGHER for the disease, especially measles, than for the vaccine?

            I’m not going to address the rest of your gish-gallop. This has all been discussed with you many times.

          • Acleron

            While we have no regard for her the sad thing is that the people who tell her these lies think she is a sucker.

          • Sonja Henie

            That person she’s paying for chelation is a major charlatan!

          • Acleron

            They prey on each other.

          • AutismDadd

            If you are trying to make some statement, try again.

          • Mike Stevens

            “And then there are the lifelong complications caused by the MMR. Autism, bowel disease, etc. Encephalitis. Thrombocytopenia. Death.”

            Cia,
            1. Autism is not caused by MMR.
            2. Bowel disease is not caused by MMR.
            3. Encephalitis may complicate MMR in around one in a million shots (this is 1000 x less frequent than encephalitis complicating natural measles, and around 10,000 times less frequent than encephalitis complicating natural mumps)
            4. Thrombocytopenia may complicate MMR in around one in 22,000 shots (this is around 10 times less frequent than thrombocytopenia complicating the natural diseases)
            5. Death is so rare from MMR vaccination that there are few documented, validated and published case reports in the medial literature. However, domplicates measles in around one in 1000-2000 of measles cases in the developed world, and in up to 10% of measles cases in the developing world.

            And then you have the gall to suggest that it is good to get measles because it also reduces the supposed frequency of food-sensitive dermatitis.

          • AutismDadd

            Cut and Paste Mike. Mike takes the perpetrator’s twisted and manipulated information and spreads it with a manure spreader.

          • Jon Ardenoth

            Let’s just for one second assume that immunisations cause autism.

            I’d rather my kids get autism than one of many preventable fatal/crippling diseases. Kindly stop propagating pro-disease philosophies without significant, trustworthy and credible scientific evidence to back it up.

            Do you think that the scientific community is keeping knowledge of it repressed? Do you think we decided to keep liberally using DDT after we found out its widespread adverse effects? No, once there is sufficient evidence to support something that is accepted as verifiable by the scientific community, things change.

            Take off your tin foil hat mate. There have been so many tests done that if there was proof of a link between vaccines and autism, it would have been insurmountably proven worldwide.

          • AutismDadd

            So you have no child with autism then. NEXT

          • suz norkan

            Touche, ADad!

          • ciaparker2

            Boy, I’m with ADadd and Suz. I had to read your comment again to see if it said what I had thought it said. Wow. You’d rather severely damage your child’s brain for life, leaving him unable to use language to communicate, have friends, converse, order a pizza, get a driver’s license, get a meaningful job, go to college, travel, marry, buy a house, get married, drive to St. Louis for a concert, or basically do any of the activities which we call having a life, JUST so as not to risk his getting a mild, beneficial disease like chickenpox or measles? You’d probably be just as happy with a photograph on the wall of a child, why don’t you settle for that, rather than destroying the brain and immune system of your future children with vaccine madness?

          • PMid numbers, or it didn’t happen.

          • AutismDadd

            But aluminum and mercury are nutrients according to your Messiah Paul Offit.

          • Acleron

            And yet again you forget, quite deliberately, to mention the morbidity rates.

            You obviously have an agenda to harm people.

          • ciaparker2

            The childhood diseases were actively beneficial for the long term health of the children. Febrile diseases must be undergone in order to train the immune system in its functions. Meaning that sick people should remain in bed, well-hydrated and well-nursed, but without morbidity, meaning sickness, there is no strengthening of the immune system, little protection against disease in general or cancer in particular. Like riding a bike. Will you fall off while learning? Probably. Is there any way to eliminate the pain of falling off? No. Is it worth it in order to learn to ride a bike? In most cases it is. How about tests? I remember the agony of anticipating and fearing tests, the tedium and anxiety of taking them. Is there a way to eliminate all painful experiences while growing up, or in later life? No, there isn’t, and it serves no one’s interests to pretend that there is.

            And shots themselves are a much more agonizing experience than several days sick in bed. I dreaded and feared shots, was in the most agonizing pain waiting for it to be plunged into my arm and horrifying pain for the seconds it was pushed into and left in my arm. I would ALWAYS rather have been sick than get the shots. And that’s not even mentioning the severe and permanent disability or even death that they have caused and continue to cause in milions. My parents would be horrified had they realized the lifelong implications of what they did hoping just to protect me from several diseases.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            There is no evidence that the childhood diseases eliminated or largely controlled with vaccines were ever beneficial to kids. You clearly don’t have a clue how the immune system works, quit posting like you do. The immune system is designed to respond to antigens. Period. Your analogies are laughable.

            And yeah, in the second paragraph you get to the crux of the matter. Like many AVs, you’re afraid of shots.

            Your hyperbole makes your “arguments” ridiculous, as in worthy of ridicule.

          • ciaparker2

            All children are afraid of shots. Have you seen the videos on Youtube? Hundreds of them of little kids begging, pleading, screaming, crying in terror, held down by force as they are impaled. And that’s before the seizures, vomiting, diarrhea, or encephalitic screaming start.

            The immune system is designed to have pathogens vetted and attenuated before they reach the closed circulatory system. Vaccines introduce foreign proteins and pathogens directly into the circulatory system with no previous warning or attenuation, and the immune system, if it’s worth its salt, goes into a mode of extreme inflammation, trying to figure out how to neutralize the threat without any previous training or instinct hones over millions of years as to how to do it. The extreme inflammation can often causes encephalitis, resulting in severe brain injury or death (i.e., autism, ADHD, seizure disorders, or learning disorders). It can sensitize the immune system to vaccine ingredients, in a vain attempt to identify the enemy and neutralize it, it starts one or more autoimmune diseases, which sometimes end in death.

            But yeah, do go on with the happy spiel you learned on your first day of nursing school fifty years ago, before the dangers of vaccines or the reasons for them were realized by many people.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            “Have you seen the videos on Youtube? Hundreds of them of little kids
            begging, pleading, screaming, crying in terror, held down by force as
            they are impaled.”

            No, cia,, I don’t watch that kind of drivel. However, I did work in immunizations for about 40 years. While it was always a rare child who welcomed a shot, I never saw what you described, and your hyperbole aimed at new parents is first off a flat out LIE, and secondly not appreciated by the health care providers who are trying to keep these kids healthy!

            You don’t know Jack Sh*t about the immune system. And no, I didn’t learn this stuff the first day of nursing school. I think we learned bed-making that day. While you are an adherent of pre-scientific homeopathy, you seem to think that health care providers haven’t learned a thing since they were in school.

            “Impaled” indeed. You’re nuts, cia, just plain nuts!

            BTW, cia, I’ve asked this question of you many times, and you have never answered. What was the last science course you took and when, and at what level, e.g. middle school, high school, 3rd grade, whatever.

          • Acleron

            I imagine that nurses and doctors do everything to calm and distract babies, the young and even adults. Only an idiot or a sadistic antivaxxer wants someone so frightened they are screaming the place down.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            We have our tricks. For babies, it’s more “just do it”, then extra cuddling and fussing over later. Some moms will breast feed, but often the baby pulls off and starts crying. Distraction works well for older kids onto adults.

            Anti-vax “literature” and graphics show needles, sometimes dozens, photoshopped in, screaming children, comparisons to rape, Nazis and the like.
            https://www.google.com/search?q=anti-vaccine+pictures&biw=1749&bih=831&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5_v7tkOXPAhVr1oMKHd4PBjoQsAQIGw

          • And even if you *are* utterly selfish, you try to calm someone down so that they will stop making that god-awful noise that hurts your ears.

          • shay simmons

            During the public vaccination clinics our county health department held during the flu season of 2009/2010, we discovered a potent baby-calming quality in our county EMA director and one of our Medical Reserve Corps volunteers. No matter how fractious and upset the child, Joe* or Bill* would pick them up and they’d almost immediately settle down.

            Of course, one was a grandpa and the other a dentist. Life skills.

            (*not their real names, obviously).

          • Lol @ “impaled!” Hilarious.

          • DigMed

            Not to forget hysterical. This is what the shrinks call “transference,” in this case the irrational fears of supposed “adults” on to children.

          • Acleron

            Your ignorance of the immune system is well known. Your dismissal of morbidity in measles is amazing. Your inability to admit that the vaccine is safer than the disease is incredible.

          • DigMed

            And shots themselves are a much more agonizing experience than several days sick in bed.

            Of all the stupid, uninformed, desperately idiotic statements I’ve seen from anti-vaxxers (and they are legion) that has to be the all time winner.

          • PMID numbers, cia, or it didn’t happen.

          • Sorry, Cia, if we don’t get to use the CDC because of the cover-up, you don’t get to use the CDC for your point.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            Excellent point!

          • ciaparker2

            The reader is left to his own devices. The CDC used to be a great organization, twenty or thirty years ago. It’s pretty corrupt now. So the reader must interpret what he reads using his judgment and common sense.

          • Acleron

            Cia is totally corrupt, the reader must interpret want they read using their own judgement.

          • How would you advise the reader guard against cherry-picking in order to suit his confirmation bias?

          • shay simmons

            but it simply is not disastrous, but beneficial, in children who are well-nourished and previously healthy, who are well-nursed (bed rest, vitamin A, no fever reducers, adequate hydration, and three weeks recuperating at home after the day the rash appears).

            Tell that to my youngest brother. Make sure his hearing aids are in first.

          • AutismDadd

            hat about gut issues?

          • Björn Geir Leifsson

            ciaparker2 is by the looks of it an ND i.e. Not a Doctor

          • BBF

            Again, baloney!! https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf page 85 – less than ONE death from measles. This was published in 1968. Fearmongering will have you believe it was hundreds. Not true.

          • FallsAngel

            No. https://www.verywell.com/measles-deaths-2633851
            “So that’s 11 measles deaths since 2000 and at least 8 measles deaths since 2005. Why do people say that there have been no measles deaths in the United States in the past 10 years? Whether they are misinformed or intentionally trying to misinform people, they are wrong.

            The Last Verifiable Measles Death in the United States

            TheCDC is actually contributing a bit to the confusion over measles deaths, in that when asked, they have recently said that “the last verifiable death in the United States from acute measles infection occurred in 2003 when there were 2 reported deaths.”

            They explain the discrepancy between that statement and other CDC reports, like the recently published “Summary of Notifiable Diseases — United States, 2012,” which clearly documents measles deaths in 2005, 2009, and 2010, by saying that those reports are based on “statistical information about deaths in the United States.”

            But that statistical information comes from death certificates that are sent in from all over the United States to the National Vital Statistics System. The system isn’t like VAERS, where just anyone can send in a report. You don’t necessarily have to be a doctor to sign and file a death certificate though either, which is why the CDC is probably hung up on saying that the last verifiable measles deaths were in 2003.

            To be more precise when talking about measles deaths in the United States, since it doesn’t seem like the CDC has verified each and every measles death after 2003, it is likely best to say that death certificates have been filed in 2005, 2009 (2), 2010 (2), and 2012 (2) that listed measles
            as a cause of death code.”

            Of course, that still means that there have been measles deaths in the United States since 2003.

          • FallsAngel

            Do note that is per 100,000 people. Stupidity will have you believe it was less than one.

          • Samuel Jennings

            If I assume that your numbers are right and that we can expect 3 measles deaths per 10,000 cases, and we cease measles vaccination efforts, allowing it to return, we can expect that it will again become pandemic. Assuming half of all Americans contract it during their lifetime, and rounding the US population to 300,000,000, that means that we would expect to see 90,000 people die of the measles.

            Not to mention permanent disability, loss of labor due to illness, cost of hospitalization and treatment.

          • ciaparker2

            The statistic for the US in 1960 was 0.0125% mortality (four million cases a year, 450 deaths). The vaccine often seems to give lifetime protection (or maybe not). That would remove most people who had been vaccinated from the tally. Vaccine choice is mandatory, so that anyone who feared the disease more than the vaccine would be free to get the vaccine, but would be free to refuse it as well. Too bad that few adults now had the good fortune to get natural measles as children, but we can still improve the future for children not yet vaxxed. Dr. Langmuir provided charts showing that in children between three and ten, the group most commonly affected, mortality was less than one in 10,000 cases:

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1522578/pdf/amjphnation00499-0004.pdf

            Now we know that giving vitamin A, even to healthy patients, greatly reduces the rate of complications, and how important it is not to give any fever reducers. We also know how to treat feared complications with homeopathic remedies. The already low fatality rate would be much lower because of these measures.
            In 1960 the mortality rate was less than one in 10,000 cases in children between three and ten, overall in all age groups it was one in 10,000 cases. There was an average of 450 deaths a year. At 450 deaths a year, it would take two hundred years to reach 90,000 deaths from measles, but, as I already explained, if people knew how to care for measles patients, the death toll would be far less than in 1960. And then, of course, the MMR not infrequently causes severe disability, starting with autism and bowel disease, sometimes encephalitis or death, as well as dozens of other possible reactions and disabling conditions. Everyone must make his own decision on this. I’m glad I had natural measles and wish that my daughter could get it.

          • Susan McLaughlin

            You have little credibility to begin with, toting the benefits of contracting measles, but you lose all credibility when you speak of treating feared complications with homeopathic remedies; and of the MMR vaccine causing autism. I hope if your daughter actually gets natural measles, that she is not one of your 1/10000 children that die from it, and that she doesn’t have any complications from it during or after the infection. And I am quite sure that you hope that too, no matter how much you blather on about how beneficial measles is.

          • ciaparker2

            I also hope that my daughter gets natural measles, as I did. I am sure she wouldn’t have a serious case or complications from it. Homeopathy works, and, as I said, pulsatilla is the remedy most often used to treat measles, but there are many more which could be very effective depending on the individual symptom picture. It is very important that the rash appear at the time it is supposed to, and it will move the self-limiting disease along its normal course in a timely fashion: homeopathic bryonia will bring out the rash if it is not appearing when it should. And, again, it doesn’t matter to me what you think of homeopathy. It has worked miraculously well many times for me. I know it works.

            There are millions of children who were developing normally until they got the MMR, whereupon they regressed within a short time into autism and developed bowel disease. The vaccine caused their autism. My daughter’s autism was caused by an encephalitic reaction to the hep-B vaccine given at birth without permission and against my express instruction. She had two words at 18 months, delayed because of the encephalitic brain damage. The DTaP booster at that time erased her only two words, and she was diagnosed with autism two months later. Any vaccine can cause encephalitis, although the MMR, hep-b vaccine, flu, and pertussis vaccines do so the most often, and the damage to the language and social center of the brain is what is called autism. I refused the MMR for her, as I refused the varicella vaccine. If she had had no vaccines, she would be happy and normal now, with a happy life ahead of her. As it is now, she has no future: is low-verbal and considerably delayed developmentally, although her IQ is said to be normal. There is no doubt that vaccines cause autism, but the financial interests at play in both continuing the vaccine program as is and delaying paying the piper for decades of lies have ruined or taken the lives of millions.

          • Mike Stevens

            Can you link us to documented evidence that there are millions of cases of MMR-induced autism, Cia?
            Not anecdotes, or extrapolations from internet hearsay, but scientific confirmation of these “millions” of cases please.

          • Susan McLaughlin

            Cia you didn’t read properly, I said I hope she doesn’t get measles. To desire a person contracts a disease is a terrible thing. What compassionate person does that to somebody, let alone their own daughter?! It is unconscionable. You absolutely can NOT be sure that she wouldn’t have a serious case or complications because the statistics say it does happen and nothing to say it wouldn’t happen to your child. It is also understandable that you may derive comfort from blaming your daughter’s condition on an outside cause such as vaccines, but the science simply doesn’t support this. There are genetic factors involved with autism which may be triggered to some degree by environmental factors, but vaccines are not necessary. I know someone with autism who is not vaccinated, and I know a very many people without autism who are vaccinated. Your cocktail of skewed personal beliefs and pseudoscience derived from questionable sources would be considered by most people as ridiculous if you weren’t recklessly propogating your misinformation as fact. You say you believe homeopathy works miraculously: if you mean magically, well I don’t believe in magic; if you mean unbelievably, well I agree that homeopathy is something that should not be believed.

          • ciaparker2

            My daughter had encephalitic reactions to two vaccines, as I did to my first DPT at three months old, and a tetanus booster at nineteen caused brachial plexus neuropathy. My father was paralyzed for the last three years of his life by a flu shot. Meaning that I could NOT be sure that my daughter and I would not have another disabling reaction to another vaccine, and neither of us will ever take another one.

            There are genetic factors which predispose to vaccine reaction, and obviously all my family members have a lot of them. However, no vaccines, no problem. You cannot seriously believe that vaccines have not caused our current autism and autoimmune epidemics, and I don’t believe you or anyone else here does. There are THOUSANDS of scientific studies showing how and why vaccines wreak the havoc they do: look at the hundreds of pages of works cited at the end of any of Neil Z. Miller’s books on vaccine damage, or Dr. Mayer Eisenstein’s Make an Informed Vaccine Choice, with many studies cited for the three or four main areas of damage caused by each vaccine, as well as several dozen summaries of VAERS cases of vaccine damage reported for each vaccine. Read The Age of Autism, Evidence of Harm, and Vaccine Epidemic. Dr. Halvorsen’s The Truth About Vaccines (third edition called Vaccines A Parent’s Guide). Literally thousands of serious scientific studies reaching back over a century, investigating the ways in which the ingredients in vaccines cause toxicity and the immune system reacts to any vaccine with too much inflammation, resulting in vaccine encephalitis and/or autoimmune disease. Read The Peanut Allergy Epidemic, on how the Hib vaccine has caused our new, modern peanut allergy wherever the HIb vaccine has been introduced (and not where it has not been).

            Homeopathy works, and it is safe and cheap. Please see The Solution by Whatcott and Birch on how effective homeopathy has been at preventing epidemic disease from occurring in those who take nosodes, as well as how effective it is at treating all diseases. I have seen it work many times, and it takes your breath away, it works so well. Yesterday a friend came with a terrible headache from sinusitis. I searched my medicine closet for a homeopathic sinusitis remedy which I never found, but I found one for allergies which sounded as though it might work, and it did. She took one every fifteen minutes, as the box said, and at the restaurant said that the pain had stopped. That’s just one example: I have many more, as millions of other people do, but ultimately, who cares if you don’t believe it works? Your loss. I hope all those with open minds and hearts will try it and see for themselves.

          • Acleron

            For someone as closed minded and heartless as you to call for those with open minds and hearts is pretty near the ultimate irony.

          • Susan McLaughlin

            Cia, while your family may (or may not) have genetic factors rendering you unable to tolerate vaccines, you must realise and accept that you are in the minority, your case is the exception. You are not being sincerely honest or transparent when you promote the anti-vaccine viewpoint without disclosing this fact from the start. All scientific evidence supports the fact that vaccines are beneficial and harmless to the vast majority of people and to society in general. Just because vaccines appear to give your family some trouble does not mean that others will have the same reaction, you are doing harm by recommending others to abstain from vaccines. In addition to this, it is completely possible that the reactions you endured are in fact completely unrelated to the administration of the vaccines.

            Your sources are not credible by the way:
            Eisenstein – http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-autism-doctor-eisenstein-may22-story.html
            Miller/Eisenstein – https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/another-anti-vaccine-book/

            Nosodes would be disgusting and extremely unhygienic preparations, if they weren’t diluted to the point where no infectious agent remains. All nosodes in Canada must now carry the warning: “ This product is neither a vaccine nor an alternative to vaccination. This product has not been proven to prevent infection. Health Canada does not recommend its use in children and advises that your child receive all routine vaccinations.” That says it all.
            I won’t go on about homeopathy, the article these comments are attached to speaks for itself. But I think you are irresponsible to be dispensing ‘remedies’ from your ‘medicine closet’ to friends for which they were not prescribed.

          • Acleron

            Homeopaths claim that material does remain even after they have washed out the container thirty times.As they are obviously incompetent at washing glassware I wouldn’t trust a nosode to be safe.

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia’s definition of “encephalitis” is merely an episode of inconsolable crying.
            Just thought I’d let you know, in case you thought any doctors or medical tests were involved in establishing the diagnosis, which they weren’t.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I said I hope she doesn’t get measles. To desire a person contracts a disease is a terrible thing.

            Cia is a demented ghoul who intentionally infected her daugher with disease.
            ” I had shingles when my daughter was nearly two, and I deliberately gave it to her so that she would get chicken pox and have permanent immunity. “

          • ciaparker2

            nail it down.

          • Sonja Henie

            One more of these cia and you get reported to Disqus. This is NOT furthering any discussion.

          • JoeFarmer

            Your call of course. But I would like to see her paranoid posts remain. It’s just more proof that she’s off her rocker and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

          • Sonja Henie

            Well, there is that!

          • Sonja Henie

            I’d just like to report her.

          • Acleron

            I agree, tiresome as she is, they serve to expose how dreadful these people are.

          • JoeFarmer

            “I also hope that my daughter gets natural measles, as I did. I am sure
            she wouldn’t have a serious case or complications from it. Homeopathy
            works…”

            You should have your children taken away from you by the state.

            The rest of your post is complete and utter nonsense.

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia deliberately infected her child with chickenpox.
            Maybe after measles, she will move on to polio and HPV.

          • Acleron

            Poor girl.

          • Acleron

            You hope your daughter gets measles?
            What kind of monster are you?

          • Random Guy

            You should 100% stop posting medical advice anywhere. You’re a despicable human being for throwing random nonsense out there trussed up as fact. If you do not have the ability to understand the science behind what you are talking about then you are either a) too foolish to know what you are doing or b) malevolent.

          • John

            There is no doubt that vaccines cause autism,—— Is it too much to ask for you to provide links to that statement.?

          • Mike Stevens

            “Now we know that giving vitamin A, even to healthy patients, greatly reduces the rate of complications”

            Do “we” know that, Cia?
            Citations please.

          • ciaparker2

            Vitamin A is needed for all measles patients, as the body’s stores are quickly depleted when the immune system is combatting measles. It seems disturbing that a medical professional should be unaware of this documented fact. A 1992 California study found that half of
            children hospitalized with measles were deficient in vitamin A, while none of the uninfected controls showed any deficiency. “We studied 20 children with measles in Long Beach, CA, and found that 50% were vitamin A deficient. This frequency among presumably well-nourished American children supports evaluation of vitamin A status as a part of acute management of measles in the US.” Antonio Arrieta, MD, “Vitamin A Levels in Children with Measles in Long Beach, CA,” The J of Pediatrics, July 1992, p 75.

            Measles vaccination depletes the body of vitamin A as well as the natural disease. Dr. Songúl Yalçin, “Sex-Specific Differences in Serum Vitamin A Values After Measles Immunization,” The Ped Inf Dis J, 1999, p 747. “Previous studies have shown excess mortality and immune abnormalities among girls immunized with high titer measles vaccine 2 to 4 years after immunization…our results showed that serum vitamin A concentrations were depressed after measles vaccination, irrespective of whether it was the monovalent or combined measles vaccine.”

            Dr. Wafaie W Fawzi, “Vitamin A Supplementation and Child Mortality: A Meta Analysis,” JAMA Feb. 17, 1993, p. 901: “Combined analyses show that massive doses of vitamin A given to patients hospitalized with measles were associated with an approximately 60%
            reduction in the risk of death overall, and with an approximately 90% reduction
            in infants. ..Administration of vitamin A to children who developed pneumonia
            before or during hospital stay reduced mortality by about 70% compared with
            control children.”

            Prakash Shetty, “Nutrition Immunity and Infection,”2010, p 82, “Vitamin A administration also reduces opportunistic infections such as pneumonia and diarrhea associated with measles virus-induced immune suppression. Vitamin A supplementation has been shown to
            reduce risk of complications due to pneumonia after an acute measles episode. A
            study in South Africa showed that the mortality could be reduced by 80% in
            acute measles with complications, following high-dose vitamin A supplementation.”

            ,

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia, you clearly stated that “Vitamin A greatly reduces the rate of measles complications, even in healthy patients”.

            When questioned about the evidence base for this, you come up with a small study indicating that 50% of hospitalised measles cases in California were vitamin A deficient.

            Now that doesn’t mean Vitamin A deficiency could not be found in 50% of the non-hospitalised patients, does it Cia? Without the appropriate comparison group you cannot conclude that hospitalisation is more likely to occur in the Vitamin deficient.

            And you will note I expect you to show that Vitamin A reduces complications in healthy patients (which was your claim), and not in seemingly healthy but vitamin-deficient patients, whom I would not regard as healthy. Your other papers just confirm vitamin A can reduce complications, but says nothing about “healthy” patients.

            You must be very clear and precise when citing evidence – don’t exaggerate, don’t misinterpret, don’t jump to the wrong conclusions, always read the paper not just the abstract, and never, ever lie.

          • Acleron

            When I asked you to read Langmuir et al I forgot to realise you wouldn’t understand it.

            “Dr. Langmuir provided charts showing that in children between three and ten, the group most commonly affected, mortality was less than one in 10,000 cases:”

            What about the children who died before they reached three?

          • Mike Stevens

            She skips that bit, because the mortality was higher in the younger kids.

            But she always quotes Langmuir, rather than other sources, because his data on case fatality is at the lower end of the range, and certainly underestimates deaths from measles if more recent data from European outbreaks and from the US 1989-2002 outbreaks are used as a yardstick for “first world countries”.

          • Mike Stevens

            Basically, Cia doesn’t care if people in the USA die from measles. She has said so before. She insinuates it is their own fault they did die, they must have been “frail”, or “malnourished”, or their doctors killed them. She also likes to point out that more of them are poor, and immigrants.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8ff8e1b0bd59ddb61b941f2af02390a105b501d63e5cf44fc7a724b242ee3782.jpg
            Maybe when Trump is POTUS he can put her in charge of healthcare.

          • Sonja Henie

            Either their doctors or their parents, usually their mothers, killed them by a) giving them anti-pyretics, b) bathing them, c) letting them get out of bed in less than three weeks.

            ciaparker2 for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

          • ciaparker2

            Most people are unaware of the importance of the measures I suggest. If they knew, then most people would act accordingly.

          • Sonja Henie

            Most people make their decisions based on science, not witchcraft.

          • Mike Stevens

            Quick! Cia wants to treat lethal diseases with homeopathic Pulsatilla and Bryonia!
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3Xl4_VnoPI

          • suz norkan

            Cia would be GREAT at it regardless of who becomes OUR next potus, mikey! 😉

          • ciaparker2

            Those children who are frail or malnourished did not make the choice to be that way. I have never suggested that it is their “fault.” However, everyone must be aware that measles doesn’t just up and kill everyone who gets it indiscriminately, and must make vaccine decisions for their own family accordingly. Parents of Third World children must be given the same respect and must make their own choice.

            Healthy, well-nourished children are unlikely to die or be severely affected by measles either here or there. The vaccine is dangerous, there as well as here. The disease is actively beneficial in many ways, here as well as there. Yes, it causes a lot of deaths in Africa (I just read today that it doesn’t cause nearly as many deaths in India, which I had wondered about.) Ideally we could help the people in every land to achieve a population size which they could feed themselves in order to offer all residents a healthy nutritional status. In the meantime, all parents must be completely informed insofar as it is possible and be allowed to make their choice.

            I just made a donation last week to the United Nations Refugee Fund setting up refugee camps near Mosul. It makes me sick to think of families escaping from Mosul on foot, walking all night, through mine fields, trying to hide from the enemy, then reaching relative safety (or not, and that makes me sick too), but there being no food, no tent, available for them. Now I can look at the photos and think that I helped provide rescue for them. Have you?

          • Sonja Henie

            “Losing” at measles is a crapshoot, cia. No one knows who will be taken and who won’t.

          • Mike Stevens

            I donate to Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children, and always give as my seasonal presents a gift of either vaccinations or malaria bed nets.
            http://gift.savethechildren.org/site/apps/ka/ec/catalog.asp?c=dvKSIbOSIlJcH&b=6885593&CategoryID=346552
            http://shop.unicef.org.uk/Shop/Inspired-Gifts/Life-saving-vaccines.html

          • Sonja Henie

            Don’t break your neck falling off your high horse, cia. Big whoop for you.

            I donate to Lutheran World Relief, which does a lot for refugees, disaster relief and immunizations among other things.
            http://lwr.org/blog/help-syrian-refugees
            https://www.facebook.com/LuthWorldRelief/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf
            I, too, give seasonal presents of immunizations and buy Unicef Christmas and Halloween cards. I can remember going “Trick or Treat for Unicef” as a kid.

          • Please catch measles.

          • shay simmons

            What are you trying to atone for, cia?

          • Acleron

            As far as I can see that is exactly what they want.

          • Ernesto López Durán

            It is dangerous and letal, more than half of the population of Mexico died from measles brought by spanish conquistadores. In the cases that you mention there was a small factor that you are not considerning, almost all the population were vaccinated that’s why the deaths were so few.

          • ciaparker2

            All new diseases are very lethal. Like Ebola, which first affected humans in 1976: at that time, the fatality was over 90%. Over time, as the virus is naturally attenuated to favor widespread transmission (the strains that don’t fell the victim quickly die out because opportunities for transmission are reduced, while less lethal strains then multiply in survival of the fittest for microbes), and people’s immune systems learn how to deal with the new disease, mortality is greatly reduced. In the Ebola outbreak two years ago, overall fatality was between 50 and 60%, a lot less than the 95% of only forty years ago. And many people got subclinical cases of Ebola, which still gave permanent immunity, as well as many people getting it and recovering from it.

            Measles was an old disease in Europe, Asia, and Africa in the sixteenth century, but a new disease which no one’s immune system had any idea of how to cope with among the indigenous peoples of North and South America. Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel has a very interesting chapter on this. Most of our common diseases were originally animal diseases which made the species leap where people lived close to their domestic animals. And so the people from that area had centuries of experience in coping with the diseases, which could still be fatal, but much less so than when they had been new. The Amerindians only had five species of domestic animals: the Musovy duck in Colombia, the turkey, the dog, the llama/alpaca family and the guinea pig, none of which was a good transmitter of disease to humans, partly because people didn’t live with the animals in their houses as they did in Europe.

            And so when the conquistadores arrived in Mexico and Peru, they brought the germs for diseases which had been naturalized in Europe, diseases which the conquistadores for the most part had had and recovered from with permanent immunity. But the Amerindians, with no experience at all ever of measles, had immune systems which were blown away by the virus, and diseases which were already relatively harmless for Europeans killed huge percentages of Indians exposed to them. In a few generations, their immune systems had gained experience and non-specific immunity was handed down to children, and the diseases became much less lethal.

            Measles was still a big killer in the nineteenth century in the US and Europe (though nothing like for virgin Indians in the sixteenth century), but became much less lethal both for reasons of viral evolution and better nutrition and living conditions which improved immune resistance. By 1960, in the US, 99% of American kids got measles by the age of 18 and had permanent immunity to it. Four million a year got it, the entire birth cohort, but there was only an average of 450 deaths a year from measles, or 0.0125%. I had measles when I was six: at that time all kids got it and no one worried about it. It was very rarely a serious or dangerous diseases, partly because we benefited from non-specific immunity which protected us from birth from the worst possible ravages of the disease, as well as the placental immunity and breast feeding by women who had had natural measles growing up, which made measles very rare in the first year of life, when it can be dangerous for infants. Giving vitamin A and NO fever reducers prevent most complications.

            Natural measles gives permanent immunity, the ability to protect future infants, a stronger, better-trained cellular immune system, and protection from heart disease, strokes, many diseases, and many cancers in later life. It causes a high fever, which is ultimately beneficial for many reasons if left alone for the immune system to use its millions of years of experience to deal with. The measles patient must remain quiet, warm, and well-hydrated in bed until the fever is gone. The homeopathic remedy pulsatilla is often useful in treating severe cases, and bryonia will make the rash come out if it’s slow in doing so. And many other homeopathic remedies are available to treat feared complications. The patient should stay quiet at home for three weeks after the day the rash appears to prevent complications from taking hold in those weeks before the immune system is back to normal (measles depresses it temporarily to an unusual degree). And then enjoy the lifelong benefits of natural measles.

          • ciaparker2

            Useful statistics and information on measles, including a link to official UK statistics on measles incidence and deaths from 1945 on. In the ’80s, before the MMR, there were only one or two deaths per 10,000 cases.

            http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/low-fatality-rate-in-european-measles-outbreak-cdc-report/#.VkVL3rnluUk

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1522578/pdf/amjphnation00499-0004.pdf

            http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

            http://vaxtruth.org/2012/01/measles-perspective/

          • ciaparker2

            nail it down

          • Mike Stevens

            So, Cia, we see you are comfortable with 2 deaths per 10,000 cases of measles?

            In a vaccine free US, which would see 4 million measles cases each year, this would amount to 800 kids dying from measles each year, as well as 4000 cases of brain-damaging encephalitis, and 200,000 hospitalisations for measles pneumonia.

            Oh, wait! That wouldn’t happen because you’d just ask parents to treat them with vitamins, homeopathic pulsatilla, and then everyone will be singing jolly songs holding hands and romping in the sunshine for evermore.

          • Acleron

            An unnecessary disease treated with imaginary medicine. This gets bizarre quick.

          • ciaparker2

            Why would there be twice as many deaths now from measles as there were in 1960, when there were four million cases of measles a year with only 450 deaths? It’s true that our current over-vaxxed generation is the unhealthiest, most immune-compromised ever in our history, so you may well be right, but on the other hand we know a lot about vitamin, herbal, homeopathic, and even allopathic alternatives available now which weren’t then.
            We see that you are comfortable with untold numbers of healthy, normal children reacting to vaccines with encephalitis, seizure disorders, autism, bowel disease, asthma, allergies, SIDS, and more. Most parents aren’t, but there is always the unusual exception.

            I would tell all parents the facts to the best of my knowledge and let them choose or refuse any or all vaccines. I would refer them to the many excellent books I’ve read on homeopathy, herbal, vitamin, and anthroposophic remedies for disease and advice on nursing sick children, like Aviva Jill Romm”s Vaccines and Wendy Lydall’s Raising a Vaccine-Free Child. As well as many others on vaccines and the vaccine-preventable diseases, as well as other diseases like strep throat. Homeopathy works: I would direct people to the books on it I have found most useful and interesting, and then let them try it for themselves if they want to.

          • Sonja Henie

            Uh, the population is twice as large as it was in 1963. The death rate started to level off in the 50s. There is only so much medicine can do once you get measles. The death rate was higher than expected in the 1989-91 epidemic in the US.

          • Acleron

            In the UK, the medical services are stretched to breaking point. A major epidemic of measles might indeed have a higher than normal mortality plus higher mortality and morbidity figures in other areas.

          • Sonja Henie

            Here in the US, a major epidemic (Disney was not major) would stretch services as well. For one thing, most pediatric care is done either out-patient or ICU; there aren’t many regular peds beds. The hospital in my town recently closed their peds department.

          • ciaparker2

            But as Sonja and Mike have recognized, hospitals HAVE no safe treatment for measles or any other viral diseases.

          • Sonja Henie

            Lying again, cia. Neither of us ever said treatment in a hospital was unsafe, nor did either of us indicate any hospital treatments being done that are unsafe. Hospitals do have a few things the home bedroom, where you would lock the child up for three weeks, don’t have, such as oxygen equipment, IV equipment and people who can monitor all that. Some pneumonias (the most common cause of hospitalization from measles) can be treated with antibiotics, which in many cases are given intravenously. Pulse ox can be monitored.

          • Acleron

            I think I see the ‘reasoning’. If she admits that medical care can drastically cut the mortality rate then it blows her nonsense of just feed them and overdose with vitA back up where it came from.

          • ciaparker2

            I didn’t mean that in general hospital treatment wasn’t safe (although medical error and hospital germs cause a lot of deaths). I meant that the antiviral drugs like Tamiflu are unsafe.
            And time spent going through the childhood illnesses is time well spent for all the benefits it confers for the child’s lifetime health. I don’t mind being sick in bed, I get to lie quietly and read.

          • Sonja Henie

            Well, that’s a lie too, and you don’t have to be hospitalized to take Tamiflu.

            We’ve been through these “benefits” before, most recently just yesterday. There are none. Don’t even get started. No health expert in the world agrees with you.

          • ciaparker2

            I didn’t SAY you had to be hospitalized to take Tamiflu. But when I ran over in my mind what they could do in a hospital to treat a viral disease, I considered the anti-viral drugs, thought about how dangerous they have proven to be, and thought that wasn’t a good way to treat measles or any other viral disease. If there were bacterial complications, they could be treated with antibiotics, but not the virus itself. (However, Sambucol, Echinacea, vitamins A, C, and D, and many homeopathic remedies treat viral illnesses.)

          • ciaparker2

            nail it down.

          • ciaparker2

            keep it here

          • ciaparker2

            And conventional allopaths are only focused on Sick BAD! Not sick GOOD! without giving any thought to the many cases in which illness is good to go through naturally. There is no comparable way to train the immune system in its functions, and it will serve you for life, easily overcoming pathogens of all sorts, as well as incipient cancers, if it has received such training. If it doesn’t, a lifetime of allergies and ill health, heart disease and cancer, awaits, which will make you wish you had gone through the childhood illnesses as a child.

            We call this “tunnel vision,” and it is not a good way of reaching decisions as to how to achieve optimal health.

            I just commented in a discussion group that it’s better to just get this year’s flu and not get the vaccine for it (very ineffective and dangerous too). If you just go through H3N6 this year, then you’ll have permanent immunity to H3 and N6, and if next year’s flu is H3 and N2, you’ll be immune to the H3, won’t be as sick, and your immune system can just concentrate on the N2 challenge, emerging with permanent immunity to that one too.

            Women who had natural measles growing up (like me and you) could protect our babies during their first, most vulnerable year with placental immunity and our antibodies given through breast feeding. Just THINK of all the lives saved, while all those older kids had the good fortune to get all the benefits of measles when they were old enough to handle it well.

          • Sonja Henie

            You don’t know how the immune system works, cia to talk about “training” it through serious, possibly life-threatening disease. You can’t be ignorant, we’ve been posting links about this for you to read. So you must be incredibly stupid. OR, you know the information but you won’t accept it.

            I find your constant descriptions of vaccines as “dangerous” very tiresome. Extremely tiresome, as a matter of fact. None of these vaccines are dangerous. I’m sure there isn’t a snowball’s chance in H*ll that you know what you’re talking about regarding the various flu strains.

            We’ve been over this measles antibody thing, too. Babies born to moms with “natural” immunity have PASSIVE immunity from their moms for about 5 months, those born to immunized moms have passive immunity for about 3 months. There is virtually no measles antibody in breast milk.

            All the lives saved my derriere! What about these 500 deaths per year (now more like 800 with the increased population) that you can “live with”?

          • ciaparker2

            “Measles Strengthens the Immune System

            Not only does measles give you immunity to future exposures to it, it also strengthens your immune system so you can avoid other future illnesses, including autoimmune disease and even cancer.

            You see, our bodies were actually created to get these regular, normal workouts throughout childhood. Just like our muscles need use to grow and become strong, so our immune systems need to be used in order to bulk up and prepare to fight off invaders.

            Instead of catching what used to be normal childhood illnesses, most kids are vaccinated against them, providing a false sense of immunity and overloading the immune system. So now, children have weakened immune systems that allow them to catch every common cold and suffer from frequent ear infections. Suffering through one week of discomfort with an illness like measles is surely preferable to long-term, frequent and annoying illnesses.”

            Having autism actually destroys the immune system. If you know the real cause of autism, you understand that autism develops due to a compromised immune system, then the underlying causes of autism continue to wreck the immune system. It’s a vicious cycle.”

            http://www.modernalternativehealth.com/2016/08/19/five-reasons-measles-is-better-than-autism/

            “Measles Complications Are Uncommon

            Less than one thousand people per year get measles in the US, and only one death has been confirmed in over a decade (and even then, the cause of death was arguably due to something else, as the woman had a number of conditions contributing to poor immune function, and the measles virus was only found during an autopsy, as she had no symptoms. [source] It’s possible the measles vaccine she received- yes, she had been vaccinated- was actually the reason the virus was found in her body).

            The latest estimates show 1 in 45 children in the US have autism. (source) That’s about 1,478,837 kids, or about 2%.

            The places where typically mild diseases are more likely to have complications are the places that struggle with poor sanitation and nutrition, like third world countries. When we read statements like “Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available,” but fail to read on and learn that 95% of these deaths occur in third world countries, we’re making decisions based on fear, not facts. (source)

            The death of a child is always sad, but we need to look at the facts: 114,900 people die from measles a year, globally, the majority being under the age of five. That’s about .002% of the world’s population. It’s estimated that 1% of the world’s population has autism. That’s 71,250,000 people.

            There is no doubt, autism is more common than measles complications in the US and other developed nations. While rare but serious complications of measles can lead to death, a child is more likely to suffer from autism following an MMR vaccination than to catch measles at all, let alone have very serious complications.”

          • ciaparker2

            “Measles Complications Are Uncommon

            Less than one thousand people per year get measles in the US, and only one death has been confirmed in over a decade (and even then, the cause of death was arguably due to something else, as the woman had a number of conditions contributing to poor immune function, and the measles virus was only found during an autopsy, as she had no symptoms. [source] It’s possible the measles vaccine she received- yes, she had been vaccinated- was actually the reason the virus was found in her body).

            The latest estimates show 1 in 45 children in the US have autism. (source) That’s about 1,478,837 kids, or about 2%.

            The places where typically mild diseases are more likely to have complications are the places that struggle with poor sanitation and nutrition, like third world countries. When we read statements like “Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available,” but fail to read on and learn that 95% of these deaths occur in third world countries, we’re making decisions based on fear, not facts. (source)

            The death of a child is always sad, but we need to look at the facts: 114,900 people die from measles a year, globally, the majority being under the age of five. That’s about .002% of the world’s population. It’s estimated that 1% of the world’s population has autism. That’s 71,250,000 people.

            There is no doubt, autism is more common than measles complications in the US and other developed nations. While rare but serious complications of measles can lead to death, a child is more likely to suffer from autism following an MMR vaccination than to catch measles at all, let alone have very serious complications.

            Is Measles Better Than Autism?

            You bet. As we can clearly see, the odds of catching measles, and especially suffering from complications, are much lower than the chance of being diagnosed with autism.

            Not only that, but once you get over measles, you move on in better health. Autism can have lifelong implications for both sufferers and their families.

            It’s time we stop taking chances with our children’s health and making decisions based on well-calculated propaganda. Look at the facts and make the best choices for your kids based on the real risks, not hyped-up figures and half-truths.

            Do you think measles is better than autism? Share so your friends can read the facts too.

            .

          • ciaparker2

            “Well-managed natural infectious diseases are beneficial for
            children.

            When infectious diseases of childhood are not mismanaged by the
            administration of antibiotics, or by suppressing fever, the diseases prime and mature the immune system and also represent developmental milestones.

            Having measles not only results in life-long specific immunity to measles, but also in life-long non-specific immunity to degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, sebaceous skin diseases, immunoreactive diseases and certain tumours as demonstrated by Ronne (1985)”.

            http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/01/29/measles-vaccines-part-ii-benefits-of-contracting-measles-by-dr-viera-scheibner-phd/

          • ciaparker2

            “Is measles dangerous?
            Prior to the 1960s, most children in the United States and Canada caught measles. Complications from the disease were unlikely. Previously healthy children usually recovered without incident.(1) However, measles can be dangerous in populations newly exposed to the virus,(2) and in malnourished children living in undeveloped countries.(3,4) Ear infections, pneumonia, brain damage (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis), and death are some of the possibilities.(5) In advanced countries, measles can be severe when it infects people living in impoverished communities with poor nutrition, sanitation, and inadequate health care.(6) Complications are also more likely when the disease strikes infants, adults, and anyone with a compromised immune system.(7)

            Scare Tactics: Doctors and other health authorities often try to frighten parents about measles by exaggerating the risks. For example, vaccine pamphlets published by the CDC claim that 1 out of every 1000 children who contract measles will get encephalitis, an infection of the brain.(8) However, Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, renowned pediatrician and vaccine researcher, had this to say: “The incidence of 1/1000 may be accurate for children who live in conditions of poverty and malnutrition” but for just about everyone else “the incidence of true encephalitis is probably more like 1/10,000 or 1/100,000.”(9) Furthermore, about 75 percent of these cases will not show evidence of brain damage.(10)

            Vitamin A and Nutrition: Several studies show that when patients with measles are given vitamin A supplements, their complication rates and chances of dying are significantly reduced. For example, as early as 1932 doctors used cod-liver oil — high in vitamin A — to treat measles and lower mortality by 58 percent.(11) Studies conducted in 1958 and 1961 confirmed that the wild measles virus has a severe short-term effect on immunity and the child’s nutritional status, especially vitamin A and nitrogen metabolism.(12,13) But antibiotics — later shown to be ineffective at treating measles — soon replaced vitamin A therapy, and by the 1960s vaccinations gained preference over treatment protocols. However, during the mid-1980s new studies demonstrated an increased risk of diarrhea, respiratory disease, and death in children with mild vitamin A deficiency.(14,15)

            In a 1987 study conducted in Tanzania, Africa, 180 children with measles were randomly divided into two groups and received routine treatment alone or with 200,000 i.u. of orally administered vitamin A. Mortality rates in the vitamin A group were cut in half. In fact, children under two years of age who did not receive vitamin A were nearly eight times more likely to die (Figure 1).(16)

            In 1990, the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed that vitamin A supplements significantly reduce measles complication and death rates.(17) In 1992, researchers measured vitamin A levels in children with measles and determined that deficiencies were associated with lower levels of measles-specific antibodies, higher and longer lasting fevers, and a greater probability of being hospitalized.(18) The authors of the study recommended Vitamin A therapy for children under two years of age with severe measles.(19) And a 1993 study showed that 72 percent of all measles cases in the U.S. requiring hospitalization are deficient in vitamin A. The greater the deficiency, the worse the complications and higher the probability of dying.(20)

            Malnutrition is clearly responsible for higher disease complication and death rates.(21) According to David Morley, infectious disease expert, “Severity of measles is greatest in the developing countries where children have nutritional deficiencies… The child with severe measles and an immune system suppressed by malnutrition secretes the virus three times longer than does a child with normal nutrition.”(22) Dr. Viera Scheibner, vaccine researcher, summarizes the data more succinctly: “Children in Third World countries need improved vitamin A and general nutritional status, not vaccines.”(23)

            Fever Reducers: Poor nutrition and a vitamin A deficiency are not the only factors known to increase measles complication and mortality rates. Standard treatment protocols may be detrimental as well. For example, when doctors administer antipyretics (fever reducers, such as aspirin) to control the rising temperature in measles patients, greater problems are likely. In one study during a measles epidemic in Ghana, Africa, children were divided into two groups. One group received antipyretics — typical at many hospitals. Mortality was five times greater than in the group that did not receive this treatment (Figure 2).(24) Researchers concluded that “children with the most violent, highly febrile form of the disease actually had the best prognosis.”(25)

            In another study conducted in Afghanistan, 200 children with measles were divided into two groups. Once again, members of one group received aspirin to lower fever. The study revealed that children receiving the antipyretics had prolonged illness, more diarrhea, ear infections and respiratory ailments, such as pneumonia, bronchitis and laryngitis, and significantly greater mortality rates.(26) According to Dr. Harold Buttram, who studied the data, “it could be inferred that interference with the natural course of the disease significantly dampened the immune responses of the children.”(27) The authors of the study noted that the “adverse effect of antipyretics, which makes the course of the disease longer, facilitates superinfections which give rise to high mortality.”(28) This study also suggests that “children suffering from measles should be kept warm enough in order to have fever and pass the disease safely.”(29)

            Dr. Robert Mendelsohn agrees that fevers should not be suppressed: “Doctors do a great disservice to you and your child when they prescribe drugs to reduce his fever… When your child contracts an infection, the fever that accompanies it is a blessing, not a curse… A rising body temperature simply indicates that the process of healing is speeding up. It is something to rejoice over, not to fear.”(30) Other researchers have noted that “the development of cancer may quite possibly have been given a boost in certain cases through the repression of febrile conditions.”(31) In fact, pyrexia (a condition resulting from fever inducers) has been used in the prevention and treatment of carcinomas.(32) Despite the evidence implicating antipyretics in prolonging disease and raising mortality rates, Dr. Scheibner ruefully observes that “the relentless suppression of fever in children with measles is still widely practiced.”(33)”

            http://thinktwice.com/measles.htm

          • Acleron

            Is a disease that kills and maims dangerous?

            Difficult question that one.

          • Acleron

            Autoimmune disease occurs because the immune system is too active. Strengthening it non specifically would induce autoimmune disease and allergies. Sonja mentioned that you didn’t know how the immune system works. Perhaps you should pay attention to her.

          • ciaparker2

            Autoimmune disease occurs when the Th-2 branch of the immune system has been overstimulated, usually by vaccines. Any antigen in anything injected (not just vaccines, but including them) can sensitize the immune system to it or substances closely resembling it. The immune system becomes very alarmed at the sudden, unnatural invasion of these antigens of its territory, and under natural conditions, its inflammation would be a healthy and helpful response to neutralizing the threat. But vaccines are not natural. Vaccines are designed to cause an inflammatory response: if they didn’t, no antibodies to the vaccine pathogen would be produced. But this inflammation is often excessive and involves the brain (vaccine encephalitis), which can and often does cause autism, ADHD, seizure disorders, and/or learning and behavioral disabilities from the brain damage. Or it can sensitize the immune system to vaccine components, so that the next time(s) it perceives them, it attacks the substance which resembles the ingredient which sensitized the immune system to it. And this causes all of the many autoimmune disease, which used to be rare, but now have become very common since the vaccine epidemic started in 1988 with the introduction of three doses of the Hib vaccine. And then many more.

            An infant is born with the Th-2 system predominating, but the task of the first year is for the baby to develop his Th-1 system to become predominant. The Th-2 system depends on antibodies, which should be the less important way to combat disease. The Th-1 system depends on cell-mediated immunity rather than antibodies, and the microbial challenges the infant faces as he grows educate and strengthen the Th-1 system, which is as it should be. Vaccines depend entirely on antibody production, which is not a good thing. And the Th-1 system works by sensitization to foreign substances, which is what causes autoimmune disease, weakening the immune system as a whole. And that is why at this time one in nine vaccinated children has asthma, one in three allergies, one in ten bowel disease, and one in two hundred diabetes. Etc.

            Neither you nor Sonja knows squat about the immune system.

          • Acleron

            Autoimmune disease is not usually caused by vaccines but by microbial infection in those cases with an extrinsic trigger.

            The autoimmune action is promoted by Th1 type cytokines. Th1 cytokines are controlled by Th2 cytokines in a complex feedback control system.

            The immune system is insensate, it doesn’t get alarmed.

            The rest is just your totally wrong antivaxxer dribble.

          • ciaparker2

            Doesn’t get alarmed? Just exists passively, allowing itself to be killed unless it gets help from modern pharma drugs or vaccines? What a dream world you live in.

          • Acleron

            The immune system is one of the most complex systems in biology. It helps that when someone wants to coopt it for their own agenda they at least get the basics correct. It reacts through feedback loops, it doesn’t get emotionally disturbed.

          • ciaparker2

            stay here

          • ciaparker2

            Autoimmune disease was very rare before vaccines. Allergies, for example, require the abnormal introduction into the bloodstream of an allergen: the circulatory system was designed to be a closed system, and anything entering it was submitted to careful processing by the appropriate system. When you inject an antigen (which can be ANYTHING), or when a natural injection like a bee sting introduces a foreign substance into the blood, it often sensitizes the immune system to that substance. Occasionally a physical problem can create holes in the digestive system through which undigested food can enter the bloodstream, and that used to very rarely cause a food allergy, but food allergies were almost unknown before vaccines. After vaccines were introduced a little over a hundred years ago, food allergies such as those to milk or eggs sometimes occurred, but became more common as more people got more vaccines. There was no peanut allergy anywhere in the world before flu vaccines with peanut protein began to be used in the late 1960s. Peanut allergy became much more common with the introduction of the Hib series in 1988, not only because of the peanut oil adjuvant used in some vaccines, but because the Hib germ resembles peanut protein in its structure, causing cross-reactivity. And at that time the peanut allergy epidemic began, exploding in every country which introduced the vaccine within a few years of its introduction. The incidence of sometimes fatal peanut allergy in the US multiplied by a factor of three in just three years after its introduction in 1988. See Heather Frasier, The Peanut Allergy Epidemic. In the 1940’s, an allergy to cottonseed oil became common and sometimes fatal: it had never existed before, but they started to use cottonseed oil as an adjuvant in injected penicillin (a new drug at that time), and it immediately started to cause cottonseed allergy in thousands of people in the US. When they realized what was happening and stopped using cottonseed oil adjuvant, cottonseed allergy disappeared.
            Bowel disease now occurs in one in ten American children, manifesting as chronic diarrhea or constipation, Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, and it is also caused by an autoimmune vaccine reaction.

          • Acleron

            How am I not surprised you know nothing about allergy.

            Most allergens are not injected into the bloodstream. The commonest are airborne.

            Allergy needs exposure, do you know what increased at the same time as the increase in peanut allergy? Peanut consumption.

            Type I allergies require an aqueous macromolecule with at least two epitope sites in close proximity exposed to bind to immune cells. Perhaps you’d like to educate us into how this happens with an oil.

            Food allergies don’t occur because of holes in the gut, that would just leak into the peritoneum.

            Grief, you are a walking misinformation campaign all on your own.

          • ciaparker2

            The airborne allergies are initiated by the vaccine sensitization in most cases. Food allergies involve holes in the gut which leak into the bloodstream. Many unfortunate results can follow, but one of them is that the undigested peptides get a fast track to the brain, where gluten and casein peptides (in the case of sensitization to those substances) can then produce opioid reactions in the brain and abnormal behaviors. The pertussis vaccine is notorious for initiating asthma, and those who have gotten the vaccine are many times more likely to develop asthma than those who have not. And, as I already said, the Hib vaccine, and to a much lesser degree other vaccines, produces peanut allergy.

          • Acleron

            Hay fever was described by Rhazes in the 10th century. Somewhat before vaccines.

            Oh why do I bother, you just fabricate to push your agenda which appears to involve mass deaths and illness to your daughter.

            But just one stupidity which is so colossally wrong it is incredible.

            Don’t you know anything about pressure? Fluids move from high pressure to low pressure. So guess what you’d get if there were holes in the gut connected to the blood stream.

          • ciaparker2

            Not before the smallpox vaccine, which caused a lot of neurological and autoimmune damage, as well as withered limbs, cancer at the vaccination site, anaphylaxis, syphilis, TB, leprosy, and death. And smallpox. There was no hay fever before the smallpox vaccine, but there was afterwards. It, like all vaccines, primitive and worthless as it was, yet provoked the immune system into its usual disabling reactions in tens of thousands.
            What worthless propaganda you pour out. The polio vaccine I think was beneficial, although it caused cancer in many (SV40) and other adverse reactions in many. The DT is probably a good idea for most, though not absolutely necessary for most either. The others we don’t need. In the ’80s, the only vaccines given until the HIb series in 1988 (and the peanut allergy epidemic), were DPT, MMR, and polio. I was a child before the MMR, and just got measles and rubella, like nearly everyone else. No one worried about it. No autism, no bowel disease, and very few deaths from measles. Pertussis became much less dangerous than it had been over fifty years ago. Sweden suspended it for seventeen years, 1979 to 1997, and while 60% of Swedish children got pertussis in those years, there was only less than one death a year from it. My thrice-vaxxed daughter got it at eight months old and gave it to me: unpleasant and long-lasting, but not dangerous. The booster at 18 months erased her only words and she was diagnosed with autism two months later. High-dose IV vitamin C will treat pertussis, and parents should be taught to shelter young infants at home for the first four or five months, after which pertussis is not dangerous to them. In other words, we didn’t and don’t need the very dangerous pertussis vaccine which causes asthma, allergies, seizure disorders, SIDS, autism, and other severe conditions. Nor do we need any of the others, and without them fewer children would be damaged or immune-compromised by them, and could once again benefit by getting the childhood diseases naturally. If they didn’t get the pertussis vaccine, we could go back to the low incidence of HIb meningitis in 1941, before the pertussis vaccine. It quadrupled in incidence by 1968, because the pertussis vaccine depresses immune function for at least a month after vaccination, allowing infections like polio (in the ’50s) and meningitis to take hold.

          • Acleron

            You’ve made it clear that facts are not your forte but surely you can count. Rhazes described hay fever in the 10th century. Now count forward and I’m pretty sure you will find that 10 comes before 18. Sheesh.

            Polio vaccine did not cause cancer and I’m pretty sure that the smallpox vaccine didn’t cause leprosy.

            Having being found wrong, cue the displacement activity again.

          • Mike Stevens

            “what worthless propaganda you pour out”
            Yes folks, that’s Cia Parker talking. Just after saying this earlier in the same paragraph:
            “Not before the smallpox vaccine, which caused a lot of neurological and autoimmune damage, as well as withered limbs, cancer at the vaccination site, anaphylaxis, syphilis, TB, leprosy, and death. And smallpox. “

            Please send the invoices for your irony meter repairs to CiaParker2.

            Cia, apart from the inanity of your ideas about the side effects of the smallpox vaccine (although I agree it had problems, so thank god vaccination eradicated the disease so we don’t need the vaccine any more), can I ask why you think it gave people “smallpox”? You must know that smallpox vaccine contains an entirely different virus. Or do you think it has protean properties and superpowers?

          • shay simmons

            The smallpox vaccine caused syphilis?

            Wow. That tops even the schizophrenia story.

          • ciaparker2

            I was speaking of the smallpox vaccine in the nineteenth century. It turned out that cowpox doesn’t prevent smallpox at all. Jenner got the idea that mixing pus from horse grease, a hoof disease, with cowpox pus might work better, but it didn’t do a thing to prevent smallpox. A lot of people were turned off by the idea of scratching rotten animal exudate into their flesh, especially since everyone was well aware of the large number killed or disabled by vaccination, and they thought it was more sensible to use the arm to arm method and scratch pus from actual smallpox lesions into their flesh, but unfortunately, that just served to kick off huge epidemics of smallpox. There were hundreds of thousands of “correctly” vaccinated people all over Europe who caught smallpox and died of it. Surely you know about the huge epidemic in Birmingham, don’t you? Let me look it up real quick. Smallpox epidemics in an almost 100% vaccinated population because it was the law, in 1872, 1874, and 1883.

            http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S616.htm

          • Sonja Henie

            As Mark Twain said (paraphrasing) “Better to stay off the keyboard and be thought a fool than to post and remove all doubt”.

            Jenner observed that milkmaids and others who had cowpox seldom got smallpox and made his vaccine from cowpox virus.

          • Mike Stevens

            Iv;e seldom heard such unmitigated BS in my life. Where do you source your “info” on smallpox vaccination from, Cia? The “Antivax Compendium of Fantastic Fairy Tales”?

            Tell me, do you believe say, blood transfusions are a worthwhile and beneficial intervention? Leave aside the fact that they aren’t recommended for everyone, but hear what the historical facts are on them, using your own MO to spread alarm and fear about them.

            Do you know that this technique used to kill around 50% of those who received it? And that it still often causes severe damage to the recipients?

            It causes skin infections, severe sepsis syndromes, spreads lethal diseases like CMV, borreliosis, Salmonella, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis A, HIV, Malaria, Syphilis, Toxoplasmosis, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathies.
            It results in Haemolytic reactions, Non-haemolytic febrile reactions, Allergic reactions to proteins, IgA Transfusion-related acute lung injury, Reactions secondary to bacterial contamination, Circulatory overload, Air embolism, Thrombophlebitis, Hyperkalaemia, Citrate toxicity, Hypothermia, Clotting abnormalities and haemolysis, Graft-vs-host disease, Iron overload, Hypocalcaemia, and Immune sensitisation by Rhesus D antigen.
            Also reported in transfusion recipients are leukaemias, lymphomas, cancers, heart disease, bleeding abnormalities, platelet disorders, diabetes, neonatal abnormalities and autism.

            Humans should not be transfused – without it they will avoid exposure to disease and death, and those who are not transfused have a far lower incidence of all types of disease, especially blood disorders like haemolytic disease, leukaemia, cancer and lymphoma. those in traumatic accidents who have not been transfused have a much higher survival rate.

          • ciaparker2

            Quite right. Most medical interventions have both potential risks and benefits. Some have only risks. The patient must inform himself and choose accordingly, making peace with the impossibility of making a 100% beneficial and safe choice.

            The big problem with the nineteenth century smallpox vaccine is that there’s little evidence of its ever having done any good for anybody. There were no smallpox epidemics before the vaccine, just outbreaks of smaller dimensions than epidemics. After the vaccine, there were many large epidemics in which hundreds of thousands of appropriately vaxxed people died of smallpox (that would have been the arm to arm vaccination practice of giving people smallpox).

            In the US, and presumably other First World countries, there was no need for any smallpox vaccination in the twentieth century, as the disease had become so much milder after the outbreak in 1897 that it caused few deaths and ever fewer. Many were disabled or killed by the vaccine at a time when the disease was essentially no longer dangerous.

            I don’t know much about the smallpox vaccine used in Third World countries, presumably made the usual way by that time by attenuating the smallpox virus. I know that smallpox disappeared from areas that did not give the vaccine at all, as well as from those which did, something open to several interpretations. And I know that smallpox was never a big problem in Japan and the Philippines until the Americans introduced the smallpox vaccine, giving it to hundreds of thousands, and, for the first time, there were huge smallpox epidemics killing, again, hundreds of thousands.

            So we are left with the imperative of everyone researching the issue and making his own decision for himself and his children. That is, we would if smallpox were still around, which it probably is not, although monkey pox and yellow pox are very similar and are still around (in certain areas of some developing countries).

            But the basic idea is that no one should believe anything a doctor says about anything without getting a second (and third) opinion and doing a lot of independent research from outside the medical fold.

          • ciaparker2

            Already disappeared. Nail it down. Will it do any good?

          • Mike Stevens

            You don’t know much about smallpox vaccine at all, Cia.
            Still think it causes smallpox, do you?

          • ciaparker2

            http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/08/27/vaccination-a-mythical-history-by-roman-bystrianyk-and-suzanne-humphries-md/

            From the Wallace document I cited the other day:

            [[p. 16]] V. Thirty Years of Rapidly Decreasing Vaccination in Leicester, and its Teachings.

            (1) The great manufacturing town of Leicester, with nearly 200,000 inhabitants, affords the most conclusive proof of the uselessness of vaccination that it is possible to have; and the doctors and government officials carefully avoid dealing with it except to prophecy evils which have never come to pass.

            Down to 1872 Leicester was one of the most completely vaccinated towns in the kingdom, the number of vaccinations, owing to alarm after epidemics, several times exceeding the number of births. Yet in 1871, at the very height of its good vaccination record, it was attacked by the epidemic with extreme severity, its small-pox deaths during that year being more than 3,500 per million of the population, or about a thousand per million more than the mortality in London during the same epidemic. If ever a test experiment existed it is this of Leicester, where an almost completely vaccinated community suffered more than unvaccinated and terribly insanitary London, on the average of the last forty years of the eighteenth century.

            But even more conclusive evidence is to come.

            (2) That fearful mortality destroyed the faith of Leicester in vaccination. Poor and rich alike, the workers and even the municipal authorities began to refuse vaccination for their children. This refusal continued till, in 1890, instead of 95 per cent. the vaccinations reached only 5 per cent. of the births! [[p. 17]] As this ominous decrease of vaccination went on the doctors again and again prophesied against it, that once small-pox was introduced it would run through the town like wildfire and decimate the population. Yet it has been introduced again and again, but it has never spread; and from that day to this no town in the kingdom of approximately equal population has had such a very low small-pox mortality as this almost completely unvaccinated and–as the doctors say–unprotected population! Surely this completes the demonstration that vaccination, instead of preventing, increases the liability to small-pox, and that the only way to abolish the disease is to do as Leicester did, leave off vaccination altogether and devote our energies to sanitation, and the isolation of such rare cases as do occur.

            Yet this wonderfully conclusive test experiment was passed over by the Royal Commissioners in 1894, with a few scattered remarks, which are either absolutely untrue or entirely beside the question. (See “Vaccination a Delusion,” p. 277.)”

          • Sonja Henie

            LOL, “Vaccination Council”! An anti-vax site of dubious reliability. Try reading this, cia, not a pro-vax site: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/07/victorian-anti-vaccinators-personal-belief-exemption/398321/

          • Mike Stevens

            You rely on 19th century fairy tales for your scientific evidence?
            Good luck with that Cia.

          • Sonja Henie

            cia, can you count? Smallpox vaccine was developed in 1798, the end of the 18 th century. How much earlier was the 10th century? Count on your fingers. You have enough.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I was a child before the MMR, and just got measles and rubella, like nearly everyone else. No one worried about it. No autism

            That’s weird Cia. Here’s another quote from you:

            ciaparker2 Michael McCarthy • 4 days ago
            Mercury was first put into a vaccine, the diphtheria vaccine, in 1932, and the children who formed the first autistic cohort examined by Dr. Leo Kanner in the late 1930s were born after that date. Some got autism from the mercury in the vaccine

            I know it is hard to keep up so many lies, but lying about the same thing in the same thread is really a bad idea.

          • ciaparker2

            Nail it down

          • ciaparker2

            Some studies which show that you are either an uninformed blowhard or are knowingly prevaricating, otherwise known as — when millions of lives are in the balance. Which is it?

            Bersen RM, Nagelkerke NJ, et al. Reported pertussis infection and risk of atopy in 8- to 12-year-old vaccinated and non-vaccinated children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2008 Feb; 19(1): 46-52. Children vaccinated against pertussis were significantly more likely than unvaccinated children to develop asthma, hay fever, and food allergies. This study evaluated an association between pertussis infection and allergic diseases by dividing 1,882 8-12 year old children into two groups that were either pertussis-vaccinated or pertussis unvaccinated in the first year of life. Pertussis-vaccinated children were more
            than twice as likely as petussis unvaccinated children to have asthma
            (OR=2.24), hay fever (OR=2.35), and food allergies (OR=2.68).

            Kemp T, Pearce N, et al. Is infant immunization a risk factor for childhood asthma or allergy? Epidemiology 1997 Nov; 8(6): 678-80.
            In New Zealand, researchers investigated 1,265 children and discovered that of
            those who received diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and polio vaccines, 23% had
            episodes of asthma while 30% had consultations for other allergic illness.
            Children who did not receive these vaccines had no recorded asthma episodes or
            consultations for allergic illness.

            McDonald KL, Huq SI, et al. Delay in DPT vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of childhood asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2008 Mar; 121(3): 626-31. (The Manitoba study) Getting the pertussis vaccine later than recommended greatly decreased incidence of asthma. 11,531 Canadian children were the subjects. In those children who did not get the vaccine at two months old but delayed at least two months, the risk of asthma was reduced by half. Risk declined even further in children who delayed all three initial doses. In those who started at two months old, asthma at seven years old in 13.8%. Those who started at three months old, 10.3% got asthma. Those who started at 4 months old, 9.1% got asthma. Those who delayed more than four months of age, 5.9%. (This obviously means that the thousands of children who die from asthma every year died because they got the pertussis vaccine very early, meaning when recommended by the medical industry.)

            Bremmer SA, Carey IM, et al. Timing of routine immunizations and subsequent hay fever risk. Arch DIs Child 2005; 90: 567-73.
            Children who delayed pertussis, MMR, or BCG shots beyond the recommended age
            (by the medical cartel) were significantly less likely to develop hay fever.
            Two large UK databases of more than 116,000 children examined to look at how
            timing affected incidence of hay fever. Those who delayed the first DPT shot
            until after 1 year old had a 40% reduced risk of developing hay fever compared
            to children vaxxed by 5 months of age as recommended (OR=0.60). Those who
            delayed MMR until after 2 years old had 38% reduced risk of developing hay
            fever as compared to children vaxxed by 14 months of age as recommended
            (OR=0.62). Children who got BCG shot before second birthday had a much greater
            risk of hay fever compared to children who never got it or got it later
            (OR=1.34).

          • ciaparker2

            nail it down

          • Acleron

            You didn’t notice I hadn’t responded to your pertussis statement.

            “A person who has ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction after a previous dose of any diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis containing vaccine, OR has a severe allergy to any part of this vaccine, should not get Tdap vaccine. Tell the person giving the vaccine about any severe allergies.”

            TDAP vaccine information sheet.

            Everything else you have uttered about immunology and allergy is just fabricated.

          • ciaparker2

            nail it down with silver nails

          • Sonja Henie

            Tell us all about your immunology education-courses taken, internships held, etc.

          • ciaparker2

            keep it here

          • Sonja Henie

            Go Fly Your kite, cia. That’s bull.

          • John

            Sonja,your patience with Cia is unbelievable,you must have been a hell of a nurse.I myself am done with her,she is like a broken record,she goes ON and ON and ON with the same old BS.

          • Sonja Henie

            Why thank you, John! I’m getting to that point myself with cia.

          • shay simmons

            to talk about “training” it

            I wonder if cia recommends a martingale, a choke, or a prong collar? Training an immune system has to be at least as challenging as training a German Shepherd.

          • Acleron

            Bet she tries talking it into submission.

          • shay simmons

            Maybe she just nails it down.

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia said she had to google what “bird flu” was yesterday.
            It’s clear she knows nothing of any import about influenza strains.

          • 1 in 10 children with measles ends up in HOSPITAL, Cia. In the UK. Where the government pays for it via NHS and thus has if anything, a financial incentive to avoid doing this.

          • ciaparker2

            Because everyone now hits the panic button when they hear that it’s measles. Measles is very rarely dangerous in well-nourished children in developed countries. When they are hospitalized in developed countries, it’s from needless panic or for common, self-limiting conditions like diarrhea, bronchitis, ear infection, conjunctivitis, or similar. Pneumonia occurs in one in twenty cases, but it’s nearly always viral, mild, and self-limiting. When it’s bacterial, it can usually be treated with antibiotics, and those unusual cases would be appropriately treated in a hospital. There are no safe medical treatments for measles per se. Antivirals like Tamiflu are so dangerous themselves that they’re rarely used. When I was a child, 99% of kids got measles by the age of 18, and no one I knew or ever heard of was hospitalized for it: we just stayed in bed at home, went through the high fever and rash, and then got well, with permanent immunity and protection from many diseases, including many cancers, in later life.
            So what was the incentive of the GMC to persecute Dr. Wakefield at journalist Brian Deer’s insistence (NOT paid by the Sunday Times or the television channel he said paid him to bring and attend the hearings)? High Court Judge Mitting said that they had used shallow reasoning to reach false conclusions, and ruled that a legal board must be included in further prosecutions of the innocent to avoid such abuses in the future. And he restored the licenses of Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch, which had been taken from them for alerting the public as to bowel disease being associated with autism (and both starting soon after the MMR).

          • Go read the actual cases, Cia.

            And again, you still don’t understand how the UK works.

          • ciaparker2

            So provide me with the actual cases. I know that everyone involved in the medical industry anywhere at any level is human, and after decades of propaganda about what a deadly disease measles is, right up there with Ebola or cholera, most doctors when faced with a patient with a fever of 40 degrees Celsius are going to panic and put him in the hospital, even though it is not necessary, and is even harmful, unless there are other symptoms of serious involvement, such as a bacterial infection of the lungs.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            You think Tamiflu is unsafe; you think vaccines are unsafe; yet you don’t even investigate this homeo crap you take and the “organic” food you eat b/c you don’t have time. You’d have time if you quit spending you days on AoA and Google “researching” vaccines.

          • transportjohnny
          • Acleron

            That seems clear, if you have a deficiency in VitA then the depletion on infection causes more problems. Better not to get an infection. Even better would be to get enough VitA in the diet. Efforts to do this with golden rice are being thwarted by the antiGMO nutters. There is nothing to say that overdosing does any good.

          • ciaparker2

            Thanks, I just added yours to my file with the studies I posted here yesterday on the many benefits of vitamin A for measles!

          • transportjohnny

            Measles….just try it for any viral infection. Drastically reduces cold virus’……………………..but that would be called “anecdotal”……LOL….Anecdotal my arse…..as one might say in Ireland!!!!

          • transportjohnny

            I think there is too much conflation of homeopaths, integrative docs, holistic docs, naturopathy..etc….etc…….they all are lumped together……

          • Please quote-and-link to where

            1)Mike recognized that hospitals have no safe treatment for measles or any other viral diseases

            AND (this means BOTH)

            2)Where Sonja recognised that hospitals have no safe treatment for measles or any other viral disease.

            Quote-and-link. Thank you.

          • ciaparker2

            Which is why allopathic medicine is fighting so hard to keep the vaccine profits coming in, it has nothing safe to offer for viral infections. The population is larger now, but we also know how effective A is at preventing measles complications, and how important it is not to give any fever reducers. As well as other naturopathic, vitamin, and homeopathic treatments. At this time it is impossible to speculate how many deaths there would be. As I said, we have millions more seriously immunocompromised children and adults than we had in the ’60s, from overvaccination, which skews the possibilities in the other direction. So we don’t know. For sensible people, the risk of death from measles would be even lower now than it was in 1960.

          • Sonja Henie

            Why are you yapping about “safety”? Is that going to be your meme for today, like “nail it down” was yesterday? Tell me what UNSAFE treatments are being foisted on patients hospitalized with viral illnesses. Be specific.

          • And make sure that they are specifically MORE unsafe than the viral illnesses. Be specific.

          • Mike Stevens

            I have decided you must be a Poe, Cia.
            No one but a Poe could come up with the bat sh1t craziness you do.

          • Acleron

            30C bat guano to cure stupidity? We could call it Flittermus Excrementum.

          • shay simmons

            Homeopathy to treat strep throat. Oh my stars.

          • Mike Stevens

            Not just strep throat – homeopathy apparently cures everything (except for some reason, autism and “vaccine damage”).
            And Vitamin C of course – that according to Cia can cure not just all the childhood infections like polio and pertussis and measles, but also rabies, Ebola and HIV, .

          • Acleron
          • Mike Stevens

            Nope!
            I’ve asked Dullman about that a few times. Funny thing is, he’s never answered.

          • Acleron

            Nor me and I even found him a label he could use.

          • AutismDadd

            It may cure stupidity Mike…quick make that appointment.

          • So homeopathy works and yet she is against a diluted version of the disease being injected into her kid?

          • ciaparker2

            How did the mortality rate become this high? In 1960 in the US it was one death per 10,000 cases, less then that in the age group most commonly affected, between three and ten. You are ignoring the official statistics in the articles at the links I posted above. US: one in 10,000; UK: one or two in 10,000; Europe five years ago: three in 10,000.
            If no fever reducers were given to measles patients, there would be almost zero cases of measles encephalitis. Most cases of encephalitis resolve without permanent damage, although about a quarter die and a quarter suffer brain damage. But the rate of measles encephalitis before it became common to give fever reducers was only one in 10,000 cases, one in 15,000 cases in toddlers. It would be better to teach people NOT to give fever reducers ever, for any fever, and there would be very few sequelae.

          • Mike Stevens

            I ask you again, Cia… Why are you comfortable with 2 deaths in every 10,000 measles cases [particularly when vaccination would reduce measles cases to near zero, with corresponding reduction in deaths]?

            Now I know you just pretend that if only parents would avoid fever reducers, fill up their kids with Vitamin X and feed them homeopathic chamomile while the parents croon lullabies, then nobody would die, but we are talking real life here Cia, not some rose tinted magical fantasy fairyland where nobody dies or gets ill.

            BTW, you seem very firm on the concept that fever reducers increase the rate of encephalitis/deaths in measles.
            Can we see a comparative trial please where there are 2 groups of measles sufferers – one who got fever reducers, one who got placebo (randomised and double blinded naturally)?
            That would be the only way to arrive at the conclusion you seem to have drawn that fever reducers are harmful…
            Alternatively, I’d consider a case controlled study with a retrospective analysis of fever reducer use in measles cases.

            Can you provide this evidence Cia?
            If not, can I ask why you think fever reducers cause encephalitis and kill children with measles? Please don’t tell us you are relying on someone’s “book” where they said so, that would be laughable.

          • ciaparker2

            I replied to this earlier, but it’s no longer here or in my profile. I’ve got translating to do. I’ll only refer the reader to the links in my comment above, which show that the mortality rate even in Europe five years ago was only three in 10,000 cases, one in 10,000 in the US in 1960, and one or two in 10,000 in the UK in the ’80s. Is it that vaccine madness has destroyed our children’s immune systems to the point that measles is twenty times deadlier than it was a few years ago, or is it that someone is cooking the statistics?

          • ciaparker2

            Nail it down as hard as possible.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            Really, cia, this “nail it down” is getting ridiculous!

          • ciaparker2

            A lot of comments disappear if there is no reply to them. And if Nail it down is exactly the same in order to put up a reply, it says I’ve already said that.

          • Mike Stevens

            “I replied to this earlier, but it’s no longer here or in my profile.”
            Yes, I saw that post Cia, and quickly scrambled my “stealth blocking” mode, so it would vanish and no-one could “nail it down”… yeah…

            Just what statistics is it you think people are cooking?
            in 1960 there were 450 deaths from acute measles, and probably around 40-50 deaths from chronic complications such as SSPE.
            Let’s call that 500 deaths a year, from around 3.5 million cases (assuming around 90% of each birth cohort gets measles).
            That is a case fatality of one in 7,800 for acute measles, and one in 7,000 for acute and chronic measles.
            The rates in the UK and in Europe are by all accounts slightly higher. Nobody is “cooking the statistics”. Do you really expect measles to have exactly the same mortality wherever you go in the world? Are all health systems the same, and all countries blessed with identical numbers of ITUs, doctors etc?
            Be sensible please.

          • ciaparker2

            Have I not said dozens of times that the death rate in the US in 1960 was overall one in 10,000 cases, less than that in children between three and ten, one or two in 10,000 in the UK in the ’80s, and three in 10,000 in Europe five years ago? Slightly different rates. And dozens of times that the mortality rate is much higher in malnourished children in the Third World, as high as one in ten in Africa?
            Two years ago I saw in an American article that a doctor solemnly swore that measles killed two in every thousand cases, one in 500. Who’s cooking the figures? There’s no basis anywhere for one death in 500 cases. So why did he say it? To monger fear, perchance, and push the vaccine?
            And if you saw my earlier comment, what happened to it? It wasn’t even in my profile, I.F. doesn’t seem to be able to disappear fifty pages of comments at one go on this site, or I’m sure he would. Well done, Spectator moderators, if you refused his bid for a place at your table! You have had many of your comments disappeared when you were interacting with me; once you said in disgust What’s the point? It was nothing personal, but it would have looked silly to have left all of yours floating around in the abyss without mine for context and meaning. Or, I don’t know, he’s such a nihilist, I would have thought it would appeal to his sense of humor.

          • Acleron

            Cia pulling the mortality rather than the infection and morbidity rate scam yet again.

            Try actually reading the only factual reference you made and tell us what it says.

          • ciaparker2

            nail it down

          • Sonja Henie

            Go Fly Your kite.

          • Mike Stevens

            “At this time, I think we’re still in time to allow measles to come back with very little danger.”

            Yes Cia, you’ve told us before how you long for its return, and how you would “relish” measles coming back.
            You are a danger and a menace to society.
            If all children in the world were vaccinated over a 5 year period, measles would be eradicated from the planet, and nobody would need to die from it anymore, nor would we need to vaccinated any more.

          • AutismDadd

            So why aren’t the Vac makers GIVING away vaccines instead of selling them?

          • agscienceliterate

            The same reason “health food” folks (organic, in your mind) charge for food. Charge considerably more, actually.

          • AutismDadd

            Another Duh Moment brought to you by Ag-boy

          • agscienceliterate

            Vaccines are available at no cost to people who can’t afford them.
            http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/index.html

            How come you didn’t know that?

          • AutismDadd

            Because it isn’t true. Do you think Gov’t pays for them or do you think they are free….DOH… Homer. And I actually was referring to all the whining about the third world illness where Pharma DOESN’T give vacs for free unless they are using the poor as free test subjects.

          • Damo

            US citizens pay more for medicine than anyone else in the world. Why do you think that is? Because we are subsidizing the expense of developing these medicines so people in the third world (and Europe) can get them at ridiculously low prices.

          • AutismDadd

            Proof please. And That’s crapola

          • ciaparker2

            But then no one could get the superior immune system provided by measles, nor would they get the protection from heart disease, strokes, many skin and bone diseases, and many cancers that natural measles provides. At this time cancer kills about half of all people eventually, a much higher portion than when everyone got measles. I’d rather get measles.

          • You have a typo, cia.

            “Inferior immune system provided by measles.” is what your comment should read. Please fix it.

            Of course cancer kills more now than when measles was universal. Children who died of measles did not get cancer in their old age.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/edded4fe5f115711f13c61b58bf892670bc2551f5284b3373592da04491cdc8c.png

          • Cia, try approaching your arguments from the possibility that you might be wrong.

            I might be wrong and here’s how you prove it to me:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c130cc76eddfc381705d7df2933291f86edfba653b15beef3bb6a93b92945cdd.png

          • ciaparker2

            And then the cancer mortality rates would become even higher than they are now, as well as heart disease and strokes, as natural measles prevents untimely deaths from all of these diseases. Take your pick. I’d take natural measles any day.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            Oh, h*ll, cia. You’re out in left field with this one. Do you think there were no cancers, heart disease and strokes prior to vaccines? In point of fact, deaths from strokes and heart disease are DECLINING!
            http://news.heart.org/heart-disease-death-rate-continues-to-drop/

            Wake up and smell the coffee, cia!

          • ciaparker2

            Of course not. But cancer was rare in 1900 and before that. I said “untimely” because everyone has to die of something eventually, but natural measles has been shown to reduce their incidence. Cancer, on the other hand, has exploded in the last century, so that it’s now the second leading cause of death, first in Europe, I think. And getting the childhood diseases in childhood reduces its incidence by quite a bit, some studies showing that incidence is reduced by 25% of each childhood disease contracted at the right time, in childhood. Not bad for a few days in bed with a high fever.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            No response to the heart attack and stroke I see. Check these out:
            http://www.livescience.com/21213-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-u-s-since-1900-infographic.html

          • ciaparker2

            Kubota Y, Iso H, et al. Association of measles and mumps
            with cardio-vascular disease: the Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC study.
            Atherosclerosis 2015 Jun 18; 241(2): 682-86. Having measles and/or mumps in
            childhood protects against deadly heart attacks and strokes during adulthood.

            Of course it’s not going to be 100%, or even close to it, but it helps, and the protection against cancer is much stronger. It’s better all around to just get the childhood diseases as a child.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            Oh, god, we’ve been there, done that cia! These people had measles and mumps back when everyone got it. This is a crock of shyt.

          • ciaparker2

            Not correct. If you read the study, you’ll see that those who had a higher rate of heart attacks and stroke were among the relatively small group which had NOT gotten natural measles and mumps.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            I’ve read the study. The subjects were kids before a vaccine was available, so we don’t know if having the vaccine would give the same *alleged* protective effect.

          • ciaparker2

            This is what the study said:

            Kubota Y, Iso H, et al. Association
            of measles and mumps with cardio-vascular disease: the Japan Collaborative
            Cohort (JACC study. Atherosclerosis
            2015 Jun 18; 241(2): 682-86. Having measles and/or mumps in childhood
            protects against deadly heart attacks and strokes during adulthood. in a group
            of 43,589 men and 60,147 women 40-79 years of age, men who had had measles in
            childhood were much likely to die from total cardiovascular disease compared to
            men who were not infected with either measles or mumps (hazard ratio, HR=0.92).
            Men who had had natural mumps were significantly protected from dying of a
            stroke (HR=0.52). Men who had had both in childhood were much less likely to
            die of a heart attack (HR=0.71). Women who had both in childhood had an HR of
            0.83 for their reduced chance of dying of total cardiovascular disease,
            compared with women who had had neither. Their HR of reduced risk of dying of a
            stroke was 0.84. Childhood diseases caught in childhood are necessary for the
            normal development of the immune system regulating T helper cells, Th1 and Th2,
            which control inflammation of the arterial wall leading to atherosclerosis.

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia, the study authors indicate that most other studies on this do not indicate less cardiovascular disease in those who had measles. This study is an outlier.
            1. Why do you believe this study rather than the others? Does your massive confirmation bias influence your opinion?
            2. Since we know measles vaccine confers significant non-specific long term clinical survival benefits (as per Aaby’s work), why do you think this supposed benefit would be confined only to survivors of natural measles, and not those vaccinated with MMR/live measles vaccine? You would need a vaxed versus natural measles analysis to determine this. So where is it?

          • ciaparker2

            Many, perhaps even most, “studies” indicate that the MMR, hep-B, flu, Hib, and pertussis vaccines do not cause autism, but the honest ones indicate that they do. What this indicates is the need for more honest studies be done by researchers completely unaffiliated with pharmaceutical interests. Because we know that they do cause autism, seizure disorders, autoimmune disease, etc.
            Aaby’s Somalia study showed that children who got and recovered from natural measles had a huge long-term survival advantage (one-fifth the mortality in the subsequent five years), as those who either got the vaccine or simply did not get measles.
            You tell me. Why are the pharma companies refusing to allow honest comparative studies to be performed?

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            You tell me. Why do you continue to lie about this Aaby study? Huh?

          • ciaparker2

            From the study:

            “Exposed children developing clinical measles had lower age-adjusted mortality over the
            next 4 years than exposed children who did not develop
            clinical measles (P < 0.05)."

            http://www.academia.edu/12907021/Low_mortality_after_mild_measles_infection_compared_to_uninfected_children_in_rural_west_Africa

            Why you lie about reality is the real question. Why do you accuse me of lying when I always provide the scientific studies which support what I said? Are you under the impression that since money makes the world go round, anything it says to promote its interests must be the definition of truth?

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            We’ve been over and over and over this study many times. It doesn’t mean what you think it does.

            Why bring money into this? Because you have no other argument?

          • ciaparker2

            Only allegiance to moneyed interests could explain those who refuse to accept the truth demonstrated by scientific studies. The study showed 1) that having natural measles improves immune functioning quite a bit, resulting in a mortality only one-fifth as great in those who had and recovered from natural measles (90% even in malnourished Somalis) compared to those who did not have natural measles, and 2) natural measles does NOT depress immune functioning for years, but only for two or three weeks after the day the rash appears.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            cia, where are the “scientific” studies for homeopathy, for all this woo you tell people about caring for measles, etc. You know Mike destroyed that study of yours, which was not, in any case, peer reviewed.
            http://disq.us/p/1d1xlav
            http://disq.us/p/1cooxhy

          • ciaparker2

            Mike did not destroy it: facts are facts and Dr. Peter Aaby is an excellent and conscientious, award-winning researcher. But Mike is paid to try to discount every word I say about the dangers of vaccines, the innocuousness or rarity of the vaccine-preventable diseases, and certainly their benefits. He would lose this gig if he were ever to say: Wow, you’re right. How extraordinary that the African children who got natural measles had only tiny fraction of the death rate in subsequent years as those who didn’t. Who would have thought?
            And so he doesn’t.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            Oh, H*ll, cia, enough of this “paid” garbage! You know that’s a flat out, bold faced LIE. You’re getting quite desperate, with these delusions that you know more about measles than every health expert in the world. Go fly a kite!

          • ciaparker2

            Twinge of guilt?
            I know more about measles than those paid to promote the pharma agenda. And I had it at the age of six, as you did at seven, as Mike did at one, at a time when all children got it.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            The H*Il you do! Having the measles doesn’t mean you know squat about it, and you certainly don’t. You have evidenced that many times over.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            I have nothing to be guilty about, cia.

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia’s insistence she is a medical, epidemiological and immunological expert would be laughable were it not so appallingly dangerous. She also relies on the “experience” of doctors who have zero or limited clinical expertise (but loads of antivax propaganda info).
            I’ve seen more measles cases than virtually all of the people she quotes as “experts”, for example.
            I also recall the time Cia claimed to “know more about Hepatitis B than the CDC, the WHO and the AAP put together”.
            Unfortunately I didn’t screenshot that one.

          • Mike Stevens

            “But Mike is paid to try to discount every word I say about the dangers of vaccines”

            Sorry Cia, you know I work for the NHS and I get absolutely nothing from anyone to post here to correct your repeated lies and disinformation about vaccines. I do it for love, not money, and because I value human life.

            “How extraordinary that the African children who got natural measles had
            only tiny fraction of the death rate in subsequent years as those who
            didn’t. Who would have thought?”

            You do realise that a large proportion of those were children who were vaccinated, and had no clinical signs of measles as a result, but were categorised by Aaby as “subclinical measles” only on the basis of rise in measles antibody titres?

            Yes you do realise it, because I have pointed that out to you at least 5 times now.

            Yet you constantly skip over that fact, and try and pretend that survival advantage only applied to unvaxed kids, don’t you Cia.
            That is highly dishonest, and tantamount to lying.

          • Acleron

            Have to correct you, it is not tantamount lying.

          • Mike Stevens

            OK, it is lying.
            Thanks.

          • Acleron

            You have already displayed extreme confirmation bias but here you show you suffer from cognitive bias as well.

          • Mike Stevens

            You cherrypick and misrepresent data and ignore the totality of valid scientific evidence, Cia, that’s what is wrong with you.
            I’ve never met anyone as ineducable as you about infection, medicine, diseases, immunology and epidemiology.
            You’ve evolved your own homespun narrative pseudoscience, based on irrational belief in anecdotes from unreliable sources, misinterpretations of your own personal experience, and gross confirmation bias (among other significant cognitive biases)

          • ciaparker2

            Hey, Sonja, look at this comment by Mike! Now tell me, how did he disprove Dr. Aaby’s finding that children who had had clinical measles had GREATLY improved survival over those who did not? He did not, he just showered me with insults, obviously not a convincing way of making his would-be argument.

          • Mike Stevens

            Those aren’t insults, Cia, but honest observations.

            If you want insults I’ll give you some another time. Or maybe you’ll reprise your own comments like you have posted before where you told people to “go f*** themselves”, or that you wished they’d die from Ebola.

            PS: Aaby’s group with better survival was not composed of kids with “clinical measles”, but had a large proportion with “subclinical measles” because they had been vaccinated.

          • Michael McCarthy
          • If you could find two or three other studies that replicate Dr Aaby’s findings, that would help make your argument. One study alone is not enough.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Hey, Sonja, look at this comment by Mike! Now tell me, how did he disprove Dr. Aaby’s finding

            It probably becomes tiresome for Mike to repost the same thing over and over, you seem to have no problem posting the same lies over and over and over on different (and in some cases the same) threads. See
            here and here and here and here and here.
            See what I mean? Mike has explained this NUMEROUS times.

          • Mike Stevens

            Thank you Michael!
            As I thought, I had told Cia how she was misrepresenting this study at least 5 times before!

          • Michael McCarthy

            NP. Sadly, that is all just in this thread.

          • ciaparker2

            Tell me about it. I know I’m tired of reposting the same thing over and over. Now think about it. Why do you and your co-workers do it, and why do I and my friends, many of whom are also vaccine-injured or with severely vaccine-injured children do it? For much the same reason, nicht? You’re hoping to pull in prospective vaccinees and try to persuade them that there’s no danger in getting every last vaccine available, and we want them to be aware of just how dangerous they really are. You want their money, we want to save their lives. And so it goes.

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            What a false dichotomy.

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia, you “repost the same [wrong] thing over and over”
            That’s why people have to constantly correct you, because we value science, facts, evidence and the truth, whereas you value anecdote and blatant misinformation.

          • ciaparker2

            You want people to think that you are “correcting” me? Dream on…

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            cia, your posts are totally scientifically invalid. No other source in the entire world agrees with you. Most of your woo sources wouldn’t agree with some of your wildest claims.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Why do you and your co-workers do it

            Darling, the majority of my real coworkers can barely use e-mail, that anyone on these boards is a figment of your fevered imagination.

            try to persuade them that there’s no danger in getting every last vaccine available

            No Cia, this is another one of your lies. No one denies that vaccine injuries can happen.

            we want them to be aware of just how dangerous they really are

            No, you lie and make them appear to be horribly dangerous.

          • Mike Stevens

            I didn’t “disprove” his study, I put it into context and explained why what you think it says and means is quite different from what it actually says and means.
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/spectatorhealth/stuck_in_a_tedious_debate_with_a_homeopath_heres_how_to_settle_it/#comment-2942702070

            Hat tip to Mike McCarthy for digging my old posts out as proof!

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia, you’ve deliberately “forgotten” that counted among those with the lower mortality were a large number of those with “subclinical measles”, the majority of whom were vaccinated!

            Repeatedly lying by misrepresenting the group with low mortality as only being unvaccinated kids who had measles is, to put it bluntly, downright LYING.

          • Mike Stevens

            She lies about it because she has extreme cognitive dissonance on the point. To admit she is wrong in her interpretation of a study would be quite untenable for her psychologically speaking, so denial kicks in, with a huge dollop of backfire effect for good measure.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Just an FYI for you:
            ciaparker2 Mike Stevens • 3 hours ago
            Hey, Sonja, look at this comment by Mike! Now tell me, how did he disprove Dr. Aaby’s finding that children who had had clinical measles had GREATLY improved survival over those who did not? He did not, he just showered me with insults, obviously not a convincing way of making his would-be argument.

            I showed her 5 instances where Mike went over this with her.

          • Acleron

            Honesty is defined as whether the results agree with Cia’s delusions.

            These idiots will never understand the sheer number of people who would have to be in on this giant conspiracy.

          • Mike Stevens

            “Many, perhaps even most, “studies” indicate that the MMR, hep-B, flu,
            Hib, and pertussis vaccines do not cause autism, but the honest ones
            indicate that they do.”

            Cia, you haven’t even attempted to honestly respond to my comment. Never mind. ‘Twas ever thus.
            Can I ask how you determine which are the “honest” studies?
            …No…Wait! I got it! The “honest studies” are the ones that suggest vaccines cause autism (even though they are written by discredited quacks, proven frauds, those who don’t know or do any medicine, or those who used to but who are now struck off the medical register)

            “Why are the pharma companies refusing to allow honest comparative studies to be performed?”
            In case you didn’t know Cia, the Pharma companies don’t control what research studies are done. There is nothing stopping your own little clique of quacks from funding and carrying out such studies, should they wish to. Why didn’t Wakefield do it when he was researcher at Thoughtful House, for example?
            And why should Pharma waste money doing more studies which you would automatically say are invalid, because they were done by…… …..Pharma?

          • Cia, if you look at Ginger’s list of 126 studies that supposedly conclude vaccines cause autism, actually not one of them concludes vaccines cause autism. Meantime, there are 107+ good studies concluding vaccines do not cause autism. I fully explain here, with links.

            https://vaccinesworkblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/27/vaccines-do-not-cause-autism/

          • Sonja Henie-Spinning Jenny!

            Lying by not accepting reality.
            Look at this: http://www.livescience.com/21213-leading-causes-of-death-in-the-u-s-since-1900-infographic.html
            The top 3 causes of death in 1900 were communicable diseases. Note also drop in heart disease from 1959 to 2010.

            Note this about cancer: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/cancer-prevalent-usa-another-myth-debunked/
            “What the authors found was that rate of cancer in each age group is
            holding roughly constant. However, since society as a whole is aging,
            overall cancer incidence is increasing slightly–remember, our average
            life expectancy has skyrocketed since the 1920’s from approximately
            57.1 years for someone born in 1929 to 78.7 years for someone born today (pdf). That means more cancer events happen to people who used to die long before cancers appeared 100 years ago.”

            Spare us, cia. You’re full of it.

          • Mike Stevens

            “And then [with the eradication of measles] the cancer mortality rates would become even higher than they are now, as well as heart disease and strokes, as natural measles prevents untimely deaths from all of these diseases. Take your pick. I’d take natural measles any day.”

            Cia, why you are against the eventual eradication of measles is beyond me. You probably would “relish” smallpox returning too, no doubt.
            You have repeatedly failed to provide any valid/plausible evidence that having measles significantly reduces cancer rates, heart disease or strokes.
            Measles may have some very minimal beneficial effects, I will agree, but these hardly outweigh the massive benefit in survival and health that come with “not having” measles.

            You have also failed to establish that measles vaccination would not confer the same benefits that you talk about, since measles vaccine is a live virus it will have similar “non-specific” beneficial effects. Peter Aaby in his many studies in Africa has described clearly the numerous non-specific survival benefits from having measles vaccine which act over and above the benefits of the vaccine.

            A corollary can be seen with flu vaccine – it has a number of beneficial non-specific effects, such as reducing cardiovascular events and mortality.

            In essence, vaccine is good – a win-win situation, since people get protection from a sometimes lethal disease, and gain a degree of non-specific benefit just from being vaccinated.

            “Take your pick. I’d take natural measles any day.”
            I don’t care whether you personally get it or not, as long as you don’t infect others. But I feel for the millions of kids on this earth who would love to have the choice (and if they did would choose vaccine every time). You wish to remove that choice from the entire planet… “Good For You.”

          • ciaparker2

            Aaby specifically said that in the Senegal cases nearly all the patients had NOT received the vaccine. The deaths were so few because measles just isn’t dangerous in well-nourished, previously healthy children. It is dangerous in malnourished children, as many in Africa are.

          • Sonja Henie

            STOP!!!! JUST STOPPIT, cia! This is drivel and you know it.

          • ciaparker2

            From page 124 of the Aaby study: “Most clinical measles cases were unvaccinated and it seems unlikely that their lower mortality can be explained as being due to better care for these children.”

            I think you need to calm down. You’re trying to defend vaccines and deny the harm they often cause while trying to make the diseases seem more serious than they usually are. I am providing the sources for my reasons for believing entirely differently. That’s what we’re here for. Since I, my daughter, and many members of my family have suffered extremely serious, life-altering, and permanent reactions to vaccines, while not suffering severely from the many vaccine-preventable diseases we have had, measles among them for those in my generation and older, it is important to me to make people aware that much of what they hear and read is untrustworthy information designed to scare them into getting the vaccines. I try to provide the information which they need in order to make reasonable vaccine decisions.

          • Sonja Henie

            You can take your psychiatric advice and put it where the sun doesn’t shine. You are so frustratingly obstinate and frankly, ignorant.

            No health expert in the world would tell you that measles is beneficial. Not one.

            You have zero health care background, and a plethora of ridiculous beliefs. You have no business whatsoever of giving health advice to a toad, let alone to humans.

          • Mike Stevens

            You forget, Cia is convinced she knows more about measles than anyone on earth, except maybe a couple of her “go-to” quacks, whom she slavishly cites whenever she gets a chance.

          • Mike Stevens

            ^^^
            Well said Sonja!

          • Sonja Henie

            Thank you, Mike!

          • Mike Stevens

            But you are deliberately and obtusely misinterpreting the study, with your wall-eyed confirmation bias blasting away at maximum revolutions, Cia.

          • Mike Stevens

            No Cia, the analysis by Aaby took into account both clinical measles (66 cases, 9 of whom were vaccinated) as well as subclinical measles (52 cases, 44 of whom were vaccinated).

            That means that to derive the overall mortality reduction of “a fifth”, Aaby analysed 118 cases, 53 of whom were vaccinated.

            You claimed above that: “Aaby specifically said that in the Senegal cases nearly all the patients had NOT received the vaccine.”
            Once again you are shown to be lying… Around half the patients had received vaccine, a significant number, and this may well be linked to the reduced mortality, although this study i too small to demonstrate that statistically.

            Here is what Aaby said:
            “exposed children with clinical or sub-clinical measles had lower age-adjusted mortality (mortality ratio (MR)=0.20”

            But yet again you miss the context and bigger picture.
            Aaby has shown that with a cohort 10 times the size of this one, that there was no mortality difference.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8629610

        • BBF

          Baloney! https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf page 85 – less than ONE death from measles. This was published in 1968. Fearmongering will have you believe it was hundreds. Not true.

      • shay simmons

        “In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.”

        http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html

        • BBF

          Read the HEALTH DEPARTMENT STATISTICS, from the US. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsrates1940_60.pdf page 85 – less than ONE death from measles. This was published in 1968. Fearmongering will have you believe it was hundreds. Not true.

          • shay simmons

            Did you miss the part where it said that was deaths per 100,000?

            Great graph, btw. Thanks for linking to it.

      • John
        • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

          You asked me this at skeptical ob, I was banned for no reason so I will answer here.

          “The CDC is an abomination,and where is your proof?”

          The proof is in the pudding.

          MMR fraud, haven’t you been listening? Watch the documentary Vaxxed that Jason Chaffetz, head of the Office of Government Reform, was referencing when he referred to the CDC as one of his marks in a target rich environment.

          • Would you please just stfu with your “watch Quaxxed” BS already? Nobody wants to watch that discredited fraud’s video except for your brain dead anti-science zealots.

          • Actually, if you want a really good review of it the guys at God Awful Movies and the SciBabe did an awesome scene by scene breakdown of Vaxxed. Hilarious stuff. 🙂

            Linkage and a browser based player available here: https://audioboom.com/boos/5123734-gam059-vaxxed

          • Thanks! Very entertaining. It’s just maddening that people actually believe this tired BS.

          • Mike Stevens

            Loved the logic where they showed autism causes vaccines!

          • And I’m sure there was very good reason for banning you, just like there was for your last 4 profile incarnations.

          • John

            Saw the the movie,Wakefield had a hand in that movie, and if you are citing that movie as your evidence that the C.D.C. is an abomination then you have no proof.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Saw a really good article I will link from my other device. Details insider info, such as improper transport of dangerous material, etc, all kinds of nonsense at the CDC and calls for independent oversight of the corrupt, conflicted agency.
            Have no proof the CDC is a corrupt agency?
            LOL, the sky is green too right?

          • John

            I am waiting for proof.thank you.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            http://www.livetradingnews.com/widespread-corruption-reported-cdc-17625.html

            Conflicts of interest are not the only factors standing in the way
            of the US Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) purported mission,
            corruption is also widespread.

            Other safety breaches have been reported, for example:

            A door to a lab containing Coxiella Burnetti that was sealed with duct tape after a ventilation system malfunction

            Security doors leading to areas with dangerous pathogens left unlocked

            Backup generators failing to keep airflow systems moving at CDC labs during a power outage

            A Y 2009 investigation by the Office of the Inspector General
            concluded the CDC has “a systemic lack of oversight of the ethics
            program,” noting 97% of disclosure forms filed by the organization’s
            advisers were incomplete, and 13% of advisers did not file one.

            Some other concerning findings revealed by the investigation are, as follows:

            CDC did not identify or resolve potential conflicts of interest for 64% of special government employees

            CDC did not ensure that 41% of special government employees received required ethics training

            15% of special government employees did not comply with ethics requirements during committee meetings

            It goes on and on.

            Here is my favorite part.

            Far from the independent public watchdog it is supposed to be, the CDC
            is closely tied to industry and may protect their interests over those
            of the general public.

            It is clear that we are in need of independent oversight of the CDC
            and other federal agencies, but until that happens, the US population is
            on its own to discern which health decisions make the most sense to
            live with and by.

          • Acleron

            Lol, the author of your reference calls himself a polymath yet has swallowed the Wakefield line hook, line and sinker.

            Try referencing the report he claims his quotes are taken from.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Well let’s clear up one part of your comment before we move on to anything else,

            “yet has swallowed the Wakefield line hook, line and sinker.”

            Care to elaborate?

            Are you talking about the “non fraud” from the Lancet paper that “never even” claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. I’m confused, you guys keep saying it claimed a link, can you please point me to the part of the Lancet study that claims a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The media, Brian Deer, all you guys, didn’t tell us all a lie did you?

          • Acleron

            You should try and keep track of your own delusions. The Wakefield line mentioned in your reference is the Thomson debacle, little of which if anything is true.

            The Lancet paper by Wakefield was found to be fraud because Wakefield lied about the case histories. Wakefield was removed from the register of Doctors because of his lack of ethics.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            “Wakefield was removed from the register of Doctors because of his lack of ethics.”

            Ok, lets shorten this shill circle dance and get you moved to that ignore list with PNG Grahmie shall we?

            Wakefield had ethics committee approval well in advance of the publication of the Lancet paper.

            So that’s that.

          • Acleron

            The ethics committee gave permission to Wakefield for falsification of case histories?

          • Mike Stevens

            There were meant to be 2 studies – remember Kiko?
            Wakefield played fast and loose between the two, and investigated kids when he shouldn’t have because that was not covered by the correct ethical committee approval. He also committed other ethical breaches – such as failing to gain fully informed consent, and persuading children at his son’s birthday party to become guinea pigs for the chance of some pocket money.

          • suz norkan

            Haw haw! Persona non gratas grahmie and borings! 😉

          • JGC

            He did not have approval, ethical or otherwise, from anyone to have clinically non-indicated invasive procedures (such as colonoscopic biopsies) done on the subjects of his study. He did not have approval from anyone to fail to disclose serious conflicts of interest related to his research.

          • Mike Stevens

            I wish you guys would make up your minds…
            Did Wakefield say MMR caused autism, or did he say it didn’t cause autism? Surely you can answer at least that question honestly?

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Halt, you shall not pass…..

            keep your villainous shilling to a minimum please.
            Mikey said,

            “Did Wakefield say MMR caused autism”

            Not in the Lancet paper he didn’t.

          • Mike Stevens

            So it doesn’t cause autism?
            So pack up your laptops and go home to mama.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Astroturfing is the manipulation of messages to misinform readers on a subject.
            To throw out confusing and conflicting information until the person is left to throw up their hands and disregard everything, including the truth.
            Mikey and his merry band of shills are astroturfing at it’s finest. Just look at their manipulative comment histories.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

          • Mike Stevens

            So, Kiko, you admit you are astroturfing?

          • Acleron

            You really should look up those words before you copy/paste them, they don’t mean what you think.

            Mike Stevens comes across as an informative and intelligent person always willing to back up what he says with evidence.

            I can easily see why you try the smear gambit, nothing else left.

          • suz norkan

            Relevant and recent examples include ‘gang flagging for deletions and or banishment’ censorship tactics; not to mention NOT mikeys misrepresentations of being a doc LIE, to advance his pov!

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Funny to watch that guy Cathy with the fake avatar giving instructional lessons on how to get people banned.

            Cheetos and gravy slopping sandwiches are in full effect.

          • JGC

            Wakefield identified MMR vaccination as one of the ‘environmental factors’ associated with the development of autism spectrum disorders.

          • Who cares whether Wakefield’s paper said vaccines cause autism or not? Fact is Wakefield himself did say that.

          • Acleron

            Thanks, missed that reply. Without checking I think Wakefield made that claim at a press conference shortly after publication.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Hey padawan, I think big momma Dorit is looking for you and Mikey.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5sLK1TUn-k

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            While you are at it, could you walk me through the tables and tell me which parts that all 12 scientists signed off on are scientifically inaccurate?

            I find interesting as well that Wakefield’s work here has been replicated in 1,2,3,4,5… different countries.

          • Acleron

            They signed off not having seen the case histories. Any reputable publications that show his fraudulent results have been confirmed?

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            “They signed off not having seen the case histories.”

            You have to provide evidence for your claims. But you are an astroturfer so I won’t hold my breath.

          • Acleron

            LMAO.

            YOU supplied the evidence, did you not realise?

          • Mike Stevens

            “I find interesting as well that Wakefield’s work here has been replicated in 1,2,3,4,5… different countries.”

            1. What “work”, exactly? Do you mean MMR causing ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia which then leads to autism?

            2. If so, please tell us what these 5 countries are, and link to these alleged papers replicating Wakefield’s work.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Here is one.

            The Daily Mail reported:

            ” … a team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in
            North Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and
            bowel disease – and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the
            measles virus … the team’s leader, Dr Stephen Walker, said: ‘Of the
            handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none
            are wild measles.

            This research proves that in the gastrointestinal tract of a
            number of children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism, there
            is evidence of measles virus. What it means is that the study done
            earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct.

          • Mike Stevens

            Problems:
            1. Walker was one of Wakefield’s coworkers in the USA. This does not therefore count as “independent” verification”
            2. These were preliminary results which appeared at a conference without peer-review. Can you tell us where they were published in the scientific literature please, Kiko?
            I am not in the habit of accepting half baked “preliminary findings” as evidence.

            And for your other 4 countries…?

          • Acleron

            Apart from a study in progress is not evidence and a report in the Daily Fail is not anything at all.

            Didn’t you just say that Wakefield didn’t claim that MMR caused autism? In which case how can this study confirm anything of Wakefield’s?

          • Mike Stevens

            By refusing to specify what it is that needs to be “replicated”, the antivaxers can keep their claims very general.
            In their book, someone describing a child with autism who had constipation qualifies as “conclusive proof that Wakefield was right!”

          • JGC

            They reported on a presentation given poste presented Dr. Stephen Walker during a poster session during the 2006 Montreal IMFAR meeting. The poster presented unconfirmed, non-peer-reviewed findings in an uncontrolled study that did not actually mention MMR.

            When Wakefield and the anti-vax movement began to claim that Walker’s study supported Wakefield’s claims of an MMR/autism causal association Wake Forest and Dr. Walker immediately (within a week) released a strong statement denying that the study showed anything of the kind.

            “Even if we showed association (between measles virus and bowel disease) and we published it in a peer-reviewed journal, the conclusion will be simply that there is measles virus in the gut of a large number of children who have regressive autism and bowel disease. End of story.

            “We haven’t done anything to demonstrate that the measles virus is causing autism or even causing bowel disease.”

            The study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, and was dismissed as evidence in the 2009 Omnibus Autism Proceedings in the USA after a detailed critique by expert witnesses.

          • Mike Stevens

            So, as we indicated, kiko lied.
            Why am I not surprised?

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            “The study was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, and was
            dismissed as evidence in the 2009 Omnibus Autism Proceedings in the USA
            after a detailed critique by expert witnesses.”

            The Omnibus Autism Cases were dismissed based on the CDC’s fraudulent paper and then some. Here is a good read for you.

            https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/15262748/Doe_v_Merck__Co,_Inc_et_al

          • JGC

            Citation needed, jeff–what CDC paper are you characterizing as fraudulent? Be specific.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Follow the gloomy trail until you come upon the Doe vs Merck. There you shall find the answers that you seek.

            Jury requested by the plaintiff. :0

          • JGC

            The case should more accurately be described as Dwyer vs Merck: Baby Doe is Colin Dwyer, one of the three test cases presented during the NVICP’s Omnibus Autism Proceedings.
            We can expect the case to fare no better in a civil trial, where the standard of proof the plaintiff must meet is far, far more stringent than the NVICP’s “50% and a feather” than it did in the Omnibus proceedings.

            More details regarding this filing may be found at http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/merck-vaccine-lawsuit-implausible-narrative-bad-law-facts/

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Do you see where the cRaptor is listed in the proceedings?

            “NVICP’s “50% and a feather”

            Ha, 99.9 percent and a feather.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            “We can expect the case to fare no better in a civil trial, where the
            standard of proof the plaintiff must meet is far, far more stringent
            than the NVICP’s “50% and a feather” than it did in the Omnibus
            proceedings.”

            So you fancy yourself a scientist and a lawyer, K grahmie!

          • JGC

            again, who’s Grahmie?
            I am a scientist, and I am aware that the standard for proof in the NVICP courts was created to be a no-fault system plaintiff-friendly system which employs a less rigorous standard of proof than is required in civil litigation.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Using a different sockie should not get you off the ignore list Grahmie but I am running out of shills to munch up and poo out!!!

          • JGC

            Who’s Grahmie? I only post to internet forums using my initials JGC.

          • Jonathan Graham, he means.

          • suz norkan

            ;o ;p 😉

          • What are you talking about Jeff? I thought Pharma companies had zero liability/total legal immunity. You have to be making this up.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Good one, they can’t be sued unless you have fraud involved, clearly we have fraud on many fronts. Get it? The 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act need not apply here. Precedent is key. So basically when baby doe is done slapping Merck it is all of our turns. Our meaning autism parents. So what do you think Thompson will say when called to testify? 🙁 sorry no shilling allowed, the hammer of justice won’t allow it.
            Have you guys ever considered to just stop replying to me? I don’t want to talk to you a lot more than you don’t want to talk to me. Are you guys playing gotcha last or what? Just go, leave me be. Hey good news though, just one in a million right? A drop in the bucket, unless you guys lied once again. 🙂

            https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/15262748/Doe_v_Merck__Co,_Inc_et_al

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            You see, there are lies, and then there is the truth. You are on the side that repeatedly and relentlessly lies. You can’t hide the truth forever, keep trying though, I will enjoy watching you try to swim upstream, you are getting tired, time to let it go. Bye bye turf boy.

          • JGC

            Non-responsive, Jeff: please answer the question asked. What CDC paper are you characterizing as fraudulent?

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            “: please answer the question asked.”

            Filed under I don’t take requests and GFY.

          • JGC

            “Filed under I don’t take requests and GFY”

            And that gets filed in the “I got nothing” folder.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            See my comment history, your question has been thoroughly addressed.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            WLYLT

          • JGC

            I’m unfamiliar with that abbreviation–could you translate?

          • Mike Stevens

            “Wakefraud loves you long time”
            More code from Kiko that means “I got nothing”

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            I have addressed this question multiple times, the dead horse is now pulverized to non existence, now we will see where discovery leads us, stay tuned. You know what a jury is right?

          • JGC

            Just cite the paper the Omnibus proceeding employed that you believe to be fraudulent, jeff–is that really so hard to do?

          • suz norkan

            I don’t think the pro mandatory vaxers remember what a jury is!

            Our u.s. law has been flawed with the facade of ‘SPECIAL MASTERS’ taking the place of justifiable and just judicial judges and a JURY of our peers!

          • Hired those independent scientists yet?

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            That is attorney Patricia Finn suing the eff out of Merck, calling out all the fraud, petitioning witnesses, oh my. Just filed baby,
            updown:0

          • JGC

            Just filed, as in the court has yet to rule on whether that fraud of any kind has been committed by anyone?
            is that really what passes for evidence in whatever reality you inhabit?

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Stay tuned, the fraud is so blatant this is a slam dunk. Merck will have to move the Earth to hide this one.

          • JGC

            Jeff, it isn’t even clear that the Dwyer’s have standing to sue Merck in Federal Court. Finn is basing her suit on an NVICP provision that allows claimants to sue the Secretary of Health and Human Services for violating the act and under 42 U.S.C. §1983, which allows tort suits against people violating federal constitutional or statutory rights by people acting under color of state law.

            Merck is neither the Secretary of Health and Human services nor is it an employee of the state.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            You miss the point,
            Summons, discovery.

          • V Λ N

            No, dude. First comes “standing” then comes “state a claim on which relief may be granted.”

            God damn. Thanks for the laugh this morning. I had totes missed this one.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            When comes indictments? Stay tuned.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Do you have something intelligent to add? Perhaps a specific about the case? No Craptor reference, as you can plainly see Dorits article is now listed as an exhibit. Why is Dorit Reiss’ article listed as an exhibit Ivan?

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Are summons and discovery part of the process? Was I using a listed order?
            When comes CDC in the patty wagon carriage?

          • V Λ N

            Before discovery it’ll have to survive a Motion to Dismiss.

            That’s where “standing” and “failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” come into play.

            Read the Defendant’s Motion for pre motion conference which was granted and scheduled.

          • JGC

            Discovery will begin once Finn has demonstrated standing.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Please now feel free to point to where Dr. William Thompson will not be allowed to testify if summoned.

          • JGC

            Where have I argued that Thompson would not be allowed to testify if the suit proceeds to discovery or trial?

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            I hope you realize we have heard about less than 1/4 of what Thompson has to say.
            If summoned he will be free to let loose with everything he perceives as fraudulent behavior, so thats for that now.
            WLYLT

          • JGC

            How is he not free to say what he wishes now?

          • So start a petition then to summon Thompson. Heck, I’d sign it in hopes this will finally be put to rest.

          • Damo

            Except he has already stated that, except for that one thing he had a problem with, there is nothing going on.

            Try again next time.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Oh, how bout that jury huh? It will be pretty easy to see what the truth is and what has been done here.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Precedent precedent bo becedent

            $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Why is the Raptor article listed as an exhibit? 🙁
            Looks like lies and manipulation ain’t gonna fly this time.
            Hammer of justice crushes you!!!!!

          • V Λ N

            HHS requested a pre-motion conference which is scheduled for Oct 14.

            That’s when it gets dismissed.

          • JGC

            That’s my best guess as well, though I expect Finn will do her best to draw the proceedings out as long as possible.

          • V Λ N

            OFFS, Patricia Finn is for the antivax nutbags what Orly Taintz is for birther clowns like Trump.

            This POS might be good enough to grift a couple bucks from the intellectually disabled fan club at Age of Autism but that’s about it.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Nice avatar “skidmark”
            How is mommas basement dis time of da year fat boy?

          • V Λ N

            Please, donate everything you have to the GoFundMe.

            Get a third mortgage. Sell the car. Raid the older kid’s college fund. I mean it. It’s THAT important.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            “clowns like Trump.”

            That is the next President of the United States of America.

            Can’t wait to pull the Trump lever.

          • Damo

            I have noticed that a lot of you anti-science, anti-vaxx creeps are voting for Trump. It makes sense, he doesn’t use reasoning in his arguments either.

            While I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, I am grateful the guy doesn’t have a shot in hell to win.

          • Acleron

            Please don’t assume Drumpf is too silly to win, I thought that over our Brexit lot and look what the idiots did.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            When Trump takes over the CDC you can get a job shilling for Mickey D’s or something you clown.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Now go and hump someone elses leg, we are all getting dumber with every comment you post.

          • I’m sorry? I thought Merck had been found guilty of fraud?

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Summons summons bo bummons

            Proposed summons to

            Merck.
            HHS.

            Burwell.
            Gerberding.

            Summons issued as to all defendants.

            Looks like some love you long time to me. Hey JGC, IANAL so can you tell me what discovery means for a court case? What will they discover I wonder?

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Can’t shill your way outta the facts Mikey.

          • Mike Stevens

            It appears that every time you are asked for evidence to back up your claims, you cop out and start insulting people.
            Lurkers might wonder why…because you haven’t got any evidence, one presumes.

          • Proponent

            You’re probably already familiar with the following, Mike.

            However, and in case you are not.. “Just the Vax” goes through the studies that are alluded to in the ‘been replicated in five countries’ thing..

            Just the Vax: ” “Independent” the Wakefield way (really something for the fail blog)”

            Here’s the summary..

            “So what do we have here? Three (3) genuinely published cases of
            autistic adults who had consulted a doctor for gastrointestinal problems and were found to have gastrointestinal problems. One conference report from April 2005 that has not gone through peer review and has not appeared in a real journal in the 5 years since the conference. One real study looking at over 50 autistic children which does not confirm Wakefield’s findings. And finally, one study by Wakefield’s buddies in a freshly founded journal run by Andrew Wakefield and his buddies, to say that their buddy Andy was really right all along – how is that for “independent” confirmation?!”

            Laughable.. as an understatement.

            … …

            The origins of the ‘five countries’ statement from Wakefraud and for some more entertainment..

            “Here is Anderson Cooper’s interview of Wakefield about the BMJ editorial on the program AC360° at that time. Wakefield stated during the interview that his work, “has been replicated in five countries around the world”.

          • Mike Stevens

            Thank you Pro!

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Ongoing Investigations by Dr. David Lewis Refute Fraud Findings in Dr. Andrew Wakefield Case
            http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ongoing-investigations-by-dr-david-lewis-refute-fraud-findings-in-dr-andrew-wakefield-case-133649563.html

            “The grading sheets and other evidence in Wakefield’s files clearly show that it is unreasonable to conclude, based on a comparison of the histological records, that Andrew Wakefield
            ‘faked’ a link between the MMR vaccine and autism,” Dr. Lewis added.
            “Now that these records have seen the light of day, it is time for
            others to stop using them for this purpose as well. False allegations of
            research misconduct can destroy the careers of even the most
            accomplished and reputable scientists overnight. It may take years for
            them to prove their innocence; and even then the damages are often
            irreparable. In cases where mistakes are made, every effort should be
            taken to fully restore the reputations and careers of scientists who are
            falsely accused of research misconduct.”

            Dr. Lewis recommended that “(BMJ author) Brian Deer
            should either withdraw his paper MMR: Faking The Link ‘Wakefield’s
            ‘Autistic Enterocolitis’ Under The Microscope;’ or at least retract any
            statements implying that Wakefield’s summary of Dhillon’s blinded
            analysis suggests that he faked the diagnoses of non-specific colitis.”

          • Acleron

            Well thanks for giving us the link to something factual.

          • Mike Stevens

            Who cares what a sewerage microbiologist says? Nobody.

            I really laughed though when Lewis inadvertently spilled the beans on Wakefraud.

            PS: Seeing as how his fraud is now “refuted”, when can we expect Wakefield to sue the BMJ? Any time this decade, or century perhaps?

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Perhaps, he definitely should because the evidence is irrefutable.

          • Acleron

            Yes it was. It irrefutably confirmed that Wakefield lied.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            “Who cares what a sewerage microbiologist says?”

            Is every expert who does not agree with you a terrible professional?

          • Mike Stevens

            I never said he was terrible, I mean his profession lends nothing to his supposed expertise on the topic of MMR or human histological specimen interpretation.
            Since you described him as a “doctor”, I though people should know what he was a doctor of, so they would not fall into the trap you set of thinking he was a medical expert.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Care to review you misinformed stance on the Wakefield non fraud?

          • Acleron

            Always willing to change my mind in the light of new evidence. However, you have so far failed to reference any.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            I have provided ample evidence. Go and hump someone elses leg, I have no desire to run in circles with an astroturfer.

          • Acleron

            You appear to be running in circles all on your own without your imaginary astroturfer.

          • John

            All this information you posted,can you supply the link to this information? thank you.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            You are feeling very angry.

          • John

            No I posted a reply yesterday but it was removed,what I said yesterday was—-If it is true then it is not good BUT how do we know that article is the truth?

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Ignore list.
            PNG Grahmie, Acleron, Mikey Stevens (pending lever question), ibid, John (pending unlocking his private shill file)….

          • John

            Why would I be angry?

          • John

            Yes Paul Ebeling wrote the article but did not provide links.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            So you require maximum proof for everything except the safety of the MMR vaccine, got it.

          • John

            I know the safety of the MMR vaccine,thank you http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/mmr-vaccine.html

          • John
          • John

            If what is in the article is true,then it does not paint a nice picture of the C.D.C.the thing is,how do we know for sure that the article is correct?

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Maybe Brian Hooker wrote it, or maybe an anonymous whistleblower, or…….maybe Wakefield hired an investigative journalist to launch a smear campaign against the CDC :0

          • John

            Anything is possible.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            Or maybe you can plainly see in the article, written in English, who conducted the inspection and where you can find the information.

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            “Anything is possible.”

            Except the MMR vaccine causing brain damage even though it is listed on the insert.

          • Acleron

            So who wrote it?

          • Mike Stevens

            Amazing.
            … A power outage in a lab is evidence the CDC is corrupt?
            We learn something new from Kiko every day folks!

          • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_AxZ3zHAc

            Now this video is a must see.

            In 2003, after 10 years work, legal aid was withdrawn from over 1,000
            parents claiming damages in a suit in which Dr Andrew Wakefield was to
            appear as an expert witness. In 2004 Deer wrote an exposé of Wakefield
            that was full of concoctions, half truths and fantasies and which
            claimed that the children examined by the team at the Royal Free were
            not ill. Deer’s distorted pharma–imaginings became the basis of over 80
            charges leveled against Dr Wakefield and three other doctors to be
            ‘tried’ by the General Medical Council (GMC). The hearing took place
            over three years between 2007 and 2010 and became one of the longest
            regulatory hearings ever held in Britain. Brian Deer, the centre of the
            whole plot, did not give evidence.

            In bringing the fitness to
            practice case against Dr Andrew Wakefield, Professor Simon Murch and
            Professor John Walker-Smith, the GMC listened to journalist Brian Deer
            and excluded the views of hundreds of parents of vaccine damaged
            children. Who is Brian Deer? Vigilante for truth or front man for Big
            Pharma? Selective Hearing covers Deer’s part in the heartbreaking
            betrayal of vaccine damaged children by the medical profession, the
            pharmaceutical corporations and the British government.

            With the
            full power of the government and pharmaceutical industry behind him, few
            people were brave enough to tackle Deer. Alan Golding, however, is a
            Welshman, a very independent filmmaker and a man of considerable
            principle. Alan Golding gave himself completely over the three–year
            duration of the GMC hearing, to the cause of the parents of vaccine
            damaged children. Selective Hearing features clearly honest personal
            testimony from parents, an analysis of Deer’s faulted case and unique
            material of him holding forth for the pharmaceutical companies in a
            heated exchange with parents outside the GMC building. If you see this
            film you will want to do something about Brian Deer.

            Martin J Walker investigative writer and author.

          • Acleron

            Oh, that must be the reason why Wakefield has, despite raising the money, failed to continue his case for defamation/libel against Deer or the BMJ.

            It is a fact that Wakefield falsified the case histories, that he was being heavily paid to produce a result for lawyers in an anti vaccination case and that he unethically took blood from children. On that last point he laughed and said, ‘You can get them to do anything for a fiver’.

          • Mike Stevens

            Awww.. Isn’t that sweet?

          • JGC

            Vaxxed is a documentary to the exact same extent that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is nonfiction.

          • Explain … every other country in the world, would you?

      • JGC

        Deaths from measles rare? As of 2013 measles was the leading cause of deaths from infectious diseases worldwide: in developed countries there are between 1 and 2 deaths per 1000 infections, while in undeveloped countries, regions with high levels of malnutrition or with inadequate health care mortality is seen to rise as high as 10% of all subjects infected.

        And that’s simply addressing deaths, ignoring the fact that many who do survive do so only to suffer serious adverse outcomes for the rest of their lives as the result of having been infected (for example, measles is the leading cause of blindness among children in low income countries, causing up to 60,000 cases of blindness annually).

        • BBF

          No comparison, JGC. None. We dose our children with horrible toxins, environmental pollutants, and GMO foods. Viruses and bacteria adapt, and we are poisoning ourselves out of the ability to adapt. Again, Mother Nature knows best. You feed a child well, they don’t get sick. You poison them, they die. Simple.

          • JGC

            What horrible toxins and environmental pollutants are you speaking of here and exactly what evidence demonstrates that they are toxic or otherwise harmful at exposure levels achievable by routine childhood vaccination, BBF? I mean, you do actually have some–right?

            You ‘feed a child well’ and they will still remain vulnerable to infectious diseases like measles, mumps, rubella, polio, hepatitis, varicella, pertussis, etc.

      • John

        400 plus deaths annually just in the U.S.A 1958 to 1962

      • Trulahn

        Decrease of deaths from measles only means that patients got better treatment after contracting the disease. It does not necessarily have anything to do with the total number of infection cases.

        • BBF

          Oh, I see, and how do you know this? Millions of kids used to get a good exercise of their immune systems by getting the measles. Now they get sick from vaccine injury and chronic diseases like cancer. Bring back the simple diseases that our bodies knew how to fight. We don’t know better than Mother Nature, and you’re a fool if you think you do.

      • John

        http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/measles/measles-history-in-america.aspx from 1958 to 1962 inclusive,there were over 400 deaths per year from measles and thousands suffered life long injuries in the U.S.A alone.

    • ciaparker2

      Natural measles also gives, not only permanent immunity, but a stronger, better-functioning immune system and the ability to protect future infants. This Aaby study showed that African children who have had natural measles have only one-fifth the mortality in the following five years as those who haven’t gotten measles.

      Aaby “Low mortality after mild measles infection
      compared in uninfected children in rural West Africa,” Vaccine 2002; 21
      (1-2) 120-6.

      Many studies have shown how natural measles decreases risk of later heart disease and stroke, and prevents many diseases, especially skin and bone diseases, and prevents many cancers in later life.

      • ciaparker2

        These are a few of the studies on how having natural measles prevents serious disease in later life. Having measles is the best possible way to ensure a child’s lifelong health. By 1960 in the US the death rate from measles was less than one in 10,000 cases in children between three and ten (Dr. Alexander Langmuir). 99% of American children had it by the age of 18: including me at six. Everyone got it: it was very rarely a dangerous disease by that time, and provided many benefits.

        Kubota Y, Iso H, et al. Association of measles and mumps
        with cardio-vascular disease: the Japan Collaborative Cohort (JACC study.
        Atherosclerosis 2015 Jun 18; 241(2): 682-86. Having measles and/or mumps in
        childhood protects against deadly heart attacks and strokes during adulthood.

        Rosenlund H, Bergstrom A, et al. Allergic disease and atopic sensitization in
        children in relation to measles vaccination and measles infection Pediatrics
        2009 Mar; 123(3): 771-78. Children who contract measles are significantly less
        likely to develop allergies than children who are vaccinated against measles.

        Same findings, different study: Shaheen SO, Aaby P, et al. Measles and atopy in
        Guinea-Bissau. Lancet 1996 Jun 29; 347(9018): 1792-96.

        Kucukosmanoglu E, Cetinkaya F, et al. Frequency of allergic diseases following
        measles. Allergol Immunopathol (Madr) 2006 Jul-Aug; 34(4): 146-49. Children
        with a history of measles are significantly less likely to develop allergies
        than children without a history of measles.

        Also: Kuyucu S, Saraçlar Y, et al. Determinants of atopic sensitization in
        Turkish school children: effects of pre- and post-natal events and maternal
        atopy. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2004 Feb; 15(1): 62-71. Same findings as
        previous one.

        Kondo N, Fukutomi O, et al. Improvement of food-sensitive atopic dermatitis
        accompanies by reduced lymphocyte responses to food antigen following natural
        measles virus infection. Clin Exp Allergy 1993 Jan; 23(1): 44-50. Several
        children with a food-sensitive allergic skin disease had a clear improvement in
        their symptoms after they contracted measles.

        • Sonja Henie

          This is all bullshyt, and has been discussed many times over as such.

          • ciaparker2

            Discussed by professional vaccine defenders. But facts are facts. Having natural measles, and other childhood diseases, gives great protection in later life. The cancer rate for all kinds of cancer except breast was reduced 25% for each childhood disease undergone in childhood. Other febrile diseases, like flu, decreased risk as well. IF you don’t reduce the fever with Tylenol or Ibuprofen, or anything else. It’s really not that bad to just lie in bed with fever. Last August I had a summer flu with a fever of 104 for two days, a third day of 103. And then it went back to normal. I felt very ill, very weak, and didn’t eat anything for three days. I had no appetite. And we’d just gotten a new puppy, eight weeks old, the very day my symptoms started. I cuddled Polly in bed, and she fell off the bed. Had to stumble down the hall to take her out every hour or so too. And my daughter’s GI symptoms had gotten worse, and I put her on a stringent Specific Carbohydrate diet, homemade chicken soup, squash, boiled carrots. A very hard several days. But obviously I didn’t take any medication for it, and was too sick to go look for my herbs and homeopathic flu remedies. But by the fourth day the fever was gone and I started to recover.

          • Sonja Henie

            Bull!

          • Acleron

            This repeat of nonsense is one of the many puzzling aspects of these people. Is it regurgitated in the hope of snaring another customer or do they just have nothing else to say?

        • John

          Measles death rate in U.S.A between 1958 and 1962 averaged over 400 per year and thousands suffered life long injuries.

      • Acleron

        Mild measles infection was raised antibody with no clinical symptoms. The authors give just a smidgen of a clue as to how this can happen.

        “Sub-clinical measles is common among immunised children and is not associated with excess mortality.”

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12443670

        • ciaparker2

          In malnourished children in Africa, measles mortality can be as high as 10%. 90% recover with full benefits even in Africa. In the First World, measles mortality in well-nourished, healthy children is essentially zero.

          • Sonja Henie

            Bullfeathers.

          • JoeFarmer

            “…recover with full benefits…”

            Wow. Just wow. This woman is nutzo.

          • Acleron

            You showed a paper that demonstrated that preimmunised children gained from presumably the immunisation. I replied to that paper.

            So what does nutrition have to with it? Where do these claims come from? What do they have to do with preimmunised children having better life expectancy or the price of carrots?

          • Michael McCarthy

            In malnourished children in Africa, measles mortality can be as high as 10%

            As usual, Cia Parker the goul brushes off the death of brown kids. Leaving out the realities:
            Measles, a viral respiratory infection, killed over 500,000 children in 2003, more than any other vaccine-preventable disease. The measles death toll in Africa is so high – every minute one child dies – that many mothers don’t give children real names until they have survived the disease. Measles weakens the immune system and renders children very susceptible to fatal complications from diarrhoea, pneumonia and malnutrition. Those that survive may suffer blindness, deafness or brain damage.”
            http://www.unicef.org/immunization/index_why.html

          • ciaparker2

            90% of children with measles in Africa survive, and those who do have only a ONE-FIFTH risk of dying in the following five years as those who do not get natural measles, whether because they got the vaccine or just didn’t get measles. So you are brushing off the deaths of thousands of brown children not lucky enough to get measles. They die because they got the vaccine instead of natural measles, but of course you don’t care about kids you can’t make a buck off of.

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11024418_Low_mortality_after_mild_measles_infection_compared_to_uninfected_children_in_rural_West_Africa

          • Sonja Henie

            Didn’t Mike tear up that paper a few days/a week ago? And nary a WORD in the abstract about vaccine. Lying liars lie lots.

          • ciaparker2

            Not at all. What makes you say that?

          • ciaparker2

            Complete text here:

            http://www.academia.edu/12907021/Low_mortality_after_mild_measles_infection_compared_to_uninfected_children_in_rural_west_Africa

            “There were 31 index cases, and among 184 exposed contacts, 35 (19%) children developed clinical measles. Among contacts that did not develop clinical measles, 45% had sub-clinical infection. Measles cases, sub-clinical cases, and uninfected contacts did notdiffer with respect to nutritional status. However, uninfected children without clinical symptoms and change in antibody level had higherinitial measles specific IgG antibody levels and less intensive exposure to the index case. No index or secondary case of measles died in the acute phase of infection nor did any of the children exposed to measles die in the first 2 months after exposure. Exposed children developing clinical measles had lower age-adjusted mortality over the next 4 years than exposed children who did not develop clinical measles (P < 005).Sub-clinical measles cases tended to have low mortality and compared with uninfected children,exposed children with clinical or sub-clinical measles had lower age-adjusted mortality (mortality ratio (MR)=0

            20 (0.06–0.74)). Controlling for background factors had no impact of the estimates."

          • Acleron

            So the best group to be in was those already immunised. So how were they immunised?

          • ciaparker2

            The best group to be in was the one which got mild measles. Many frail children died when they got moderate measles, but if they got mild measles, they had improved survival over those who did not get measles. Stronger children are better off getting natural measles, whether mild or moderate. Other studies show that giving African children with measles vitamin A cut their death rate in half, so that would be a good thing to do as well. Let everyone get natural measles, no vaccine, and give everyone with measles vitamin A.

            “When the analysis adjusted for immunisation status, measles infection was not associated with long-term excess mortality [10–14] nor was there any indication of persistent suppression of T-lymphocyte sub-sets [10,11]. Surprisingly, studies from Guinea-Bissau [10], Senegal [12], and Bangladesh [14] found that post-measles cases had lower mortality than children without measles infection.”

            There was no long-term suppression of the immune system from natural measles, as is said so often by the pro-vaccine crowd.

          • Sonja Henie

            Quit lying, via.

          • Acleron

            It’s bizarre, it obviously hasn’t occurred to her that just about everybody else can read that paper.

          • Mike Stevens

            Particularly the second to last paragraph, which Cia ignores in its entirety.

          • Acleron

            The mild measles group all had prior immunisation and they exhibited no clinical symptoms.

            Why are you avoiding the question of how they were previously immunised?

          • ciaparker2

            Not true. From the last page:

            “Most clinical measles cases were unvaccinated and itseems unlikely that their lower mortality can be explained as being due to better care for these children. Adjusting forvaccination status had no impact on the mortality ratio of clinical and sub-clinical cases compared with uninfected contacts. Among contacts, unvaccinated children hadslightly higher mortality than vaccinated children (Table 1).However, the study was too small to compare clinicaland sub-clinical cases with only unvaccinated uninfectedchildren.Several studies have shown that the survival impact of measles vaccine cannot be explained by the prevention of acute measles deaths [6,25]. In studies from Guinea-Bissau [6,26], Senegal [6], Burundi [6,27], and Bangladesh [14], the protective efficacy of immunisation against death re-mained essentially unchanged when measles cases wereexcluded from the survival analysis.”

            P. Aaby et al./Vaccine 21 (2002) 120–126

          • ciaparker2

            “Though planned to examine the risk factors for excessmortality after measles [3,12], the study provided further support for the hypothesis that measles infection, like measles immunisation, may be associated with a beneficial effect. Measles infection was not associated with long-termexcess mortality; among children exposed to measles athome, clinical measles cases had lower age-adjusted mor-tality than uninfected children. There has been no previouscommunity study of the long-term impact of sub-clinicalmeasles infection; our data suggests that it is not associ-ated with increased mortality. In an area with mild disease,measles infection may be associated with better overallsurvival than no measles infection [12].Since they lived in the same compound, the uninfectedchildren are likely to share socio-economic, cultural, andenvironmental conditions with the clinical and sub-clinicalmeasles cases. There were no differences in length of breastfeeding, nutritional status, type of measles vaccine,and prevalence of malaria parasitaemia between uninfectedand measles cases. Since there was the same delay betweenexposure and blood sampling for sub-clinical cases anduninfected children, the distinction is not due to exposeduninfected children already having been boosted. Rather,the uninfected children had higher immunisation coverageand may have had more parental attention than measles in-fected children. All deaths during the 4 years of follow-upwere due to infections (Table 2), but not acute measles.Measles infection could also have led to more maternalattention and better care after infection, but at least breast-feeding practices and measles immunisation after exposuredid not differ for clinical and sub-clinical cases and unin-fected children (data available upon request). The differencein mortality was observed over a period of 4 years (Fig. 2)and it seems unlikely that treatment provided during acutemeasles infection should have such a long-term effect, andsub-clinical cases received no treatment. Surprisingly alldeaths in the uninfected group were boys, an observationfor which we have no explanation. Hence, it is difficult toimagine a selection bias that could explain why exposedchildren with no boosting response had worse survival thanmeasles cases.”

          • Mike Stevens

            “The study was too small”

            You said it, Cia. It was a tiny study.
            Why not cite Aaby’s study on over 1000 cases of measles in 7000 kids?
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8629610

            “Age-adjusted post-measles mortality was similar to the mortality of unvaccinated, uninfected children (mortality ratio (MR) = 1.04”

          • Mike Stevens

            The best group to be in was the group with “subclinical measles”, and that was because the majority of them (85%) had been vaccinated, which is why they never became ill!

          • Sonja Henie

            Not a damn word about vaccines.

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia like to pretend that they weren’t vaccinated, yet most of those who fell into the “subclinical measles” group were.
            I wouldn’t have even defined these as measles cases, personally, just kids who were exposed to measles and didn’t get ill, thanks to their vaccinations!

          • Sonja Henie

            LOL! Google ads!

            Here’s some information about “academia dot edu”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia.edu

            Here’s more: https://chroniclevitae.com/news/345-should-you-share-your-research-on-academia-edu

            Not peer-reviewed.

            More cia garbage.

          • ciaparker2

            The text of the study is reproduced word for word at my link. Now why don’t you try an ad hominem trashing the renowned researcher Peter Aaby? Try to trash the validity of his study protocol or his methodology. If you can’t, then his findings that natural measles provides considerable survival value, more than that provided by the vaccine, stand.

          • Sonja Henie

            LOL! My internet laugh of the day! “Renowned” researcher! The only people you AVs ever quote are “lead scientists”, “esteemed doctors”, “head of XYZ agency”, etc., and now “renowned. This academia dot edu is a social sharing site, the articles are NOT peer-reviewed. Nor is it an education site.

            Aaby is a researcher with good credentials, and he is credited for the discovery of non-specific effects of vaccines – i.e. effects of vaccines, which go beyond the specific protective effects against the targeted diseases. Not exactly what you were thinking, I bet.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Aaby

            So he shared this study, from 2002, on this site. Has any vaccine policy changed since then?

          • ciaparker2

            However, he is honest enough to not try to make the results of his studies conform with what he thinks or hopes they will say: he records the truth. I know, really outrageous idea for you guys: why would anyone do that? And the truth in this instance is that natural measles does NOT damage health for years afterwards as is commonly said, but only for about a month. And that having natural measles greatly reduced death in the subsequent five years of those children who got it and recovered from it, 90% of measles patients even in Africa.

            “Peter Aaby (Danish, born 1944 in Lund, Sweden) is trained as an anthropologist but also holds a doctoral degree in medicine.[1] In 1978, Peter Aaby established the Bandim Health Project, a Health and Demographic Surveillance System site in Guinea-Bissau in West Africa, which he has run ever since.[2] In 2000, Peter Aaby was awarded the Novo Nordisk Prize, the most important Danish award within health research.” (Wikipedia)

          • Sonja Henie

            The study wasn’t peer reviewed, cia.

          • Sonja Henie

            Actually, that’s what you jags do

          • Mike Stevens

            ” He [Peter Aaby] records the truth.”

            OK, Cia, so when he says things like this, why don’t you believe him?

            “Sub-clinical measles is common among immunised children and is not associated with excess mortality.”

            “Measles infection may have an important negative effect on long-term survival.”

            “Children intensively exposed to measles receive a high dose of infection and have severe infection and children exposed very early in life may be particularly likely to suffer long-term excess mortality.”

            “measles immunisation may therefore be associated with a beneficial immune activation.”

          • ciaparker2

            Mike, I have ALWAYS recognized, like Dr. Aaby, that measles may occur sub-clinically yet still confer permanent immunity: four million a year used to get it in the US in 1960, yet only a fraction of that was reported by a doctor, because most didn’t go to a doctor as it was so mild, and many didn’t have any symptoms, as it was subclinical. It is a little surprising that anyone would even notice subclinical measles in children who had been vaccinated, but vaccine failure occurs with all vaccines, so it is not that surprising. And I have always recognized that natural measles is most dangerous to infants in their first year (few of whom will get it if their mothers had natural measles). Dr. Langmuir showed that while death occurred in less than one in 10,000 cases in children between three and ten, it occurred in as many as four in 10,000 cases in infants in the first year. This rate is far higher among malnourished children such as many of those in Africa. So yes, in infants and malnourished children, natural measles can have a negative effect on long term survival, although giving two cheap, simple doses of vitamin A cuts the mortality in these groups by half. I have never disputed any of that. Those who get a high load of virus are to be expected to contract a more severe case. I defer to Dr. Aaby’s opinion when he says that measles vaccination MAY be associated with beneficial immune activation, although this concept was not included in the snippets you referred to. It is certain that natural measles is associated with extremely beneficial, long-lasting immune system activation: the children in Aaby’s Senegal study who got and recovered from natural measles, 90% even in Africa, had only a ONE-FIFTH chance of dying in the subsequent five years as those who did not get natural measles. Other studies have shown how natural measles greatly decreases the risk of heart disease, stroke, and many other diseases, including many cancers, in later life.

            Dr. Aaby observed that it made the vaccine decision more complicated to recognize that, while measles vaccination prevented death in many cases, the natural disease prevented death from all causes in many others. Intelligent adults should be able to accept that this is a choice with mortal stakes on both sides, but a decision must be made nonetheless. The only reasonable course is to inform the parents as fully as possible and let them make the decision.

          • ciaparker2

            African father Abdulkadir Khalif, father of a son who regressed into autism after the MMR, said the following:
            “But I tell you sir, that whether one child or 10 children die of measles or whether dozens more contract the disease and recover, I would rather have my child suffer for a few days and then recover than to have him mentally damaged for life and be a burden on society. I would rather have one child die in infancy and join the rest in the calculation of mortality rates than to have thousands disabled and dehumanized for life.”

            http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/03/measles-minneapolis-and-somali-kids.html

          • ciaparker2

            How cool is it that IF’s dominion apparently doesn’t extend as far as the UK Spectator? I’m taken aback that my comments are not being razed willy-nilly!

          • Sonja Henie

            He obviously doesn’t understand vaccine science, as measles vaccine does not cause autism, and not all autistic people are a burden on society and disabled and dehumanized. You may think that’s profound, cia, I think it’s garbage.

          • Sonja Henie

            Intelligent adults should accept the interpretation of scientific papers by scientists, not Spanish translators who think you can become schizophrenic from taking a nap in the sun. There are practically speaking no disadvantages to giving measles vaccine to properly screened kids, and many advantages

          • ciaparker2

            Intelligent adults are aware of the corruption which has saturated the medical/pharmaceutical/political/mainstream media/educational industries, all of which have long been engaged in one hand washing the other. The fraudulent vaccine studies conducted or approved by the CDC are but the tip of the iceberg of the industry devoted to concealing the decimation of the last several generations by vaccine damage.

            New concepts are hard for you to grasp, aren’t they? The homeopath Cilla Whatcott told me last year that fever can pull out stored vaccine mercury, initiating destructive syndromes. We were speaking about my autistic daughter’s bowel disease starting immediately after a summer flu with a high fever when she was seven. But then I realized that my brother had said that his Asperger’s son’s bowel disease had started after a high fever with bronchitis when he was nineteen. And my symptoms of MS (other than the days-long paralysis of my arms immediately after a tetanus booster when I was nineteen) starting with a high fever when I was in Italy. . I also thought that when I was diagnosed with MS by MRI I read many books about it, and learned that the triggers for attacks of MS (or mercury poisoning of other kinds) are fever, environmental heat, stress, or physical exhaustion. And I thought that high environmental heat could substitute for high fever to initiate the symptoms of the release of stored mercury, including schizophrenia.

            Recently I read that all schizophrenia patients tested for mercury have been shown to have extremely high levels of stored mercury. Then I thought about the fact that my uncle, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia as a teenager, had been normal until he fell asleep in the sun on a Louisiana boat dock (probably drunk). When he awoke he had the symptoms of schizophrenia. Does the pharma industry have an interest in concealing the ravages produced in millions of vaccinated people by its carelessness and lies? The reader must answer that for himself. Sorry, Sonja, I know that your answer would not be sincere, for obvious reasons, so I don’t ask you. I know that many readers will think about members of their own families with autism, MS, bowel disease, probably other neurological and autoimmune issues, will realize that in many cases they started with a fever or exposure to excessive heat.

          • Sonja Henie

            TL, DR; likely a crock of compost.

          • Acleron

            Who ate these intelligent adults. The phrase obviously excludes you.

          • Sonja Henie

            So they should believe Spanish-English translators instead! /s

          • Mike Stevens

            Cia, I suggest you read my response to Sonja above about this study, and recognise you are being deceptively misleading.
            Stop lying about measles mortality. Measles is a killer, not just in the developing world. You dismiss its death toll and trivialise its effects, saying that these are “No big deal”.
            You are heartless and callous to the point of incredulity.

          • Sonja Henie

            Because it’s true. Now quit lying, if you can.

          • Mike Stevens

            Yes, I did look at that paper by Aaby some time ago for Cia. It is shameful she continues to push the lie that measles is beneficial for children. She has resorted to cherry-picking her evidence, is misrepresenting that evidence, and her selection bias is ignoring the numerous sources of evidence that contradict her, even to the extent of ignoring subsequent papers by Aaby which indicate there was no survival benefit for those with measles who did not die.
            In short, as you have said, she is lying.

            If you are interested here is a refisking of Cia’s paper by Aaby. Unfortunately I haven’t got the original fulltext to hand as I am at home and cannot access the old online copies of the journal without my academic work access.

            1. Cia ignores the context.
            Aaby’s work on post measles mortality was done to explore his (and others) findings that measles vaccination not only prevented deaths from measles but that there was a further beneficial reduction in mortality, with a drop in deaths from diseases other than measles. This effect is well known, and thought to be linked to the nonspecific effects of vaccination. There is a gender difference also which is somewhat unexplained. As Aaby himself has put it:
            “We found measles vaccination to be associated with a major reduction in mortality, particularly for girls. This suggested that measles vaccine has a beneficial nontargeted immune stimulatory effect.”

            2. Cia misrepresents the specifics.
            Aaby then looked at the deaths of children who survived measles.(Get that Cia? -these studies are done on kids whom measles did NOT kill). Aaby was surprised to find in the study Cia cites that the subsequent mortality in those who had mild or subclinical measles appeared to be better than children who never had measles. But that “soundbite” has been misrepresented by Cia,
            Cia stated: “They die because they got the vaccine instead of natural measles”
            In fact the children in the Aaby study included many who had been vaccinated, and then got what he termed “subclinical measles”. These are the vaccinated children who had a rise in serological titre following measles exposure. This is what is an “anamnestic response” to exposure to the pathogen, rather than “subclinical measles”. In essence, exposure to measles did not make the kids ill, but stimulated their immunity, acting like a vaccine booster.
            In the Aaby study abstract, it is stated: “Sub-clinical measles cases tended to have low mortality and compared with uninfected children, exposed children with clinical or sub-clinical measles had lower age-adjusted mortality (mortality ratio (MR)=0.20 (0.06-0.74)”
            So the lower mortality is influenced by the large group of children with “subclinical measles” who had a low mortality, but almost all of those with subclinical measles had previously been vaccinated, which is why they didn’t get ill with measles, and why their mortality is low.
            Cia misunderstands or misrepresents this to claim the kids with measles had lower mortality were the unvaccinated, when the majority of them were vaccinated.

            3. Other evidence Cia ignores.
            Perhaps the best counter to Cia’s claim is to cite a much larger study by the Aaby group of 7000 kids, over one thousand of whom got measles. There was no difference in mortality demonstrated (for survivors). But despite Cia knowing about that particular study (and many others I have told her about in the past), she instead focuses on the one paper on a small, mild measles outbreak and extrapolates this to cover absolutely everyone.
            Here is what Aaby said: “Age-adjusted post-measles mortality was similar to the mortality of unvaccinated, uninfected children (mortality ratio (MR) = 1.04.” In other words, no difference.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8629610

            Cia has repeatedly shown a propensity to misrepresent scientific evidence. She has lied about this, as well as other evidence. She is entirely untrustworthy.

          • Sonja Henie

            Thank you so much, Mike. I knew we had discussed this before. Cia acting all coy about it really pushed my bottons.

          • ciaparker2
          • Sonja Henie

            Damn, cia, we went through that yesterday! Academia dot edu is not a scientific site; it’s a social networking site for scientists, which definition they’re not too picky about obviously, since you accessed it. Just for the record, when did you last take a science course, and what was it? What work have you done in science in the last say, five years?

          • ciaparker2

            It has the text of the Aaby Senegal study. You just try to find any weak spot which you think you may pick at to use to discredit information on the dangers of vaccines. Since you have failed in your attempts to discredit Dr. Aaby and the authenticity of this study, you have turned to efforts to discredit the Internet site which is one of the many sites on which his study has been posted. And/or appeal to the support of more facile commenters. That’s how you earn your keep.

          • Mike Stevens

            Your failure to acknowledge the substance of my comment is duly noted, Cia.

          • ciaparker2

            Again, I have never disputed that malnourished children have a high mortality rate when they get measles, and in these children, measles vaccination may well prevent their death. However, for the 90% of children who survive measles even in Africa, getting the natural disease greatly increases their long term survival. Notice in the following passage: “most clinical cases of measles were unvaccinated and it seems unlikely that the LOWER mortality can be explained as being due to better care for these children.” “Lower post-measles mortality (because children who got natural measles and recovered had only one-fifth the death rate in the following four years as children who did not get natural measles) compensates for acute measles mortality (because weak, malnourished children often die when they get measles) and as a consequence measles infection has a lower than expected overall impact on survival.” (I.e., the children whose immune systems were greatly improved by having had measles had much better long term survival rates, balancing out the malnourished children killed by natural measles.) Again, it must be left to the parents to make this decision. I will allude to, without reprinting, the judgment of the African father whose comment I pasted up a few minutes ago.
            P. Aaby et al./Vaccine 21 (2002) 120–126

            125
            “Most clinical measles cases were unvaccinated and it seems unlikely that their lower mortality can be explained as being due to better care for these children. Adjusting for vaccination status had no impact on the mortality ratio of clinical and sub-clinical cases compared with uninfected contacts. Among contacts, unvaccinated children had slightly higher mortality than vaccinated children (Table 1).However, the study was too small to compare clinical and sub-clinical cases with only unvaccinated uninfectedchildren.Several studies have shown that the survival impact of measles vaccine cannot be explained by the prevention of acute measles deaths [6,25]. In studies from Guinea-Bissau [6,26], Senegal [6], Burundi [6,27], and Bangladesh [14], the protective efficacy of immunisation against death remained essentially unchanged when measles cases were excluded from the survival analysis. Apparently, lower post-measles mortality compensates for acute measles mortality and as a consequence, measles infection has a lower than expected overall impact on survival. “

          • ciaparker2

            So Dr. Aaby recognizes that natural measles can have both positive and negative effects, and that this may have a great influence on strategies for disease control and vaccination. That is, it would if long term child heath were the principal factor, rather than vaccine profits. And I would also add that it’s important to take into account the mortality rates of malnourished, fragile, vaccinated children from the many diseases they are not vaccinated against, malaria and countless others. Of course the cost in every currency, emotional and physical, as well as financial, or caring (or not) caring for severely vaccine-damaged children is also important to consider.

            “If infections can have both positive and negative effects in areas with highchildhood mortality, this may have major implications for disease control and immunisation strategies.”

          • ciaparker2

            nail it down.

          • Sonja Henie

            Do stop this, cia! I’m going to start flagging.

          • ciaparker2

            Stop what, Sonja? I am commenting on the subject being discussed, without using any indecorous terms. Are you saying that you’re going to flag my comments in an effort to censor the opinions you are dedicated to silencing? Brava!

          • ciaparker2

            nail it down

          • Sonja Henie

            Mod, this is the 9th time in the past 24 hours this poster, ciaparker2, has used these three words in this combination, with different capitalized words and punctuation marks. It’s spam. Shut her down, please.

          • John

            I don’t fancy your chances.I mean it’s like a broken record she continually disregards evidence thrown at her and continues to prattle with her disinformation.

          • Sonja Henie

            Nail it down, nail it down., nail it Down, etc, etc, etc. It’s spam, it contributes nothing to the conversation since you’re talking to yourself every time. It shows your detachment from reality.

          • suz norkan

            They continue to take the ‘ass backward’ way out! Mikey, et al, have become the problem in the guise of a solution.

            They’ll spend billions to fill these unfortunate children full of crap which may do far more harm in the long term, than the measles, rather than providing the funds for adequate sanitation, decent living conditions, accessible medical care when needed, education and proper nutrition!

            What a ‘ropeadope!’

          • ciaparker2

            Brilliantly expressed! The conditions which made measles a trivial disease in the First World could do the same everywhere! Although vaccines are the lucrative “magic bullet” which initially appear to be the easy way out.

          • suz norkan

            Thanks, cia! Coming from a long time advocate for children and/or ALL individuals of vax or OTHER pharma injuries, like you, your recognition means even more!

            Mwah! Love, suz! <3

          • Laura J

            Stuck with two trolls! Got better things to do on a fall day…& be with family.

          • suz norkan

            Roger that Laura! There is ‘life’ outside this box! I never let these astroBRATS get to me. I love being outside, in nature. It certainly puts things into perspective.

            Have a great evening, darlin’!

          • Mike Stevens

            “Lower post-measles mortality (because children who got natural measles and recovered had only one-fifth the death rate in the following four years as children who did not get natural measles)”

            Thank you for demonstrating my point Cia, that even following a detailed explanation as to how this study was
            (1) A small one compared to Aaby’s other work on the topic which contradict it
            (2) Misrepresented by you as indicating those with measles had no vaccination, when in fact half of them did
            (3) Misrepresented by you wrt the mortality since you ignore the large contribution made by the [vaccinated] kids with subclinical measles, (4) Taken out of context by you, you still plough on with the stupid, seeing only what you want to see, despite the facts speaking otherwise.

          • ciaparker2

            I did not misrepresent what Dr. Aaby said at the bottom of the right-hand column on page 124 of the study: “Most clinical measles cases were unvaccinated and it seems unlikely that their lower mortality can be explained as being due to better care for these children. ”

          • Sonja Henie

            “Seems unlikely” as in speculation.

          • Mike Stevens

            You did indeed misrepresent it.

            The Aaby estimate of reduced mortality rate was based upon both clinical measles AND subclinical measles.

            You have stated “almost ALL cases were unvaccinated”, yet as I pointed out, around half were vaccinated.

          • Sonja Henie

            This: http://disq.us/p/1cd4ucz for one. I’ll find the rest. Trust me on this one, cia.

          • That link is busted as.

            It directs to the story, but not the comment. If you click Read Comments you get taken to the page with comments enabled. If you take the URL hash and drop it on the end you get a comment from Mike Stevens responding to your post. Your post is still there and still visible. Is this what you actually meant to link to?

            http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/anti-vaxx-mom-abandons-the-movement-after-all-three-of-her-kids-nearly-die-from-rotavirus/comments/#comment-2924437427

            In summary though, that’s that sites appalling implementation of Disqus at fault. No conspiracy laden alternative history required to explain that.

          • Sonja Henie

            I was trying to link to Mike Stevens’ posts about this wacko study cia unearthed about African kids and measles. I see they didn’t work, which is a shame because it took a lot of time to find them. Time I obviously would have better spent doing something else.

            Good Grief, I was not talking about any conspiracy, and I don’t know where you to that idea. My previous posts in this conversation indicate nothing of the kind. Perhaps you can tell me, as I’m very puzzled that you would think so, and frankly, your comments trying to disabuse me of a conspiracy I did not indicate makes me wonder what’s going on here.

          • Nuts… My bad. I was rushed when posting that. *Really* sorry to say it but I got your nick and cia’s mixed up. There were claims earlier, from cia, that her posts on Disqus were being moderated off the posts but still visible on their profile page. When I clicked that link and it didn’t work my brain went into automatic.

            Again, that was my screwup. Apologies.

          • Sonja Henie

            Got it. I apologize, too, for being so snippy.

          • Heh 🙂 No worries. I need to read these things when I have more free time to hold the conversations in my head better.

          • Mike Stevens

            I’ve responded about this just above. Thanks Sonja.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Cia Parker the ghoul says:

            90% of children with measles in Africa survive

            Ignoring, again, that means 10% DO NOT SURVIVE

            those who do have only a ONE-FIFTH risk of dying in the following five years as those who do not get natural measles, whether because they got the vaccine or just didn’t get measles.

            Cia Parker has now misquoted her own source:
            “Exposed children developing clinical measles had lower age-adjusted mortality over the next 4 years than exposed children who did not develop clinical measles ”
            Aside from the small sample size, the authors do not document what diseases are responsible. There is the oddity that all of the deaths in the uninfected group were boys.

            So you are brushing off the deaths of thousands of brown children not lucky enough to get measles.

            Nope, your study cannot be extrapolated in that way.

          • ciaparker2

            That’s right. In Africa, 10% of children who get measles die, the fragile, malnourished ones. While they are more apt to have severe reactions to vaccines than healthy ones, they are more likely to die of measles than healthy, well-nourished children. Their parents must learn about the issue and make their own decision as to what they want to do, which risk they want to take. The 90% of African children who recover from natural measles benefit from it, having only one-fifth of the mortality rate in the following five years as those children who did NOT get natural measles, whether because they got the vaccine or just didn’t get measles. Because measles is a very beneficial disease for most children to get.

            Many studies have shown how natural measles prevents many serious diseases after recovery. All parents must know this and make their uncoerced choice. I would always choose natural measles for my child.

          • Acleron

            It’s beneficial to get a disease with a 10% mortality rate? That must count as one of the most evil things I’ve ever read.And that’s ignoring the morbidity associated with the disease.

          • ciaparker2

            10% mortality in malnourished children in the Third World. And the 90% who recover would have had only ONE-FIFTH the mortality in the subsequent five years if they had GOTTEN natural measles and not the vaccine. In the First World, in the US in 1960, there were four million cases a year, the entire birth cohort, with an average of 450 deaths. That’s 1.125 deaths in every 10,000 cases. Measles gives permanent immunity, the ability to protect future infants in their first year of life with placental immunity and breast feeding, a stronger immune system, developmental strides, and protection from heart disease, strokes, many diseases, especially skin and bone diseases, and many cancers in later life. Not a bad return for several days of fever (if left alone and no fever reducers are given).

            Your keeping these truths from parents and allowing them to make their own choice is the most evil thing I’ve ever read. I had measles at six. When I was a child, everyone got measles, and no one worried about it. And we were much healthier than recent vaccine-ridden generations.

          • Acleron

            Repeating the same stupidity does not lessen the stupidity, it compounds it.

            It’s the measles that kills them not the malnourishment.

          • Sonja Henie

            Lies, lies, and more lies.

          • Mike Stevens

            She’s completely crazy on this topic.
            If it had a 90% mortality rate she’d still be singing the praises of “natural measles”.

          • ciaparker2

            Mike, you know that the 10% mortality rate is only in malnourished children in the Third World. In the well-nourished First World, the mortality rate in the US in 1960 was only 1.125 deaths in every 10,000 cases, which would be 0.0125 %.

          • Acleron

            So now it is only malnourished children is it?

          • shay simmons

            And with 3 to 4 million cases in the US alone, how many dead people was that, cia?

          • Sonja Henie

            She knows the answer, and is on record saying it’s a number she can “live with”.

          • Mike Stevens

            “In the well-nourished First World, the mortality rate in the US in 1960 was only 1.125 deaths in every 10,000 cases, which would be 0.0125 %.”

            The most recent data on large numbers of cases was from the 1989 onward measles outbreaks, Cia.
            There were 177 measles deaths from 67,000 cases, which is a case fatality rate of one death in 380 cases.
            http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.long
            Extrapolated to 3 million clinical cases of measles each year that there would be without vaccination, you could see up to 8000 deaths annually in the US.
            That is a worse case scenario, admittedly, but seems to be one you are entirely comfortable with. I am afraid that if the death toll from measles in the US even rose into high double figures, you’d see a mass move to champion vaccination, and people like you who promote natural measles would have to hide away to avoid being set upon in the streets.

          • Sonja Henie

            I just got the funniest picture in my head from your last sentence!

          • shay simmons

            It would be a waste of perfectly good tar (not to mention the feathers).

          • John

            http://www.nvic.org/vaccines-and-diseases/measles/measles-history-in-america.aspx In the U.S.A alone between 1958 to 1962 inclusive.over 400 per year died from measles and thousands suffered life long injuries from measles

          • Sonja Henie

            She knows all that, John! She doesn’t care! She is on record as having said she can “live with” 500 deaths a year, and that of course was with a smaller population.

          • John

            My goodness what a grubby specimen for a human being.

          • Michael McCarthy

            having only one-fifth of the mortality rate in the following five years as those children who did NOT get natural measles

            Did you even read your whole paper? You probably did but have chosen to cherry pick but leave out the part that shows measles IS NOT beneficial:
            “Among contacts, unvaccinated children had slightly higher mortality than vaccinated children (Table 1). However, the study was too small to compare clinical and sub-clinical cases with only unvaccinated uninfected children.”
            “Hence, prevention of the long-term consequences of measles does not explain the reduction in mortality after immunisation and the effect is likely to be due to a non-specific immune activation.”
            “These observations on the beneficial long-term consequences of mild measles infection do not exclude that measles infection may have an important negative effect on long-term survival”
            ” Children intensively exposed to measles receive a high dose of infection and have severe infection [12] and children exposed very early in life [34] may be particularly likely to suffer long-term excess mortality”
            “We have also found that very young children exposed to measles when less than 6 months old have long-term excess mortality”

          • ciaparker2

            I believe that it is you who are cherry-picking. There was “slightly higher mortality” in the unvaccinated children, because this group included the 10% of weak, malnourished children who tend to die if they get measles. Overall, the 90% of children strong enough to recover from natural measles when they get it (almost all well-nourished children in the First World) had greatly increased long term survival (five times better) if they got natural measles and NOT the vaccination. I encourage the reader to read the Aaby Senegal study for himself.

            “In a proportional hazards model controlling for age and season, there was no difference in mortality between study children and the 6053 children without known exposure to measles cases (MR = 107 (0.63–1.83)). The 66 clinical cases tended to have lower mortality than children without known exposure (MR = 020 (0.03–1.46)) and the group of 118 clinical and sub-clinical cases had a mortality ratioof 0.46 (0.17–1.24)). On the other hand, the 63 uninfected children had higher mortality than children without known exposure (MR=225 (1.20–4.22)).

            4. Discussion

            Though planned to examine the risk factors for excess mortality after measles [3,12], the study provided further support for the hypothesis that measles infection, like measles immunisation, may be associated with a beneficial effect. Measles infection was not associated with long-term excess mortality; among children exposed to measles at home, clinical measles cases had lower age-adjusted mor-tality than uninfected children. There has been no previouscommunity study of the long-term impact of sub-clinical measles infection; our data suggests that it is not associated with increased mortality. In an area with mild disease, measles infection may be associated with better overall survival than no measles infection [12].Since they lived in the same compound, the uninfected children are likely to share socio-economic, cultural, andenvironmental conditions with the clinical and sub-clinicalmeasles cases. There were no differences in length of breastfeeding, nutritional status, type of measles vaccine,and prevalence of malaria parasitaemia between uninfectedand measles cases. Since there was the same delay betweenexposure and blood sampling for sub-clinical cases and uninfected children, the distinction is not due to exposeduninfected children already having been boosted. Rather,the uninfected children had higher immunisation coverageand may have had more parental attention than measles in-fected children. All deaths during the 4 years of follow-upwere due to infections (Table 2), but not acute measles.Measles infection could also have led to more maternalattention and better care after infection, but at least breast-feeding practices and measles immunisation after exposuredid not differ for clinical and sub-clinical cases and unin-fected children (data available upon request). The difference in mortality was observed over a period of 4 years (Fig. 2) and it seems unlikely that treatment provided during acute measles infection should have such a long-term effect, andsub-clinical cases received no treatment. Surprisingly all deaths in the uninfected group were boys, an observation for which we have no explanation. Hence, it is difficult toimagine a selection bias that could explain why exposedchildren with no boosting response had worse survival than measles cases.”

          • Sonja Henie

            Oh, those loser kids! For God’s sake, cia, give this up! The study doesn’t say what you think it says!

          • ciaparker2

            You’re not good at interpreting studies. Why don’t you go trash the vaccine-damaged at another site?

          • Sonja Henie

            This isn’t even a peer-reivewed study, cia. You find this obscure stuff on social-media science websites (there are several) and think it’s the holy grail. Furthermore, you have exactly zero education in science beyond high school if then!

          • Michael McCarthy
          • Mike Stevens

            “While they [the malnourished] are more apt to have severe reactions to vaccines than healthy ones”

            Citation needed for this nonsense, Cia.

            The malnourished are those with the massive measles mortality, and so they are the ones who specifically need the benefits of vaccination to survive.

          • Mike Stevens

            “In malnourished children in Africa, measles mortality can be as high as 10%”

            I agree Cia, malnutrition ramps up the measles mortality.
            But measles can be prevented by a one or two simple injections, whereas preventing malnutrition in a child is a considerable whole-time process and quite difficult in most parts of Africa, and even then that is no guarantee against dying from measles if you get it (as the numerous deaths in “well noursished” 1st world children is testament to.

            Do you support universal vaccination against measles in Africa?

          • Acleron

            And we’ve seen that attempts to alleviate the nutrition problem are being thwarted in part by the same people irrationally campaigning against GMO.

            And even if the the food problem was solved, that 10% mortality still doesn’t reduce to zero. To do that appears to require vaccination and modern medicine.

      • Anaussieinswitzerland

        All those things may well be true ……..

        ……… for all the children who don’t die of measles.

        • Mike Stevens

          But they aren’t even true for the survivors!
          Cia has cherrypicked a paper that she thinks supports her case, ignoring the numerous other sources of evidence which contradict it, and even ignores subsequent papers from Aaby which contradict his earlier findings.

      • John

        prevents many cancers in later life.———-PLEASE link me to a study that will back up that statement.

      • Natural measles also gives, not only permanent immunity, but a stronger, better-functioning immune system and the ability to protect future infants.

        The takeaway message I get from this is that you don’t understand how the immune system works.

        • JoeFarmer

          ciaparker2 claims to have suffered at least one personal vaccine injury, claims to have at least one vaccine-injured child along with a relative that became schizophrenic after having a vaccine and falling asleep in the sun one day. All of this in spite of living a stone’s-throw away from a really good state university in central Missouri. And only about an hour and a half east of two pretty good medical schools (University of MO and University of KS)

          Oh, and she’s a Juris Doctor, too…

          So there you go.

          • Heh… So not a Doctor of any field vaguely related to biology then.

      • ciaparker2

        “Most clinical measles cases were unvaccinated and itseems unlikely that their lower mortality can be explained as being due to better care for these children. Adjusting forvaccination status had no impact on the mortality ratio of clinical and sub-clinical cases compared with uninfected contacts. Among contacts, unvaccinated children hadslightly higher mortality than vaccinated children (Table 1).However, the study was too small to compare clinicaland sub-clinical cases with only unvaccinated uninfectedchildren.Several studies have shown that the survival impact of measles vaccine cannot be explained by the prevention of acute measles deaths [6,25]. In studies from Guinea-Bissau [6,26], Senegal [6], Burundi [6,27], and Bangladesh [14], the protective efficacy of immunisation against death re-mained essentially unchanged when measles cases wereexcluded from the survival analysis.”

        P. Aaby et al./Vaccine 21 (2002) 120–126

      • Mike Stevens

        Cia, that study by Aaby is cherry-picked and misrepresented by you. You fail to understand the context, fail to recognise Aaby’s numerous other papers indicating the high mortality from measles and the numerous benefits of measles vaccination, you fail to understand the word “mild”, and you ignore subsequent papers on much larger numbers of children which showed no mortality benefit from surviving measles compared to the uninfected.
        In short, you are a liar.

  • Ken Lord

    Here’s the actual history of how homeopathy was invented… That I bet most homeopaths don’t want you to know.

    My favourite part…. ” Among remedies listed in the homeopathic Materia Medica are powder ground from pieces of the Berlin Wall, eclipsed moonlight, the south pole of a magnet, dog’s earwax, tears from a weeping young girl, rattlesnake venom, and poison ivy.”

    … I’d sure like to read the methods section of a homeopathic study for a remedy that uses eclipsed moonlight! hahaha

    http://www.csicop.org/si/show/an_introduction_to_homeopathy

  • Tetenterre

    If the touts for homeopathy want to lay this matter to rest for once and for all, all they need to do is to cite one (yes, just one) replicated robust-quality DBRCT that demonstrates that homeopathy is distinguishable from placebo.

    Surely, with a history of over 200 years, it shouldn’t be that difficult, so I begin to wonder why every time this challenge is proposed, it results in one or more of the following responses:

    * Nothing
    * Unverifiable anecdotes
    * Citing of trials that fail to meet one or more (usually more) of the criteria
    * Special pleading about the use of DBRCTs for homeopathy
    * Red herrings about “allopathy”
    * Claims that the replicated robust DBRCTs are there if we bothered to look for them

    Then I remember that these are the buffoons who would have us believe that, if you take a substance that has a concentration of one molecule of the original “active ingredient” per sphere the size of Earth’s orbit around the Sun and then dilute it even further, so that the concentration is now less than one molecule per known Universe, it has somehow become more potent.

  • Ken Lord

    But wait! Homeopaths today would never use imaginary ingredients like “eclipsed moonlight” in their remedies! Right? I bet the homeopaths commenting here would deny that such ridiculous things are done today by their supposedly science based profession!

    Well, actually … You’ll find the homeopathic flu remedy Oscillococcinum just about everywhere (which is quite ironic since homeopaths claim their remedies are individualized)

    Oscillococcinum is made from an ingredient that doesn’t exist. The inventer misinterpreted the natural small random movements of microscopic particles seen through the microscope as being an actual thing that could cure diseases rather than understanding that it was just the natural motions caused by temperature differences, pressure, etc.

    Without any testing, and despite seeing these motions in every microscopic sample, he decided that duck liver was the best place to source his imaginary ingredient. And under the non scientific understanding of medicine of his time, he turned his imaginary ingredient into a remedy to sell.

    … Then Boiron and others eventually picked up on the chance to make easy money, mass marketing it without any good evidence to back it up, and with no proof that the imaginary ingredient actually exists, or that it’s actually a part of the remedy.

    Homeopathy. So evidence. Much science. hahahaah

    http://www.homeowatch.org/history/oscillo.html

    • ReallyGoodMedicine

      Homeopaths prescribe single remedies for most health issues. The exception is epidemic-type conditions like flu. In this case genus epidemic remedies (such as Oscillo for flu) are often used based on the remedy which has been most successful in most people. Of course, an individualized prescription can be used by people who have a homeopath or have studied homeopathy enough to choose a remedy for themselves.

      Oscillococcinum is made from duck liver. The duck liver is used because it contains the flu virus. Sort of like a vaccine isn’t it? Only one duck was harmed in the making of millions of doses of remedy. In addition to being safe, effective and inexpensive homeopathy is also green.

      • Eeesh! That one is worth framing, Christine. Oscillococcinum? Are you for real?!

      • Neil Woodford

        Yet at normal homeopathic dilution factors the probability of any one dose having even a single virus cell is very small, given that effective immunization requires more than a single virus, the probability of a single dose having enough virus is do vanishingly small that you might as well be drinking water.

        • ReallyGoodMedicine

          It’s called nano-medicine. Get into the 21st century. Drugs companies are investigating ways of using nano-medicine to reduce the side effects of their cancer drugs.

          • Acleron

            Err no.

            Nanotechnology does not consist of throwing away anything that could possibly be active.

          • Neil Woodford

            I am quite aware of nano technologies. I’ve been following several articles on use of nano technologies to better target delivery of drugs. Nano medicine is how medication is structured into nano particles. While the use of nano technologies is not related to the quantity of the drug, the use the technology is seen as possibly allowing for smaller doses. But this is far different from the concept of homeopathy.

      • Acleron

        A homeopath was looking down an optical microscope trying to see the flu virus.

        Sheesh, you can tell this is going to end badly, already.

        Several hundred ridiculous substances later he thinks he has spotted the virus in duck offal. No competent microscopist has ever seen what he described. He named it and Boiron have been making money from sugar pills ever since.

        Evidence that sugar pills cure or prevent flu? None.

        It has a high price to cover the advertising and the packaging.

        Only one duck would supply Boiron for a 100 years of this scam but apparently they perform the gruesome ritual every year.

        • shay simmons

          Personally? If I’m going to ingest duck liver it better come packaged as foie gras.

          • Acleron

            Tournedos Rossini, guaranteed to be just as effective as any Boiron product and better tasting too.

          • shay simmons

            Gilding the lily. A tub of pate, a baguette, and a glass of cold white wine. C’est tout.

      • John

        And also ineffective.

  • Miguel Ángel LS

    Easy trial for any homeopathy supporter: drink a glass full of bleach and a “homeopathic cure” for bleach. If you stay alive you win.

  • ReallyGoodMedicine

    Other readers here who want to know what homeopathy can do for them and their families can find hundreds of case records of cures of serious, chronic diseases by googling “homeopathy cured cases”. These cases are documented by CT scans, x-rays, histopathological reports, blood work and more objective tests. Below is just one example of what homeopathy can achieve. It is the case of a 70-year-old man who suffered from gangrene of his left foot. I bet the patient fervently wishes he had consulted a homeopath before he consulted a surgeon. From the case records of Dr. Punit Sarpal:

    “His affected region was removed via operation by allopaths to stop its growth, but all was in vain. The abscess continued to grow and started giving a stinking odor. He was re-operated and the doctor removed two toes of his left foot, but still his gangrene continued. He was operated on a third-time and the whole left foot was removed. His doctors then advised removing the left leg below the knee joint. This was the fourth time he was operated on, yet there was no hope of any promising relief.

    “This patient then sought homeopathic treatment under my care. Within one month of his homeopathic treatment…the abscess reduced and the odor was remarkably reduced. The dose was repeated after three months….the stinking smell of gangrene faded completely. His abscess was also healed. Now he’s well with no further signs of gangrene.”

    • ReallyGoodMedicine

      People who would like to read the records for this man with gangrene will find them at:

      http://hpathy.com/clinical-cases/case-gangrene/

      • Tetenterre

        Not in a reputable peer-reviewed journal then? Quel surprise!

    • lolexplosm

      Which homeopathic remedy will cure meningitis?

      Also in response to the alleged case, an alternative view was that the fourth time was the charm as it’s possible they managed to get ahead of the gangrene and thus the time was the healer. There’s also the consideration that after any surgery, standard procedure is antibiotics, painkillers, anti-inflammatory etc.

      But of course, you can only conclude without doubt it simply must have been the homeopathy.

    • Propaganda and lies. You forget… we’ve seen it all before.

    • Talking of CT scans, remember that time Sandra posted her ‘evidence’ that was a case study that included some CT scans? It seemed to convince her but I have no idea why anyone would be convinced by it – most people I know have far higher standards and a better understanding of evidence. Anyway, I provided a critique of it and a few hours later all the homeopathy fans flounced off without addressing anything I said – but they did post a cartoon…

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        My dear Alan,

        You’ve acknowledged that you have absolutely no training or experience whatsoever in any form of medicine or medical research so I really don’t know why you think anyone would give one ounce of credibility to your critiques of case studies or CT scans.

        • Sam Gilman

          Please submit a scan of your medical certificates and medical license.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Irrelevant — I did not treat the patient.

          • Sonja Henie

            Cop out.

          • Sam Gilman

            It is absolutely relevant, because you made it relevant. You have criticised someone for having no training in any form of medicine and medical research. You said:

            You’ve acknowledged that you have absolutely no training or experience whatsoever in any form of medicine or medical research so I really don’t know why you think anyone would give one ounce of credibility to your critiques of case studies or CT scans.

            On this page on the past three days you have offered your judgement in support of homeopathy in the following medical topics:
            CT scans
            Pharmacology in general
            Meningitis
            Case study methodology
            Cancer in general
            Diabetes
            Paediatrics in general
            Rheumatology
            Nanotechnology
            Gangrene
            Histopathology
            Influenza

            Now, given that on this page, quite apart from wild medicinal claims, I can confirm that you have been recklessly spreading false information about the funding and execution of clinical trials, the World Health Organisation, and the author of this article Professor Edzard Ernst, I think it is perfectly reasonable at minimum to ask that you apply the same standards of assurance you apply to everyone else to yourself.

            Show us your medicinal certificates and licenses, RGM. You seem to think everyone else has to have them before putting a valid opinion.

        • Wrong as usual. But if you are unable or unwilling to answer basic and simple questions about the so-called ‘evidence’ for homeopathy, please just admit it.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            You’ve had basic and simple “questions” about the evidence for homeopathy for quite a long time now. As always, I recommend that you answer your own questions by doing your own research.

          • So you still can’t provide any good evidence? Got it.

    • Sonja Henie

      Why would you use ” CT scans, x-rays, histopathological reports, blood work and more objective tests” in homeopathy? Just curious.

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        For the same reason that doctors of conventional medicine use objective tests: to determine the effect of the treatment.

        • Sonja Henie

          That’s too much! They won’t use “real” drugs, but they’ll use this other stuff!

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Of course homeopaths don’t prescribe drugs. Drugs are well known to maim and kill. They’re the third leading cause of death in the U.S. and, most likely, in countries around the world where they’re used.

            The vast majority of homeopaths are M.D.’s who invested another three or four years in study in order to practice homeopathy. They chose to do that because they saw that they could do a lot more for their patients with safe, effective medicine than they could with drugs. People who want to practice medicine want to help their patients. They don’t want to use treatments that do harm.

          • ‘They’re the third leading cause of death in the U.S.’

            That’s the same misleading, context-less misinformation that Ros Ross always eructates on threads like this, isn’t it? Then you add ‘most likely’ for other countries. Because you don’t actually know, do you? You just repeat what you’ve read that conforms to your warped anti-medical science worldview.

            ‘The vast majority of homeopaths are M.D.’s who invested another three or four years in study in order to practice homeopathy.’

            The ‘vast majority’? Where’d you get that from? How do you know that? Bluffer.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            My dear Mr. Turnpenny:

            Part One –

            If you had done some research on the facts about drugs you would have seen that drugs are easily the third leading cause of death in the US and elsewhere. According to a study conducted by Donald W. Light, Rowan University, and reported by the American Sociological Association:

            “Epidemiologically, appropriately prescribed drugs are the fourth leading cause of death tied with stroke at about 2,460 deaths each WEEK in the U.S. About 330,000 patients die each year from prescription drugs IN THE US AND EUROPE. They cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations, falls, road accidents and about 80 million medically minor problems. Deaths and adverse effects from over-medication, errors and self-medication would INCREASE THESE FIGURES.”

            http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/nov14/prescription_1114.html

            According to the U.S. FDA, there are over 2 million ADR’s (adverse drug “events”) every year. There are 100,000 deaths yearly. ADR’s alone are the fourth leading cause of death ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and auto deaths.

            Nursing home patients have 350,000 ADR’s a year. Ambulatory patients have an ADR rate which is unknown.

            Lazarou, J., et al. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1998
            Gurwitz, J.H., et al., American Journal of Medicine, 2000

          • I’m not your ‘dear’.

            Oh, and to think you could have been more up-to-date and cited Makary and Daniel:

            https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s/

            I put it to you that you are deliberately misleading people in order to advance your cult. However, none of this in any way constitutes an iota of evidence for homeopathy does it? And you know that. So what do you do? You obfuscate.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Are you actually claiming that the U.S. Department of Justice, The American Medical Association, The American Journal of Medicine, the U.S. FDA, independent researchers and Cornell and Stanford Universities are “…deliberately misleading people”? I’m citing their facts and figures — not my personal opinions!

          • No. I’m actually claiming you are.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Actually, I’m not. I’ve posted all the pertinent links. Anyone who wants to verify what I’ve posted is free to do so.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Mr. Turnpenny:

            Part Two

            Here are just three of the drugs that cause those deaths. Avandia alone is linked to 100,000 heart attacks. DURING CLINICAL TRIALS more people taking Avandia died of a heart attack than those taking placebo. “A two-year investigation by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee revealed GSK KNEW of the cardio-vascular dangers for years and tried to stifle concerns. The FDA now requires a black box warning (meaning “use at YOUR OWN risk).

            http://www.drugwatch.com/avandia/lawsuit.php

            The U.S. FDA estimates Vioxx caused 27,785 deaths.

            http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/vioxx_estimates.html

            Cornell and Stanford University report that common asthma inhalers cause 80% of asthma-related deaths.

            http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/06/common-asthma-inhaler-causing-deaths-researchers-assert

          • … and by the way, have you read the above article? It’s about homeopathy. What have you got?

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            You don’t want to talk about drugs? There’s good reason for that.

          • Well, no, not especially. What’s the relevance?

          • Acleron

            Keeping to the topic is not good enough?

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Mr. Turnpenny:

            Part Three

            A study published in The Lancet, September of this year, finds that chemotherapy kills 50% of patients in the first 30 days of treatment.

            http://www.healthnutnews.com/study-finds-chemo-kills-50-of-patients-in-the-first-30-days

            Getting back to Avandia, GSK heads up a list of 20 of the largest drug company settlements reached with the U.S. Department of Justice for a variety of crimes. GSK agreed to pay a $1 Billion criminal fine and a $2 Billion civil fine for “making false and misleading statements concerning the safety of Avandia”. This and the others, including fines paid by Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lily and Astra Zeneca (for Medicare fraud), can be seen at:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

            I certainly hope this addresses your claim that I’ve posted “….the same misleading, context-less misinformation that Ros Ross always eructates on threads like this”. If not, there’s a lot more information about drugs to be discussed.

          • Regarding whether drugs are the third leading cause of death? No it doesn’t. And the topic of the above article isn’t drugs, is it? It’s about Cochrane Reviews of homeopathy. In case you missed that.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Aahhh, you’d like some more information about drugs? Dr. Barbara Starfield of Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, that medicare care was the third leading cause of death in the US in 2000. This is the breakdown:

            Of the 225,000 deaths caused every year by medical care there were:

            12,000 deaths from unnecessary surgery
            27,000 deaths from hospital errors
            80,000 deaths due to infections contracted in the hospital
            106,000 deaths from NON-ERROR NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF DRUGS

            Dr. Starfield’s findings are corroborated by more recent findings by Dr. Gotzsche, director of the Cochrane, who discusses the way in which big pharma has corrupted health care.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dozpAshvtsA

            and:

            This Harvard professor believes (with obvious good reasons) that prescription drugs are killing our population.

            https://yournewswire.com/harvard-professor-says-prescription-drugs-are-killing-population/

          • No, I haven’t asked you for information about drugs, have I? (Which, of course, you know.) If I’m asking you for anything (other than to cease your anti-medical science propaganda), it’s to address the above article – and counter it with real evidence for homeopathy. But you won’t… because you can’t. So instead you keep on making your deflecting, distorting noise.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            You can’t acknowledge the evidence either for homeopathy or against conventional drugs. The problem for “skeptics” is that once you acknowledge that just one study showing homeopathy works isn’t flawed or that just one case cured with homeopathy is factual you admit that homeopathy works. The “skeptic” platform is so flimsy a child could knock it over with the touch of a finger. That platform is:

            1) All the studies showing homeopathy works are flawed. Never mind the fact that they’ve been published in the world’s most respected journals of conventional medicine, journals like The Lancet, BMJ, Rheumatology, Pediatrics, Cancer, International Journal of Oncology and Phlebology. Not really a credible claim is it especially considering the high degree of knowledge, education and experience of their editors?

            2) Clinical evidence is worthless. It isn’t worthless to the people who have benefited so tremendously from homeopathy (like the 70-year-old man who was cured of gangrene with homeopathy after surgery failed). It isn’t worthless to the tens of thousands of people who have been maimed or killed by conventional drugs.

            3) Every one of the half million homeopaths in practice today is a scammer. Not really credible is it?

            4) All the patients who use homeopathy because it works for them are uneducated and unable to differentiate between what works and what doesn’t. Another not very credible claim. I give people a lot more credit than “skeptics” do.

          • Oh, I might quite happily acknowledge evidence against (real medical) drugs. Were that the topic. Science continues to re-evaluate them. And it is science which is the driver behind the AllTrials campaign to get all pharmaceutical companies to publish all their trial data. I take it, then, you’ve signed its petition, being as this concerns you so much?

            As for homeopathy: you have nothing. So you employ ‘Either/Or’ illogic to deflect from the topic, cherry-pick, bung in an(other dubious) anecdote, and erect strawmen. Those taking people for mugs are the dishonest, reprehensible propagandists for homeopathy, who hover over the web and descend to re-paste the same tired stock material. Sound familiar?

          • ‘The problem for “skeptics” is that once you acknowledge that just one study showing homeopathy works isn’t flawed or that just one case cured with homeopathy is factual you admit that homeopathy works.’

            ? Eh?! Are you saying that just one study or one case is all you need?

          • Maybe we should ask Dr Gøtzsche what he thinks of homeopathy?

          • Michael McCarthy

            A study published in The Lancet, September of this year, finds that chemotherapy kills 50% of patients in the first 30 days of treatment.

            Miss Erin Elizabeth lies, that is NOT what the study found. I guess you didn’t bother reading it but accepted her garbled interpretation.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            I post links so that the public can read the material and come to its own conclusions about it. No one has to take my word for what the study showed or your attempt to discredit the person who reported — REPORTED NOT WROTE — the study.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I’m not attempting to discredit her, I made a statement of fact that she is lying about the results. You’re quoting Erin Elizabeth’s words about the study, not the actual results, so you’re misleading the lay person who may not be able to read a study and so won’t even try (although the charts included in the study are not difficult to read). Dishonesty at it’s finest.

          • Yeah, because Erin HealthNutSackNews” would never mislead her dumb followers. Ya know, like when she posts nonsense about homeopaths being systematically assassinated, and then gets called out on it, her response is that she’s not trying to jump to any conclusions; just posting what she’s read.

            Here’s some advice: use better sources for your information.

          • Reality022

            FSMPastapharian hilariously said, “Yeah, because Erin HealthNutSackNews”

            Pffttthhh!
            Hahahaha!

            You owe me a new keyboard.

          • It’s in the mail 😉 Glad I could help.

          • Michael McCarthy

            and then gets called out on it, her response is that she’s not trying to jump to any conclusions

            And sometimes during said discussion she accuses others (me) of being liars and murderers and makes threats violating her authority as a moderator. (and then bans people for reporting her)

          • Sam Gilman

            I’ve worked out what RGM is doing to get some of these numbers, and it’s unbelievably dumb.

            She’s adding up the percentage mortalities for each individual condition to get an overall figure.

            So say you have five conditions, each with a mortality rate of 5%. She would add up all the 5%s and declare a mortality rate of 25%. Simply by including another similar condition in the table and the death rate increase to 30%. Report on 30 such conditions and the morality rate would rise to 150%.

            She quite literally thinks people making result tables in a research paper causes death from cancer treatment.

            I’ve seen extraordinary claims against mainstream scientific research, but this is perhaps the most extreme.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            There comes a time when it’s important to stop feeding the trolls, Sam. I’m quite sure that other readers here (excluding “skeptics”, of course) are smart enough to read the charts and the paper and come to their own conclusions about what is being said.

          • Sam Gilman

            Yes, and people can see I’m right. Because you’ve just admitted that this is what you are doing.

            You are, in effect, claiming that adding rows to tables in a science paper raises mortality rates in real life.

            It’s nuts.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Is that what happened? I thought they were simply taking the percentages from table 1.

          • Sam Gilman
          • Michael McCarthy

            oh my. Must have taken the Stephanie Seneff course on probability and statistics.

          • Sam Gilman

            I think you’re flattering RGM here.

          • All you need to see is “Erin Elizabeth.” The only thing less credible than Mercola is Mercola’s F-toy.

          • Reality022

            Her qualifications are above reproach. Aside from being Merde-ola’s paramour she was also a model – supposedly.
            Everyone knows that the key to entering a PhD program in the sciences isn’t a BS in Bio, Chem, or Physics and an MS in a specialty of one of those… It’s how many bikini shoots you’ve done.

            As an aside – Isn’t amazing how Merde-ola can give you half a dozen sure-fire cures for cancer but seems strangely impotent at producing a cure for his own male pattern baldness?
            I mean, which is easier and less dangerous – a cure for baldness or a cure for cancer?

            Maybe he should investigate Ron Popeil’s spray on hair that was heavily advertised in the 1980s and 1990s to the amusement of us all.

          • Ahhh, the spray-on bread mold that made you look like a chia pet! But in Mercola’s defense, “they” aren’t keeping the cure for baldness from us. It will not help them with their black ops depopulation program.

          • Michael McCarthy

            She makes me want to vomit.

          • Sam Gilman

            No, the Lancet study didn’t say that.

            Here, for example, is the table of how many people died after 30 days of cancer treatment, regardless of cause:

            http://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableImage?tableId=tbl2&pii=S1470204516303837

            (The table shows how many patients of the total they could get clear data for, and then of that set, how many died.)

            Why didn’t you directly link to the Lancet study?

            Is it
            A) You hadn’t read it, but instead thought “healthnutnews” was some kind of medical authority?
            or
            B) You read it, understood it, but decided to lie about it?

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            The graph you linked to is based on treatment intent. It shows a mortality rate of 40% in the first 30 days of treatment. You missed the second graph. It shows mortality for both types of cancer by both morphology and treatment intent. That mortality rate is 89%.

            http://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableImage?tableID=tbl3&pii=S1470204516303837

            The paper states: “We identified trusts with mortality rates in excess of the 95% control limits……”.

            http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2945(16)30383-7/abstract

            40% – 89% mortality rate = quack treatment.

          • Sam Gilman

            The graph you linked to is based on treatment intent. It shows a mortality rate of 40% in the first 30 days of treatment.

            No, it doesn’t. Here’s the table for everyone else again, and 40% doesn’t even appear on it, not in the thirty day mortality column, not in the total patients column:

            http://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableImage?tableId=tbl3&pii=S1470204516303837

            Would you like to explain to everyone how you got that 40%, since it’s not on the table? To me it looks like a straightforward lie. Can you explain how it isn’t?

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Read the second column “30-Day Mortality”. It lists #’s of deaths and percentage of patients according to treatment intent, i.e., palliative, curative or unknown, (or morphology and treatment intent in the second chart). Add up the percentages.

          • Sam Gilman

            Yes, I’d worked out that this is what you are doing. It’s hilarious. I’ve taken a screenshot of your comment in case you delete it.

            What might be wrong with what you’re doing? Well, let’s see:

            Let’s imagine we have five conditions each with a mortality rate of 5%. We put them in a table, marking the morality rate.

            You would declare overall death rates to be 25%, because you would add up all the 5%s in that column.

            If we added another five, we would get a 50% mortality rate. Simply by making a table in a stats program on a computer and adding more rows to the table. That would be the cause of the increase in mortality.

            If we put 30 such conditions in a table, the mortality rate would be 150%. The dead would be rising from their graves to die all over again. Simply because we reported more conditions in a table in a paper.

            Wow. You believe that making stats tables, that is, reporting on mainstream medical science, kills people. This is some kind of weird quantum quackery observer effect.

            This is truly hilarious, RGM. This is a keeper.

          • Acleron

            Cretin

          • Acleron

            She’s summed the individual percentages.

          • Sam Gilman

            I know. It’s mad, isn’t it?

          • Sam Gilman

            As for the next table, you claim:

            It shows mortality for both types of cancer by both morphology and treatment intent. That mortality rate is 89%.

            No, it doesn’t. As with your previous claim, this one – the 89% – appears nowhere on the table, and is a mathematical impossibility recognisable to an elementary school student, given that the highest mortality rate for any individual condition is 12%.

            http://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableImage?tableId=tbl3&pii=S1470204516303837

            Would you like to explain to people why this 89% claim isn’t yet another lie you’re foisting on people in defence of a profitable pseudoscience rejected by the scientific community?

          • Acleron

            “Of course homeopaths don’t prescribe drugs. Drugs are well known to maim and kill. ”

            That must be why homeopaths in India are campaigning to be allowed to give/sell prescription drugs.

          • Sam Gilman

            Really?

            That’s frightening.

          • Acleron

            Not quite as bad as it sounds. Homeopathy was given a free ride in India, when this happened the medical establishment became more vocal in criticising it.

          • Sam Gilman

            Homeopathy is such nonsense. It’s not even “traditional”. I’m amazed it gets a free ride anywhere outside Europe.

          • John

            http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/39703/title/Australia-Officially-Debunks-Homeopathy/ I believe a world leading medical team in Australia comprehensibly debunked Homeopathy years ago.

          • Sonja Henie

            Snort!

          • Citation (badly) needed*

            Exactly what % of MDs go on to become to quacks? You’re telling me that the “vast majority” of homeoquacks are MDs? I’m sorry, but I’m going to need a link for that one. I’ll wait.

          • Then why are homeopaths (and naturopaths in general) lobbying legislatures to grant them prescription pads for regulated drugs?

          • Acleron

            Good point, I’d forgotten about the naturopaths.

          • Sam Gilman

            It’s because alternative medicine is a performance, a bit like playing at doctors and nurses, only for adults. Real doctors do tests, so the alternative crowd play at doing tests too.

            Have you ever wondered why a lot of herbalists feel like old fashioned apothecaries?

          • Acleron

            They like the aura of respectability that medicine and science has, they just don’t like the results.

          • Sam Gilman

            Or for most of them, the hard and sometimes tedious work of studying science and medicine.

    • John

      What happened to Mr Steve Jobs?

      • ReallyGoodMedicine

        He used diet to treat his pancreatic cancer. Unfortunately, most people with this type of cancer don’t survive no matter what system of medicine they use.

        Read his biography before posting comments about his death. Good try, but no cigar for you!

        • rosross

          The irony is that millions are killed by Allopathic treatment every year. The added irony is that more millions die despite Allopathic treatment.

          • Acleron

            And yet another flexible number that changes in the telling but has no foundation.

          • That’s the advantage of just making stuff up. It’s all Humpty-Dumpty.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Using the study I posted above as just one instance we could easily say that millions are killed by allopathic treatment every year. It included 32,862 patients and shows that chemotherapy killed 50% of patients receiving it and killed them within 30 days of starting treatment. This is the “scientifically proven” medicine “skeptics” think everyone should use.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Why do you lie?

          • Acleron

            Because of lack of anything else?

            Just a guess.

          • Acleron

            You can easily say anything and you do.

            The rest of us are constrained by facts and logic

        • John
          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Glad to get back to you! What you link to is nothing more than a newspaper article. Claiming a person “may” have improved or recovered in just speculation, far from a guarantee which no doctor could or would give.

            The article mentions chemotherapy. Let’s see what a recent study published in The Lancet shows about chemotherapy. Of 23,228 patients with breast cancer and 9,634 patients with lung cancer who received chemotherapy 50% died of the treatment — not the disease — and they died within 30 days of starting chemotherapy. 50% mortality rate due to treatment = quack treatment. Shame on anyone who pushes chemotherapy.

            http://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableImage?tableID=tbI3&pii=31470204516303837

            The study also states: “We identified trusts with mortality rates in excess of the 95% control limit……”

            http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PII31470-2345(16)30383-7/abstract

            If the links don’t work, use:

            http://www.healthnutnews.com/study-finds-chemo-kills-50-of-patients-in-the-first-30-days

            Click on “Lancet” in the body of the text. It will take you to The Lancet article. Click on “Tables and Figures” and click on Table 3.

            Freedom of choice in health care is a human right. Respect it.

          • Michael McCarthy

            The article mentions chemotherapy. Let’s see what a recent study published in The Lancet shows about chemotherapy. Of 23,228 patients with breast cancer and 9,634 patients with lung cancer who received chemotherapy 50% died of the treatment — not the disease — and they died within 30 days of starting chemotherapy. 50% mortality rate due to treatment = quack treatment. Shame on anyone who pushes chemotherapy.

            You already lied about this once in the thread.
            Luirkers: That is NOT the result from the study. See Table 2:
            http://www.thelancet.com/action/showFullTableImage?tableId=tbl2&pii=S1470204516303837
            Line 4: Of the 28364 breast cancer patients, 700 had a 30 day mortality (2%)
            Line 8: of the 15045 lung cancer patients, 1274 (8%) had 30 day mortality.
            That mortality was not always attributable to the therapy (further detail is in the paper).
            RGM will next add up the percentages by subtype (column 2) to bolster her opinion. A careful reading will show why she is incorrect.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            I can easily understand why “skeptics” of homeopathy go to such lengths to deny the facts about conventional treatments which they support wholeheartedly and never criticize. I recommend that other readers here look at the charts for themselves. They will read the following:

            Lunc cancer:
            NSCLC — 3% of those receiving curative chemotherapy died in the first 30 days
            9% of those receiving palliative care died in the first 30 days
            6% of those whose type of care was not recorded died in the first 30 days

            SCLC — 4% of those receiving curative care died in the first 30 days
            — 12% of those receiving palliative care died in the first 30 days
            — 12% of those whose type of care was not recorded died in the first 30 days

            Breast cancer — 1% of those receiving curative care died in the first 30 days
            7% of those receiving palliative care died in the first 30 days
            2% of those whose type of care was not recorded died in the first 30
            days

            Based on the figures given in the study Healthnutnews was being generous when they used a mortality rate of 50%.

            “Skeptics” love to talk about the public being given information so that people can make “informed decisions”, but you sure don’t like it when information about the drugs you support is made public, do you?

          • Michael McCarthy

            As predicted, RGM begins adding up the percentages for individual treatments to attempt to inflate the numbers. Can’t do that RGM. And as I posted, those are merely mortalities within 30 days, not mortalities due to treatment.

          • Acleron

            Everybody else can see that the calculation is the sum of the individuals who died divided by the total, not the sum of the percentages.

            Sheesh, you should have learned that at 10 years of age.

          • Sam Gilman

            What you’re doing is really rather horrible. Those of us here criticising you have the educational wherewithal to know that this summing up of death rates is ridiculous nonsense – you might as well add up the heights of a kindergarten class of 20 and declare the average height of a child to be 22m. It’s that obviously wrong.

            Now, you’ve heavily implied that you have medical training. When asked for proof, you didn’t deny you had the training, but found an excuse not to provide the proof. So clearly, you must be trained. So this cannot be your incompetence in doing this. It must therefore be a deliberate ploy.

            Because the thing is, we’re not your targets. Your targets are the vulnerable and suggestible. People desperate because they’re ill.

            There’s people recommending homeopathy for mild ailments, and then there’s you: going for the big stuff. Cancer. Stuff that wrecks people’s lives. Or as you see it, a profit centre.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            “The mortality was not always attributable to the therapy.” Really? The paper states:

            “30-day mortality might be a useful factor of AVOIDABLE HARM to patients…..The AIM OF THIS FIRST STUDY based on SACT dataset was to establish national 30-day mortality benchmarks for breast and lung cancer patients receiving SACT in England and to START TO IDENTIFY WHERE PATIENT CARE COULD BE IMPROVED.

            “The identification of hospitals with significantly higher rates syould promote review of clinical decision making in these hospitals.”

          • Michael McCarthy

            I don’t know if you are stoopid or simply dishonest, I will go with the latter.
            “Of the patients with breast or lung cancer reported to have received SACT in England between Jan 1, 2014, and Dec 31, 2014, we identified those that died within 30 days of SACT (from all causes, including iatrogenic deaths or those due to disease progression)”

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            You, Michael, cannot even admit that error in using SACT kills people!

            Iatrogenic death means death caused by SACT or any other doctor/medicine-related cause which is what this paper is all about. Progression of disease is part of the benchmark but not a factor in assessing harm caused by SACT which is what is discussed in this paper.

            From the Introduction to the paper:

            “Patients dying within 30 days after beginning treatment with SACT are unlikely to have gained the survival or palliative benefits of the treatment, and in view of the SIDE-EFFECTS sometimes caused by SACT, are MORE LIKELY TO HAVE SUFFERED HARM. In particular, the risk of neutropenic sepsis is highest in the 30 days after SACT…death from neutorpenic sepsis FROM THE PREVIOUS TREATMENT is captured within the 30-day mortality metric. Simply REDUCING DOSES OR AVOIDING SACT altogether would reduce or eliminate instances of treatment-related early mortality.”

            From the section “Implications of All Available Evidence”:

            “This study shows that the SACT dataset provides insight into the factors affecting early mortality of patients in England. It suggests that treatment intent, age, performance status and sex and stage (of cancer) all affect 30-day mortality. The discrepancies between patient categories for each of these factors point to opportunities for improvements in care.”

            http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(16)30383-7/fulltext

            Freedom of choice in health care is a human right. Respect it.

          • Acleron

            So having dishonestly manipulated the figures to attempt to frighten people you have the gall to say that others are lacking in respect.

            It’s not the first time you’ve been caught out lying about numbers, perhaps you should imbibe your own morality lessons.

          • Michael McCarthy

            She’s a real piece of work.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            My, my, my. Cancer is such a big business, isn’t it. I hear it’s a $2 Billion industry annually.

          • John

            And tell me the amount of dollars pulled in by the Alternative medicine business.I believe it is $34 billion annually.

          • Acleron

            Which is why you quacks want your grubby little fingers in it.

            Despite the blatant lying of you and your ilk, we now have treatments for many different cancers. They have been developed by hard work and attention to detail.

            It is not as simplistic as some charlatan making claims but requires research, development and deployment.

            This paper sets standards for deployment. It may be that better training and education can increase the survival rates even more.

            You, however, tried to dishonestly lie about its results and your first sentence shows why. Like all quacks, all you are interested in is money.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Internet trolls are narcissists, psychopaths and sadists

            http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-online-secrets/201409/internet-trolls-are-narcissists-psychopaths-and-sadists?tr=MostViewed

            And it all comes from a………….STUDY!

            Not to mention being cyberbullies.

          • Acleron

            Showing that somebody is just a liar is bullying is it?

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            How does one “dishonestly lie”?

          • Acleron

            Ooh aah, I’ve been caught out by the grammar police.

            If you wish change the phrase to blatantly lying.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Iatrogenic death means death caused by SACT or any other doctor/medicine-related cause which is what this paper is all about. Progression of disease is part of the benchmark but not a factor in assessing harm caused by SACT which is what is discussed in this paper.

            Now you’re being dishonest again. Progression of disease can mean the cancer was unresponsive to treatment. And, of course, you’re still wrongly assuming death was only due to those 2 causes but as pointed out the deaths examined were due to ALL causes, not restricted to those 2. What is being discussed in the paper is the need to more closely monitor patient health during treatment and adjusting treatment as needed rather than using a one size fits all approach.

            “Patients dying within 30 days after beginning treatment with SACT are unlikely to have gained the survival or palliative benefits of the treatment, and in view of the SIDE-EFFECTS sometimes caused by SACT, are MORE LIKELY TO HAVE SUFFERED HARM. In particular, the risk of neutropenic sepsis is highest in the 30 days after SACT…death from neutorpenic sepsis FROM THE PREVIOUS TREATMENT is captured within the 30-day mortality metric. Simply REDUCING DOSES OR AVOIDING SACT altogether would reduce or eliminate instances of treatment-related early mortality.”

            More dishonesty. Why not include the remainder of the last sentence? ” Simply reducing doses of or avoiding SACT altogether would reduce or eliminate instances of treatment-related early mortality, but at the cost of some patients being denied effective SACT and hence the survival and palliation benefits.

            Freedom of choice in health care is a human right. Respect it.

            It is and people can do what they want. However, when people such as you outright LIE about things, others need to step in and address those lies.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            It’s time to stop feeding the trolls.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Patients not receiving SACT due to their physicians’s assessments that they are not appropriate candidates

            Which isn’t what that sentence means, you’re being deliberately dishonest again.

            Seems like you’re trying to claim that the speculation that someone might benefit from SACT negates all the harm it does to others.

            Actually, you’re attempting to claim that there is a massive risk of harm for little benefit, which is not the finding of the study at all.

            What I’ve posted here comes directly from the study. If you think the authors are lying, you should take it up with them.

            I’m not saying the authors are lying, YOU ARE LYING about the authors findings.

            It’s time to stop feeding the trolls.

            This seems to be your tag line each and every time you’ve been shown to be both wrong and a liar. Why is that?

          • John

            Unless it impacts on someone else’s health.

          • Acleron

            They are setting benchmarks to improve on.

            Homeopaths obviously make up numbers from arcane numerology, useless.

          • Acleron

            Have we just seen a quack meme created or did you copy that idiocy from some other maths challenged idiot?

          • John

            Guarantees are never given in medicine,correct, I had 24 weeks of chemo, that was 2 years ago,If I did not have the chemo I would have died a long time ago,CHEMO saved my life.Steve Job’s biographer said that Steve regretted giving up on modern medicine and admitted that he made a mistake by moving to Alternative medicine. If YOU read the biography you would have known that.

          • ‘Freedom of choice in health care is a human right.’

            Indeed… providing that choice is between available effective treatments. Who ‘pushes’ chemotherapy? It is provided following a risk-benefit evaluation, based on which the patient is free to decline. Which is where manipulators like you come in. You claim the right to choose should include worthless quack alternatives, such as homeopathy – based not on any positive evidence for it, but on your disingenuous campaign against ‘Big Pharma’. This is where propagandists like you are at their most vile. And you continue at it because the ‘moderate’ homeopathy dolts fail to protest at your sick and dishonest activity.

            ‘Freedom of choice’, where the choice is between a potentially effective treatment – with full disclosure of risks and side-effects – and a wholly ineffective ‘alternative’, is no choice at all.

          • Acleron

            There is no freedom of choice without freedom of information. At every opportunity, homeopaths fail to tell the truth.

          • Laura J

            yeah chemo gave my dad heart failure at the end…but he was already too sick before Drs. found he had Lymphoma. Powerful stuff that leaves you open to infections.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            My father died of lymphoma. His oncologist talked him into using chemo and radiation. He died after two or three months of treatment, and he died a much more painful death because of chemo and radiation than he would have without them. He was 85 years old. Probably his oncologist made one of those errors this study talks about when he recommended the treatments.

          • Laura J

            Sorry about YOUR dad. Mine hated drs. It took 3 of them to subdue him before they conducted tests on him. He didn’t take good care of himself. he was 62. 🙁

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            It’s so hard to lose a parent and under the circumstances your father had it must have been even harder. My father wasn’t too fond of doctors either. They seemed to be of little help, not surprising.

          • Laura J

            yeah he always said they were trying to kill ya. But I think if he had better health habits he’d be alive to see his grandbabies.

        • John

          This is an excerpt from link provided in next post——–Some cancer experts have said that Mr Jobs may have extended his life or
          even survived if he had promptly tackled his cancer aggressively with
          scientifically proven medical treatments.

        • Laura J

          Oh that’s sad. That’s a bad cancer, too. It’s supposed to be genetic, isn’t it?

    • Laura J

      Yup and many are covered by insurance, too.

  • Moz Gren

    Surely, the less homeopaths argue the stronger their case.

  • breed7

    Homeopathy is like religion — even though there is zero evidence supporting it, there is nothing you can say to get the “believers” to change their minds. There’s just no point in arguing with them. There is no cure for stupidity.

    • Acleron

      True, but worth getting the facts of the scam out to stop others falling for it.

    • Sam Gilman

      There is, unfortunately, one established cure, and that’s when they suffer from trying to apply homeopathy to serious conditions and risk their lives.

      • Laura J

        or from medications that have serious side effects, like a two edged sword!

        • Sam Gilman

          That risk is better than dying from a treatable disease that you didn’t treat because you decided to believe in magic sugar pills.

          • Laura J

            That is because Homeopathic is chosen by millions of people! And the revolution is growing! People take charge of their health backed by their dr. Here, let me educate you.

            Why Over 100 Million People Choose Homeopathy

            Homeopathic medicine is the second most popular medical system in the world according to The World Health Organization, which supports homeopathy.

            It’s Safe

            It’s gentle, non-toxic, and free from toxic side effects found with conventional medicines.
            Remedies are often recommended for the elderly, pregnant women and newborns.
            Remedies are made under strict protocol in FDA-approved labs.
            It’s trusted worldwide as one of the safest forms of medicine available.
            Inexpensive

            It is more cost-effective than any other form of medicine, both conventional or alternative medicine, according to a study commissioned by the government of Switzerland.
            A single remedy can treat virtually hundreds of different symptoms.
            With multiple-use dosage bottles, one vial could last for many years!
            Holistic

            Individualized consultations consider every symptom and concern.
            Homeopathy is known to help human, animal, and even plant conditions.
            It aims at deep healing on all levels for complete well-being.
            Empowering

            Homeopaths educate and help people take charge of their health.
            People become more aware and present to their symptoms, health and causes of illness.

            And it’s covered by most insurances! The movement is growing because people are fed up with the negative effects of pharmaceutical pills, and the pharmeceutical companies lose money. It’s all about the money! have you ever caught those negative side effects of a medication? Let’s list them, cause cancer, or tumors, risk of blood clots, stroke, or suicidal mood swings when using this medication on the commercials? I doubt you’ll read through this and still bank on your own evidence that conventional medicine is better. Well maybe, but you see, that’s what you call drs who do both Integrated Physicians, and covered by insurance. Get used to the growing movement!

          • Sam Gilman

            No. Homeopathy has been rejected by several major studies as useless. It makes no sense scientifically and its practitioners as witnessed on this page, are frequently highly dishonest.

            You people take money from the sick and unhappy under false pretences. Some of you do so at serious risk to their health and well-being.

            You’re not nice. You’re not good people.

          • Laura J

            Sure just drug our elderly people some more. And the ones that have those serious side effects. The revolution is growing, get used to the idea Sam. Obviosuly you didn’t care to read the entire post. This is the new age, dearie.

            The Natural health movement is due to the flagrant use of powerful drugs weakened the natural defenses of people. The drugging of our elderly population is but one of the most obvious symptom of a misguided medical practice. The overuse of drugs on infants and children, on pregnant women, and the symptomatic and pharmacologic treatment of most conditions helped people realize the need for an effective alternative.

            It’s obvious people are seeking out better alternatives and take power of their health and lives! People are actually more educated and continue to enjoy the freedom to their health and well-being.

          • Sam Gilman

            People use astrology. That’s also a load of bollocks.

          • Laura J

            You mean astronomy…as a new zodiac was newly discovered, so you may not be the sign you are. You may not be earth, water, fire, or air.

          • John

            No it is ASTROLOGY which is B.S, ASTRONOMY is the legitimate study of the universe. sheeesh.

          • Laura J

            Astronomy… Astrology what ever is in your delusions unless it’s stuck in uranus. Snicker

          • John

            caught you out heh heh.

          • Laura J

            list of the top 100 alternative practitioners in the U.S.:

            1. Mehmet Oz, M.D.; cardiology, wellness; New York, New York.

            2. Mark Hyman, M.D.; nutrition, diet, family health; Lenox, Massachusetts.

            3. Deepak Chopra, M.D.; internal medicine, endocrinology, mind-body connection; Carlsbad, California.

            4. Andrew Weil, M.D.; founder Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of Arizona; integrative medicine; Tucson, Arizona.

            5. Michael Roizen, M.D.; chair of Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute; preventive medicine; Cleveland, Ohio.

            6. Mimi Guarneri, M.D.; president AIHM, cardiology; La Jolla, California.

            7. Al Sears, M.D.; anti-aging; Royal Palm Beach, Florida.

            8. Russell Blaylock, M.D.; neurosurgeon, nutrition, immunity; Jackson, Mississippi.

            9. Chauncey Crandall, M.D.; preventive cardiology; Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

            10. Erika Schwartz, M.D.; bioidentical hormones, women’s wellness; New York, New York.

            11. David Brownstein, M.D.; family medicine; West Bloomfield, Michigan.

            12. Arthur Agatston, M.D.; cardiology, weight loss; Miami Beach, Florida.

            13. David Perlmutter, M.D.; neurology, nutrition; Naples, Florida.

            13. Donald Levy, M.D.; nutrition, herbal medicine; Boston, Massachusetts.

            14. Stephen Sinatra, M.D.; cardiology; St. Petersburg, Florida.

            15. Neal Barnard, M.D.; nutrition, wellness; Washington, D.C.

            16. Dean Ornish, M.D.; preventive medicine; Sausalito, California.

            17. Mark Houston, M.D.; vascular aging, hypertension; Nashville, Tennessee.

            18. Gervasio Lamas, M.D.; cardiology, chelation therapy; Miami Beach, Florida.

            19. Joseph E. Pizzorno, N.D.; wellness, natural health; Seattle, Washington.

            20. David Riley, M.D.; social and environmental health; Portland, Oregon.

            21. William Davis, M.D.; cardiologist; Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

            22. Joseph Mercola, DO; osteopathy; Chicago, Illinois.

            23. Brian Berman, M.D., family medicine and pain; Baltimore, Maryland.

            24. Steven Lamm, M.D.; digestive disorders, New York, New York.

            25. Jerry Tennant, M.D.; chronic disease, bio-modular healing; Colleyville, Texas.

            26. William S. Maxfield, M.D.; hyperbaric oxygen therapy; Tampa Bay, Florida.

            27. Jordan Metzl, M.D.; sports medicine; New York, New York.

            28. Randall Paulsen, M.D.; psychiatry, stress reduction; Boston, Massachusetts.

            29. Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D.; innovative cancer therapies; Houston, Texas.

            30. Simon Yu, M.D.; chronic diseases; St. Louis, Missouri.

            31. Sue Decoitiis, M.D.; hormone therapy, weight loss; New York, New York.

            32. David Katz, M.D.; weight loss, chronic disease; Derby, Connecticut.

            33. Pat Salber, M.D.; internal medicine, weight loss; Larkspur, California.

            34. Dietrich Klinghardt, M.D.; chronic pain; Woodinville, Washington.

            35. John Zhang, M.D.; fertility; New York, New York.

            36. Daniel Friedland, M.D.; stress, optimal performance; San Diego, California.

            37. Jacob Teitelbaum, M.D.; disease, chronic fatigue, pain, nutrition; Honolulu, Hawaii

            38. Jason Theodosakis, M.D.; arthritis, Tucson, Arizona.

            39. Jamie Koufman, M.D.; acid reflux, voice disorders; New York, New York.

            40. Fabrizio Mancini, DO; self-healing; Dallas, Texas.

            41. Michael Stanclift, ND; preventative medicine, chronic disease; Carlsbad, California.

            42. JoAnn Manson, M.D.; women’s preventative health; Boston, Massachusetts.

            43. Ray Sahelian, M.D.; herbs, natural health; raysahelian.com.

            44. Victor Sierpina, M.D.; mind-body medicine, digestive health; Galveston, Texas.

            45. Michael Fenster, M.D.; interventional cardiology; Tampa, Florida.

            46. Roy Elam, M.D.; pain; Nashville, Tennessee.

            47. Dorothy Merritt, M.D.; holistic medicine, chelation therapy; Texas City, Texas.

            48. David Steenblock, DO; stem cell therapy; San Clemente, California.

            49. Aaron Tabor, M.D.; nutrition, weight loss; Kernersville, North Carolina.

            50. Victoria Maizes, M.D.; integrative health; Tucson, Arizona.

            51. Charles Schwengel, DO; chronic pain, cancer; Phoenix, Arizona.

            52. Steven Pratt, M.D.; nutrition, lifestyle; La Jolla, California.

            53. Anca Sisu, M.D.; acupuncture, mind-body connection; Gardiner, Maine.

            54. Joe Colella, M.D.; nutrition, wellness; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

            Latest: Hormones May Be Causing Weight Gain, Heart Woes

            55. James Forsythe, M.D.; cancer; Reno, Nevada.

            56. Sandy Newmark, M.D.; pediatrics, autism; San Francisco, California.

            57. Delia Chiaramonte, M.D.; hospice and palliative care; Baltimore, Maryland.

            58. Richard Shames, M.D.; thyroid health; San Rafael, California.

            59. Tony Willcox, DOM; sports medicine, acupuncture; Delray Beach, Florida.

            60. Gabe Mirkin, M.D.; sports medicine; cardiology; Orlando, Florida.

            61. Elson Haas, M.D.; family practice; San Rafael, California.

            62. Susan Beaven, M.D.; cardiology, family medicine; Tarpon Springs, Florida.

            63. Michael Rosenbaum, M.D.; allergies; San Rafael, California.

            64. Alan Christianson, NMD; endocrinology, diet; Phoenix, Arizona.

            65. John McDougall, M.D.; weight loss, wellness; Santa Rosa, California.

            66. Kalpana Shere-Wolfe, M.D.; infectious disease; Baltimore, Maryland.

            67. John J. Cannell, M.D.; founder of Vitamin D Council; autism; San Luis Obispo, California.

            68. John Reed, M.D.; family medicine; Baltimore, Maryland.

            69. Christopher Suhar, M.D.; integrative cardiology; La Jolla, California.

            70. Karl Robinson, M.D.; homeopathy; Houston, Texas.

            71. Richard Ash, M.D.; environmental medicine; New York, New York.

            72. Keith Block, M.D.; nutritional therapy; Evanston, Illinois.

            73. Gabriel Cousens, M.D.; nutritional therapy, raw vegan diet; Patagonia, Arizona.

            74. Kenneth Bock, M.D.; autism, ADHD; Albany, New York.

            75. Alejandro Junger, M.D.; detoxification and cleansing; cleanprogram.com.

            76. Frank Lipman, M.D.; acupuncture, meditation, herbal medicine; New York, New York.

            77. William Rollow, M.D.; family medicine; Baltimore, Maryland.

            78. Joel Furhman, M.D.; immunity, nutrition; Flemington, New Jersey.

            79. Jeffrey Bland, Ph.D.; functional medicine, Metagenics; plminstitute.org.

            80. David Rosenthal, M.D.; integrative oncology; Boston, Massachusetts.

            81. Donald Abrams, M.D.; integrative oncology; San Francisco, California.

            82. Amy Myers, M.D.; autoimmune disorders; Austin, Texas.

            83. Lauren Ricther, DO; family medicine; Baltimore, Maryland.

            84. Michael Galitzer, M.D.; anti-aging, longevity; Los Angeles, California.

            85. Julie Taguchi, M.D.; oncology, hormones; Santa Barbara, California.

            86. Jonathan V. Wright, M.D.; nutritional medicine; Tukwila, Washington.

            87. Craig Title, M.D.; nutrition, weight loss; New York, New York.

            88. Deborah F. Harding, M.D.; anti-aging, Orlando, Florida.

            89. Dipnarine Maharaj, M.D.; stem cell treatment; Boynton Beach, Florida.

            90. Steven B. Harris, M.D.; geriatrics; Rancho Cucamonga, California.

            91. Michael Ozner, M.D.; cardiology, Miami, Florida.

            92. Mark Starr M.D.; pain and sports medicine; Paradise Valley, Arizona.

            93. Karen Brainard, M.D.; regenerative medicine; Bradenton, Florida.

            94. Frank Shallenberger M.D.; anti-aging; Carson City, Nevada.

            95. Andy Nish, M.D.; allergies; Gainesville, Georgia.

            96. Alison Faulkingham, M.D., pediatrics, acupuncture; Rockport, Maine.

            97. Dawna Jones, M.D.; bioidentical hormones, herbs; Hanover, Massachusetts.

            98. Dennis Courtney, M.D.; chelation therapy, pain management; McMurray, Pennsylvania.

            99. Lee Cowden, M.D.; cardiology; Dallas, Texas.

            100. Lesley James, M.D.; hormonal balance, IBS; Rochester, N.Y.

            Read more: Top 100 Physicians Who Embrace Integrative Medicine: A Newsmax Health List

          • ROFL!

          • John

            Who cares.

          • Acleron

            Err, we found out about real elements a very long time ago, please keep up.

          • Laura J

            And with your meth too! Withdrawal symptoms?

          • John

            Running out of constructive comments I see,typical.

          • Laura J

            Typical druggie.

          • John

            Now stooping to name calling,shows everybody your high level of Education.

          • Acleron

            Lol, because your claims have been disproven for 200 years, I’m a drug addict? Your logic is slightly wonky.

          • Laura J

            Oh yeah, druggie. Everyone’s a druggie. More so in the UK. Just go down West End.

          • Acleron

            More so than everybody? You might learn some basic maths.

          • Sam Gilman

            And there we have it. The homeopaths – the people who want to treat cancer with sugar pills – want us to believe the stars control our lives.

          • Laura J

            Astronomy… Astrology what ever is in your delusions unless it’s stuck in uranus. Snick

          • Laura J

            Sam you’re kinda out there too. Don’t have Sugar pills. Tinctures are better, get into the blood faster.

          • Michael McCarthy

            You mean astronomy…as a new zodiac was newly discovered, so you may not be the sign you are. You may not be earth, water, fire, or air.

            You may be one of the stupidest people to ever post, and that is saying something.
            astronomy
            noun
            the branch of science that deals with celestial objects, space, and the physical universe as a whole.

            astrology
            noun
            the study of the movements and relative positions of celestial bodies interpreted as having an influence on human affairs and the natural world.
            synonyms: horoscopy, horoscopes
            Astrology, unlike astronomy, is not a scientific study and has been much criticized by scientists.

          • shay simmons

            You may be one of the stupidest people to ever post, and that is saying something.

            Not as long as cia’s around.

          • Sonja Henie

            Totally agree!

          • Acleron

            People use your useless products because you advertise a lot. When forced to be truthful as in the UK you squeal instead.

          • Laura J

            LOL that’s why millions of people turn to homeo! They don’t share your enthusiasm.

          • Acleron

            And still no evidence for the claim from the quack. How unusual.

          • Laura J

            How unsurprising you still live in denial.

          • Still no good evidence?

          • Acleron

            I do wish quacks would learn something of the English language. Not falling for your scam == denial.

          • Laura J

            Denial, denial. Run along with the big fish now.

          • Laura J

            Alternative medicine is so popular because it gives patients choices. A health conscious choice allows patients to make life style changes, understand medical alternatives to care, and be an active participant in their medical treatment. When we make a choice we have decided to change and the power of positive change in our lives is the most important step in healing.

          • Acleron

            Lol, you would hardly start talking truthfully would you?

            If it is not your advertising then why do you complain so much when forced to tell the truth?

          • Laura J

            That’s because you are in denial.

          • Acleron

            Homeopaths have squealed vociferously in the UK and Australia because the advertising standards are now that they must tell the truth. And that means I’m in denial?

            Was that an attempt at displacement activity?

          • Laura J

            And patients going to regular drs. aren’t happy so they fire them! And find the real help they need! Again denial, denial on your happy pedestal! It’s never going to change for you. Weep weep.

          • Acleron

            So far all you have unearthed is some report from one small country several years ago and you cannot even reference it.

          • Laura J

            Reality check. You can’t change the movement.

          • Laura J

            Educate you more…but probably won’t read this like it’s a fly on the wall. A cusp of change, and it’s NEVER going to stop! You have NO control.

            Highly qualified women top the list

            The study shows that, among MS patients using alternative treatments, there is a significantly bigger proportion of people with a high level of education compared to those who do not use alternative treatments. There is also a larger proportion of highly paid people and of younger women.

            “Some critics are of the opinion that when alternative treatments are so popular, it is because they appeal to naïve people looking for a miraculous cure. But our results indicate that it is primarily the well-educated segment that is subscribing to alternative treatments. And that using alternative treatments is part of a lifestyle choice,” says Lasse Skovgaard.

            He hopes that the new knowledge will improve communication regarding how the chronically ill use alternative treatments in combination with conventional medicine:

            “We see that so many people are combining conventional medicine with alternative treatment that it should be taken seriously by the health service. Until now, there hasn’t been much focus on the doctor-patient dialogue in relation to the alternative methods used by the chronically ill to manage their lives,” says Lasse Skovgaard. He says that the research group is continuing to analyse the results and, among other things, is conducting several interview studies based on the results of the questionnaires. The interview studies will, for example, provide additional knowledge on how patients perceive the risks associated with using alternative medicine and explore why some patients turn their backs completely on conventional medicine.

          • Acleron

            Unlike quacks I read everything, especially links to claims but yours is missing.

          • Laura J
          • Laura J

            As if anyone cares on your lofty pedestal. Oh wait, you slipped into the valley.

          • John

            Yes and that nasty CHEMO that saved my life 2 years ago,wonder what your sugar pills would have done for me.

          • Laura J

            LOL don’t have any.

          • Laura J said:

            “Homeopathic medicine is the second most popular medical system in the world according to The World Health Organization”

            Where do they say that?

            You said:

            “It’s Safe

            It’s gentle, non-toxic, and free from toxic side effects found with conventional medicines.
            Remedies are often recommended for the elderly, pregnant women and newborns.
            Remedies are made under strict protocol in FDA-approved labs.”

            Oh dear.

            Homeopathic Teething Tablets and Gels: FDA Warning – Risk to Infants and Children

            http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm523435.htm

            “ISSUE: The FDA is warning consumers that homeopathic teething tablets and gels may pose a risk to infants and children. The FDA is analyzing adverse events reported to the agency regarding homeopathic teething tablets and gels, including seizures in infants and children who were given these products, since a 2010 safety alert about homeopathic teething tablets. The FDA is currently investigating this issue, including testing product samples. The agency will continue to communicate with the public as more information is available.

            Homeopathic teething tablets and gels have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA for safety or efficacy. The agency is also not aware of any proven health benefit of the products, which are labeled to relieve teething symptoms in children. ”

            You said:

            “It is more cost-effective than any other form of medicine, both conventional or alternative medicine, according to a study commissioned by the government of Switzerland.”

            What did the Swiss Government do as a result of that report?

          • Acleron

            Good grief! Can’t be bothered to rebut this mess of pottage so will just list what each claim is.

            Argumentum ad Populum fallacy.
            4 straight lies
            2 lies in the same claim
            Lie
            Idiocy
            Lie
            Stupidity
            Lie
            Possibly. At last something that isn’t just totally untrue.
            2 straight lies
            Just general lies

            This is the evidence of quacks.

          • Laura J

            Or that meth getting to ya. So many are turning and it’s a sign of leaving ppl like yourselves with arrogance. Who wants that?? That’s because you believe in a quick fix!

          • Acleron

            This is below average, even for a quack.

          • Laura J

            Actually it’s not. Even for a goat like yourself in the UK. New patients are coming to Homeo because it works! Not just one practice, but various for various ailments. People are pleased, overly pleased with the results. And no deadly side effects from drugs! Who wants cancer link to a drug? You first!

          • lolexplosm

            What homeopathic remedy would you recommend for my meningitis?

          • Laura J

            Bark up another tree.

          • lolexplosm

            Oh, not even a recommendation of zinc and hell?

          • Acleron

            And still no evidence. These are just marketing claims.

          • Laura J

            Actually it’s happening. You’re just on the wrong frequency.

          • Acleron

            Which frequency would that be? Somewhere on the astral plane?

          • Laura J

            pedestal dearie

          • Laura J

            The skyrocketing use of alternative or complementary medicine represents a growing dissatisfaction with conventional or allopathic healthcare. Allopaths, or conventional medical doctors, focus upon defining disease based on measurable symptoms and eliminating those signs; alternative therapists treat the whole person–body, mind, and spirit–with the focus on staying balanced and well.

          • Acleron

            A post filled with evidenceless claims and the vague nonsense that is the staple fare of quacks. At least we didn’t get holistic, boosting the immune system and all the other BS.

            As usual, I know your nonsense better than you do. Ethics prevents me from using it for profit, unlike you.

          • Laura J

            That’s because in the US it is more than the UK. People have a wide range of choices, not socialized medicine!

          • By ‘socialized’ medicine, do you mean providing healthcare according to people’s need rather than the size of their bank balance?

          • Acleron

            Why are you people do afraid of the word social?

            The NHS is fine, the problem is that some want to move it to the American system, highly priced and apparently profits for scam artists.

          • Laura J

            That’s why people are voting this year. More options and the list of multi use drs. is growing, too!

          • Laura J

            Let me educate you on this amazing phenomenal growth for MS patients.
            Growing use of alternative treatments

            According to the latest Health and Sickness Study from the Danish National Institute of Public Health (NIPH) in 2010, one in four Danes say that they have tried one or more types of alternative treatments within the past twelve months. Among MS patients, the use of alternative medicine has been growing steadily over the past fifteen years. In the researchers’ latest study, more than half of the respondents say that they either combine conventional and alternative medicine or only use alternative medicine.

            “We cannot ignore the fact that people with chronic disease use alternative treatments to a considerable extent, and that many of them seem to benefit from doing so. It doesn’t help to only judge this from a medical point of view or say that alternative treatments are nonsense — rather, we must try to understand it,” says Lasse Skovgaard.

            Now he is one smart man, a thinker outside Alphos, or John’s boxes of their Uranuses!

          • Acleron

            So one report in one tiny country six years ago and not even referenced.

          • John

            Yes it is about the money,Alternative Medicine rakes in 34 BILLION DOLLARS annually.

          • Laura J

            And it’s growing because ppl are in charge of their health! It’s getting bigger.

  • Acleron

    Homeopaths try to combat criticism by stressing how safe it is. As with everything else they attempt to deceive.

    Obviously drops of water and sugar sweets are safe, there is nothing in them.

    However the practice of homeopathy is far from safe in delaying any treatment to the sick.

    There is another problem with safety and that occurs when they incompetently leave something in their overpriced sweets. Hylands were caught out doing that with teething preparations and now the FDA has had to release a general warning.

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/180469/20161002/fda-warns-against-homeopathic-teething-tablets-gels-for-babies.htm

    • ReallyGoodMedicine

      An obvious case of confusion between homeopathy and herbal medicine.

      On the other hand, parents all over Australia are demanding that Merck’s asthma drug Singulair carry warning labels. It’s prescribed for children as young a two years old and is linked to serious psychotic episodes, suicidal thoughts and depression in children. “Harrison was four years old when he started making comments about wanting to die, wishing that he was dead, that he was a piece of garbage–he had terrible self-loathing.” “Pediatric respiratory physician Adam Jaffe from Sydney’s Children’s Hospital said there was no way of knowing which children might suffer a reaction to the medicine. He has taken some of his own patients off the drug because they experienced serious side effects. He said…….some children would suffer psychiatric side effects.” The U.S. has been investigating Singulair since 2008 when a child committed suicide after taking it for just 17 days. Australia’s TGA has received 90 reports of psychiatric events among children using Singulair.

      Singulair should have been taking off the market years ago just as so many other drugs have been withdrawn after being FDA approved as safe and effective.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-05/asthma-tablet-linked-to-serious-psychotic-episodes-in-children/7795474.

      • Acleron

        A homeopathic company confusing homeopathy and herbalism? Well yes, incompetence all round.

        But how could anybody confuse a real substance with nothing? Could it have anything to do with homeopaths strenuously trying to suppress any mention of the fact that they chuck anything that could possibly be active down the drain? And when they are incompetent at washing test tubes they make people sick.

        BTW if conventional medicine was as dangerous as you continually claim, all you are saying is that homeopaths should be allowed to be as dangerous.

        • ReallyGoodMedicine

          “…….they chuck anything that could possibly be active down the drain?” It’s those active ingredients that make conventional medicine the third leading cause of death in the U.S. today. It’s the fourth leading cause of death between both the U.S. and Europe. 330,000 people die from appropriately prescribed drugs every year.

          “They cause an epidemic of about 20 times more hospitalizations, as well as falls, road accidents, about 80 million medically minor problems such as pain, discomfort and dysfunction that hobble productivity or the ability to care for others.”

          http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/nov14/prescription_114.html

          Trying to discredit homeopathy, homeopaths and their patients will never change the facts about conventional treatments. Most people are well aware of big pharma’s shortcomings. That’s why people around the globe are turning to safe, effective natural systems of medicine like homeopathy.

          • Christine said:

            “Trying to discredit homeopathy, homeopaths and their patients will never change the facts about conventional treatments.”

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ac7f7d3a77a0ebc4e44012886b41632f83732279156fc2917567804cd8870cb1.gif

          • Acleron

            May I steal that?

          • It’s a good one, isn’t it?

          • Acleron

            Yes 🙂

          • Acleron

            Strange, your reference gives page not found fault on the ASA server.

            I don’t need to discredit your trade when you do such a good job yourself.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            The link works for me.

          • Acleron

            I really think I’ll wait for more reliable evidence than you.

          • Laura J

            Wow, agreed! And you hear all those nasty side effects from the drugs on commercials. Won’t just take a pill, research it yourself to see if it is really good for you.

      • Christine said:

        “An obvious case of confusion between homeopathy and herbal medicine.”

        Really?

        The FDA Safety Alert says:

        “ISSUE: The FDA is warning consumers that homeopathic teething tablets and gels may pose a risk to infants and children. The FDA is analyzing adverse events reported to the agency regarding homeopathic teething tablets and gels, including seizures in infants and children who were given these products, since a 2010 safety alert about homeopathic teething tablets. The FDA is currently investigating this issue, including testing product samples. The agency will continue to communicate with the public as more information is available.”

        http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm523435.htm

        • ReallyGoodMedicine

          As you posted, the link states that as of September 30, 2016, the FDA is analyzing reports of adverse effects from teething tablets and gels given by parents to their children. Many consumers confuse homeopathy and herbal medicine. Until the FDA concludes its analysis no one knows what products were actually used.

          In the past there have been 8 reports from consumers that homeopathic medicines caused side effects. After investigating those reports, the FDA concluded that the side effects had actually been caused by other medicines the consumers were using.

          You’re trying to claim that the products were actually homeopathic and actually did cause
          side effects without bothering to wait for the outcome of the analysis.

          • Some consumers do seem to confuse the two – and I suspect homeopaths are sometimes reticent to correct this misaprehension. Regardless, the FDA are very clear: they are talking about homeopathic products not herbal. But perhaps you know more that the FDA about this? Or perhaps you think babies should continue to be given these homeopathic products despite the warnings of “seizures, difficulty breathing, lethargy, excessive sleepiness, muscle weakness, skin flushing, constipation, difficulty urinating, or agitation”?

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Got something to say about Singulair? Or are you just trying to avoid it?

          • I’ll remind you of what you said below and leave it to you to see if you can spot – and comprehend – the comparison:

            “Trying to discredit homeopathy, homeopaths and their patients will never change the facts about conventional treatments.”

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Singulair discredited itself. You’re trying to avoid the fact that conventional drugs maim and kill.

          • Whoosh…

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            LOL !!! Thanks for self-identifying, for corroborating what we all knew.

            You are among pharma types when you see these words: Scopie’s Law, whoosh, loon, kook, woo, altie, pseudoscience, evidence based medicine and quacks

            http://www.whale.to/p/quacks.html

          • OMG! We’ve got a Scopie’s Law recursion! Rich will be pleased.

          • John

            Whale.to is not a credible site,it is run by a pig farmer named John Scudamore and anything published there is highly unreliable.

          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            Must have hit a nerve. Not surprised!

          • John

            I don’t understand,why would it hit a nerve? Still no explanation as to why Alternative Medicine did not save Steve Jobs.

          • John
          • ReallyGoodMedicine

            That’s a “skeptic” site written by “skeptics” for “skeptics”. Provides material to “skeptics” to be posted to legitimate sites. You can fool some of the people all of the time…….

          • John

            You are pushing Whale to,talk about Hypocrisy

          • Laura J

            Yeah know of Alan and his humanism website, too. Not very humanist and gets paid to see the evidence. He doesn’t really know Homeo is an expanding movement. But of course, check with a credited integrated physician that embraces both western & conventional medicine. People taking charge of their health because they can!

          • LOL! Clueless.

            ̶