Push to ban unvaccinated children from NSW preschools

With all due respect Bowerbird. I cannot fathom how you can logically suggest professor Olver and Rosemary Lester are both correct, when you acknowledge they used different terms to describe the quantity of apricot kernel usage. That’s a direct contradiction in its own terms.

You introduced the link http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/r...-despite-cyanide-warnings-20111119-1noju.html
to highlight that my link http://www.naturalnews.com/021949_Big_Tobacco_the_AMA.html lacked credibility and was a sham site.

I have proven beyond a shadow of doubt, that when the Cancer Council Chief Executive Professor Oliver and the Victorian Chief doctor Rosemary Lester were interviewed, they both had serious conflicting and contradictory opinions regarding the quantity usage of apricot kernels that were considered toxic for human consumption.

If the Cancer Council chief executive professor Ian Olver, and the Victorian acting Chief Health Officer Rosemary Lester can get the ingestation quantity dangers of a simple apricot kernel WRONG. Then what the hell can the medical industry get WRONG about all the dangers associated with the unknown make-up of these vaccinations sold by American pharmaceutical companies that will be forced onto Australian children?

If individuals want to vaccinate themselves and their children with American pharmaceutical company vaccinations, then that is their prerogative, but Australian’s should not be forced to vaccinate their children for them to gain the ability of learning.

Australia is still a democracy is it not, or are we now just considered the caged mice for American pharmaceutical companies and their experiments.

 

Apricot seeds are known to be poisonous. On the other hand, there is zero evidence that they can prevent or cure cancer. A site advocating apricot seeds for the purpose of avoiding cancer is about as credible as one advocating sacrificing a goat to the gods for the favor of good health.

Unless, of course, cancer is being prevented by killing off the patient. That is one way to prevent cancer.

 

Good idea. Can't stand these idiots who refuse to vaccinate their children. If you won't vaccinate, they shouldn't be at school.

 

Not really.

The argument that, since people have won lawsuits claiming that vaccines have caused autism shows that vaccines may, indeed, cause autism simply doesn't hold water.

 

with all due respect "large enough" is a very very malleable term and could mean 5 microns as that would be say in the context of plutonium "large enough" and yet it would still be a "small amount"

The contradiction in only in your mind because you WANT to see it

Now how about more about "Natural News"? hmmmm

How about we look at it's push to sell "Himalayan Salt"
http://www.naturalnews.com/038338_Himalayan_Salt_barter_items_survival.html

But people buy into this !#@@!# all the time, it is unreferenced, unresearched, unscientific but it DOES have the right "buzz words". Look at the add on the right side of that page



What the?

They KNOW just using the word "natural" sells using the word "organic" sells (at one point there was a mineral water being sold here in Australia that proudly proclaimed it was "organic" being of a health profession I kept thinking of little swimming things called bacteria)

This is NOT science it is shtick - and bad shtick at that. All hype no substance

But this is not about wether we are "caged mice" but whether or not we are intelligent enough to be altruistic and care for the community as well as ourselves

 

I’m sorry you completely missed the point of the discussion. It wasn’t about whether apricot kernels cured cancer. It was about the incorrect conflicting medical information the Chief Cancer Council professor & the Victorian Chief Heath Officer were stating about the quantities of kernels needed to be ingested to cause cyanide poisoning.

 

Wouldn't the quantities of kernels needed to cause poisoning depend on the individual anyway? The point is, apricot kernels don't cure cancer. A site claiming that they do is a suspect site at best.

 

Is the contradiction really in my mind, or is the issue about individuals deserving the right to know correct information from medical professionals who constantly tell us we should trust them?

Would you care to comment on the enclosed link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

I’m assuming all these drugs were approved for human consumption by the medial profession before distribution?

I’m also assuming there would have been thousand’s of pages of evidence in supporting reports to show NO side effect, before they all got the okay?

Exactly who wasn’t being up-front about all the correct information regarding the drastic side effects of these drugs, before the American pharmaceutical companies got their drug dealers to off load these nasty things to the caged mice.

I admire your dedication and stance on this subject, but I feel you are trying to protect a flawed profession that has demonstrated numerous offences against not being honest with the general public regarding the drastic and dangerous side effects of medications and drugs.

The self-appointed omnipotence by some doctors and medical professions over their patients is simply astounding, and they really need to take a step back, and ask themselves; are they really fulfilling their Hippocratic oath, when they rely on American pharmaceutical drug cartels for biased information.

 

They cannot prove apricot kernels don’t cure cancer. They can only ascertain that cyanide poisoning can occur in some people by eating certain amounts of kernels. Yes, the individuals physical size and overall condition would determine the quantity of kernels needed for the cyanide poisoning to occur.

It doesn’t mean everyone who eats 30 grams of kernels per day will develop cyanide poisoning, and these are the facts they hide from the general public by concocting scare campaigns by saying “small” or “large” amounts will cause poisoning.

They have covered both their bases, haven’t they!!

Doctors and the medical profession are terrified of the general public trying or discovering alternative cures to illnesses, because their God like image will be tarnished.

This is the reason why they refuse to partake in research and development into alternative cures to nasty illnesses like cancer. They want to keep their God image as being the only profession to be able to offer a cure for it.

Just remember, American pharmaceutical drug cartels make $100’s of billions each year in profits selling treatments, pill, potions and the development of drugs for cancer and other nasty complaints to sick people for years. But, you can only cure a person once, so there is NO profit in that?

Keep the people scared with miss-information about flues and viruses, and you can keep selling them flu vaccinations every year forever. Now they see an opportunity to target children. They do it with toys, food, cloths, and mobile phones - why not drugs; vaccines.

 

Drugs are not vaccines - sheesh! Even Homeopaths agree with vaccines!!!

A good proportion of those withdrawn drugs were
a) being abused
b) had a low toxicity ceiling and people were taking too much
c) teratogenic and we do NOT research drugs for teratogenicity because it would be unethical - which is why pregnant women are only very very cautiously given any medication and there is a bloody short list of those we consider safe

I can tell you about Xigris because we WERE using it - and it cost! It had a very narrow band use - severe sepsis in ICU and a huge risk/benefit ratio. But it promised about 16% improvement in survival - which sounds like nothing but when you are dealing with the level of sepsis this drug was hoping to work for anything is worth it. We are talking about 50-70% mortality. Because sepsis is a multifactoral disease hitting multi organs it basically needed to be used across the world and fingers crossed. The figures finally came out - it just was not worth it on risk benefit. it was saving the occasional not enough lives. And this was in fact a "natural" product being part of the immune response

And this is what? 50-60 medicines withdrawn over 60 years? About one a year that shows up with some problem post clinical III trials. Do you know how many drugs ARE released every year? Believe me this is less than one percent

 

About here I am going to put you on ignore - just do the world a favour eh mate? Please?

If you are chomping down on Apricot Kernels (which have been shown to be totally bull(*)(*)(*)(*)) please please please carry a sign around your neck that says "taking cyanide do not do mouth to mouth" That way you will not poison someone coming to rescue you.

 

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000537/?ref_=sr_3

 

I haven't ventured to that site, but similar sites rail against synthesised nutrients. Isolated chemical compounds rather than complete chains (or whatever they're called) from 'real' food.

So i had a quick look:
http://www.naturalnews.com/037647_multivitamins_cancer_risk_men.html

Hardly a scare for multi-vitamins. But they had another article that was slamming the synthetic variety.

Effectively what they're saying is 'eat properly, if you take vitamins, make sure they're actually derived from real food and don't include half a dozen or so chemical additives that have never been in our diet over millions of years until about 70 years ago'. Sounds pretty reasonable, but they often wrap it in buzzwords like you say. Maybe that's how you sell your message (or product) to Americans

I was walking past a friend at the social chocolate selection at work (you know, where they sell junk to fund work parties) and i said "don't do it", to which he replied "i'm getting a muesli bar, that's much better than a chocolate bar" to which i replied "no, it's less bad". People need to understand that a teaspoon of refined, processed, chemically cleaned and altered 'food' is flat out bad for you. Sure, it's not as bad as consuming a teaspoon of acid, but it's still bad. Best not to do it.

From what i get from these health sites is that is their core message.

You're in the health profession, what do you know about our diet?

 

More than you could possibly imagine - I have been dieting since I was 10. One of the best diets is the "Palaeolithic diet" which is the diet we evolved to. Low carb, low processing, high lean meat

 

nor can they prove any other negative. They can't prove that magnets don't cure arthritis, or that evil spirits don't cause diseases, either.

which should be reason enough to toss those apricot pits in the garbage and just eat the fruit.

That is how the snake oil salesmen sell their wares. If the "alternative" medicine really works, then do a double blind study and prove it. If it is proven to work, then the medical care professionals will adopt it, but, thankfully, doctors tend to be skeptical of unproven treatments.

They do spend a lot of money hawking prescription medicines directly to patients, at least in the US, where we have a for profit medical care system. You have a point there. I don't know if they have such commercials in Bowerbird's country. Maybe not, as they have a universal health care system there.

but, there is profit is curing a patient, even if the cure is permanent. Fix a broken arm, and it won't come back unless you break it again.

The reason they can sell flu vaccines forever is that the viruses keep mutating, and probably will forever. Perhaps one day there will be a flu shot that works on viruses that haven't yet evolved. Until then, I'll keep getting my shots every year rather than risk the flu. I've had the flu before, and know that it is no fun.

 

Our daughter has enrolled our two grandsons into a privately owned pre-school. She had to show evidence they have been vaccinated. Our daughter also asked the question, are the other kids also vaccinated.

 

We don't have advertising for pharmaceuticals - they cannot even give out Pens nowadays. In fact they cannot give out research papers either - they can show the research to you and hand you brochures but no pens

And as a nurse I REALLY miss those pens!!

 

Think about this for a few moments. If scientists know how to develop and breed a new strain of virus from two different viruses, wouldn’t it stand to reason they also know how to kill a virus.

If you can breed something like a virus or anything for that matter, you have to know about its genetic make-up, and when you know about its genetic make-up, you then know about its vulnerabilities of what can kill it from a biological terminology.

We can create a virus, split an atom, make a miniature black hole, engage in quantum mechanics, and have spent hundreds of billions on cancer research and development over Centuries, and no once can still kill a little virus - I don’t think so.

Consider this for a moment. 7.6 million people world wide die from cancer each year.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_from_cancer_in_the_world_each_year

Not releasing the cure is helping to control the human population, and keeping millions of people employed in the medical profession, research, and care industries world wide.

Imagine what would happen to the worlds economy if millions of people making a living from cancer and cancer patients suddenly found themselves unemployed, because a cure was released - our societies system would instantly collapse.

I believe a cure for cancer has been discovered, but someone has made the decision its better for humanity not to release the cure, because its helping keep the population under control and generating millions of jobs.

I understand the above is a tangent, but it demonstrates my complete lack of trust & faith in the medical profession.

I have shown numerous examples, whereby doctors and the medical industry have approved drugs for human consumption, only to have those drug removed at a latter date as being unsafe for human consumption. If they have approved unsafe drugs, then how can they convince me the vaccines they have approved are safe?

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...-half-the-planet/story-fn5fsgyc-1226227455717

 

Once again you just jump in with your lack of understanding. Viruses are extremely simple chemicals, they are NOT ALIVE so therefore cannot be killed. They can be denatured,have their structure broken down therefore rendering them harmless, this is how disinfectants work, ammonia being one of the best. Once in our bodies, our own immune system is the best chance we have, antibiotics don't affect viruses. Vaccines help our body prepare for an attack, they help our body to develop antibodies to that particular virus. Some viruses mutate rapidly making small changes to their configuration which camouflages them from the antibodies we have. They are the ultimate stealth machine, and a machine they are. They inject their DNA into a cell to use that cells mechanism to recreate something from DNA and the cell instead of producing it's own product, produces more viruses causing the cell to die and the viruses within to spread and find a new host.

 

Yes they can be inactivated but not necessarily without killing the patient as well - something that does not seem to concern the people pushing apricot seeds

huge unfounded assumption that could only be made in ignorance

Who made the black hole? No matter.........
So, it is all some EEEEVVVIIIIILLLLL genius making viruses to inject life back into his created monster!! Bwa ha ha ha!

Frankenstein LIVES!!

How can you assume UNTESTED products are safe??

 

For such a self-professed intelligent person, you can sometimes be such a “vague Vera”. Intelligent people understood that meant killing a virus at the stage when it hijacked a living cell, and took over its manufacturing process to replicate itself.

 

You have not been unbiased in this discussion, and your casual way of exempting the medical industry of “any” responsibility towards their victims, is the reason why I distrust the medical profession. You are suggesting that doctors and the medical industry have NO responsibility for the drugs and vaccines that they so casually advocate their patients should be administered.

Whatever happened to the Hippocratic oath they swore to do no harm, or doesn’t that apply when profit and money is concerned?

I have made a few personal assumptions, but 99% of my arguments have been supported by links containing facts and information.

You simply skating over the smoking and drug re-call issues, indicate that no matter what facts and evidence was produced to suggest that the medical industry is not always trustworthy, you would find some way of excusing medical bad behaviour and ethics.

From my perspective, this debate is going to serve no purpose, and is terminated.

Thank you for taking the time to debate the matter.

 

No, they have responsibility - as do alternate therapies

Companies making antibiotic soap have a responsibility

The person serving you coffee at Mc Donald's has a responsibility

But do any of these offer 100% "never will have a problem with our product" no - not even macca'a

 

It's the flavour of the month and i like the principals of it too. It's kinda funny it even has a name, it should be the norm.

I was going to ask why you've been dieting since 10, but never mind, it's none of my business.

Knowing what you know about healthy food, what do you think about the food offered in hospitals? I can't comment on it, it's been a long time since i had any.

 

The CDC reported mediocre success with the flu vaccine in 2012/2013. ~25% for the older folk, better for younger folk. Where's that link :/ I might have the numbers a bit off, but that's pretty crappy success. Considering many more probably didn't report they got the flu after getting the flu shot the stats are conceivably poorer.

I watched the first couple of minutes of Jabbed last night, haven't had a chance to return. It's an Aussie doco, so that's nice

90% of people (parents?) support vaccination
2% don't.
50% have concerns about the vaccine

I think it's fair to say i'm in the 50% group.

EDIT: Link provided http://www.cdc.gov/flu/pastseasons/1213season.htm