Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you rely on blogs that are complicit in smearing her reputation you will find things like that. If you take in all of the information and remain objective you may come to a completely different conclusion. I prefer the truth.
What is with the all or nothing, black and white thinking? False dichotomy. I am find value in both mainstream and alternative medicine. I would take things on a case by case basis and take in as much information as possible and take whatever approach makes the most sense.
I notice you did not really answer my questions, which were about specific "cases". Would you try to treat a child with insulin dependent diabetes with just diet?
Quote:
I think it is obvious that whenever money is involved in funding studies and journals, there is room for bias. I don't limit that to just vaccines or even pharmaceutical companies. It can exist in any field and it's something that is taken into consideration (even though it's not the only consideration).
"Room for bias" and actual bias are not the same thing. Do you have a single vaccine study for which you have evidence that the funding sources producing biased results?
Quote:
Never said it was. Your opinion. I'd prefer the natural infection when it comes to chicken pox which has the bonus of free shingles boosters to the adult community at large. That choice has been taken away from me though since chicken pox is so hard to find. If my kids don't get it by a certain age I may be forced to vaccinate them for it. That is not my first choice though.
You've been told that evidence shows that immunizing children against chicken pox is not increasing shingles rates in adults. Vaccinated children can get shingles, but the risk of getting it is lower than with the wild infection and when it happens it tends to be less severe with a lower risk of post herpetic pain. Yet you still want your children to get chicken pox? By the way, chicken pox infection rates in adults went down when we started vaccinating children. Herd immunity, you know.
"In 2 US varicella active surveillance sites with high vaccine coverage among young children, the incidence of varicella among adults declined 74% during 1995-2005. A low proportion (3%) of adults with varicella had been vaccinated, with no improvement over the decade of program implementation, suggesting that the decline was likely secondary to herd-immunity effects."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
A total whack job, huh?
Even the technology geeks think so. Are they biased? I doubt they get any drug company funding.
I notice you did not really answer my questions, which were about specific "cases". Would you try to treat a child with insulin dependent diabetes with just diet?
I don't have a child in my life who has insulin dependent diabetes and because of that I am not in the position to know what I'd do if my child had insulin dependent diabetes because it's not something that I've ever had a need to look into. I'd have to learn a lot more before I could answer your question specifically.
Quote:
"Room for bias" and actual bias are not the same thing. Do you have a single vaccine study for which you have evidence that the funding sources producing biased results?
Well, Merck is currently in trouble for overinflating the efficacy rate for the mumps component of the MMR vaccines. We also have "William Thompson". It's really difficult to have evidence when you're dealing which such a well funded and well protected industry. If you think there is no corruption and few conflicts of interest then I'd say you are extremely naïve or you work for the industry and have an interest in protecting it at all costs.
Quote:
You've been told that evidence shows that immunizing children against chicken pox is not increasing shingles rates in adults. Vaccinated children can get shingles, but the risk of getting it is lower than with the wild infection and when it happens it tends to be less severe with a lower risk of post herpetic pain. Yet you still want your children to get chicken pox? By the way, chicken pox infection rates in adults went down when we started vaccinating children. Herd immunity, you know.
We've seen evidence on both sides of the issue.
Quote:
Even the technology geeks think so. Are they biased? I doubt they get any drug company funding.
No "smearing", just showing her "hacking" is not due to hacking.
I didn't realize that all "tech geeks" shared a brain and all of the same thoughts. When you take bits and pieces of information you can string them together and get them to send whatever message you'd like them to say. There most definitely is a smear campaign. There are consequences for telling the truth.
^^ Don't play hardball. A child with type 1 diabetes needs to be treated with insulin and regular doctor visits to check overall numbers because if they are not, their blood sugar can spike and fall and at the worst lead to diabetic shock or diabetic coma. And improperly treated diabetes leads to permanent issues like blindness, and ulcers, infections, or even dying tissue in the feet.
If your child has diabetes, that means her pancreas is not working properly. Herbs can't fix this. They can't make the pancreas start working again once it's stopped. So far, nothing can, that the medical/research community knows of, otherwise there would be a cure. She would need insulin. There's no way around this. This is off-topic but it's a good way to test your line of thinking.
FWIW - my experience on this? Two close friends with type 1 diabetes and a cousin of my mom's who has been reckless in treating his type 1 diabetes and now suffers the side effects I named above.
^^ Don't play hardball. A child with type 1 diabetes needs to be treated with insulin and regular doctor visits to check overall numbers because if they are not, their blood sugar can spike and fall and at the worst lead to diabetic shock or diabetic coma. And improperly treated diabetes leads to permanent issues like blindness, and ulcers, infections, or even dying tissue in the feet.
If your child has diabetes, that means her pancreas is not working properly. Herbs can't fix this. They can't make the pancreas start working again once it's stopped. So far, nothing can, that the medical/research community knows of, otherwise there would be a cure. She would need insulin. There's no way around this. This is off-topic but it's a good way to test your line of thinking.
FWIW - my experience on this? Two close friends with type 1 diabetes and a cousin of my mom's who has been reckless in treating his type 1 diabetes and now suffers the side effects I named above.
FWIW - my experience on this? My FIL was insulin dependent and then he lost 200 lbs and was able to manage his diabetes with diet not needing insulin at all. I don't believe that having diabetes means you will need insulin forever. There are several factors involved. However, I did notice that there are way more kids with diabetes than ever before. I wonder what is causing this?
^^ Don't play hardball. A child with type 1 diabetes needs to be treated with insulin and regular doctor visits to check overall numbers because if they are not, their blood sugar can spike and fall and at the worst lead to diabetic shock or diabetic coma. And improperly treated diabetes leads to permanent issues like blindness, and ulcers, infections, or even dying tissue in the feet.
If your child has diabetes, that means her pancreas is not working properly. Herbs can't fix this. They can't make the pancreas start working again once it's stopped. So far, nothing can, that the medical/research community knows of, otherwise there would be a cure. She would need insulin. There's no way around this. This is off-topic but it's a good way to test your line of thinking.
FWIW - my experience on this? Two close friends with type 1 diabetes and a cousin of my mom's who has been reckless in treating his type 1 diabetes and now suffers the side effects I named above.
I'm not playing hardball. Whatever that's supposed to mean. I just don't have any experience with type 1 diabetes so I can't answer Suzy's question. I'm not sure what your problem with that is. Or why you're trying to argue with me for basically saying, "I don't know".
FWIW - my experience on this? My FIL was insulin dependent and then he lost 200 lbs and was able to manage his diabetes with diet not needing insulin at all. I don't believe that having diabetes means you will need insulin forever. There are several factors involved. However, I did notice that there are way more kids with diabetes than ever before. I wonder what is causing this?
I was resolving to leave this thread for good because I had gotten sick of the circular argument that never ends.
Than this came up. Insulin dependent diabetes is near and dear to my heart because my wife has had it for about 52 years. I cannot tolerate hearing ignorance about a deadly disease.
Children develop what is known as "juvenile diabetes". The precise etiology or cause of the disease is still not completely clear. What seems to happen though is that an autoimmune response takes place in the body, due to some stimuli and the response results in the destruction of all or most islet cells (the cells that produce insulin) in the pancreas. Interestingly, my wife developed it shortly after having a case of rubella. A well known endocrinologist, Peter Forsham, who I once had the honor to meet, developed juvenile diabetes shortly after his parents and he were robbed at knife point. Disease and/or stress may provoke an autoimmune reaction in the body. The disease becomes apparent in a young child when they are constantly urinating, having breath that smells like fruit, and often dozing off into a near coma. Without treatment, they will eventually doze off into a coma and die.
No amount of dieting is going to cure this disease. No herbs are going to make it magically better. The child needs to be placed on insulin and taught how to monitor their blood sugar.
What your FIL had was a totally different disease. As people get older, none of their organs and systems tend to work as well as they do when they are younger. Excessive weight puts a lot of strain on the pancreas. The pancreas continues to secrete insulin, but it doesn't secrete enough to bring blood glucose levels down to a range of between 50 and 150. There can be other physiological reasons why a person's insulin secretion is not as effective as it needs to be.
Dieting can be a big help for older diabetics who generally (but not always) are not taking insulin. In some situations, older diabetics can even obtain normal blood sugar levels through dieting and exercising. Although, they are never "cured" of the disease because when they cease dieting and exercising the problem will return. The disease can be complicated, some older diabetics, though, are not overweight. Often they just seem genetically prone to this disorder. Typically, unlike juvenile diabetics, they have some insulin secretion in their pancreas and they can be treated with oral agents (pills) that stimulate production of insulin.
I can imagine few things as neglectful as trying to treat a juvenile diabetic with herbs or health foods. This is medical neglect. There are criminal cases where parents who have done this have been charged with manslaughter after their child died, than convicted, and than sent to prison. This is a position I completely endorse. I would much prefer though that such a child be removed from the parent's home and given orthodox medical treatment before things reached that point.
Last edited by markg91359; 07-12-2015 at 01:37 PM..
I don't have a child in my life who has insulin dependent diabetes and because of that I am not in the position to know what I'd do if my child had insulin dependent diabetes because it's not something that I've ever had a need to look into. I'd have to learn a lot more before I could answer your question specifically.
It's not that hard, Terri. This is typical of your response when you are asked to provide any evidence supporting your opinions. You want to pick and choose what medicine you believe is "good" and what is "bad". You see "bias" regarding any vaccine study. You know, the evidence for the safety and efficacy of vaccines has been derived over decades from all over the world. The "bias" is just not there.
Quote:
Well, Merck is currently in trouble for overinflating the efficacy rate for the mumps component of the MMR vaccines. We also have "William Thompson". It's really difficult to have evidence when you're dealing which such a well funded and well protected industry. If you think there is no corruption and few conflicts of interest then I'd say you are extremely naïve or you work for the industry and have an interest in protecting it at all costs.
The interesting thing about the Merck suit is that the Department of Justice has declined to get involved. There are two Merck employees making allegations, and those allegations have yet to be proved. Please note that if the whistle blowers prevail and fines are levied, the whistle blowers get a cut of the money.
William Thompson disagreed with how certain data in one study were interpreted. His interpretation has been shown to be incorrect, after review by a third party.
By the way, that's another question you have dodged. If you believe the study that Thompson disagreed with shows that African American boys have an increased risk of autism after vaccination, do you accept the findings of the same study that show that vaccination does not increase the risk of autism in African American girls, white boys, or white girls? I have asked you this question many times.
You can drop the "pharma shill" gambit. I have no monetary interest in vaccines - now or ever.
Quote:
We've seen evidence on both sides of the issue.
No. I have provided evidence. All you have said is you do not believe it. I would love to see a link to your evidence.
Quote:
I didn't realize that all "tech geeks" shared a brain and all of the same thoughts. When you take bits and pieces of information you can string them together and get them to send whatever message you'd like them to say. There most definitely is a smear campaign. There are consequences for telling the truth.
Two separate geeks have come to the same conclusion, supported by more geeks in the comments from the two links I gave you. Attkisson is a paranoid conspiracy theorist who believes the government is out to get her when what she has is a defective laptop keyboard.
FWIW - my experience on this? My FIL was insulin dependent and then he lost 200 lbs and was able to manage his diabetes with diet not needing insulin at all. I don't believe that having diabetes means you will need insulin forever. There are several factors involved. However, I did notice that there are way more kids with diabetes than ever before. I wonder what is causing this?
You are referring to type 2 diabetes. If you have type 1 diabetes you need insulin forever. You always need to check your sugar level and inject appropriately.
It's sad how misinformed that post is/you are. Now I will definitely take what you say on vaccines with a grain of salt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
I'm not playing hardball. Whatever that's supposed to mean. I just don't have any experience with type 1 diabetes so I can't answer Suzy's question. I'm not sure what your problem with that is. Or why you're trying to argue with me for basically saying, "I don't know".
You don't need experience to know that type 1 diabetics need insulin. There is no other treatment and to try to treat any other way would be reckless and you would be risking that person's life.
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 07-12-2015 at 01:45 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you take bits and pieces of information you can string them together and get them to send whatever message you'd like them to say. There most definitely is a smear campaign. There are consequences for telling the truth.
I just don't have any experience with type 1 diabetes so I can't answer Suzy's question. I'm not sure what your problem with that is. 