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.
What mistakes did the doula identify? Since the thread is about deaths, did the patient die?
I take it you never make mistakes? Where have I claimed doctors are perfect? Cite the post, please. I note that when you make accusations about what I believe and I ask you to show where I said what you claim I did you never answer, so I do not expect a reply this time, either.
Yeah.
Dr. Offit is a real thorn in the side for alt med, isn't he?
Please link to threads you have STARTED that are illuminating and helpful that do not promote drugs or doctors.
I'll wait.
Your specialty is waiting in the shadows to jump on any natural remedies that others might have reported are helpful. Then you post WALLS of words, dubious links galore, and basically just slam every possible natural remedy you can. What is your motive in doing that? Who has that much time on their hands?
And if you decide you don't want vaccines, after weighing the pros and cons, that should be allowed, right?
It's not required, as far as I know no one forces you to get vaccines as a law.
Corporations and schools may because it's public health issue for others, and that is their right.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
It's not required, as far as I know no one forces you to get vaccines as a law.
Corporations and schools may because it's public health issue for others, and that is their right.
Yes, it is "law" in some states. Children must have current vaccines to register for public school in some states and some states are considering forcing entire populations to be inoculated.
Currently, in some states nurses and other medical personal MUST get flu shots or risk being fired.
What used to be optional is now state mandated in some states.
And no one blinks an eye at individual rights that are being lost.
If anyone comes after me with a needle, I will scream "bloody murder" and run - if I can run - getting old.
Understand that your view is totally a first world problem.
There are not people in poor villages, who live with, and die with these diseases that are "I'll take a pass because I read some stuff on the internet....."
No, they are very happy to get vaccinated against something that kills people they know.
It's really, really easy to live somewhere you don't see the ravages of these diseases and choose to pass. Because everyone else is vaccinated, those who choose "alternative" are still mostly safe.
You are welcome.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
I do understand the law, I don't agree with it. I don't believe there should be an exception. If the complications are so rare, why should that one patient have to pay the entire cost of their treatments/surgeries/hospitalizations for the damage that the drug companies KNOW will happen to a certain percentage of people? Why can't they have funds set up for that?
Why is it that attorneys advertise all day asking for patients who have been harmed by different medications or procedures? Seems like it's the attorneys and pharmaceutical companies have a sweet deal.
The reason there is an exception is very simple. If drug manufacturers were responsible for every reaction that every single person had to a medication there wouldn't any drugs manufactured. No one would want that kind of open ended risk and they would refuse to manufacturer pharmaceuticals. We would all be forced to live in a world without life-saving medication.
You don't have to like the law. You don't have to agree with it. However, its like I tell a client occasionally: That's the way the ball bounces.
Please give us some examples of the facts you dispute and why.
You just said numbers are pulled from thin air on this post from Johns Hopkins and other institutions that I would regard as esteemed. You want examples of the two years of attacks on all my posts regarding alt med, don't hold your breath. You know what I'm talking about Suzy.
So you are 100% OK with people refusing vaccines? Completely respectful of the choice NOT to get shot up with a product that could cause harm?
Yeah. That's what I thought.
Yep. No one is forced to vaccinate. You may have to make alternative arrangements to educate your child, though. Your choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
And if you decide you don't want vaccines, after weighing the pros and cons, that should be allowed, right?
Yep. Your child may not get to attend school, though. Prepare to home school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobodysbusiness
Please link to threads you have STARTED that are illuminating and helpful that do not promote drugs or doctors.
I'll wait.
Your specialty is waiting in the shadows to jump on any natural remedies that others might have reported are helpful. Then you post WALLS of words, dubious links galore, and basically just slam every possible natural remedy you can. What is your motive in doing that? Who has that much time on their hands?
It's my hobby! I also work in DH's office. I am the (poorly paid) Office Manager, so I get to give myself permission to play on the computer on company time.
Why does it make a difference whether I choose to start threads or reply to them? See that little green badge by my name? That was awarded by CD for being a helpful poster.
I would be happy to support "natural" remedies if they worked. They mostly don't. Those "dubious links" provide supporting evidence to show they don't. Don't like what I write? Don't read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaminhealth
You just said numbers are pulled from thin air on this post from Johns Hopkins and other institutions that I would regard as esteemed. You want examples of the two years of attacks on all my posts regarding alt med, don't hold your breath. You know what I'm talking about Suzy.
I am not the only one that has criticized Makary's article. It's junk. Bad statistics. It should never have been published. How it made it past peer review is totally beyond understanding. He should have looked at the number he generated and come to the same conclusion his critics have: it's not plausible. You should not draw the conclusion he did based on 35 deaths and by claiming every adverse event was due to a "mistake".
If you make posts that contain misinformation you need to expect it to be challenged. Note that I do not attack you personally, only the content of your posts. Many others have also done the same. At some point, you might want to step back and consider that if many other people are disagreeing with what you are saying, what you think is a fact is not a fact, it is just an opinion and based on bad sources.
The reason there is an exception is very simple. If drug manufacturers were responsible for every reaction that every single person had to a medication there wouldn't any drugs manufactured. No one would want that kind of open ended risk and they would refuse to manufacturer pharmaceuticals. We would all be forced to live in a world without life-saving medication.
You don't have to like the law. You don't have to agree with it. However, its like I tell a client occasionally: That's the way the ball bounces.
Frankly, I'm shocked at all the responses, protecting the corporations, blaming the innocent victims and the greediness of wanting your own drugs, without any compassion for those who are hurt. And I'm not talking about minor reactions like a headache or hives, I'm talking about ER visits, hospitalizations or medications required to reverse/treat the adverse drug reaction.
I think this is more comparable to workmen's comp. It's a fact that a certain percentage of workers will be hurt in any given work classification. When that happens, workmen's comp kicks to cover the cost of treating the injuries. Each company pays in a tiny amount to cover this, based on their history. No one would ever blame an employee who was injured in a high risk occupation and say they knew the risks when they took the job.
And contrary to what you say the law is, I think many people do think they would be compensated for injuries from drugs or procedures because of all the attorney ads.
The reason there is an exception is very simple. If drug manufacturers were responsible for every reaction that every single person had to a medication there wouldn't any drugs manufactured. No one would want that kind of open ended risk and they would refuse to manufacturer pharmaceuticals. We would all be forced to live in a world without life-saving medication.
You don't have to like the law. You don't have to agree with it. However, its like I tell a client occasionally: That's the way the ball bounces.
But the effects are very rare, right? I mean that's what they say in all the commercials. If the effects are so rare, wouldn't they still make a ton of money off selling them? The P&L would still be in the black.
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.
