Many Doctors Are Trained By Big Pharma

[Jestgar]

I think I could be biased because I do see a lot of people looking for relief from poor habits and medically inflicted conditions. After a while I see so many afflictions I think it represents the whole US, maybe it doesn't.

I am also biased because a doctor COULD have told my mother (whom I am sure had Celiac disease, judging by family history and her symptoms) to completely leave gluten out of her diet, but did he tell her that? No he wasn't trained in WELLNESS he was trained in DISEASE so she trusted him, listened to bad advice and followed medical procedure that in 1963 hasn't changed much (judging by the crap I was prescribed) all these years later-- in return the crap they gave her caused seizures so much so that the nurse in an attempt to stop the seizure stabbed my 46 yr old mother with a hypo-dermic full of muscle relaxant thus stopping her heart.

I'm not doubting your statements, or trying to detract from your experiences, but I'd like to point out that you are viewing your mother's condition from one perspective.

Think about what happens when you walk into a doctor's office.

You say "my stomach hurts".

He thinks "cancer, unlikely, too young. food poisoning, unlikely, long duration. heart disease, unlikely, too young, no family history. GERD, possible. stress, possible. Celiac, unlikely, uncommon presentation. allergies, unlikely, uncommon presentation. lung disease, breast cancer, trauma, muscle spasm...."

A doctor's job is to sort through myriad possible causes of your stomach pain, and figure out what the most likely cause is.

I would say that missing an initial diagnosis is not what makes a bad doctor. That would be failing to follow through when the first, most likely cause does not turn out to be correct. I would also say that a doctor that has never (knowingly) seen a case of celiac disease is unlikely to recognize it, whatever his education. We don't tend to recognize that which we have not experienced.

[rinne]

I think I could be biased because I do see a lot of people looking for relief from poor habits and medically inflicted conditions. After a while I see so many afflictions I think it represents the whole US, maybe it doesn't.

I am also biased because a doctor COULD have told my mother (whom I am sure had Celiac disease, judging by family history and her symptoms) to completely leave gluten out of her diet, but did he tell her that? No he wasn't trained in WELLNESS he was trained in DISEASE so she trusted him, listened to bad advice and followed medical procedure that in 1963 hasn't changed much (judging by the crap I was prescribed) all these years later-- in return the crap they gave her caused seizures so much so that the nurse in an attempt to stop the seizure stabbed my 46 yr old mother with a hypo-dermic full of muscle relaxant thus stopping her heart.

I'm sorry that happened to your mother, that is awful.

For every one person I know with a positive outcome I could list ten that have had negative outcomes, and negative outcome doesn't touch the grief a family feels when they have placed their trust in our current medical system and realized too late the consequences of that was death of a loved one.

Two years ago a friend died at the age of 42, he left behind two small children and his wife. I watched him die as they did one thing after another to him, all experimental, all failing. I think he had a large part in his own death, he had warning signs and had been hospitalized before but they couldn't find out what was wrong with him and he trusted that if they didn't tell him to change he didn't need to. How many doctors talk about diet other than to recommend the standard food groups.

I spoke to someone recently that had had all the symptoms I have had and they were told it was a hiatal hernia and that surgery could repair it. He had the surgery, he still has all the symptoms but now he can't keep any food down, there seems to be scar tissue that is causing a problem. No doctor had spoken to him about diet.

A friend died this fall, he had been going to the doctor for two years with pain and they were unable to diagnose anything until they told him he had terminal cancer and should prepare his family and report back for palliative care. He was in his 50's.

My brother spent three years going to doctors, he was told repeatedly his gall bladder was fine until it burst and nearly killed him. He has celiac and it was only after I told him about it and he asked his doctor for the test did they do it. No doctor ever spoke to him about diet.

One friend who was ill went in for a colonoscopy and they punctured his bowel resulting in surgery and an ileostomy bag. No diet talk for him either.

A perfectly healthy child transformed with a vaccination into a child with no verbal ability, a spastic quadrapalegic. I will never forget her mother telling me about the surgery they did on her to cut the achilles tendon, they assured her that it would not be painful and that it would make it easier to care for her. She said she sat with her daughter for days and her daughter was in agony.

I don't see why anyone would trust a system that has so many failures which isn't to say don't go, just go knowing that you are responsible for your wellness and if you are ill you need to educate yourself and not assume the doctor knows what they are doing. Doctors are not educated about nutrition, they don't seem to recognize that many "diseases" arise out of nutritional deficiencies or that certain foods can cause significant problems throughout the body.

[Gemini]

These are very difficult statistics to interpret. Screening has improved considerably. Metastatic breast cancer might previously have been diagnosed as lung or bone or wherever it had gone to. Or not diagnosed at all. Life expectancy has increased in the last 100 years. etc.

Nope.....these statistics were published in an article I read that came from the American Cancer Society and it was their push for mammograms. Fact is, breast cancer was a lot more rare in days past than today and I still think that the overuse of pharmaceutical hormones has much to do with it. People willingly give their young daughters BC pills as early as 13 to control their periods. Most people do not consume organic meat and milk and the food supply coming out of mainstream American companies is crap....we all know this because we read labels so much. Hormone-like substances are also produced in the breakdown of plastics....which is overused today. I really miss milk in glass bottles! The taste was so much better!

Sheryl Crow even announced that her breast cancer was caused by drinking too much bottled water. They found dioxin in her cancerous tumor and dioxin is a by product of plastic production. You are not supposed to drink bottled water with a certain number on the bottle....some are safe and some are not. And, yes, there are different types of breast cancer but the estrogen related cancer happens in pre and post menopausal women. Believe it or not, only 10% of all breast cancer is genetic so that leaves a lot of wondering about the rest. From what I have noticed, almost all the women I know who suffered a bout with it were on the BC pill for years but no connection to that will ever studied.....too many liability issues if there turned out to be a connection.

[Jestgar]

Nope.....these statistics were published in an article I read that came from the American Cancer Society and it was their push for mammograms. Fact is, breast cancer was a lot more rare in days past than today and I still think that the overuse of pharmaceutical hormones has much to do with it. People willingly give their young daughters BC pills as early as 13 to control their periods. Most people do not consume organic meat and milk and the food supply coming out of mainstream American companies is crap....we all know this because we read labels so much. Hormone-like substances are also produced in the breakdown of plastics....which is overused today. I really miss milk in glass bottles! The taste was so much better!

Sheryl Crow even announced that her breast cancer was caused by drinking too much bottled water. They found dioxin in her cancerous tumor and dioxin is a by product of plastic production. You are not supposed to drink bottled water with a certain number on the bottle....some are safe and some are not. And, yes, there are different types of breast cancer but the estrogen related cancer happens in pre and post menopausal women. Believe it or not, only 10% of all breast cancer is genetic so that leaves a lot of wondering about the rest. From what I have noticed, almost all the women I know who suffered a bout with it were on the BC pill for years but no connection to that will ever studied.....too many liability issues if there turned out to be a connection.

Again, it's hard to comment on what you are saying, unless you can provide a source. Do you have a URL for the article you read? Do you know the difference in hormone levels of organic vs non-organic animal products? Data for plastic breakdown? Genetic cause of BC based on? BRCA1 and 2? Familial inheritance?

[Fiddle-Faddle]

The bolded statements are written as fact and should have sources cited.

Open Original Shared Link

There are NO long-term studies that have been done on the current vaccine schedule. As referenced above, the hepatitis B vaccine has killed infants, and sent over a thousand to the hospital. The Gardasil vaccine has caused deaths: Open Original Shared Link and has been taken off the market in Spain Open Original Shared Link.

According to Merck (the manufacturer of the MMR), the first MMR gives lifetime immunity to 95%; the remaining 5% fail to develop antibodies for unspecified reasons, so Merck requires a second shot (whose effectiveness on those 5% has either not been studied, or the study has not been published). So the second shot is UNNECESSARY for 95%, even according to Merck.

Surely it would be wiser to do a simple blood test to check for antibodies, and revaccinate anyone who does not have antibodies (if they could prove that the second shot would help, that is). Yet, not only are 2 vaccines mandated, but we have just received a notice from our son's school that ANOTHER mumps vaccine is being mandated, as well as 3 other vaccines.

Children are now being subjected to around 30 vaccines by the age of 18 months, with several more being given by college, including a yearly flu shot (most of which contain thimerosal). THERE ARE NO LONG-TERM STUDIES ON THIS PRACTICE. I can't cite references that don't exist. I'd love to give a link to a study on this, but there aren't any.

Anecdotal evidence is never considered to be true evidence, so weigh this one however you want: Open Original Shared Link

I think that NVIC is one of the most accurate sites; they get a lot of their information from VAERS under the freedom of information act.

[Jestgar]

Open Original Shared Link

"...institutions you mention are all linked with big pharm. 2/3 of medical schools are headed by CEOs who have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry..."

The article you cited does not support your claim. It states:

"Approximately one fourth of investigators have industry affiliations, and roughly two thirds of academic institutions hold equity in start-ups that sponsor research performed at the same institutions."

There are NO long-term studies that have been done on the current vaccine schedule. As referenced above, the hepatitis B vaccine has killed infants, and sent over a thousand to the hospital. The Gardasil vaccine has caused deaths: Open Original Shared Link

Not according to the CDC

Open Original Shared Link

and has been taken off the market in Spain Open Original Shared Link.

No, it hasn't, according to that same article.

According to Merck (the manufacturer of the MMR), the first MMR gives lifetime immunity to 95%; the remaining 5% fail to develop antibodies for unspecified reasons, so Merck requires a second shot (whose effectiveness on those 5% has either not been studied, or the study has not been published). So the second shot is UNNECESSARY for 95%, even according to Merck.

Couldn't find that on their website. Do you have a more specific link?

Surely it would be wiser to do a simple blood test to check for antibodies, and revaccinate anyone who does not have antibodies (if they could prove that the second shot would help, that is). Yet, not only are 2 vaccines mandated, but we have just received a notice from our son's school that ANOTHER mumps vaccine is being mandated, as well as 3 other vaccines.

Children are now being subjected to around 30 vaccines by the age of 18 months, with several more being given by college, including a yearly flu shot (most of which contain thimerosal). THERE ARE NO LONG-TERM STUDIES ON THIS PRACTICE. I can't cite references that don't exist. I'd love to give a link to a study on this, but there aren't any.

Anecdotal evidence is never considered to be true evidence, so weigh this one however you want: Open Original Shared Link

Anecdotal, as you said. And this is the host site: Open Original Shared Link

Apparently someone who specializes in conspiracy theories:

Open Original Shared Link

How do you know the people in that story even exist?

[Fiddle-Faddle]

Couldn't find that on their website. Do you have a more specific link?

I just went to their website, and couldn't find it either.

4 years ago, though, it was there. We had put off the second MMR shot for our oldest son, but when he hit puberty, we were worried about possible complications if he were to catch mumps. We looked into giving him a mumps-only vaccine--but it contained thimerosal. Our pediatrician did a blood test, and found that our son had 4 times the minimum number of antibodies to be considered immune.

I went onto Merck's website looking for information. I wondered why my son was still immune when the pediatrician thought that the shot was only good for 4-5 years. At that time, Merck's website said that one MMR vaccine gave lifetime immunity to 95% of those vaccinated.

Apparently, they have changed their website.

But, of course, this is only anecdotal evidence.

It is possible that it's still in our pediatrician's records--I printed it out and brought it to the appointment.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

Anecdotal, as you said. And this is the host site: Open Original Shared Link

Apparently someone who specializes in conspiracy theories:

Open Original Shared Link

How do you know the people in that story even exist?

Good question. According to this, they do exist:Open Original Shared Link and Open Original Shared Link The journalist who wrote the first article is Marnie Ko (Open Original Shared Link) Christine Colebeck wrote one article for the Woodstock Sentinel-Review: Open Original Shared Link

It looks like Rense picked up the story about the Colebecks from www.mercola.com. Just because some slime-doggy picks up a story from another source doesn't mean the story is or is not true.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

Spain Recalls Batch of Gardasil Vaccine Following Serious Adverse Reactions

February 11, 2009 10:29 AM

by Cara McDonough

The country has withdrawn tens of thousands of doses of Gardasil after the hospitalization of two teenage girls, reinforcing critics

[Jestgar]

Spain Recalls Batch of Gardasil Vaccine Following Serious Adverse Reactions

February 11, 2009 10:29 AM

by Cara McDonough

The country has withdrawn tens of thousands of doses of Gardasil after the hospitalization of two teenage girls, reinforcing critics

[Fiddle-Faddle]

Not according to the CDC

Open Original Shared Link

First, that's a study. Not a long-term study.

Secondly, by that study, there ARE serious side effects reported.

Thirdly, the CDC's integrity has come under fire: "CDC Perspective Parents groups alleged that CDC officials had worked to dissuade agency scientists from looking more deeply into links between thimerosal and autism. The groups also alleged that CDC officials narrowed the scope of the IOM?s report to include a handful of studies, most of which the agency had a role in funding or planning." from Open Original Shared Link

and "Safeminds' report shows CDC ignored autism-mercury data--documents show agency discovered elevated autism risk and withheld from public/congress" from Open Original Shared Link

[JNBunnie1]

You stated a lot of things as fact. Cite sources for those. If you say, for example, a vaccine causes disease, that should be referenced. If you say, I think this vaccine has led to an increase in disease, that's an opinion, and can stand alone.

As this particular requirement is not part of the board rules, I am assuming it comes from your personal need for reference before accepting a statement made by another poster. Perhaps a "Based on research done by myself over a number of years, but not verified by any government agency, this is my opinion." statement on fiddle-Faddle's part would suffice? I only suggest it as I'm getting confoozled by youse guys back-and-forth and it'd be nice if we could cut to the chase for simpleminded folk like me.

[Jestgar]

As this particular requirement is not part of the board rules, I am assuming it comes from your personal need for reference before accepting a statement made by another poster.

More than that. I have a lot of respect for many of the people on this board, based on past performance. Someone just in off the streets doesn't have that same frame of reference. I would like this board to be clearly in the "reliable source of information" camp, as opposed to the crap that's available at so many other sites.

Perhaps a "Based on research done by myself over a number of years, but not verified by any government agency, this is my opinion." statement on fiddle-Faddle's part would suffice? I only suggest it as I'm getting confoozled by youse guys back-and-forth and it'd be nice if we could cut to the chase for simpleminded folk like me.

Yep, that would be fine. Just clearly delineate what is verifiable fact, from personal experience, from well-thought-out personal theory, from trash I read on another, un-curated site.

This board is too good to not press this issue, in my personal opinion.

[jerseyangel]

More than that. I have a lot of respect for many of the people on this board, based on past performance. Someone just in off the streets doesn't have that same frame of reference. I would like this board to be clearly in the "reliable source of information" camp, as opposed to the crap that's available at so many other sites.

I, for one, would like to thank you for the time and effort you put into protecting the integrity of the board, Jestgar.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

More than that. I have a lot of respect for many of the people on this board, based on past performance. Someone just in off the streets doesn't have that same frame of reference.

I totally understand where you are coming from.

What disturbs me is that our doctors consider that we have as much reliability as "someone just in off the streets." As I've mentioned many,many times here, much of my life has been a fight against the doctors' frame of reference---and I have been right (and they were wrong) EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Unfortunately, this has been the case for many here on this board. We have gone to the doctor with complaints of health problems, and were either handed prescriptions or told that we were just fine. The doctors, I'm sure, all felt that they were truly helping us, from their frame of reference. Based on what they were taught, based on the studies they knew of, none of us could possibly have celiac disease, or could possibly have serious problems resulting from gluten.

And it seems to me that you are pretty much doing the same thing as the doctors if you are going to give only peer-reviewed studies any credence, and dismiss all anecdotal evidence.

I don't believe that any of these stories (of deadly reactions to vaccines) on the internet are made up, or are there just to cause panic. They have the ring of truth-- the details are SO close to what my children suffered (one major exception being that my children survived, though not unscathed). I have met many moms with similar stories to mine--but none of the moms of "normal" children that I know tell me that their children had any reactions at all.

I'll take that kind of anecdotal evidence and draw my own conclusions before I ever trust a peer-reviewed study, ever again. Those peer-reviewed studies nearly cost the lives of two of my children.

Whether you respect me or not is your choice. I don't feel that I need to earn your respect, not after what I've been through.

What is it going to take before anecdotal evidence is given any weight? How many deaths, how many terrible and unnecessary reactions?

[JNBunnie1]

Yep, that would be fine. Just clearly delineate what is verifiable fact, from personal experience, from well-thought-out personal theory, from trash I read on another, un-curated site.

This board is too good to not press this issue, in my personal opinion.

I have to ask.

Verifiable by whom ?

[jerseyangel]

Alison,

I think the rub here is not that your (or anyone else's) experiences or opinions don't count or shouldn't be expressed here. Quite the contrary--it's very clear to me that you have been through a lot with both your health and that of your children and you have gleaned a lot of valuable information. I think that the way you are so often right there to offer help to others is a wonderful thing. Truly. I have nothing but the utmost respect for all that you've been through and I don't want to come across as any differently.

It's just that statements made "as fact" really should be either backed up with a quick link or prefaced with a simple "in my experience" or "these are my thoughts" or something similar. This is true of anyone, of course, but especially the frequent posters so that everyone who reads is clear on exactly what they're being told.

I think on a board like this, it's our experiences with Celiac, GI, and related problems that most folks are looking for. Spinoff discussions are great too, but we still want to keep the credibility.

[Jestgar]

I totally understand where you are coming from.

What disturbs me is that our doctors consider that we have as much reliability as "someone just in off the streets." As I've mentioned many,many times here, much of my life has been a fight against the doctors' frame of reference---and I have been right (and they were wrong) EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Unfortunately, this has been the case for many here on this board. We have gone to the doctor with complaints of health problems, and were either handed prescriptions or told that we were just fine. The doctors, I'm sure, all felt that they were truly helping us, from their frame of reference. Based on what they were taught, based on the studies they knew of, none of us could possibly have celiac disease, or could possibly have serious problems resulting from gluten.

And it seems to me that you are pretty much doing the same thing as the doctors if you are going to give only peer-reviewed studies any credence, and dismiss all anecdotal evidence.

I don't believe that any of these stories (of deadly reactions to vaccines) on the internet are made up, or are there just to cause panic. They have the ring of truth-- the details are SO close to what my children suffered (one major exception being that my children survived, though not unscathed). I have met many moms with similar stories to mine--but none of the moms of "normal" children that I know tell me that their children had any reactions at all.

I'll take that kind of anecdotal evidence and draw my own conclusions before I ever trust a peer-reviewed study, ever again. Those peer-reviewed studies nearly cost the lives of two of my children.

Whether you respect me or not is your choice. I don't feel that I need to earn your respect, not after what I've been through.

What is it going to take before anecdotal evidence is given any weight? How many deaths, how many terrible and unnecessary reactions?

I'm pretty sure I haven't given an opinion either way on vaccines on this thread. My point is not to disprove you, but to insist that you put the source for your words. If I, or anyone, wants to form an opinion on the subject, it's only fair that you have made a clear distinction between what you have decided (based on whatever information) vs what others have decided (based on whatever information). What credence I give your sources is up to me to decide.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

Alison,

It's just that statements made "as fact" really should be either backed up with a quick link or prefaced with a simple "in my experience" or "these are my thoughts" or something similar.

Where do you draw the line?

Do we have to back up with a quick link "it takes an average of 11 years to be correctly diagnosed with celiac?"

Everyone accepts that one as fact now. I have not seen any mods insisting that that one be backed up with a link referencing the University of Chicago 2006 study.

Why do I have to provide a link for "vaccines can and do cause harm" every time? I've already provided many links over the last 2 years. Shouldn't that one be accepted as fact by now?

If you read through my previous posts, I've made the point several times that I am NOT saying never to vaccinate, but to do so safely, on a reduced schedule, and after much research. I have also provided links for places to start with research.

I wouldn't mind so much if it didn't seem as though people go to the trouble of asking for links when it would be just as easy for them to google and find their own links if they don't believe what I've written.

Heck, I can recall several times when a mod has popped on to request a source from someone other than me, and I've provided the source, just because it was just as easy to do that as it was to post a request for a source.

I don't recall seeing in the board rules anything about when and how often to provide sources. Perhaps I missed that?

[Lisa]

Why do I have to provide a link for "vaccines can and do cause harm" every time? I've already provided many links over the last 2 years. Shouldn't that one be accepted as fact by now?

Because that statement could have a deadly outcome by it's implication. Hence, a parent deserves to have documented sources to make an informed decision regarding a vaccine or a deadly disease. The topic still generates much debate. This is serious stuff.

As you know, many assumptions are assumed to be factual here. I would think this topic should be 100% fact, every time.

[Jestgar]

I wouldn't mind so much if it didn't seem as though people go to the trouble of asking for links when it would be just as easy for them to google and find their own links if they don't believe what I've written.

Fiddle-Faddle, if there are topics you feel strongly about, why not add a few links to your signature? You could make your point, followed by "there are links in my sig if you want more information".

[jerseyangel]

Fiddle-Faddle, if there are topics you feel strongly about, why not add a few links to your signature? You could make your point, followed by "there are links in my sig if you want more information".

That is a very good suggestion.

As for what you said, Alison, about having provided links in the past--we have new members all the time. There's a very good chance that many would be seeing your statements for the first time, even if you had discussed them before.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

Because that statement could have a deadly outcome by it's implication. Hence, a parent deserves to have documented sources to make an informed decision regarding a vaccine or a deadly disease. The topic still generates much debate. This is serious stuff.

As you know, many assumptions are assumed to be factual here. I would think this topic should be 100% fact, every time.

Excuse me but you didn't provide a link yourself. What deadly outcome are YOU talking about?

Did you provide any facts showing that my statement (that vaccines could kill) could have a deadly outcome by its implication? What facts did you provide?

The fact that vaccines CAN cause death is something that I was NEVER, EVER told, either in person or in writing from the pediatrician or from the hospital, not once in the more than 60 vaccines my 3 children were given (2 were given 26 each, one was given 10). But I've been told plenty of times that they CAN'T cause autism, even though some court cases have already decided that it has, as in the case of Hannah Poling:

Open Original Shared Link

The hepatitis B vaccine has caused 146 deaths, and 24,775 serious adverse effects, according to VAERS.

2 medical journals, JAMA and British Medical Journal, both say that the flu vaccine is ineffective in young children and in the elderly.

The NYTimes reported a death of a 6-year-old in COlorado from the Flu vaccine:

"U.S. federal health officials gathered to discuss the controversial case of 9-year-old Hannah Poling, who became autistic after receiving numerous vaccinations, but the government has so far kept quiet about a second case that some say is even more disturbing.

On January 11, a 6-year-old girl from Colorado received FluMist, a flu vaccine, and about a week later

[Fiddle-Faddle]

Fiddle-Faddle, if there are topics you feel strongly about, why not add a few links to your signature? You could make your point, followed by "there are links in my sig if you want more information".

Jestgar, as a moderator, surely you know that we aren't allowed to have links in our sig...

[rinne]

Speaking of the flu vaccine, my massage therapist told me today a client came in who had lost all of her hair, she said that it fell out within a week of receiving the flu vaccine. I have never heard of such a thing, has anyone else?