Imagine if antibiotics were OTC.
1 Like
You write out a long ass post just to end it with this?
âHere are all the reasons youâre wrong but donât challenge it please.â
3 Likes
Iâm onboard the war wagonâŠFDA is scum
3 Likes
I take ranolazine for heart problems, a derivative of piperazine.
So to say that taking something that may have cardioprotective properties to protect from a virus that attacks the cardiovascular system may not be as crazy as it sounds.
Lacking in documentation, sure. Crazy- maybe not.
And just because somebody doesnât know something doesnât mean it is wrong.
1 Like
It isnât crazy to test oneâs reasonable hypothesis using research. The hypothesis might be true. But it is crazy to publicly advocate for medical things without any evidence when in a responsible position. Based on some positive pubmed reports there are foods and things I include in my diet. The evidence on many of these things is mixed - sometimes no benefit is shown. The evidence is often not so good that I would recommend you take all the things I do; some of them probably have no or little real benefit.
Part of the reason I donât want to argue for vaccines is it is a tangential issue to someone elseâs thread. But also my experience is that many antivaxxers are not really open to changing their views. I do not really have the time or desire to argue about this, and do not care if I change the views of someone wrong on the Internet.
People here often know a lot about lifting weights. Like me, theyâve done it several times a week for many years. If some guy came by here saying you could gain maximal total body hypertrophy just by doing, say, literally three minutes a week of one exercise, youâd probably assume he did not know very much about lifting. You could argue about it, but you need a common basis to discuss things and you might not think it worth the effort. On the other hand, with people who know a lot about weightlifting, you could have fruitful discussions on different techniques, exercises or routines. Immunology is not so different. If you know a lot about it, by all means a good discussion might follow about its implications.
I really donât see that this is happening anywhere, though.
Heâs mostly advocating to reduce government mandates on the individual, and increase government mandates on food conglomerates - the ones whoâve spent billions in research finding out how to make food as addictive as possible.
Maybe youâre confusing the object and the subject.
Object: vaccines
Subject: Mandatory compliance.
See, nothing makes people dig in and say no faster than telling them they either have to, or canât do something.
2 Likes
Like I say, I think the food system is broken. I would prefer better food advice, and fewer toxins in the environment too. I read RFKs book, and think he made some good points. Canadians pay a lot for drugs compared to most countries, but it is still cheaper than the US. I donât have a problem with some changes in these areas.
What he has said before may not be what he does as secretary. But he has many opinions which contradict medical orthodoxy. This might be reasonable given good evidence. But there is lots of evidence things like vaccines are helpful and cost effective. There is not good evidence showing benefits to things like chelation therapy (added: in the context of autism). Stuff like stem cells are more complex; research was delayed for years by ethical concerns, discoveries like Yanamaka factors seem very promising to those of us interested in longevity⊠but the claims made by actual greymarket stem cell clinics are often not credible nor supported by research.
I think both men and women have the right to say what they do or donât want done to their bodies. I support personal freedom, and this is also generally enshrined in law. But it is better when this is an informed choice, and better still when this choice does not affect anyone else.
What?
How can one have an informed opinion when disclosure of information is gaurded, obfuscated, or kept hidden as trade secrets, as it has been with many things?
How does somebody taking ivermectin (just for example) for any reason affect anybody else?
2 Likes
Chelation is used to treat, say, mercury or organophosphate poisoning. But Kennedy has advocated using it for autism, which does not make a high degree of medical sense. It might be different if repeated studies showed benefit.
From the Seattle Times:
A blog entry posted by the Childrenâs Health Defense, a nonprofit founded by Kennedy, claims that âmany cases of autismâ are actually cases of mercury poisoning brought on by a preservative found in some vaccines. The post, which says it was written in 2000 and posted in 2017, went on to note the promise of chelating agents â chemicals that remove toxic metals from the body â as a potential treatment for autism. A 2015 book edited by Kennedy that focused on widely debunked theories about vaccines and autism notes âevidence of chelationâs benefitsâ from a handful of small studies.
Doctors do use chelating agents to treat some conditions, like lead poisoning, said Dr. Jeffrey Brent, a toxicologist at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. But he said he doubted that âany legitimate physicianâ believed that chelation was an appropriate treatment for autism.
Chelation can also be dangerous. A 5-year-old boy died in 2005 from cardiac arrest after a doctor in western Pennsylvania tried to treat his autism with chelation.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/kennedys-fda-wish-list-raw-milk-stem-cells-heavy-metals/
Does it therefor follow that it should be treated as quackery?
Or that the subject should be closed, never to be spoken of again?
During Covid, many substances were considered that might have benefit. Some made more sense than others. By all means test which ones work the best.
Ivermectin is a worm medicine. If you have pinworms making your ass itchy or your dog has heartworm, it works great. It is not without cost or side effects, and it would be irresponsible and unethical for your doctor to give it to you to reduce your blood pressure if it does not actually do anything for blood pressure. If you donât like vaccines but like the idea of doing something, one hopes that something would have more benefit than harm. Especially if giving it to your loved ones. Viruses and worms are very different in many ways.
The subject is open when there is actual evidence chelation improves or prevents autism. Until then it is just hot air. What Kennedy might say as a private individual and what he should say as Secretary of Health are different things.
Well, I think the chain of thought goes- vaccines use a mercury formulation as a preservative.
This is the foundation of the suspicion.
So if you removed the (possible) mercury it would discontinue the damage that murcury may be doing, right?
That seems worthy of investigation, wouldnât you say?
Also, since you seem to think youâre an authority on what should or shouldnât be medically investigated or studied, what is your degree/post grad education in?
You waved it around a little, but never elaborated on what it is.
In fact, thiomersal was removed from many vaccines despite plenty of evidence it was not causing harm.
At some point, arguing against Internet memes is not worth the time, as per my weightlifting analogy.
Sure, but the US is largely following medical orthodoxy and has some of the worst health outcomes at a cost that is orders of magnitude higher than other developed nations.
So maybe medical orthodoxy is in need of questioning as well?
Also, you said:
Which is clearly wrong, as Iâm even aware of chelation therapy and its value from working in the stained glass industry and with various other metals.
I meant as applied to autism, since this is how Kennedy discusses the use of chelation therapy. I will amend my earlier incomplete statement.
Iâm not against challenging orthodoxy with evidence and data.
Me? Iâm just a simple caveman.