[Fwd: Daily Dose - 'Tis the season for misinformation]

[Guest guest]

Not counting the no-forced-vaccination group, Doc s is one

of 3 Natural Health sources from which I regularly receive emails. I

ALWAYS find him RIGHT-ON! GOD BLESS HIM! He was born in 1925 (same as

my recently-departed mom)!!! He is apparently, as yet, unaware of the

vaccine's hazards to pregnant women (hence, the REASON for their

refusing the vax). ...phil/qd36

20 Nov 2009

Get ready for a tidal wave of flu lies

Desperate. That's the only word I can come up to describe the people

responsible for pushing the flu vaccine.

Public health officials are now chalking up the dangers of the swine

flu vaccine to little more than unproven rumors that need to be nipped

in the bud. Any supposed side effects are purely coincidental.

So let me get this straight... I'm supposed to overlook the fact that

so far in Britain, 22 developed Guillain-Barre syndrome and six died of

unexplained causes shortly after receiving the swine flu vaccine?

Those officials may have convinced themselves that's a coincidence, but

I don't buy it.

Leonard Marcus of Harvard University's School of Public Health said,

"The greatest danger ahead is that there will be coincidental events

between (swine flu) vaccination and adverse health events and people

will draw conclusions that are not based on science."

That's funny. I would have thought that the "greatest danger ahead"

would be the aftermath of a mass vaccination program that pumped

millions of milliliters of an untested and unproved substance laced

with harmful additives into millions of unsuspecting people.

But hey, what do I know?

Of course, if you read the fine print, you'll see that several of the

study's authors received grants from swine flu manufacturers. Talk

about a coincidence...

And just when you thought they couldn't stoop any lower, the medical

powers-that-be are conning pregnant women into getting this vaccine

with promises of a healthier baby.

Puh-lease. Talk about a guilt trip! Next thing you know, pregnant women

who don't get this shot will be locked up for child abuse!

The real problem here is that too many pregnant woman are saying "no

thanks" to the flu shot – and that's bad for business. One researcher

called the number of pregnant women who get flu shots "dismal."

I call it dynamite.

These women are among the best-informed and most health-conscious

consumers out there, and they're unwilling to risk the lives of their

unborn children for a questionable vaccine.

We could all learn a lesson from them.

And as for the studies showing that babies benefit when their moms get

vaccinated — well, you can ignore these studies, because they're not

worth a box of used baby wipes.

Two of the four studies took place entirely in Bangladesh. One of them

didn't compare the flu shot to no vaccination – it compared the flu

shot to pneumococcal vaccines. There are so many variables in this one

you can't even begin to make sense of it.

And I'm not going to try, either.

That's not the only flu-shot nonsense making news.

Keep reading...

Can statins save you from the flu?

If you've been reading my column for a while, you've probably noticed a

pattern when it comes to statins. Whenever an issue takes center stage,

Big Pharma tries to throw statins at it.

We've already seen them try to say these meds cure everything from

dementia to asthma. And now you can add another to the list: They're

claiming that statins can improve flu survival rates.

Maybe you've seen this study, because it's made some headlines lately –

but here are the basics: When doctors looked at 2,800 people

hospitalized with seasonal flu, they found that the people who weren't

taking statins were twice as likely to kick the bucket.

Sounds pretty significant, right?

Of course it does. And that kind of statistic is great for

attention-getting headlines. But there's more to the story.

For starters, this was not a randomized, controlled trial. This was an

after-the-fact bit of bookkeeping that didn't account for mitigating

factors – like how healthy or unhealthy the people were BEFORE they got

the flu, which is a much bigger factor than whether or not they used

cholesterol meds.

The researchers claim the statin users must have been unhealthier to

begin with because they were more likely to have underlying conditions

like heart disease. But no one really knows for sure.

And there's no way of knowing how many untreated conditions the

non-statin users may have had – or how sickly they may have been before

they got the flu – because it wasn't factored into the study.

Maybe instead of cracking down on companies selling sham cures like the

swine-flu shampoo, the FDA should pay a little more attention to drug

companies who use sham studies to tout their drugs as cure-alls.

The bottom line is that statins have been linked to debilitating muscle

pain, memory loss, liver disease, kidney failure, and much more. And

their one supposed benefit – lower cholesterol levels – is based on a

mistaken notion to begin with.

With a "cure" like that, give me the flu any day.

Cutting through the static over statins,

s, M.D.

-- Phil Frederick ;-) ID: quickdraw3650

Paltalk ID: Quickdraw36

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...a law repugnant to the constitution is void..." _Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

"If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of EVERY American to be INFORMED."__ Jefferson

"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."__KJV Proverbs 14:34

•http://storm.prohosting.com/~quickdra/ -info site, email forum signup + •HELP spread the TRUTH:

http://www./group/GunRightsConstitution

•Judicial Accountability (TO the PEOPLE): http://www.jail4judges.org

•REAL, legal, Silver- & Gold-Backed $MONEY$:

http://www.libertydollar.org/default.asp?REFERER=NRC27938

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Not counting the no-forced-vaccination group, Doc s is one

of 3 Natural Health sources from which I regularly receive emails. I

ALWAYS find him RIGHT-ON! GOD BLESS HIM! He was born in 1925 (same as

my recently-departed mom)!!! He is apparently, as yet, unaware of the

vaccine's hazards to pregnant women (hence, the REASON for their

refusing the vax). ...phil/qd36

20 Nov 2009

Get ready for a tidal wave of flu lies

Desperate. That's the only word I can come up to describe the people

responsible for pushing the flu vaccine.

Public health officials are now chalking up the dangers of the swine

flu vaccine to little more than unproven rumors that need to be nipped

in the bud. Any supposed side effects are purely coincidental.

So let me get this straight... I'm supposed to overlook the fact that

so far in Britain, 22 developed Guillain-Barre syndrome and six died of

unexplained causes shortly after receiving the swine flu vaccine?

Those officials may have convinced themselves that's a coincidence, but

I don't buy it.

Leonard Marcus of Harvard University's School of Public Health said,

"The greatest danger ahead is that there will be coincidental events

between (swine flu) vaccination and adverse health events and people

will draw conclusions that are not based on science."

That's funny. I would have thought that the "greatest danger ahead"

would be the aftermath of a mass vaccination program that pumped

millions of milliliters of an untested and unproved substance laced

with harmful additives into millions of unsuspecting people.

But hey, what do I know?

Of course, if you read the fine print, you'll see that several of the

study's authors received grants from swine flu manufacturers. Talk

about a coincidence...

And just when you thought they couldn't stoop any lower, the medical

powers-that-be are conning pregnant women into getting this vaccine

with promises of a healthier baby.

Puh-lease. Talk about a guilt trip! Next thing you know, pregnant women

who don't get this shot will be locked up for child abuse!

The real problem here is that too many pregnant woman are saying "no

thanks" to the flu shot – and that's bad for business. One researcher

called the number of pregnant women who get flu shots "dismal."

I call it dynamite.

These women are among the best-informed and most health-conscious

consumers out there, and they're unwilling to risk the lives of their

unborn children for a questionable vaccine.

We could all learn a lesson from them.

And as for the studies showing that babies benefit when their moms get

vaccinated — well, you can ignore these studies, because they're not

worth a box of used baby wipes.

Two of the four studies took place entirely in Bangladesh. One of them

didn't compare the flu shot to no vaccination – it compared the flu

shot to pneumococcal vaccines. There are so many variables in this one

you can't even begin to make sense of it.

And I'm not going to try, either.

That's not the only flu-shot nonsense making news.

Keep reading...

Can statins save you from the flu?

If you've been reading my column for a while, you've probably noticed a

pattern when it comes to statins. Whenever an issue takes center stage,

Big Pharma tries to throw statins at it.

We've already seen them try to say these meds cure everything from

dementia to asthma. And now you can add another to the list: They're

claiming that statins can improve flu survival rates.

Maybe you've seen this study, because it's made some headlines lately –

but here are the basics: When doctors looked at 2,800 people

hospitalized with seasonal flu, they found that the people who weren't

taking statins were twice as likely to kick the bucket.

Sounds pretty significant, right?

Of course it does. And that kind of statistic is great for

attention-getting headlines. But there's more to the story.

For starters, this was not a randomized, controlled trial. This was an

after-the-fact bit of bookkeeping that didn't account for mitigating

factors – like how healthy or unhealthy the people were BEFORE they got

the flu, which is a much bigger factor than whether or not they used

cholesterol meds.

The researchers claim the statin users must have been unhealthier to

begin with because they were more likely to have underlying conditions

like heart disease. But no one really knows for sure.

And there's no way of knowing how many untreated conditions the

non-statin users may have had – or how sickly they may have been before

they got the flu – because it wasn't factored into the study.

Maybe instead of cracking down on companies selling sham cures like the

swine-flu shampoo, the FDA should pay a little more attention to drug

companies who use sham studies to tout their drugs as cure-alls.

The bottom line is that statins have been linked to debilitating muscle

pain, memory loss, liver disease, kidney failure, and much more. And

their one supposed benefit – lower cholesterol levels – is based on a

mistaken notion to begin with.

With a "cure" like that, give me the flu any day.

Cutting through the static over statins,

s, M.D.

-- Phil Frederick ;-) ID: quickdraw3650

Paltalk ID: Quickdraw36

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...a law repugnant to the constitution is void..." _Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

"If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of EVERY American to be INFORMED."__ Jefferson

"Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."__KJV Proverbs 14:34

•http://storm.prohosting.com/~quickdra/ -info site, email forum signup + •HELP spread the TRUTH:

http://www./group/GunRightsConstitution

•Judicial Accountability (TO the PEOPLE): http://www.jail4judges.org

•REAL, legal, Silver- & Gold-Backed $MONEY$:

http://www.libertydollar.org/default.asp?REFERER=NRC27938

-------------------------------------------------------------------------