One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
“Dr. B, Should I Get The Pneumonia Vaccine?”
Original article.
(Below is from Dr Brownstein's blog.)
Today, a patient asked me if she should get the pneumonia vaccine. I told her that Sylvia Booth Hubbard from Newsmax just interviewed me about this topic and that I would repost the Newsmax article.
“Once again the government is pushing worthless vaccines on unsuspecting Americans,” says Dr. David Brownstein, holistic doctor and author of the newsletter “Dr. Brownstein’s Natural Way to Health.”A recent article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported on new guidelines which encourage doctors to give adults 65 years and older two vaccines — PCV13 and PPSV23 — to prevent pneumonia.
“After reading the article, you would assume that the two vaccines have been shown to be effective at preventing pneumococcal-associated illnesses and death from pneumonia,” Brownstein tells Newsmax Health. “But you would be wrong: These vaccines fail over 99 percent of the people who take them!”
According to JAMA, there were more than 31,600 cases of pneumonia in the United States in 2012, and 3,300 related deaths.
...
“I find it incredible that the FDA recommends a vaccine that fails 99.9 percent of those who receive it,” says Dr. Brownstein. “And that’s not even taking into consideration that the vaccine contains aluminum and phenol, which have never been shown to be safe when injected into the human body. In fact, aluminum and phenol should never be injected into any living being.
CSummer
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
This article seems to contradict Dr. Brownstein's claims about the effectiveness of the vaccines:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac...c-in-short.htm
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
Another article from Dr Brownstein's blog is entitled: CDC: A Cesspool of Corruption. I think he would rather expect any article on the CDC website to be pro-vaccine.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
The CDC website lists links to independent studies - one done in Europe - that have statistics regarding the effectiveness of the vaccines. As far as Dr. Brownstein, I can't comment at all on whether he is an authority on this issue, but I do notice that almost everything on his blog leads to a way to buy something from him.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
Another article from Dr Brownstein's blog is entitled:
CDC: A Cesspool of Corruption. I think he would rather expect any article on the CDC website to be pro-vaccine.
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
You know what they say about how easy it is to lie with statistics? And it seems very common these days for "research" to reflect the views of agency management, who are closely aligned with major corporations. Does something on his blog promoting one of his products invalidate what he writes? To me, it doesn't. I rarely see a web site that isn't loaded with ads, yet I still read info from them - some of which I find credible.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:
The CDC website lists links to independent studies - one done in Europe - that have statistics regarding the effectiveness of the vaccines. As far as Dr. Brownstein, I can't comment at all on whether he is an authority on this issue, but I do notice that almost everything on his blog leads to a way to buy something from him.
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
... Does something on his blog promoting one of his products invalidate what he writes?...
what do 'they' know anyway? Probably not statistics. It's not as easy as Mark Twain (Benjamin Disraeli, or whoever, I know it wasn't Mark Twain) says. I actually do see a lot of web sites that aren't loaded with ads, and those are way more credible. I think you should have far more skepticism about someone who promotes products with their blogs. It's kind of funny that the skepticism is withheld from these outliers, who operate free from institutional checks & balances, and instead it's exactly those institutions whose work is assumed tainted by bias. The whole point of science and science-based institutions is to address the questions of bias. They don't by themselves remove all the effects of human nature, but they were designed to try. These guys with websites and TV shows remind me of PT Barnum and Buffalo Bill. More Dr Oz than Dr. Bill. Sure corporations are often evil, but these guys are often clowns. You can't blindly trust either - but there's less evidence on the sides of the self-designated truthers.
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
About 20 years ago, there was a list of the books that Berkeley prof's would like all the incoming freshmen to have read, and one was "How to Lie With Statistics".........there probably are even more and better ways now....
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
what do 'they' know anyway? Probably not statistics....
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” – (source) Marica Angell, physician and author, along with being the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. [The Truth About the Drug Companies Lecture - Dr. Marcia Angell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDbQ...utu.be&t=5m19s
Jeanne Lenzer, associate editor of the British Medical Journal, has published an investigative report showing how the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is not honest when publishing disclaimers in their studies stating that “they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products.” https://vaccineimpact.com/2015/can-we-trust-the-cdc-british-medical-journal-reveals-cdc-lies-about-ties-to-big-pharma/
Dr. John Virapen: The whole issue of clinical trials is a disgrace, riddled with corruption. The protocols are written by the pharmaceutical industry who manipulate so that results are favorable for themselves. Investigators are not required to register planned group and sub-group analyses. If a protocol is discontinued, the results don't have to be passed on to the regulatory authorities. But why are trials stopped? Because "there are difficulties”. One “difficulty” may be because some patients die.
Merck created “hit list” to destroy, neutralize or discredit dissenting doctors
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/merck-c...nting-doctors/
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
I don't like the idea of taking or giving vaccines unless absolutely necessary. That said, I have proudly given my daughter all of her vaccinations for the serious diseases. But I would never take a flu vaccine or other type that does not fall into the "critical" group, such as rubella and the other nasties for which children normally get their shots. I would rather have the flu or cold, or whatever, than to have to be constantly dosing my body for every imaginable ailment. If my body can fight it off without the risk of permanent body damage then I much prefer to do things naturally.
That said, what I cannot accept is that there are parents who are crazy enough to risk the health of their own children in contracting a horrible disease, such as polio, with terrible, life-long consequences. I have a sister in law who lives in Spain and she has spent her entire adult life limping around because one leg is shorter than the other as a result of getting polio as a child.
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
Everything on the blog promotes his products. All of the posts give a brief summary of the subject, and without giving any information, lead to a recording that you can purchase with the real information. Either that or to a supplement.I don't see any independent review of this doctor's qualifications, so why should I believe him rather than independent peer reviewed scientific studies?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
...Does something on his blog promoting one of his products invalidate what he writes? To me, it doesn't...
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
"self-designated" being, to my mind, the dead give-away
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
... Sure corporations are often evil, but these guys are often clowns. You can't blindly trust either - but there's less evidence on the sides of the self-designated truthers.
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
I don't know what you were looking at, but here is a link to the actual blog page. The whole text of the article I posted is there, and I see nothing about needing to buy a recording of anything. Nor do I see any other promotion of his products on that page. If you're looking at the Newmax page, you might see all kinds of things they're promoting. This is not Dr Brownstein's doing.
It does once again come down to that question of whom do we choose to believe. My tendency is not to believe any of it, as I don't think beliefs are a good basis for my life and choices. I have, though, heard a lot of negative things about "big pharma," so in general I avoid using any products from those corporations.
Dr Brownstein is a board-certified physician with a "holistic" practice that seems to include aspects of naturopathy. In this country at this time, my sense is that it takes courage to speak out against the vaccine/pharma establishment, and I doubt that Dr Brownstein does this to sell products.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rekarp:
Everything on the blog promotes his products. ...
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as
an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” – (source) Marica Angell, physician and author, along with being the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. [
The Truth About the Drug Companies Lecture - Dr. Marcia Angell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDbQ...utu.be&t=5m19s
boy do I not understand the prominant place of video links. And by the way, get off my lawn.
For an alternate perspective on her position:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlam...l-credibility/
now, I'd be the last to say Forbes has more credibility than Angell does herself; but they do have enough credibility to serve as easy access to some critics who point out that (returning to a theme of mine) she's engaging in advocacy, not uncritical review. That means she's not serving as a searcher of truth (should that be capitalized?) but that she's moved on to discussing the quality of the emperor's clothes. There's a range of opinions, but there's clearly no definitive consensus.
I like her as an expert, though - she's not an easily-pigeonholed ideologue. I'm sure she has valid reasons for her public position - which is not a judgement I'd give on lots of these other critics.
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
Yes, so what does this article say?...another 'paid for by corrupt corporate interests.' I wonder if you are a supporter of Monsanto too because they just took over several other Big Pharma industries.
Of course they are going to go after Angell as they did Dr. Wakefield, Drs.Thompson and Hooker from the CDC, Dr. J. Anthony Morris (formerly Chief Vaccine Control Officer at the US Federal Drug Admin; Jay N. Gordon, MD, FAAP; Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, UCLA Medical School Former Senior Fellow in Pediatric Nutrition, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Institute; Dr. Larry Palevsky, board-certified pediatrician: Dr. Boyd Haley, toxicologist, retired Professor and Chair, Dept. of Chemistry, University of Kentucky; Jane M. Orient MD, Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)...and I could go on and on but you will just find more corporate articles which slander those who are brave enough not to take bribe money and somehow believe it as your references calling it truth and science.
I wonder why it's difficult to get that the corporate science has money as their motive, not health, and that they spend billions in promoting themselves even to the tune of killing those that they deem too close to disclosure. I know whistleblowers who have attempted to go up against the corporations...ending up financially broke. Our gov't is now bought by corporations... as an entity that votes, but you defend them and say it's science and that whomever speaks differently isn't worthy of consideration in your opinion. Go figure?
And for those who are independent thinkers, who have the ability to connect the dots, see the patterns, who want more references:
Scientific papers controlled by 6 corporations.
https://www.trueactivist.com/study-f...x-corporations
Scientific Research Fraud on the Rise:
https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162...ud-on-the-rise
Pfizer VP blows the whistle about Pharm industry https://www.collective-evolution.com...ical-industry/
Manipulated by the pharmaceutical industry https://medicalconsumers.org/2006/01...ling-sickness/
Big Pharma manufacturers, Drug and device companies, Lawsuits and facts https://www.drugwatch.com/manufacturer/
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:
Yes, so what does this article say?...another 'paid for by corrupt corporate interests.' I wonder if you are a supporter of Monsanto...
boy, this is a good fit for my comments on redpillers. You can only see things as absolutely black and white, "paid-for corrupt corporate" shills vs. heroic altruistic idealists. You can't even see any nuance, any respect for Angell in my post, because it's not fitting your locked-in world view. "Open minded" as a redpill characteristic? come on... and lumping Angell and Wakefield is silly.
What on earth makes you even think that anyone on earth isn't aware corporate science has money as a motive? but from your post, it sounds like the idea that such things aren't either/or is unimaginable. How 'bout complex and conflicting? There are many posters on this site who've pointed out flaws in the dots you encourage these 'independent thinkers who connect' them to rely on. Some dots are good, many are transparently bogus.
When some of us point out the complexity somehow we're seen as ignorant shills for Monsanto. I don't expect the day to ever come when I might see one of the virulent anti-vax people interested in seeing what part if any of mainstream research has value, and shows any interest in critically analyzing the research offered by the vax opponents. Wakefield, really? An earlier post says "it is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research" like that's a shocking insight and gives free reign to dismiss everything. Babys and bathwater come to mind.
My posts, and those of several others who won't drink red koolaid, usually center on that absolutist perspective. You'll see several people asserting that all vaccines are poison, but it's pretty rare to see a poster make the opposite one, that they're perfectly safe and always efficacious. I don't live in a cartoonish world where everything's painted with just a few bold colors. I have a lot more respect for points of view that can acknowledge more subtle and complex shades.
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
boy, this is a good fit for my comments on redpillers. You can only see things as absolutely black and white, "paid-for corrupt corporate" shills vs. heroic altruistic idealists. You can't even see any nuance, any respect for Angell in my post, because....
Actually I lived from your viewpoint for years, of seeing things in your black and white. I was 'Denise dental hygienist' in my other life, the good girl who followed the rules and read all the medical info, talking to my best friend's husband who was a doctor about all kinds of diseases, and how to eradicate them, went to the doctors following their recommendations until one day I was injured, introduced to holistic healing that changed my life, woke up from a Matrix and am still in discovery.
I could read that you had some respect for Angell when I re-read it again late last night after I had already sent out the post then. So I will state that publically now. I just have a limited time to discuss this topic because no matter what I say or others who see things differently than you, the pattern is to pigeon hole us with your labels, tell us what is true for us without even wondering...like it's this way or the highway...and basically it's really not a discussion but a beratement.
Those posters who point out the flaws of what I or others might say are the same group who give gratitude to you, and as far as I'm concerned just seem in many ways to follow the corporate lines and censored media diatribes. When the field is bought, (as is this country's politics... and not to say that there aren't people with ethics and integrity attempting to expose this) and those who attempt to speak differently, including Wakefield, who has been exonerated from what you still think is going on several years back, https://healthimpactnews.com/2013/ne...-autism-again/, when you bypass every whistleblower except Angell as being only partially acceptable (putting all the energy on her through others' comments in the article w/o watching the video), then there is really little to share with this type of censorship and communication style. That is why I invited others to read the articles that you rarely do.
Many of my friends who use to read this bulletin board, have long left in seeing that there is no true discussions in how some disagree.... or they don't comment on this board because of the kind of communication style that is consistently presented. It took awhile for Barry to see that some of those who you use to support were violent in expression and their threats behind the scene.
And honestly, if all of you who agree with podfish want to believe like he does, go for it...it's your life...just don't infringe your values, your corporate needles and your laws to take away my rights to my body and how I choose to live my life. Have fun being the first in line to get your 48 plus experimental vaccines with GMO's that aren't even being tested as they are being fast-tracked through the FDA now. Enjoy your constitutional rights being usurped and the continuous false flag events that keep you wanting Big Brother to take over.
I'm leaving this thread now, and just like Alex has so clearly said in the tactics used, the baiting will be there for the rest of you. There will be one less person to disagree with you, so you can breath a sigh of relief, blow on your fingers and rub them on your shirt as if you've 'won'. There are just no 'winners' when people's lives have been taken over.
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."
- Martin Niemoller (1892–1984)
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:
The author of the first article speculates whether having six large publishing companies control over half of the published article is a problem. The 2nd article says fraud has increased from 10 per million studies to 96 per million since 1976.
I won't read any further, as neither of these articles discredits the current system of scientific research that we have in this country.
I'm a big supporter of alternative medicine, but I am also extremely grateful for the scientific advancement that extends our lives and offers procedures and cures for so many illnesses.
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
Health News Review on the flu vaccine and understanding the statistical significance of relative risk reduction:
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/201...sk-reductions/
Re: One physician's views on pneumonia vaccines
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by steph:
wow, at first look that seems to be a nice site. Hits me at my weak spots: they use a good understanding of statistics, a measured amount of snark, skepticism but no hyperbolic ranting. Just as a journalistic comparison, you could use this site vs. 'natural news' or whatever that overtly anti-vaxxy site is to show the difference between respecting and pandering to your readers.
