Joe Ingles: Article on Son's Autism Diagnosis

[Getting Traded]

He's a quack who peddles lies.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/tag/del-bigtree/

https://respectfulinsolence.com/201...ocumentary-vaxxed-is-reviewed-with-insolence/

Yes, that's been the MO of Big Pharma since the 1930's -- calling anyone who doesn't use pharmaceutical drugs, quacks. Attacking people like Gerson, for example, the progenitor of the cancer is a metabolic disease. Tell me, then, why was Gerson able to cure so many people, why has he been suppressed by mainstream medicine? Tell me, why after all these years and billions of dollars of research, they haven't found a cure. Do you think perhaps they are going about it the wrong way, that their ideas on causality are wrong. Gene errors don't cause cancer, they're the result of cancer.

Can you explain why certain toxins are carcinogens, then? If it were gene errors, then toxins would have nothing to do with causality, and we know that isn't true.

 

[One Brow]

Yes, that's been the MO of Big Pharma since the 1930's --

Orac is a cancer specialist, not a pharmaceutical company.

calling anyone who doesn't use pharmaceutical drugs, quacks. Attacking people like Gerson, for example, the progenitor of the cancer is a metabolic disease. Tell me, then, why was Gerson able to cure so many people, why has he been suppressed by mainstream medicine?

People die following Gerson's regime who would probably have lived if they had gotten conventional treatment.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/?s=gerson

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2015/03/06/alternative-cancer-therapies-the-quest-for-certainty/

Tell me, why after all these years and billions of dollars of research, they haven't found a cure.

We have found cures for many types of cancers. When caught early enough, most patients of various types of cancer lead lives of normal length and health.

Do you think perhaps they are going about it the wrong way, that their ideas on causality are wrong.

No, I think there are multiple types of cancer, and each type needs different treatments, and some are more resistant to treatment than others.

Gene errors don't cause cancer, they're the result of cancer.

Backwards logic at its finest.

 

[Getting Traded]

Orac is a cancer specialist, not a pharmaceutical company.



People die following Gerson's regime who would probably have lived if they had gotten conventional treatment.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/?s=gerson

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2015/03/06/alternative-cancer-therapies-the-quest-for-certainty/



We have found cures for many types of cancers. When caught early enough, most patients of various types of cancer lead lives of normal length and health.



No, I think there are multiple types of cancer, and each type needs different treatments, and some are more resistant to treatment than others.



Backwards logic at its finest.

LOL ... guess you don't know about the studies that show that people who have no treatment live as long as those that do, but without the noxious side effects. And they're are at least a half-dozen and in reputable journals. And did you know that a survey of oncologists -- this was in the Journal of Clinical Oncology -- the majority stated they would not treat their relatives with chemotherapy. Gerson may have lost patients, but how many people die who are conventionally treated. The ones who survive have very strong immune systems and usually are younger people.

I'm not a researcher in this field, but I used to do news podcasts for an alternative cancer treatment expert, and learned a lot about the topic. There has been a lot of fraud in the cancer industry, which is why I'm a skeptic. They rig their studies, for one. And of course, herbal remedies are not being studied because there is no profit in it.

 

[One Brow]

LOL ... guess you don't know about the studies that show that people who have no treatment live as long as those that do, but without the noxious side effects. And they're are at least a half-dozen and in reputable journals.

Are these treatable cancers? Links, please.

And did you know that a survey of oncologists -- this was in the Journal of Clinical Oncology -- the majority stated they would not treat their relatives with chemotherapy.

Links, please.

Gerson may have lost patients, but how many people die who are conventionally treated.

Fewer.

There has been a lot of fraud in the cancer industry, which is why I'm a skeptic.

Skeptics follow the science, not the quacks. You're credulous, not skeptical.

And of course, herbal remedies are not being studied because there is no profit in it.

Many modern medicines started as herbal remedies (aspirin comes to mind immediately), and pharmaceuticals made plenty of money off of them. Your point is refuted by history.

 

[Alfalfa]

There's been a campaign on Reddit to get teenagers who have been cursed with anti-vaxx parents vaccinated without their parents' knowledge or permission. It's been going well.

 

[Getting Traded]

Are these treatable cancers? Links, please.

I read the report some years ago, but don't have it handy now. It did have more to do with later stage cancers, if I recall.

Links, please.

Fewer.

Fewer, how do you know that. Have you read Gerson's accounts?

Skeptics follow the science, not the quacks. You're credulous, not skeptical.

The science of cancer research is filled with fraud

Many modern medicines started as herbal remedies (aspirin comes to mind immediately), and pharmaceuticals made plenty of money off of them. Your point is refuted by history.

Not true at all ... do you know the history of Burzynski, for example. And do you know about his greatest attacker, Gorski, a blatant shill for Big Pharma, who pushes his own chemo treatment for blatant profit? And that vaxx debunking article is by a Big Pharma mercenary like Gorski and Stephen Barrett, the biggest Big Pharma shill out there with his Quackwatch.com who has been sued countless times for outright lies. Yes, they pay these people to lie like the guy out at Stanford, Henry I. Miller, who spread lies about GMOs and was fired by Forbes for putting his name on articles written by people from Monsanto. Big Pharma is evil and dishonest and I don't trust them. And Monsanto is part of Big Pharma -- they were recently acquired by Bayer.

 

[hgb]

Did you watch the video?

No, I generally don't bother with conspiracy theorists.

Why have the number of scheduled vaccines increased to such a degree?

I'm not sure, but as we come up with more vaccines, it's pretty understandable. A few years ago, vaccines against various forms of ovary cancer was provided free of charge to all girs <16 (or so) in Norway, since the vaccine had gone through the necessary testing, and had been deemed important enough.

The reaction of people here to reasonable concerns shows how ripe we are for an authoritarian government.

This I don't understand. People who are sceptical of conspiracy theorists do not generally vote for authoritarian regimes. I'm pretty sure more anti-vaccine people vote for Trump than for non-Trump. I would say that almost all the reactions you've gotten here have been well founded and reasonable. The opposite would probably happen if you started a (public) campaign to debunk the anti-vaccine people.

I also posted Marcia Angell's lecture to show that we must be very skeptical about Big Pharma because it doesn't really care about the health of people, only selling their drugs. And she is far from some loon.

No one is saying that big pharma doesn't have a stake here, and no one is claiming they're just in it for the good of all people. I would rather think that almost everyone here would expect the pharmaceutical companies to big exclusively in it to make money.

 

[Getting Traded]

No, I generally don't bother with conspiracy theorists.

I'm not sure, but as we come up with more vaccines, it's pretty understandable. A few years ago, vaccines against various forms of ovary cancer was provided free of charge to all girs <16 (or so) in Norway, since the vaccine had gone through the necessary testing, and had been deemed important enough.

This I don't understand. People who are sceptical of conspiracy theorists do not generally vote for authoritarian regimes. I'm pretty sure more anti-vaccine people vote for Trump than for non-Trump. I would say that almost all the reactions you've gotten here have been well founded and reasonable. The opposite would probably happen if you started a (public) campaign to debunk the anti-vaccine people.

No one is saying that big pharma doesn't have a stake here, and no one is claiming they're just in it for the good of all people. I would rather think that almost everyone here would expect the pharmaceutical companies to big exclusively in it to make money.

You are certainly thinking in terms of glass half full and giving Big Pharma benefit of the doubt. But do you know that they pay billions of dollars in fines annually for drugs that go wrong and harm or kill people? Check some law firms that do class action suits on these cases. It's their cost of doing business, so what if people are killed. Seriously. And I'm sick of the ignorance I hear attached to the word "conspiracy." If you study history you will learn that the history of nations is full of conspiracies that resulted in regime changes. The opinion makers, like the CIA, have changed the connotation of conspiracy, notably with the JFK assassination which they masterminded. It's not crazy to attribute things to a conspiracy -- it's the reality. And you show ignorance by at least not listening to what the guy says because the herd here says he's a conspiracy theorist.

 

[Getting Traded]

ONE BROW: "Orac is a cancer specialist, not a pharmaceutical company."

Orac is the pseudonym of the shill, Gorski, the Michigan oncologist. He's not honest; he just pushes his own chemo drug in which he has a lot invested and attacks all naturopaths. He has been especially critical of Burczynski. I actually corresponded with him when I was doing the podcasts. You should check out the story of Burczynski. The National Cancer Institute specialist who researched his treatment is on record saying that it works for types of brain cancer, yet the FDA would not approve it and they closed down his treatment centers. Not sure of the current status.

 

[Alfalfa]

You are certainly thinking in terms of glass half full and giving Big Pharma benefit of the doubt. But do you know that they pay billions of dollars in fines annually for drugs that go wrong and harm or kill people? Check some law firms that do class action suits on these cases. It's their cost of doing business, so what if people are killed. Seriously. And I'm sick of the ignorance I hear attached to the word "conspiracy." If you study history you will learn that the history of nations is full of conspiracies that resulted in regime changes. The opinion makers, like the CIA, have changed the connotation of conspiracy, notably with the JFK assassination which they masterminded. It's not crazy to attribute things to a conspiracy -- it's the reality. And you show ignorance by at least not listening to what the guy says because the herd here says he's a conspiracy theorist.

[poop]

There is no credible evidence about your stupid anti-science conspiracy, and plenty of evidence against it. Please stop spreading this horrible ignorance, because the victims are defenseless children, and the offenders are uneducated parents who are themselves vaccinated.

You should be ashamed of yourself. This is no joking matter.

 

[Getting Traded]

[poop]

There is no credible evidence about your stupid anti-science conspiracy, and plenty of evidence against it. Please stop spreading this horrible ignorance, because the victims are defenseless children, and the offenders are uneducated parents who are themselves vaccinated.

You should be ashamed of yourself. This is no joking matter.

Why don't you view the links I have included instead of attacking me for raising reasonable concerns? Check out the claims of the guy in the video. See if those attacking him have science-based evidence proving he is wrong. I haven't done that. Just raised the issue that it might be prudent to be cautious when it comes to vaccines. That's all. Never said they don't work. Can you tell me why there has been such an increase in scheduled vaccines for young children? Could that be a reason for the correlated increase in neurological conditions in children -- sure it doesn't mean a cause and effect relationship, but it probably should be investigated to rule it out.

 

[Alfalfa]

Why don't you view the links I have included instead of attacking me for raising reasonable concerns? Check out the claims of the guy in the video. See if those attacking him have science-based evidence proving he is wrong. I haven't done that. Just raised the issue that it might be prudent to be cautious when it comes to vaccines. That's all. Never said they don't work. Can you tell me why there has been such an increase in scheduled vaccines for young children? Could that be a reason for the correlated increase in neurological conditions in children -- sure it doesn't mean a cause and effect relationship, but it probably should be investigated to rule it out.

There are hundreds of pee-reviewed papers examining the link between vaccines and whatever diseases they're supposed to magically cause.

I make it a point not to argue with anti-vaxxers, anti-evolutionists, flat earthers, climate change deniers, or any such rabble. Because I think if you're there, then you either have serious inability to meaningfully weigh information, or you just don't give two ****s about the facts.

But I'll make an exception. The reason children are given more vaccines is because as science has advanced, it has become possible to immunize against more and more diseases while using fewer and fewer antigens. For example, the full vaccine schedule in the 2010s exposes the body to fewer than 200 antigens. The WC-Pertussis vaccine from the 80s had 3000 antigens on its own. So current vaccines are safer, better targeted, milder, and more effective, which enables doctors to introduce more vaccines at a younger age. In fact, an infant's body is exposed to far more pathogens from the environment on daily basis than they would from all the vaccines combined.

The reality of the situation is easy to research and study if you were making an honest effort to understand the situation. Instead of listening to the concerns someone on Youtube has, and that happen to fit with how you want things to be.

 

[Getting Traded]

[poop]

There is no credible evidence about your stupid anti-science conspiracy, and plenty of evidence against it. Please stop spreading this horrible ignorance, because the victims are defenseless children, and the offenders are uneducated parents who are themselves vaccinated.

You should be ashamed of yourself. This is no joking matter.

Also, Alfalfa, are you a scientist? Why do you attack me with information from Reddit campaign. Do you know the motives of the people behind it, what their professional background is? You say you have plenty of evidence for your position. Then why don't you supply it with some links? Why are all these vaccines necessary today? Sure there are some that are tried and true, but what of all the new ones that have been introduced. That is what is the concern of the anti-vaxx people. And that is the concern with Big Pharma in general, the over prescription, the overuse of these powerful drugs and their synergy effects. But they don't care, they want you to take statins, for instance, even children, when the cutting-edge studies are showing that cholesterol is not the concern it once was thought to be. Brave New World is here. They decry pot, which actually is quite beneficial, but want you to take these high-priced drugs that in many cases are dangerous and can kill you.

 

[Getting Traded]

There are hundreds of pee-reviewed papers examining the link between vaccines and whatever diseases they're supposed to magically cause.

I make it a point not to argue with anti-vaxxers, anti-evolutionists, flat earthers, climate change deniers, or any such rabble. Because I think if you're there, then you either have serious inability to meaningfully weigh information, or you just don't give two ****s about the facts.

But I'll make an exception. The reason children are given more vaccines is because as science has advanced, it has become possible to immunize against more and more diseases while using fewer and fewer antigens. For example, the full vaccine schedule in the 2010s exposes the body to fewer than 200 antigens. The WC-Pertussis vaccine from the 80s had 3000 antigens on its own. So current vaccines are safer, better targeted, milder, and more effective, which enables doctors to introduce more vaccines at a younger age. In fact, an infant's body is exposed to far more pathogens from the environment on daily basis than they would from all the vaccines combined.

The reality of the situation is easy to research and study if you were making an honest effort to understand the situation. Instead of listening to the concerns someone on Youtube has, and that happen to fit with how you want things to be.

So, that is the medical profession's view, then. Apparently, you are in that field. Well, is it possible then that the increase in vaccines is leading to more neurological conditions in children. Do you have an answer for that?

And I am not anti-evolution or a climate-change denier, and far from a Trump supporter. I am a skeptic. I distrust Big Pharma, because I know they lie and have an agenda. And there is some disturbing information out there about vaccines. You believe it's lies concocted by people looking for a reason to explain tragedies that have occurred to loved ones. Perhaps. But I think there is room for reasonable doubt. Science often thinks they have the answers, only to discover they were wrong, just as with nuclear power. We thought it would be answer to all our problems but didn't realize at the time, the hazards that go with it. This is not to decry science. I am not anti-science whatsoever. But I look at motives when discerning the truth. It has nothing to do with how I want things to be. I certainly would hope that vaccines are beneficial. Always accepted that they were. But people have raised issues and I am being cautious because in the past, legitimate alarms have been raised about different issues and people out of hand dismissed them and were later found to be wrong.

 

[Alfalfa]

So, that is the medical profession's view, then. Apparently, you are in that field. Well, is it possible then that the increase in vaccines is leading to more neurological conditions in children. Do you have an answer for that?

Everything is possible. Maybe improved diagnoses have nothing to do with it, and it's all about how the planets are aligned. But unless I see evidence showing showing a correlation between planetary positions and autism, as well an explanation of the mechanism behind it, I'll just ignore it. Regardless of how many videos someone on Youtube makes about their astrological concerns.

As for the evidence, there's just so much of it. So much! I'm not sure what you want me to link? Studies that show no link between vaccines and autism?

https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/pdf?ext=.pdf

There. A recent big study with a sample size in the 1000s. But there are literally hundred of these studies. This isn't a difficult thing to verify.

 

[Getting Traded]

There are hundreds of pee-reviewed papers examining the link between vaccines and whatever diseases they're supposed to magically cause.

I make it a point not to argue with anti-vaxxers, anti-evolutionists, flat earthers, climate change deniers, or any such rabble. Because I think if you're there, then you either have serious inability to meaningfully weigh information, or you just don't give two ****s about the facts.

But I'll make an exception. The reason children are given more vaccines is because as science has advanced, it has become possible to immunize against more and more diseases while using fewer and fewer antigens. For example, the full vaccine schedule in the 2010s exposes the body to fewer than 200 antigens. The WC-Pertussis vaccine from the 80s had 3000 antigens on its own. So current vaccines are safer, better targeted, milder, and more effective, which enables doctors to introduce more vaccines at a younger age. In fact, an infant's body is exposed to far more pathogens from the environment on daily basis than they would from all the vaccines combined.

The reality of the situation is easy to research and study if you were making an honest effort to understand the situation. Instead of listening to the concerns someone on Youtube has, and that happen to fit with how you want things to be.

Everything is possible. Maybe improved diagnoses have nothing to do with it, and it's all about how the planets are aligned. But unless I see evidence showing showing a correlation between planetary positions and autism, as well an explanation of the mechanism behind it, I'll just ignore it. Regardless of how many videos someone on Youtube makes about their astrological concerns.

As for the evidence, there's just so much of it. So much! I'm not sure what you want me to link? Studies that show no link between vaccines and autism?

https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/pdf?ext=.pdf

There. A recent big study with a sample size in the 1000s. But there are literally hundred of these studies. This isn't a difficult thing to verify.

This study is not something I can easily digest but at a cursory view can only understand the results ... but it seems to me that the focus is antigens. Is it possible that there is some other variable in vaccines not being considered that may be causing the rise in neurological conditions? In relation to this, neurological conditions among adults have been increasing -- Parkinson's, Alzheimers, ALS, etc. This more than likely has nothing to do with vaccines. But it is happening.

 

[One Brow]

Not true at all ... do you know the history of Burzynski, for example.

Yes.

And do you know about his greatest attacker, Gorski, a blatant shill for Big Pharma, who pushes his own chemo treatment for blatant profit?

Gorski has a personal chemotherapy treatment he can push? Details please. What the name of the drug and when was the patent? How does he manufacture it? How much profit does he make per dose?

And that vaxx debunking article is by a Big Pharma mercenary like Gorski and Stephen Barrett, the biggest Big Pharma shill out there with his Quackwatch.com who has been sued countless times for outright lies.

Has Barrett been successfully sued, or were they just nuisance suits? Quacks make a lot of money to hire lawyers with.

Yes, they pay these people to lie like the guy out at Stanford, Henry I. Miller, who spread lies about GMOs and was fired by Forbes for putting his name on articles written by people from Monsanto.

I agree with firing him for plagerism. What were the lies?

Big Pharma is evil and dishonest and I don't trust them. And Monsanto is part of Big Pharma -- they were recently acquired by Bayer.

However, before that acquisition, there were not a part of the pharmaceutical industry at all (not that they were any more trustworthy).

So, you don't trust the large companies who profit off selling drugs that go through rigorous testing to show there are benefits, instead you trust off-the-wall quacks who profit off selling concoctions to desperate people when said concoction have no demonstrable medical benefit. Hmmmmm.

 

[Getting Traded]

Yes.



Gorski has a personal chemotherapy treatment he can push? Details please. What the name of the drug and when was the patent? How does he manufacture it? How much profit does he make per dose?



Has Barrett been successfully sued, or were they just nuisance suits? Quacks make a lot of money to hire lawyers with.



I agree with firing him for plagerism. What were the lies?



However, before that acquisition, there were not a part of the pharmaceutical industry at all (not that they were any more trustworthy).

So, you don't trust the large companies who profit off selling drugs that go through rigorous testing to show there are benefits, instead you trust off-the-wall quacks who profit off selling concoctions to desperate people when said concoction have no demonstrable medical benefit. Hmmmmm.

The alleged quacks are not making anywhere near the money that Big Pharma is. I don't have the info about chemo drug off the top. I would have to look for it. No, Miller was fronting articles for Monsanto and attaching his name to them. There were a lot of suits filed against Barrett -- he has Big Pharma lawyers defending him. Big Pharma has the clout, the money, do you realize they are richest industry in the world -- BAR NONE.

 

[One Brow]

ONE BROW: "Orac is a cancer specialist, not a pharmaceutical company."

Orac is the pseudonym of the shill, Gorski, the Michigan oncologist.

That's what I said.

He's not honest; he just pushes his own chemo drug in which he has a lot invested and attacks all naturopaths.

I ask for the same details as the previous post.

He has been especially critical of Burczynski.

More do than Suzanne Somers or Jenny McCarthy? I don't think so. He hits lot of people.

I actually corresponded with him when I was doing the podcasts. You should check out the story of Burczynski. The National Cancer Institute specialist who researched his treatment is on record saying that it works for types of brain cancer,

Which NCI specialist? Name, please. Why doesn't Burczynski publish his results, if this is true?

yet the FDA would not approve it and they closed down his treatment centers. Not sure of the current status.

He currently in Mexico, IIRC.

 

[One Brow]

Why are all these vaccines necessary today?

Because the diseases still exist and can spread. When a disease stops being a threat, people stop being vaccinated for it. I was vaccinated against smallpox when I was a kid, but my kids weren't, because we don't vaccinate for smallpox anymore.