At least Live Action lies for Jesus

August 20, 2013 § 20 Comments

Just yesterday I received news of another person in my circle[1] who was killed by her doctors, this past weekend.

In totally unrelated news it recently came to light that actually, as it turns out (oops), Andrew Wakefield was right all along that the MMR vaccine actually does cause autism[2].   The mainstream media’s reaction is, as usual, to step up the denunciations.

The pervasive lies told and believed about modern medicine might lead one to believe in massive conspiracies.  But don’t be fooled by that.  The reason people pervasively tell lies is to protect their gods.  It doesn’t matter if it is true that MMR sometimes, in fact, causes autism.  What matters is that if the benighted masses come to believe that it is true, they might not worship the pagan gods of modernity with unequivocal devotion.

And the idea of a society in which the pagan gods of modernity are not worshipped by the masses with unequivocal devotion is terrifying to its high priests.

[1] A nuclear family relative of an in-law.

[2] It doesn’t follow that people should not be immunized for measles, mumps, and rubella.  If you think that, you need to do more reading before collecting your pitchforks and torches.

§ 20 Responses to At least Live Action lies for Jesus

  • vetdoctor says:

    God bless your relative.

  • Scott W. says:

    Your link on the words, “told and believed about modern medicine” links to this entry, which I don’t think was your intention.

  • Scott W. says:

    Oops. Nevermind. I see what you did there.

  • Zippy says:

    It is a link to the “prescription drugs” category on this blog, which for better or worse is how my “what’s wrong with modern medicine” posts – at least any since the move to WordPress – are tagged.

  • Michael says:

    It isn’t clear to me where in the “oops” link there is any new information that substantively links autism to the MMR vaccine.

  • Zippy says:

    Of course it isn’t clear. Because in the Orwellian world of “evidence based medicine” (unlike, at least for now and sometimes, in courts of law), the actual experiences of large numbers of actual people with actual products doesn’t constitute “evidence”.

  • Michael says:

    I realize that there are many people who say that symptoms of their child’s autism only started after receiving the MMR vaccine. But if that were the case, if there was something about their child that made them susceptible to brain damage from the vaccine, which then gave rise to an autistic spectrum disorder, wouldn’t their experiences be borne out it large population based studies?

  • Leo G says:

    It stated in the “oops” link that 2 substantial studies were released in Dec. 2012, but does not link to either.

    Sloppy!

  • Zippy says:

    Studies can be useful as secondary sources of information; but they are far lower in the epistemic hierarchy (for all sorts of reasons) than the actual experiences of real people with actual products. Which is more on topic with the OP, which in turn isn’t primarily about the putative MMR-autism connection.

  • Zippy says:

    I recently witnessed a 200+ lb strapping young man get the Tdap. He was literally unable to walk for a week. The idea that nobody on the margins is being permanently harmed by these “cocktail” vaccines is frankly ridiculous.

    But under the tyranny of “studies”, we are not supposed to believe our lying eyes.

  • Mike T says:

    Or in my case, the pertusis vaccine was on the verge of literally killing me by the third round (on round 2, my fever topped 106). Also, please ignore the fact that my wife breaks out into a serious allergic reaction whenever she has the flu vaccine.

  • Leo G says:

    Right Zippy, but if the author of the blog, intimates that there is something backing there claim, but does not allow their readers to investigate for themselves, then the immediate reaction from me, is BullSh*t!

  • Zippy says:

    Fair enough, Leo G. In fact I encourage investigation into the specifics of specific claims, and Google is as always our friend. But I also (and far more importantly) encourage that, prior to investigation into specific claims, we get our epistemic hierarchy right.

    Because if our epistemic hierarchy is not right, “investigation” means something entirely different from “attempt to discover what is true”.

  • Michael says:

    I certainly am not disputing that vaccines have adverse effects- the paralysis you witnessed with your friend is a well described phenomenon . I also agree that evidence based medicine has been turned from a useful tool into an overarching ideology by many, for the purposes of aquiring one additional rhetorical bludgeon to use.
    I am not well versed in epistemology, but when one is confronted with a problem that has a complex and largely unknown etiology, like autism, does it not make more sense to use investigative tools that utilize a much larger sample size to better separate the signal from the noise, so to speak? I’m not trying to be argumentative, I am genuinely curious.

  • Zippy says:

    Michael:
    paralysis you witnessed

    It wasn’t a paralysis, it was an “unexplained” persistent non-inner-ear disequilibrium. But that is neither here nor there really. The “we recognize in the fine print that this injection might maim or kill you, but we are going to make it mandatory anyway” structure we have illustrates the central point of the post.

    …when one is confronted with a problem that has a complex and largely unknown etiology…

    Etiology of disease states is less of an issue than the virtually complete ignorance about what chemical interventions actually do to the body.

    Mind you, I am not discounting clinical trials and studies and such completely — they have their place in the evidence hierarchy. But my lying eyes, and the lying eyes of large numbers of other people actually using the actual products under actual real-world conditions, come first: this is the stuff that “evidence based medicine” dismisses as “anecdote”.

    I mentioned in a recent post that I haven’t done due diligence on vaccines in the same way that I have on other parts of pharma. But the due diligence I’ve done elsewhere, combined with involuntary personal experience right in front of my lying eyes, make me strongly suspect the same kind of inverted evidence hierarchy and other shenanigans here: vaccination is a part of the pharma-government-industrial complex, and there is no reason to believe that it is immune to the same dysfunction which pervades the PGI complex.

  • Michael says:

    But my lying eyes, and the lying eyes of large numbers of other people actually using the actual products under actual real-world conditions, come first: this is the stuff that “evidence based medicine” dismisses as “anecdote”.

    Fair enough- I’ve run into pediatricians who take a “vaccinate your child or take them the hell out of my practice, thank you very much” approach to this topic. When I was doing a family medicine rotation, I recall one physical therapist who took a cautious approach to vaccinating his child, largely b/c of his experiences with patients of his who had adevrse vaccine events. He wasn’t anti-vaccine, but it took a lot of time to reassure him. My preceptor remarked that in a busy pediatrics practice, it is unlikely that anyone would have taken that time with him.

  • Leo G says:

    Got it Zippy. Had the experience with my youngest. ADD. Worked with a child psychiatrist who insisted that drug therapy was the last step. Went 2 years with behavioral therapy before finally going to Rydalin. I was of course anxious about the Rydilan, as I had heard many bad reports. He just said that there was only one other drug that had more usage/studies/time in the field, aspirin. When presented that way, I understood that this drug was for the most part safe, and I knew that if there had been contraindications, this doctor would have no problems taking my child off of it instantly.

    Trials are good, but experience is king!

  • Zippy says:

    Leo G:
    Obviously I can’t speak to particular cases about which I know nothing. But one area where doctors – even ones who are, God bless them, very circumspect about prescribing – will almost certainly let you down is in misdiagnosing and misunderstanding withdrawal (including tolerance withdrawal) as something due to an underlying illness rather than as something caused by the drug. It is an area in which I had absolutely no self-motivated interest, but about which I have learned a great deal in the course of rescuing family members from the ministrations of their doctors.

  • Leo G says:

    My son was only to take his meds for school. None on weekends or holidays, or even after school. After the first school year, he had no meds during summer vacation. Upon returning to school, he asked if he could go without the Rydalin. I agreed, but only if he kept up his grades, stayed social, etc. That was 6 years ago, and he hasn’t looked back!

  • Zippy says:

    Great to hear it, Leo.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading At least Live Action lies for Jesus at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: