...They also proscribed me oral anti-biotics called Keflex.
If they prescribed topical I would have used it, but I am not dumb enough to destroy all my beneficial gut flora and bacteria just because a doctor recommends to or because it might make the wound heal faster.
These are the ingredients of two variants of the tetanus vaccine:
Center for Disease Control wrote:
CDC.gov: Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary Excipients Included in U.S. Vaccines, by Vaccine[PDF]
DT: aluminum potassium sulfate, peptone, bovine extract, formaldehyde, thimerosal (trace), modified Mueller and Miller medium
DTaP(Daptacel) : aluminum phosphate, formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, 2-Phenoxyethanol, Stainer-Scholte medium, modified Mueller’s growth medium, modified
Mueller-Miller casamino acid medium (without beef heart infusion)
(There are more variants listed in the PDF which I didn't paste, but one gets the point.)
Needless to say that is toxic stuff and I am not putting it directly in my blood. I will leave that to others who baste in ignorance.
Your views on vaccination are entertaining. You should join the Flat Earth Society.
Are you implying that the ingredients Thrasymachus listed are not harmful? Or that the ingredients are not actually in the vaccines?
Well, the above-mentioned ingredients are not harmful if one is a Mahasiddha, because a Mahasiddha can transform anything. If one is not a Mahasiddha, then getting those vaccinations usually means injecting toxins into one's body (as I've said before, a vaccine might
be justified when there really is a bad epidemic i.e. people are literally dropping dead all around us and/or IF a vaccine can be made without all those extra toxins; and only then).
Maybe vaccinations without the above-listed toxins exist somewhere, and if so I'd like to know who has them (and of course a Mahasiddha would have no need for vaccinations in the first place. I'm just saying that it would take a Mahasiddha—or someone close to that level—to be able to transform the toxins found in most contemporary drugs).
I'm also aware of the principle that 'poisons' can be used as 'medicines'. And this generally applies mainly to 'poisons' found in nature, not artificial toxins concocted in contemporary laboratories.
Anyway, since I'm not a Mahasiddha, I'll take Ayurveda
and Tibetan Medicine over contemporary corporatist scientism's artificial
chemicals any day.
Well let's take a look:
(Himalaya herbs are all-natural and organic (i.e. free from artificial
chemicals), even though they qualify as 'pharmaceutical grade')
Himalayausa.com wrote:A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted on 40 subjects. Prior to the study, chemical parameters such as fasting blood sugar, cholesterol, weight and glycosylated HG (Alc) were measured. The group was divided into the Bitter Melon group and the placebo. The Bitter Melon group reported positive indications that Bitter Melon supports Alc and other parameters with no adverse side effects.*
Himalayausa wrote:One of the first to single herb supplements to proudly carry the Certified USDA Organic Seal
Easy to swallow caplets
Magnesium stearate free
No artificial ingredients
greentara wrote: Thrasymachus wrote:
This does a good job as any single source of showing the ineffectiveness of anti-depressants:
Bruce E. Levine wrote:
Alternet: Are Antidepressants a Scam? 5 Myths About How to Treat Depression
Myth 1: Antidepressants Are More Effective than Placebos
Many depressed people report that antidepressants have been effective for them, but do antidepressants work any better than a sugar pill? Researcher Irving Kirsch (professor of psychology at the University of Hull in the United Kingdom as well as professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut and author of The Emperor’s New Drugs) has been trying to answer that question for a significant part of his career.
In 2002, Kirsch and his team at the University of Connecticut examined 47 depression treatment studies that had been sponsored by drug companies on the antidepressants Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, Celexa, and Serzone. Many of these studies had not been published, but all had been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), so Kirsch used the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to all the data. He discovered that in the majority of the trials, antidepressants failed to outperform sugar pill placebos.
“All antidepressants,” Kirsch reported in 2010, “including the well-known SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors], had no clinically significant benefit over a placebo.” While in aggregate, antidepressants slightly edge out placebos, the difference is so unremarkable that Kirsch and others describe it as “clinically negligible.”
Why are so many doctors unaware of the lack of superiority of antidepressants as compared to placebos?
The answer became clear in 2008 when researcher and physician Erick Turner (currently at the Department of Psychiatry and Center for Ethics in Health Care, Oregon Health and Science University) discovered that antidepressant studies with favorable outcomes were far more likely to be published than those with unfavorable outcomes. Analyzing published and unpublished antidepressant studies registered with the FDA between 1987-2004, Turner found that 37 of 38 studies having positive results were published; however, Turner reported, “Studies viewed by the FDA as having negative or questionable results were, with 3 exceptions, either not published (22 studies) or published in a way that, in our opinion, [falsely] conveyed a positive outcome (11 studies).”
Most pharmaceutical drugs are the same. Infact they should be compared and tested against natural and cheaper alternatives like exposure to the sun long enough to synthesize Vitamin D, exercise, supplementation with vitamins and minerals, meditation, etc.
Probably the best thing for him to do is to contact the Hearing Voices Network in my estimation, the mental health field only pathologizes people. I know first hand from experience and from lots of reading and listening to critiques of their profession which in any society based on equality and freedom would be criminalized. Ghost01, in my experience and from lots of reading and listening to relevant podcasts, interviews and documentaries you did the best thing by minimizing contact with mental health crooks.
That makes very interesting reading and rings alarm bells. The pharma industry is far too manipulative and powerful!....
Not to mention all the harmful side-effects of artificial chemical pharmaceutical drugs.
So there we have it, natural Medicine such as Ayurveda and Tibetan Medicine are capable of passing unbiased double-blind tests and almost always have little to no side-effects, whereas contemporary drugs are more often than not the product of corporation-lobbied greed & scientism masquerading as "science". Proponents of scientism often cite peer-reviewed journals as if they are infallible, and how many writers of peer-reviewed journals are on the payroll of the big corporations....
Also a lot of the stuff on herd-immunity put out by government/corporatism/big-pharma can be shown to be biased nonsense too.
And before anyone mentions H.H. the Dalai Lama administering vaccinations (from another thread):
IF there is a major outbreak
, then yeah maybe getting vaccinated could be Bodhisattva activity (perhaps H.H. the Dalai Lama was administering vaccines in that Youtube video because there was a major outbreak
, and he knew that the vaccines he was administering were not full of the garbage listed in this pic
Lhug-Pa wrote:Well then maybe this is one of those very rare circumstances where vaccines might actually be useful, that is if administered without the mercury and other garbage often found in vaccines.
And I doubt H.H. the Dalai Lama would tell people that they should go and "get their flu-shot" at Walmart, or even that the average person should get any kind of regular vaccination.
Also, what allopathic prescription is he supposedly taking?
Anyway, the Dalai Lama often speaks to people of little understanding (i.e. the average person), and so perhaps his launching of vaccinations and taking allopathic medicine, etc. is only publicity; in other words a skillful means to show the average person that he's integrated with ordinary society and not a religious elitist etc. (not saying that he is a religious elitist, just saying that many people might view him as such). I don't think that many people know what H.H. the Dalai Lama's views are aside from what he says and writes about Dharma. When it comes to social issues, he has to appear to blend in with the mainstream. In other words, I think that when he writes about his views regarding Vajrayana and Dzogchen, he is telling us his actual precise views regarding Dharma. When it comes to social issues however, he has to use a lot of Skillful Means.
For example I don't think that H.H. the Dalai Lama is really a "Marxist" like he said. I think what he meant
is that he would support a positive form of Socialism
; and that he only said "I'm a Marxist" because Marxism is a term that the common person can relate to. And it seems that most Buddhists are left-leaning and sympathize with Marxism, hence H.H. the Dalai Lama's Skillful Means there.
(By the way, I'm not a spokesman or something for Himalaya; there are many other sources I go to for herbs and such. It's just that Himalaya is a good example of affordable Organic Ayurvedic Medicine that combines Traditional Medicinal Methods with Modern (not merely contemporary) Methods.)