ubiquitin

stam

The study was NOT funded by the pharmecutical industry or government you claimed that was what you sought. Now you say ANY study in any journal is automaticly suspect. Are you listening to yourself?

Also why would the Lancet publish Wakefield (who you did trust on the other thread, though he did have a financial stake…) if it was anti vaccine? Why are dozens and dozens of articles publsihed showing that some therapies are not effective?

Why does the governement invest so much against cigarettes?

2. How do you connect a pesticide company to pharmaceuticals?

6. A heart blockage can be cured by diet? in how long?

7. No you have not. I’m actually still not sure as to your view. Do Drs reccmend diet or not?

9. Evidence that there are confounding variables. For example “everybody” knows that as soon as you get a carwash a bird makes a mess on your car. Dozens of friends swore this happned to them, Ive seen it happen. Do you think recently washed cars have a higher rate of attracting birds? (beleive it or not it has been studied, though not as vigorously as vaccines)

10. They are taking money from vulnerable people with no evidence that it works. Highly suspect in my book

Stam

1. Yes.

Now your turn did you read any of the studies?

I am laways open too learning. and unlike you freely admit that given evidence to the contrary I will change myview.

“They obviously did not see the video either or the thousands that follow her protocol with astounding success (they are in the middle of proving her theories in laboratory,”

There is no need for a laboratory publish it as an observational study.

If and this is the big one… if true.

2. What camopaing the hea dof the FDA isnt elected? The governement loses money on vaccines.

Why doesnt the governement push smoking. Big tobacco in its heyday was mcuh bigger than pharm today. Youd think the government would convince us that smoking saves lives, or at the very least be mum on the subject.

3. Ha ha ha this one is too good. “Think for a second. Mercury is the most toxic substance on earth ” or “mercury was replaced by aluminum which is more dangerous.” You need to brush up on your toxins. At any rate do you see how you keep moving the goal posts. First mercury is the most dangerous, it is removed then aluminum is worse.

4. Any in particular you reccomend? Ive read (ok skimmed) dissolving illusions, it was quite funny. Any others you recommend?

5. I absolutly read every word. You freely admit that your view is based on thought. I prefer fact and empirical data

6. So no.

7. It is not that we both agree. The “medical establishment” agrees in direct contradiction to your numerous misstatments that the medical establishment doesnt address diet/exercise. I beleive you have made that false claim in EVERY post youve written on this thread. IT simply is not true. (like most of your assertions)

Looking for all diseases is statisticly impossible (forget financially). So lets focus on one. Autism has created the biggest stir so that has been studied and studied.

“but the facts that i see and not the ones manufactured by people that profit trillions of dollars off those facts, or the people who profit politically from those facts (the govt.)”

Sorry you dont get to pick your facts. And as explained above the governement loses money on vaccines.

“I take offense that you say that my mind is made up “

Dont take offense YOU said that “What can i answer you when there are literally thousands of parents who saw the transformation of their children overnight ? A coincidence? A million studies would not convince me” here:http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/letter-from-rabbonim-that-schools-must-accept-non-vaccinated-children/page/2#post-580827

“Who is the dishonest one here????”

YOU!!

Unless there are two posters posting under your name one of whom beleives mercury is the most dangerous substance, and that you would change your mind given an adequate study and that doctors sometimes discuss diet/excercise

vs the other guy who beleives aluminum is the most dangerous, would never change hi mind and Doctors get blank looks when diet/excercise come up

Yes all six of those contradictory statements where made on this thread under your screen name.

If it is actually two different people or one person in different states of cellular health my sincerest apologies. But if you keep changing your mind as the conversation goes along, that is in fact dishonest.

stam Sorry for the delay

1. I’m not saying there is no role for eating healthy. In fact I said the exact opposite. I am saying that scientific evidence trumps anything including anecdotal stories and your theorois on “cellular health”

2. Whats Nadler got to do with anythin? And how did he further his career, he probably lost it! But this is waaaay off topic.

bottom line is what does the Government gain by spending money developing and adminstering vaccines? You have not answered this question.

3. The autism theory started that way. When evidence showed it was flawed and mercury was removed do you think the “theroy” went away? ITs like doomsday cults who predict the end of the world on a given day say 12/31/15. When the day passes do you think they admit they were wrong? Almost never, they double down and creativly reinterpret things. Make no mistake the anti-vaccine cult is no different. You blame mercury, it is removed do you change your mind? No you come up with new garbage.

Oh and with removal of mercury, autism rates are going up…

4. “If someone squirts a couple of ounces of mercury in their vein, you better believe that you will be suffocating the cells”

Doubtful, though i imagine it would cause a PE first.

Nobody is injecting ounces we are talkign about ppm. And that was in the past, now it is zero! (in most vacines)

5. YOu havent explained how the vaccines affect “cellular health” so quickly this is striking stuff

7. I dont know where th vilan gaon says that, but if it was true then it sint true now.

8. Thank you for proving my point. The first line treatment for mild htn is diet and excercise!

stam

1. who do you trust? besdies “literally thousands of parents” At any rate I’m missing something So the CDC spends money researching then fakes the data to make it seem like they work then spends money administering them all the while knowing that they dont work and are secretly spreading autism. Why?

2. There are increasing autism cases. I dont know why though there is more of a chance that the increase in blogs are to blame. IT makes as much biological sense as vaccines and there is no data proving otherwise.

3. Without any doubt! As has been explained autism generally turns out around age 2 this is the same age as when MR is given. I have a cousins cousin who wants to ban ice cream cones since the day her cousins friend drowned they all had gotten ice cream. coincidence?

“How does that jive with all your statistics? “

It jives quite well both are expected to occur at the same age.

Though I would absolutely love to hear how in a matter of hours vaccines affect “cellular health” and change the child forever, and they notice it that same day! Quite striking. Could you wal me through the mechanism please?

3. “as much as possible until child immunity strengthens, “

what age is that?

” and then space out as much as possible”

Also been studied, not that you care

“nd then go through some type of detoxication program afterwards to lessen the harm from all the foreign substances “

What?

“and then daven their brains out that no harm comes to them.”

always a good idea

5. The first paragraph is absolute mumbo jumbo. Some diseases you can sort of argue your case but not most. At any rate why cant the kidneys filter these “toxins”? and what are they? Why cant we find them?

“(which admittedly i still don’t understand and haven’t researched properly….)”

A fairly easy to read book is “how the immune system works” by Lauren somparayec its less than 150 pages you cna get a slightly older edition on amazon for less than $10. Though I should warn you it is based on real science not “toxins”

“(btw, you can thank quacks like me for getting the mercury out of vaccines”

No thanks! It has been proven safe, and in spite of being removed dishonest quacks like you are still putting lives at risk!

“All the money is in alleopathy which resorts to chemical medicines to solve all issues”

Wrong as usual! Guess what the first line therapy is for (mild) hypertension or prediabetes?

The money is where the research leads us. If exercise cures cancer then exercise if chemo does then chemo.

5. Again, i speak as a person directly related to a family of doctors and nurses

Maybe they arent very good doctors? Like the quack in the previous thread who you quoted saying he “doesnt know anything about health” or something to that extent.

Stam

1. “Your study was funded by whom?”

Which I provided several.

eg this one:

Increasing exposure to antibodystimulating

proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines is not

associated with risk of autism

DeStefano F, Price CS, Weintraub ES.

Journal of Pediatrics. 2013;

Was primarily funded by the CDC. But regardless of source of funding if they are up front about it (unlike your friend wakefield) that is no reason to automatically disregard the study, though I grant Id be more careful/suspicous.

“What can i answer you when there are literally thousands of parents who saw the transformation of their children overnight ?” I doubt therie are that many.

” A coincidence?”

Yes!

There are more than thousands of people who claim revelations from oso haish or have sen UFO’s etc do you buy into all that too?.

“A million studies would not convince me (because i would always suspect the funder or the method….)”

kudos for admitting your lack of objective honesty. Though I’m not quite sure what you want. You readily agree you have an opinion based on anecdotal evidence and will not change your mind no matter what.

This line of yours made 3 days ago “I am neither pro or anti and am somewhat confused.” is also apparently not true…

2. As explained earlier if you take any 2 groups of 100,000 children and look for “all diseases” by sheer chance alone some will be more prevelant in one group than the other.

“Your statistical technicalities I do not agree with.”

They arent mine. Thats the way the Boreh olam designed the world.

“You see, i come from a position where disease is all rooted in cellular health.”

I honestly dont know what that means. If you come from earth then diseases where you are from and where I am from work exactly the same way.

“perhaps in part to kids that are vaxxed to the maxx “

Or perhaps due to blogs…

“The hypothesis would be that the vaxes comprise immunity and cellular health considerably “

care to explain how?

“he once received a phone call from insurance company how come he never bills for strep “

Hahaha an insurance company looking to pay for more diseases! Ok we definitely arent on the same planet. Though yours sounds way better.

3. i will repeat the example someone else gave. Every year as icecream sales go up pool drownings go up. This does not mean ice cream sales cause pool drownings. Whats more regarding Autism and vacccines the above exampe is not true, since as vaccinations go up, Autism DOES NOT!!

4. Their are hundreds of premed and medical students who would kill to have thier names on such an earth shattering study. They would be glad to help for free. Please encourgae him to get this critical information out there.

5. cholent? Wont that alter our cellular health?

Is this only true for Rabbonim? Or is donald Trump the biggest yorei Shomayim of the presidential contenders?

“Ask any parent who has to older vaccinated kids & 2 younger unvaccinated kids,

the all saw the same trend , the unvaxed developed faster & healthier”

I dont know too many kooks, but the one I do know saw no such difference.

“200 years there were warnings about smoking dangers , but the med journal ran ads DOC smoking Camel”

so…

Also You have yet to provide a single source for any of your nutty pro-disease theories

“According to mayo clinic 3 times as many asthma ER visits from these who took the flu shot”

Where do they report this?

baryachoi

You are flat out making things up

“1 in 10 vaxed kids suffer from Asthma”

You made this up

“All vaxed kids suffer from developmental delays”

You made this up, this one is demonstrably false

“Unvaxed kids crawl walk & talk months before vaxed kids”

you made this up

akuperma

“In all fairness, an unvaccinated child is only a threat to other unvaccinated people”

This is not true

“So grandma is living to 95 because grandkids got vaccinated?”

No, but often becasue SHE was vaccinated against polio as a child against pneumonia and flu. These all often killed grandma but less so now.

“Do you believe we should vax the dead to protect their grandkids? “

what?

“Did you read suzanne humphries md’s book dissolving illusions?”

Yes

“Visit Dr Eilenberg MD in Lakewood & see for yourself, asthma among non vaxed kids,@ 1/3 to 1/10 of vaxed kid rate”

Tell to publish it! she can be famous

“Talk to the parents who vaxed their older kids but not their younger ones”

Talk about what?

BTW I’m curious who you think makes more, Shanik off vaccines or Humphries off her book?

Joseph

In none of those quotes does he swear on the life of his mother….

also you havent answered my question. (As usual)

syag, fair enough.

although,

“That is telling us that the new program that YOU are introducing, is INCLUDING the option of keeping your doctor.” He also made clear that certain bare minimum plans would be banned. This is a direct contradiction to the first line you quote. And at the time nobody called him out on it. becasue it was obviously hyperbole until it becme a talking point.

Homer

“You can keep your doctor, insurance etc etc” All of which they knew beforehand as it comes out

It isnt just “They” who knew. It is everybody who understood the aleph-beis of obamacare. Including some of the republican leadership (not all, since most arent very bright or they just pretend not to be to pander to their base)

So why didnt they call him out on the “lie” at the time?

While you think about that. Here is another question, What percentage would have to keep their doctor in order for the statment “You can keep your doctor” be true. (Consider if a teacher tells the class “You did really well” How many would have had to do well for the statment to be true, these percentages dont have to be the same)

100%?

99%?

95%? 90? 75? 51? Some other number?

Hold of looking up how many can keep their doctor under obamacre, thats cheating.

Avram

“Two options you do not suggest would seem to be the most reasonable for such legislation: “

Ok so option 10.

“the individual physician or an appointed team of medical experts who can assess each case individually.”

Ah but medicine and halacha define danger to life veeeery diferently. This comes up in many situations eg fasting (There is raely a medical indication for a person to avoid fasting for a day with the exception of the elderly) Rabbonim allow eating much more commonly especialy among pregant women, recent surgery etc. Delaying a bris milah is another example physiologic jaundice is not a medical reason to delay a bris. So unless your physician or medical experts would defer to a Competent Rabbi (which is my option 1 above) This isnt a viable option.

“Consulting a knowledgeable rav is something Jews should do regardless of civil legislation,”

I’m not sure what you mean by regardless of legislation, if abortions where illegal unless the life of amother was at risk, and your physician or medical expert felt there was no risk, and a competent Rav felt the life was at risk (either medicaly or psychologicly). What good would going to the Rav be?

“I am aware that in reality, such a setup would be extremely complex, potentially inconsistent, and fraught with conflicts of interest and values. For those reasons, I think it is unlikely for such legislation to be enacted into law. I therefore tend to agree that given the current culture, outright bans are not the best way to reduce the numbers of abortions in the US at this point.”

We whole heartedly agree! PErhaps in Israel, and certainly when Moshiach comes we can enact a Rabbinic advisory board of some sort.

“However, this does not mean I support the status quo!”

What do you support?

“What about non-frum Jews?”

They are number 2

“I wish this were true. But previous discussions in this forum have made me fear otherwise.”

You are right about that. But they fall into my number 2 category.

Joseph

“Okay, you’re back to your old card tricks of repeating points that were answered.”

Nope I never do that. I ask simple direct preferably yes/no questions. My calling out your avoidance and dodging the question is not “repeating point”

Here is the question you are too afraid and/or dishonest to answer for all to see. I grant you that the way I first posed it was “preposterous and unrealistic” So i rephrased it in a very realistic way.

Here it is again:

“Whose position on abortion if turned into law is more compatible with you view, and how you would like the law in the country to be: Candidate A who favors abortion on demand or candidate B who would ban ALL abortions”

(Note: This does not mean you would vote for candidate A over B you may agree with B on a million and one other positiions)

Asking which candidtae’s view (whether or not it would be implemented) is more compatible with your own is not a preposterous question.

“Your comments are nonsensical. I’m not going to sit here and rebut every time you repeat the same nonsense and non sequitur over and over by shifting a few words. “

Profound! care to elaborate? I dont think you know what non-sequitor means.

Joseph

i’m sorry you lost me. You claim you addressed the issue with Walker, but it is a simple question and no you have not answered. Granted it is preopsterous and unrealistic (as I said) So I will phrase it in a non-preposterous/unrealistic way.

Whose position on abortion if turned into law is more compatible with you view, and how you would like the law in the country to be: Candidate A who favors abortion on demand or candidate B who would ban ALL abortions (and yes there are candidates who take these view, whether they “take a lot of heat” is irrelevant)?

Your stealing scenario highlights how little you’ve actually thought about the subject. For several reasons:

1) “after all maybe someone will be starving in remote Alaska” The cases I referred to are not “maybes” They are real. Obviously they do not make it to the yated or even the New York times, but I know of several frum women who had halachicly sanctioned abortions in the past year alone. Do you know of anybody starving in remote alaska?

2) Even starving in remote Alaska stealing should still be illegal. Hopefully the judge would have sense to grant clemency and I doubt charges would be filed but there is no need to change the law for that.

3) If the guy in alaska does steal to survive even if illegal we cna expunge the record no harm done, if a woman does not get a halichly sanctioned abortion and something catastrophic happens you cant really say oops we wrote the law to broadly, sorry.

4) Abortions dont just happen, in order to be safe you need people who know what they are doing. (Keep in mind countries without legal abortions dont have less abortions they merely have less safe abortions but this is a side point) In other words in that rare emergent case where a woman has a heter for abortion its not like your guy in Alaska who can just take the food legal or not. She needs trained personal available to her.

As an side you seem to have shifted positions. Are you saying ALL abortions should be banned since the halachicly sanctioned ones are rare? (like in your Alaska example) Because I wouldnt argue with that. I disagree, but that is merely a difference of opinion about which I think reasonable people can disagree

If you are saying that the halachicly sanctioned cases do not exist, or that they can be worked into a viable constitutionally sound legal system. On either of those points you are simply wrong and there is no room for differing iopinions

“The fact is that your motives are not what you are representing them to be.”

How can you possibly now that? What i do know is that your facts are not at all what you are representing them to be. You have very strong opinions on a subject you clearly know so little about

Joseph

Two cvan play at this game:

Baloney. You want to support your control over women and are looking for lame excuses to justify the unjustifiable. And a poor excuse at that.

(To be clear I dont actually beleive that, I think you are well intentioned but simply either a) havent throught through the implication of your position b) are not aware of the realities either practical or halachic and/or c) are naive as to what can plausibly be written into a law while remiaing constitutional and meaningful)

“It can clearly be written broad enough to cover all basis. “

In order to cover all bases it would either have to say “abortions would be permissible if allowed by her ORthodox Rabbi who is competent and qualified to rule on such matters” or allow abortion on demand.

Now you can argue with my prmeise, and say that since those halachicly valid abortions are so rare they should be banned to prevent wide-spread abortions. I personally disagree with that, but at least it makes sense. OTherwise there is simply no way to allow for the few halachicly sanctioned abortions

each case is determined individually. I know of a few cases where women got heter for abortion from Rabbonim that would surprise you, but I am not at liberty to divulge that information.(Granted most were in the first HALACHIC 40 days) Nor would I share to many specifics since each case has to be judged indivdually, and I wouldnt want them generalized.

Akuperma

Some dictionaries define homicide as the illegal killing, but I conced the point as most say like you.

“Abortion in Jewish law is perceived as homicide”

Incorrect. According to some it is and according to most it is not.

A physician/midwife/surgeon performing an abortion in the rare situation where it is necessary to save the mother’s life, incurs no penalty”

Even when unjustified he does not incur any of the penalties that homicide incurs. In fact he incurs a very defferent penalty, a financial one (which is not the case for a child < 30 days) Nor does he incur other thing sthat homicide incurs such as not being allowed to duchan.

Nor do we kill children whent their mothers are chayav misas beis din

“The pro-choice advocatges maintain, contrary to all scientific evidence, that the baby from conception until birth is not alive and as an inanimate mass of tissue has no more legal rights than a tumor or an infected appendix or a wart.”

This isnt a scientific question. There is no science behind “legal rights” A tree is alive, that doesnt mean cutting it down is homicide, a leg is alive that doesnt mean amputating is homicide.

When do you say life begins? fertilization? before fertilization? implantation? The second trimester? viability outside the womb?

And why at that point?

Halacha isnt as clear as you think. the first 40 days are called “merely water” I’m pretty sure even R” Moshe doesnt hold the first 40 days are murder. Though it isnt clear what physiologic change takes place at 40 days (the heart starts beating well before that! (nor does it neccesarily matter, it may plausibly be a “chok” at 40 days is tzuros havelad period.) (Keep in mind 40 days are counted differently by halacha and medicine)

At all points a fetus is described in shas as “its mother’s thigh” This pbviously does not allow for abortion on demand, and is not written in the context of abortion at all (though many poski do bring it in)

The bottom line is the following:

If a Woman were to desire an abortion for whatver reason rch”l. Who shoud decide for her.

I’ll give choices, feel free to add your own:

1) a SUPER COMPETENT well qualified posek

2) Her local Rav

3) you

4) me

5) crispandrefreshings’s rav

6) The US supreme court

7) State legislature

8) Congress

9) The president

10) somebody else

akuperma

Even if you dont define homicide as any killing even lawful (As some (perhaps most) dictionaries do, your statment “The halachic approach is that this is still homicide, but it is justifiable homicide ” is still wrong.

This has been discussed at length here before but here are some differences recapped:

1) homicide carries death penalty bemeizid or galus beshogeg. Abortion carries a financial penalty

2) A kohen who kills can not duchan (even if the killing was justified) To the best of my knowedge a kohein who aborts can duchen.

Bottom line is I’m sure most would agree that we would want a competent Rav to decide on each case whether abortion was required/allowed or forbidden. I dont think anybody would argue on that point.

Obviously this isnt an option. The next best thing we have is as simcha613 outlined

mw13

“inherently important” is subjective. Yes I cna find you mamrei chazal and pesukim extholing the virtues of “shira” that makes it inherently important in my book.

Do you think Simcha is inherently important? Whata bout Bracha? what about Aryeh?

i’m not sure how you determine “inherently important” If the Torah is called “shira” that seems pretty important to me

“For all we know, the true reason could be something totally different from all of them”

Agreed. but your comment doesnt make sense

mw13

1) “Also, it should be noted that although Chaim is not a name in Nach, it is still a word used in Nach; perhaps R’ Chaim holds that that is enough.”

shira DOES appear in nach as a word. Though I’m pretty sure shneir doesnt. Nor does Zalman, Kalman, Meir, Man, I’m sure you can help think of dozens of others

2)” Chaim and Shalom, life and peace, are certainly no shtus; they are important ideals.”

As is Shira. In fact the Entire Torah is reffered to as shira “Veatah kisvu lachem es hashira hazos”

3) “The problem isn’t that the concept of song is foreign to Judaism; that is obviously not true. The problem is that naming somebody “Song” is not a Jewish concept.”

Why is it less of a Jewish concept than naming “Life” “Lion” “deer” “comforter” “Bear” “wolf” all of which are words in tanach but never used as names in tanach?

Sushi

You need clearance to have an opinion on these things. Please supress your opinions until either Joseph or the “the military leadership” allows you to have an opinon.

Joseph

I was proud of the dedication can it please be a co-dedication

Daven at the kever of R’ Eliyahu Yosef Rabinowitz. the first Rebbe to settle in the U.S.

mdd

This conversation has been pretty long youre confusing my comments on various things.

Let me back up, since you joined the party late.

The thread began a few months ago by CA saying that “if ten years ago i told you the US would let Iran have the bomb you would think i was crazy.”

I replied that In fact I had predicted that for over ten years now.

Someone mentioned Torah codes and the next several comments were regarding that side issue.

Then CA reclaimed his thread by asking “i wonder how charlie would defend this [this being the deal]

I replied to put it in the excelent way tirtza put it “the deal is better than none and no other plan will work”

I will repeat it again since this is the MAIN point of the thread:

the deal is better than none and no other plan will work

and a third time for emphasis:

the deal is better than none and no other plan will work.

On this I freely admit I am not sure perhaps there is another plan that I havent thought of. Plus it is impossible to predict how this will all play out.

What I am certain of is that nobody will attack Iran. Talk of military option is just that talk. You believe it is a real option,on this point you are dead wrong.

My question then is straight forward You believe (rather strongly that:

a) The plan wont work which means that b) Iran will get a bomb and that this c) poses an existential threat to Israel which can d) be stopped by an attack

(I labeled them a-d so you can tell me which point I you dont agree with) Assuming you accept all 4 points there doesnt seem to be any othe r option than attack. So if at a certain point, when an attack doesnt happen. If you are honest you have to accept that you were wrong on one of those points above.

I’ll let you decide on the time frame

mdd

Ok So lets file this conversation away, and revisit it at a to be determined point in time. At what point with Israel still not having attacked will you say I was right. 1 yr? 2? 5?

mdd

If Israel is facing as an existential crises as he claims, and point of no return is imminent (as he it has been for 20 years now), and an attack would prevent that What choice does he have?

mdd

Youve got to be kidding. Iran has an air force, anti-aircraft defenses, missle capability of hitting US bases in the mideast and probably Europe, capability of attacking ISrael etc etc. We are not talking about a two day operation.

Thanks Tirtza I will definitely read

Heres a good one:

CBS march 2015 (more recent than yours)

“Which of these comes closest to your opinion? Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to the United States that requires military action now. Iran’s nuclear program is a threat that can be contained for now. Iran’s nuclear program is not a threat to the United States at this time.””

Requires military action now – 29%

can be contained for now – 45%

Not a threat at this time – 18%

unsure 7%

This was further broken down by party, though even then not even half of republicans supported military action