If medical science would be right the human race could never have survived without the interference of doctors. But we are still here, so obviously the scientists are wrong. Some things are so simple, aren’t they? The holy grail and backbone of the conventional medical system are vaccines, but their popularity is waning and so it’s time to find new applications, to convince people to get the shots. And not surprisingly there is a study going to see if the pneumococcal vaccine can prevent heart attacks and strokes. What do the two have to do with each other? Well, nothing of course, for the pneumococcal vaccine is supposed to prevent pneumonia, not cardiovascular disease. But the last few years we see more and more studies that show that a variety of vaccines prevent a variety of diseases. If you think that that doesn’t make any sense, you’re right.
“can reduce the risk of heart attacks and stroke by up to 20 per cent.” Can reduce? If something can work theoretically it doesn’t mean it really works. And don’t you like the “up to 20%”? If you reduce a risk that doesn’t mean much anyway, as a risk doesn’t mean you will get the disease. So how do you measure a reduced risk? And if that reduced risk appears to be 0.001%, then that’s still “up to 20%”. Medical scientists absolutely love smokescreens.
“Cardiovascular disease is still the number one killer of Australians” That’s not true. The number one is doctors, at a far distance from the numbers two and three. To know that you only need to add up the numbers of people dying from medical mistakes, from prescription drugs, from unnecessary treatments and from chemotherapy. It makes you wonder if doctors are the right ones to go to when you want to prevent disease.
“at-risk patients take statins, beta blockers and aspirin on a daily basis to help reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke.” All of which have shown again and again not to be of any benefit, but to cause heart attacks and strokes. Let’s face it: the concept of taking toxic pharmaceuticals to prevent disease is absurd.
“seemed to protect them from the fatty build up of plaque in arteries that leads to heart attacks.” Have you ever considered the possibility that there is a reason why the plaque builds up? The body does everything for a reason, and it’s not to destroy itself. If you inject toxic chemicals and those plaques disappear, then something in the body goes wrong. Very wrong. So you can expect to get very sick or die, but maybe not from a heart attack. (The same goes for statin drugs: there is a minimal decrease in heart attacks, but a huge increase in deaths. Again: preventing diseases with toxic chemicals is an absurd concept.)
“it was unclear if lifestyle changes were responsible.” You give the drug and get people off a toxic diet. When they get healthier you still don’t know anything. So to test the drug you will have to inject people and not advise them to get a healthier lifestyle. That sounds highly unethical to me. Even if people volunteer for this it’s still wrong, as doctors at all times have the responsibility to take care of their patients.
“He said people have to take aspirin or statin medications daily to get a 20 per cent improvement in outcomes.” Now it gets interesting. Aspirin and statins have been proven to increase the risk of death. The pneumococcal vaccine, like all vaccines, has been proven to be dangerous as well. So professor Attia, what outcomes are you talking about? Do you hope that fewer people will die from the aspirin or statins when you also inject them with a toxic vaccine? Do you hope that a few people might not get a stroke or heart attack, even if a lot more people die from other causes? The target group will be the older population, which is at higher risk of dying anyway. If they die from this toxic cocktail, how will you put that into your administration? Please tell me, what will be “improvement in outcomes”?
“have not had a heart attack or stroke” Ah, wait. They want volunteers who never had a heart attack or stroke, but have “risk factors”. But what are those risk factors? High cholesterol has for a very long time been known to have no correlation whatsoever with heart attacks. High blood pressure is the result of vascular problems, not the cause (the chicken and egg story is still a hard one for doctors). And obesity can have many causes, but in itself it’s not very likely to cause heart problems. It’s the cause of the obesity that could also be the cause of heart problems. But the cause of obesity is very complex. So what have these volunteers in common, else than their age and blind trust in doctors? They are probably already in pretty bad shape, because of the drugs they take. And probably they don’t have a very healthy lifestyle. Two big risk factors. Will a vaccine (of all things) do anything about this? Of course not.
I have no idea what the professor is going to test and measure, but I’m pretty sure the outcome will be positive. The outcomes of studies that involve vaccines are almost always positive, even if half the test people drop dead. It’s a matter of manipulating results, which medical scientists are highly skilled with.
Before getting any vaccine, first make sure you know the ingredients (which can be hard, as only a few are mentioned in the insert and it’s not even easy to get the insert). Make sure you understand what all the toxic ingredients will do in your body. Keep in mind that the scientists who do such studies are usually paid by the manufacturer of the vaccine. Keep in mind that if you die from the vaccine none of the researchers cares and you will just go into the statistics as “people die at this age”.
If you want to donate your body to science, you better do it after you have died. Preferably from natural causes, not medical interference.