Anti-vax

[Giliell]

OK, I'll just give up.
If there were any gods, they'd know I've tried.
I tried presenting arguments, even sources, just as I learned in school.
I tried being polite, not using swear words and such.
Now, as I see myself confronted with a post where half the words would have been censored out, I'll resign.
There's no way to have a discussion on that level, at least not for me.

If anything serious about vaccination turns up here, I'll be back.

 

[Talono]

First off, I would like to say that you should CITE YOUR DAMN SOURCES. This is the second time that I've had to do this.

The timeline below appears from this website and does not have footnotes pointing to its specific source:
http://www.reformation.org/vaccine.html

The article is extremely unreliable. For example, here's a excerpt from the article:
"Both christening and vaccination are inventions of that old Serpent the devil!!
Nobody except old Beelzebub himself has sent more souls to hell than this ape-man. His grandfather and Jenner laid the foundation of the MAD idea of turning the FABLE of evilution into a scientific FACT."

Further research shows that the time line was probably plagiarized, in part, from Andrew Manitois, PhD here. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you got the information from this document, but there is still a matter of incredulity. The man is not exactly trustworthy, as shown by this document.

Sure, that's very easy.
Smallpox:

1797 Edward Jenner sends a paper to the Royal Society about variolae vaccinae or smallpox of the cow and its potential similarities to human smallpox, and tries to popularize the folklore that exposure to inflamed cow utters with corresponding inflammation or eruptions on the milker's hands is the cow form of human smallpox. The paper is rejected and returned with a warning "He had better not promulgate such a wild idea if he valued his reputation."

It is not uncommon that people be rejected for their novel ideas, especially when the only support they have is anecdotal experience and an anecdotal experiment on a single person. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren received similar criticism when they presented the idea that Helicobater pylori was the cause of peptic ulcers.

1803 Baron, in his "Life of Jenner," vol i., p. 604, says that Mr. Allen, Secretary to LordHolland, writing to Jenner from Madrid in 1803, observes:"There is no country likely to receive more benefits from your labours than Spain; for, on the one hand, the mortality among children from small-pox has always been very great; and, on the other hand, the inoculation for the cow-pox has been received with the same enthusiasm here as in the rest of Europe." .. . ."The result, however, was the reverse of satisfactory; the inoculation of the spurious sort has proved fatal to many children at Seville, who have fallen victims to the small-pox after they had been pronounced secure from that disease."

According to Dictionary.com "spurious" has two relevant meanings:

1. "not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit"
2. "of illegitimate birth; bastard."

From the quote given, it is unclear which definition to take. However, looking at the entire quote, I believe it was the first definition:
"There is no country likely to receive more benefit from your labours than Spain; for, on the one hand, the mortality among children from the Smallpox has always been very great; aud, on the other hand, the inoculation for the Cowpox has been received with the same enthusiasm here as in the rest of Europe; though I am sorry to add that the inoculation of the spurious sort has proved fatal to many children at Seville, who have fallen victims to the Smallpox after they had heen pronounced secure from that disease." [1]

Mr.Allen appears to be in favor of the vaccine and uses words that laud Jenner. He is sorry because apparently some are giving out improper vaccines and children died because it.

1839 Smallpox epidemic sweeps England and kills 22,081 people.

Unfortunately, it was not realized that vaccination did not protect you for life until late into the 1800s [2]. The smallpox vaccine only lasts for about 10 years [3]. Most of the people who came down with smallpox were around the age of 15-30 and were vaccinated in infancy. In addition, records of vaccination were not well kept; doctors had to rely on the knowledge the patients and/or relatives as well as the mark left by vaccination [4].

1840 Inoculation is outlawed by the British Parliament.

I love the vagueness of this bit. At the time, "incoulation" meant variolation. Variolation is the "the practice of inhalation of, or scarification with, dried and powdered smallpox pustules."[5]. Variolation was outlawed, but vaccination was not. In fact, the 1840 Vaccination Act allowed the poor to get vaccinated for free.[2][6][7]

1850 In 1850, in the U.S. frigate Independence, with a ship's company of 560 people aboard, there were 116 cases of smallpox, seven fatal. Fleet-surgeon Whelen wrote: "Thecrew of this ship almost universally presented what are regarded as genuine vaccinemarks. The protection, however, proved to be quite imperfect."

Again, it was not known at the time that the smallpox vaccine's protection did not last forever. Those men may have been vaccinated to far back in the past be effective.

1860 The following is part of a letter which appeared in the Lancet on July 7th, 1860,signed a "Military Surgeon:""VACCINATION AT SHORNCLIFFE...upon erysipelatous inflammation of the forearm after Vaccination."

I'm not quite sure what this letter to the Lancelet was about, but I will say that sloppy administration of vaccines can cause infections.

1864 "Upon the U.S. steamship Jamestown, serving in Japanese waters, there occurred,in 1864, among a ship's company of 212 persons, 31 cases of small-pox, with four deaths. The entire crew had been vaccinated after leaving the United States."

I cannot find any info on this case besides the quote.

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wallace/book.html

Considering that this is an entire book, I will examine it later.

Smallpox Vaccination in the Phillipines 1905-1920

At tropical temperatures, vaccines remained effective for only one or two days. It was not until the late 1940s was there a stable freeze-dried vaccine that could be mass produced. [8]



Now for my post

Dodging the point.

The point was irrelevant to my question.

Ohh and chemotherapy is logical? Vaccines are LOGICAL?

Yes.

Taking medication with severe side effects is logical?

Depends on the risk of side effects vs the benefits.

And wait a minute...just what is "illogical" about vitalism?

It's based on assumption and it's a step away from dualism. It's been totally rejected by the Biology scientific community.

I agree colloidal silver is no good. I agree that many of the homeopathic principles are wrong, but why are you lumping?

Because this is the kind of crap that they are going to teach you. They are going to teach you incorrect information and you know it.

The dilution theory of homeopathy is ONE aspect of it. THERE ARE OTHERS. For instance the LAW OF SIMILARS. I hate this because I'm not in any way shape or form defending homeopathy, but clearly you do not understand it even. You don't even know all its principles apparently.

Ok, I mixed the two up. Nonetheless, the "law of similars" is based on irrationality while vaccines are based on reason.

Go somewhere else other than industry sponsored "quackwatch.org" for your info.

Dr. Barrett actually addresses this:
http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/funding.html

This is what happens when the true quacks are in charge of quackwatch. Gotta love it. The quacks make the "anti-quack" website and they attack anything that is anti-business.

Oh please, "natural health" is a business in itself. Cheap products + unsubstantianed claims = profit

Because they do not require me to use it.

And Med school does?

The rest of the things that are taught are:
Nutrition, Biochemistry, Toxicology, Physiology, etc.

All of which may be tainted by the teaching of irrational and illogical concepts that have been rejected by the scientific community.

Also I am not pressured into vaccinating my patients, which I would never do. And also I am not pressured into prescribing pills.

Instead, you're going to be duped into using dubious methods of treatment.

Which I would not resort to as a first line of defense. Pills can be useful, but like anything else, they have to be used only when all other non-toxic options have been exhausted, and prescribed very very carefully.

Then why not just become an MD and do that? or even a Nutrionist or Dietitian?

Ever notice how people on many meds, are always sicker and sicker in proportion to the amount of prescriptions they are on? Ever notice that?

Ever notice how people who don't take their meds die? Ever notice that?

If modern medicine worked, the more pills you would be on, the healthier you would be. Or, the more pills you would be on, the less you would need, and thus you would be on less pills...but we don't see this. Just the opposite.

People get weaker as they get older due senescence as well as development of disease. Over a lifetime I wouldn't be surprised if this happens.

Over 300,000 people die each year from modern medicine. Not from "complications" or from "accidents" or from "overdoses" but from following doctors orders.
FAIL. EPIC FAIL.

The more and more this thread goes on, the more and more you sound like a troll.

I see, and that's not PR right? So we intend to blow up a building, we happen to blow up the entire village there because we used a nuclear weapon, and so we are not murderers, because even though we KNEW the nuclear bomb would do much more than just blow up the small building we were targeting, we can just say "hey, it was collateral damage." It was just "side effects."

The use of the term "side effects" has been in use since the late 1800s. "Collateral damage" is a new term that began to be used in the 1980s.

Right...as if it matters what you intend. Since when does that matter in science?

It's not science, it's semantics.

Well, I INTENDED for your infection to go away Mr. Smith, I hope that counts for something.

Irrelevant example.

When I build this elevator I intended for it to be steadily suspended, I know I used a cable 10 times smaller than what is supposed to be used, but I certainly didn't INTEND for the elevator to snap and freefall from the 20th floor...I'm sorry. That was just a side effect. Totally unintended.

Like I said, it's semantics. You cannot call a side effect an effect in the same way you cannot call a byproduct a product. Btw, not all side effects occur with regularity and severity.

Here's an idea. Let G respond for G. How about that? K, thanks.

Here's an idea: Respond to my argument. There's a reason this is called a forum, aka a place of discussion.

Yes, they are. But the point I was making was about the veracity of my objection, which has nothing to do with the court system, but with the argumentation principles that were long established since the Platonic days.

And what principle is that? The principle of totally dismissing a person's argument with expletives for no logical reason?

 

[Josan]

I won't really join in this so-called "debate", as there is not much more to add to this really... I just find it amusing how paradigm667 jumps from one bat-shit crazy thing to the next. Here are some of the things he's advocated:

- MAJOR conspiracy (and lots of lots of minor conspiracy)
- HIV denialism
- Raw foodism
- Anti-vax
- Anti-medication
- Anti medical science
- Anti science

He also seems to be suffering from a bad case of the "Everything is caused by X" syndrome and illusions of grandeur.

And probably some stuff I didn't pick up on.

It wouldn't surpise me if he started to claim the moon landing was a hoax, crop circles are aliens and the government is using commercial airlines to disperse mind-control agents into the atmosphere. (oh noes!)

 

[Finger]

All this talk about vaccines is just distracting from the real cause of all illnesses, dihydrogen monoxide. Roughly 99% of germs and bacteria depend on it to spread infection and the government is putting it in our drinking supply!

 

[Josan]

All this talk about vaccines is just distracting from the real cause of all illnesses, dihydrogen monoxide. Roughly 90% of germs and bacteria depend on it to spread infection and the government is putting it in our drinking supply!

Yes! I heard about this shit once... I acidentally consumed a small amount as a child, I coughed like hell... but I survived... thank god.

 

[Finger]

Yeah, if even a small bit of it gets into your lungs it makes you more susceptible to illnesses like pneumonia. That's how my grandfather died.

 

[paradigm667]

OK, I'll just give up.
If there were any gods, they'd know I've tried.
I tried presenting arguments, even sources, just as I learned in school.
I tried being polite, not using swear words and such.
Now, as I see myself confronted with a post where half the words would have been censored out, I'll resign.
There's no way to have a discussion on that level, at least not for me.

If anything serious about vaccination turns up here, I'll be back.

Giliell, so because I use harsh language you will leave? Fine with me. But you were literally wrong on all accounts in your previous post and you didn't even admit it. When your views didn't match up with the facts, what do you do? You blame me, you start talking about being polite and so on. When in the beginning did we ever establish that if I was going to be rude you would have packed and left? This is a cop out. If you said earlier that if I use ANY harsh language you would leave, I would have censored myself. But I like being honest and speaking the way I would normally speak.

I find this evasive tactic of yours lame. At least admit you were wrong, and that you learned something. If not, that's fine, but you have lost quite a bit of respect. Instead you just run away and blame my use of swear words. My swear words would have been nothing at all if my arguments were weak. You would have no doubt responded immediately and probably with vigor. But instead my arguments were sound, and so you pretend that it was my use of swear words that did it. No, my use of swear words were my gift to you so you could have an excuse and make it appear as though you left because I was being rude. You left because I was correct and you couldn't refute what I had to say. But we'll keep that between the two of us ;-) I just hope you end up checking your facts before you post again on a thread with me in it. Thanks.

@ Talono

Further research shows that the time line was probably plagiarized, in part, from Andrew Manitois, PhD here. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you got the information from this document, but there is still a matter of incredulity. The man is not exactly trustworthy, as shown by this document.

Yo, how many times I gotta tell you I am not a creationist, I am not a theist, nor is there any "spiritual" or "mystical" bone in my body?
The fact that some of the facts and figures I cite can be connected to people that don't believe in evolution, is not my problem. Shame on them for evolution denial, but that doesn't mean every other word is wrong. For instance vaccines have little to no implication with whether or not evolution is "real".
Let it go. Only when the claim cannot be refuted do we result to "guilt by association." Or in Giliell's case, claiming that the reason to ditch out of a discussion is because someone used swear words. Shit fuck ass dick twat. There. Does that make everything else I said irrelevant?

Further research shows that the time line was probably plagiarized, in part, from Andrew Manitois, PhD here. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you got the information from this document, but there is still a matter of incredulity. The man is not exactly trustworthy, as shown by this document.

"Probably plagiarized?" Wow.
And yeah. AIDS Truth...the organization run by people whose main message is this:

Moore has been bullying and threatening those who speak out against the AIDS theory for years. Here are two of Moore's statements: "We will crush all notable denialists, but we will disregard the foot soldiers because they are not worthy of our time." and "This is a war, there are no rules, and we will crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly."

There is no discussion, no debating there. The people at AIDS Truth are simply interested in supporting industry. Perpetuating the myth. Dr. Maniotis is not a dishonest individual, and because AIDSTruth.org lists him as a "denialist" that doesn't discredit his science. AIDSTruth is a shill website. It's what's called "Astroturf". Go look that up in the urban dictionary or something, if you don't know what I'm getting at.

It is not uncommon that people be rejected for their novel ideas, especially when the only support they have is anecdotal experience and an anecdotal experiment on a single person. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren received similar criticism when they presented the idea that Helicobater pylori was the cause of peptic ulcers.

Yeah, H. Pylori is another joke. That is a bacteria that is named so because it is ALWAYS found in the PYLORIC region of the stomach, where ulcers TEND to form. But not because of the bacteria. It simply grows where the ulcer forms, because the bacteria's job is to break down dying tissue. That doesn't explain why the tissue is dying in the first place. Which is often times low HCl levels, chief and parietal cell dysfunction due to diet, aspirin use and other drugs that react with the stomach lining, persistent stress, etc.
So yeah, the people that "discovered" H. Pylori "causes" stomach ulcers didn't discover a damn thing, lol.

Mr.Allen appears to be in favor of the vaccine and uses words that laud Jenner. He is sorry because apparently some are giving out improper vaccines and children died because it.

Unfortunately you are missing the fact that the man could be of the opinion that ALL vaccines are "spurious". Just because you call a vaccine spurious, doesn't NECESSITATE that there MUST be other vaccines that are not spurious, and thus genuine. Or the idea is that the IDEA of vaccination is "genuine" in theory, but there is no physical, real vaccine that is not spurious.
Your analysis of semantics is sad, dog.

Because this is the kind of crap that they are going to teach you. They are going to teach you incorrect information and you know it.

Exactly. Just like the modern medical school would be teaching me EVEN more incorrect info, and I would know it. What's your point? Ohh, you're point is that modern medicine teaches no lies.
Well in that case excuse me while I go laugh until my stomach hurts-

Ok, I mixed the two up. Nonetheless, the "law of similars" is based on irrationality while vaccines are based on reason.

Great refutation. Excellent! "Hey Pot," said the kettle, "you're black!"

Dr. Barrett actually addresses this:

Riiight. I'm glad you're convinced. The FDA is comprised of unbiased, non-industry sponsored constituents. So is the EPA for that matter. *rolls eyes*
Have a good sleep. Don't let anyone shake your bed now...you might actually wake up.

Oh please, "natural health" is a business in itself. Cheap products + unsubstantianed claims = profit

Sure. Not what I practice or what I preach. Natural health to me is using food as medicine, using sunlight, rest, proper sleep wake cycles, elimination of stress, detoxification, exercise and psychological therapy to induce health.
I would sell no products unless absolutely necessary (such as vitamin D in places above the 30 degree latitude, or b12 for people who need it, or something incontrovertible like that). Believe me, natural health is NOT going to be making me much money at all. I'm not in it for the cash. Go ask your noble doctors that have MDs how many of them would continue doing what they do if they were assured their salary would never go above 30,000 a year. You would see 95% or more drop everything tomorrow.
I would be an ND even if it means I am stuck in poverty my whole life. I want to HELP people. I don't want to make hundreds of thousands of dollars, buy the most expensive car I can find, and then claim I don't do it for the money. That's hypocrisy. And that's not me.

Just because there are some people in the "natural health" movement that are making money, doesn't mean the principles are bad. And by the way, the very pharmaceutical companies that make drugs are the LEADERS in the nutriceutical and herbal remedy up and coming movement. Just wait for codex alementarius to go into effect and they will be able to centralize production and standards and testing on these products such that the big multi national businesses will keep their firm grip on things. The very industries that are making all these drugs today, are going to be the same "leaders" in the "natural health" world tomorrow. And I will be just as against them as I am now. Natural health is not something that comes in a bottle that says "natural" on it.
But it just goes to show you that these industries do not CARE about science or efficacy or anything. They are BUSINESSES. They make money. Bottom line. The sooner you figure this out, the sooner the world begins to make more sense to you. Have fun.

All of which may be tainted by the teaching of irrational and illogical concepts that have been rejected by the scientific community.

No, which is why you should get to know the institutions you criticize before you make asinine assumptions.

Instead, you're going to be duped into using dubious methods of treatment.

No idiot. I already know what methods I will be using. I will be using standardized diagnostic procedures not very different if at all, from an MD, and I will reverse the conditions without pills. I will also not be using homeopathy, or acupuncture, or reiki, or any of that stuff. I will be using nutrition, herbs that have evidence-based studies backing them, and in as few cases as possible, drugs...as well as exercise routines, detox methods, lymph stimulation therapy, measuring vitamin D levels, and using functional medicine to treat people. Do you know what functional medicine is? You should. Because that is truly the way to go about helping people.
Believe me, I will not be caught DEAD using a method of disease reversal that is not backed by SCIENCE. Nutritional approaches are not only backed by science, to this day they are the ONLY method that shows DRAMATIC disease reversal unable to be obtained by any other method, as well as the least amount of side effects out of every method: ZERO.
Shame on anyone who overlooks nutrition and goes straight to prescribing pills. That is SEVERE negligence and in my opinion, a violation of the Hippocratic oath.

Then why not just become an MD and do that? or even a Nutrionist or Dietitian?

Because, my friend, I am not interested in "fitting in" with a system I know is harming people. I would rather associate myself with the NDs and people who reject vaccines (even if those people use weird light therapies or acupuncture etc, or believe in god) because guess what, those people don't kill others.
The mainstream always says they do because "by preventing them from getting proper approved treatment it kills patients." This statement could easily go both ways. Especially because we know chemo for instance is HORRIBLE and has a terrible track record. Which is why most doctors and even oncologists would NOT opt to have chemo if they had cancer. Did you hear that?! Yeah. Talk about not practicing what one preaches.
The therapies I would recommend to my patients, not only do I use them, I LIVE it.
I am their doctor, but I am also the healthiest person they would know. I'm not a pot-belly having old man with pattern hair loss telling them how great my form of medicine is.
Stop badgering me about what my career choice is btw. LOL.
I'm philosophically against the medical establishment as it is today. I am not naive enough to think I can change it from the inside. I reject it, and I encourage others to reject it and focus on the real ways to heal and the real issues plaguing our world, and our people.

Registered dieticians are MORONS for the most part. I already know more about nutrition than them. It's all I read on. It's my life's passion. If I became one, I would be forcing myself to learn BULLSHIT info that I just spent the last 5 years UN-LEARNING...just so I can have a few letters after my last name? Screw that.

With an ND degree I can CHOOSE my area of expertise. And I will choose nutrition and exercise. Very simple.
And you and your family would be lucky to have me as your physician.

Ever notice how people who don't take their meds die? Ever notice that?

Na. I really don't. Some heart pressure meds are necessary it's true. But the damage that caused that crisis and need for the meds can be reversed. ALL drugs that I would use would be used for no longer than a few months if that, until the proper nutritional and lifestyle approaches were followed to naturally reverse the condition. An MD would prescribe a pill indefinitely. Which means...forever. I would never do that. But for the most part, most other meds can be discontinued right away and nobody will die (psychiatric meds must be weened slowly). So yeah, I really DON'T notice that. Just the opposite. Like my grandpa for instance who was taking 6 different meds for heart issues, prostate issues, and memory boosting, and I got him off each and every single one. In a week. Done. He's 97. He was 96 then. Guess what. Still going strong. And by strong I mean: doesn't wear glasses or need them. Doesn't use a walking cane or need it, appears to be around 70 years old when you speak to him.
He's just fine.

I do know, however, that every year 300,000 die from normally prescribed and used medical drugs and procedures. 300,000.
Find me the stats on natural methods and show me how many die from diet change, or from even something like homeopathy (which doesn't work, but it doesn't kill either at least). So why would I associate myself with NDs over MDs? Well because I don't like working with people who kill others for one.

People get weaker as they get older due senescence as well as development of disease. Over a lifetime I wouldn't be surprised if this happens.

And yet the more meds they are given, especially if they are put on them from a young age, their progression and decline is vastly accelerated.

The more and more this thread goes on, the more and more you sound like a troll.

So I'm a troll because I disagree with you?
Hey, buddy. Just ask me to leave, I'm out. Nobody asked me to yet. Trolls don't leave when they are asked nicely, I do.
Just don't use that as a means of saying you "drove me out with your wit and wisdom and incontrovertible facts." lol
But yeah, you want me out, just cry foul, I'll be on my way.

he use of the term "side effects" has been in use since the late 1800s. "Collateral damage" is a new term that began to be used in the 1980s.

But you get my point though...

It's not science, it's semantics.

*cringes*

And what principle is that? The principle of totally dismissing a person's argument with expletives for no logical reason?

Shit fuck ass cock twat. You're wrong. (lol)



My comments will be in BOLD:

- MAJOR conspiracy (and lots of lots of minor conspiracy) hmm, name them then. Even if I was, if it's true what of it
- HIV denialism DEFINITELY
- Raw foodism DEFINITELY
- Anti-vax DEFINITELY
- Anti-medication No. There are cases where I would use meds. I think we prescribe way too many these days though.
- Anti medical science No, but I did explain and show SOURCES of how SOME medical science is corrupted these days
- Anti science OK, now this one I have a problem with. I might be anti corporate, anti-vaccine, but I am not anti science and to label me this is a lie. There is not on anti-scientific bone in my body. I do not operate on faith, I never have and I never will. Please do not accuse me of something I am not guilty of as I have not done so to you

He also seems to be suffering from a bad case of the "Everything is caused by X" syndrome and illusions of grandeur.

And probably some stuff I didn't pick up on.

It wouldn't surpise me if he started to claim the moon landing was a hoax I have no idea. It is odd that we went to the moon 40 years ago and we still haven't gone back, or seem to be able to as projected in 2020. Who knows., crop circles are aliens Nope. But I love how it's all about trying to associate me with all kinds of other thingsand the government is using commercial airlines to disperse mind-control agents into the atmosphereNope. I do not think this at all.. (oh noes!)
I do find it funny and pathetic that you continue to just try and paint me in a negative light and try and thus discredit me without actually addressing my points. It's a marvelous strategy. Mud slinging. Shame on you. What a coward.

All this talk about vaccines is just distracting from the real cause of all illnesses, dihydrogen monoxide. Roughly 99% of germs and bacteria depend on it to spread infection and the government is putting it in our drinking supply!

LOL!! I remember a poll that was taken and 90% of people who were asked to ban dihydrogen monoxide said they were in favor of banning it. The public indeed, are pretty dumb, especially when it comes to chemistry. Gotta love it.

 

[Josan]

I do find it funny and pathetic that you continue to just try and paint me in a negative light and try and thus discredit me without actually addressing my points.

Oh... is THAT what you think I was doing? Oh. In that case I am truley, truley sorry. I must have come of all wrong. Nonono, I wasn't trying to paint you in a negative light and discredit you at all. I was simply pointing out how much fun it is to read your insane rantings....

 

[paradigm667]

Oh... is THAT what you think I was doing? Oh. In that case I am truley, truley sorry. I must have come of all wrong. Nonono, I wasn't trying to paint you in a negative light and discredit you at all. I was simply pointing out how much fun it is to read your insane rantings....

If you consider "insane" anyone who doesn't agree with you, then SUCCESS, you are right. I am insane!

Cheers.

 

[Giliell]

Giliell, so because I use harsh language you will leave? Fine with me.

I never said I'd leave.
I, on my part, end that debate with you now because it has reached verbal level where I don't go.

But you were literally wrong on all accounts in your previous post and you didn't even admit it. When your views didn't match up with the facts, what do you do? You blame me, you start talking about being polite and so on.

Ehm, actually not. I don't think I was wrong. I was about to dig up the sources for my arguments and debunk you sources, but, you know, I just decided that it wasn't worth my time because you wouldn't believe anything I came up with anyway and instead go on ranting.

When in the beginning did we ever establish that if I was going to be rude you would have packed and left? This is a cop out. If you said earlier that if I use ANY harsh language you would leave, I would have censored myself. But I like being honest and speaking the way I would normally speak.

When was there ever a term of agreement that said that I couldn't stop the debate on my behalf? If that's how you normally speak I wouldn't debate with you in real life either.

I find this evasive tactic of yours lame.

You're totally entitled to that.

At least admit you were wrong, and that you learned something.

Yes, I was wrong and I learned something. I was wrong about you being an educated, intelligent person who has some strange ideas but with whom I might have a good debate about certain issues. I learned that you are not and that you turned out to be a bully who uses totally unnecessary swear words and accuses people of severe crimes just because they don't agree with him. Yes, accusing parents of hurting their children because they feed formula is such a thing and makes you no dicussion partner for me. Before you think that you insulted me personally, be at rest, I breastfeed.

If not, that's fine, but you have lost quite a bit of respect.

I'd be, at this point, actually shocked if I'd earned your respect and would have to re-think several things because that would mean I'd have taken a really wrong turn somewhere.

Instead you just run away and blame my use of swear words. My swear words would have been nothing at all if my arguments were weak. You would have no doubt responded immediately and probably with vigor. But instead my arguments were sound, and so you pretend that it was my use of swear words that did it.

Oh, I can turn that the other way, too: If your arguments had been any worth, you wouldn't have needed to revert to swear words and insults. As I said before, I was about to reply to your arguments, proofs and sources, but then decided to use my time better.

No, my use of swear words were my gift to you so you could have an excuse and make it appear as though you left because I was being rude. You left because I was correct and you couldn't refute what I had to say. But we'll keep that between the two of us

Dream on!
And stop trying to patronize me. I have a daddy. And I'll gladly let the readers of this thread decide for themselves, so no need for secrecy.

I just hope you end up checking your facts before you post again on a thread with me in it. Thanks.

:lol: As if I would. Enter in a debate with you, I mean, not checking facts, because that's what I usually do. I'd rather paint my toenails.

 

[paradigm667]

Ehm, actually not. I don't think I was wrong. I was about to dig up the sources for my arguments and debunk you sources, but, you know, I just decided that it wasn't worth my time because you wouldn't believe anything I came up with anyway and instead go on ranting.

Right. I'm sure you would. I would love to see your source and evidence that beans and potatoes and rhubarb are FRUITS.
Or that Fructose Intolerance affects 33% of the population. LOL!

Honestly G, give me a break woman. I will promise you this, if it is foul language that bothers you, or even an abusive tone (which I do have, admittedly) I will promise that for you, I will absolutely not use any such language or tone so as to make you feel uncomfortable, if that is the only thing that is keeping you from responding. If you are afraid that I will "not believe you" and continue to "rant"...well, I have to admit that this is not the way I operate. If you PROVE me wrong, I will apologize for being wrong and change my "rant". You on the other hand chose a different path, no?

When was there ever a term of agreement that said that I couldn't stop the debate on my behalf? If that's how you normally speak I wouldn't debate with you in real life either.

I bet if I was so abusive to a creationist, you wouldn't really be as concerned with me being so rude. Just like the guy who called my use of acronyms "hideous" and yet when other people responded to me with acronyms or faces like this: :lol: or :roll: , it is OK. It's a double standard. Anyways, like I said, for you, since you seem to be affected negatively by harsher language, I promise I will not at all anymore use any such language or tone with you should you chose to speak out again.

Yes, I was wrong and I learned something. I was wrong about you being an educated, intelligent person who has some strange ideas but with whom I might have a good debate about certain issues. I learned that you are not and that you turned out to be a bully who uses totally unnecessary swear words and accuses people of severe crimes just because they don't agree with him. Yes, accusing parents of hurting their children because they feed formula is such a thing and makes you no dicussion partner for me. Before you think that you insulted me personally, be at rest, I breastfeed.

Thank goodness! Great choice G! I mean that in all sincerity.

Oh, I can turn that the other way, too: If your arguments had been any worth, you wouldn't have needed to revert to swear words and insults. As I said before, I was about to reply to your arguments, proofs and sources, but then decided to use my time better.

And this is true. Swearing is not needed by me and it does serve as a potential thing that can discredit me because it is unnecessary for argumentation. I agree with you. Again, I will not swear or insult you personally from now on.

Dream on!
And stop trying to patronize me. I have a daddy. And I'll gladly let the readers of this thread decide for themselves, so no need for secrecy.

I was joking there. I'm sorry.

As if I would. Enter in a debate with you, I mean, not checking facts, because that's what I usually do. I'd rather paint my toenails.

Well in case you do chose to post on this topic in the future, I do hope that you check your facts before you post a little better and I mean that in the least offensive and rude manner possible. I know I was rude, but you have to admit, you made many errors in your argument especially in your post on the bottom of page 7.

In peace-

 

[Talono]

Yo, how many times I gotta tell you I am not a creationist, I am not a theist, nor is there any "spiritual" or "mystical" bone in my body?

I AM AN THEIST. I AM A STUDENT OF MEDICINE. I STUDY MOLECULAR CELL BIOLOGY, NUTRITION, ANATOMY AND PHYSIO, ETC.

That typo can go either way really.

The fact that some of the facts and figures I cite can be connected to people that don't believe in evolution, is not my problem.

The problem is that you might(You don't even cite your sources...) be getting your information from unreliable sources.

Shame on them for evolution denial, but that doesn't mean every other word is wrong. For instance vaccines have little to no implication with whether or not evolution is "real".

It's shows their lack of understanding of science and their lack of understanding undermines their credibility.

Or in Giliell's case, claiming that the reason to ditch out of a discussion is because someone used swear words. Shit fuck ass dick twat. There. Does that make everything else I said irrelevant?

You have to admit, such uncivil behavior does nothing but impede discussion.

Further research shows that the time line was probably plagiarized, in part, from Andrew Manitois, PhD here. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you got the information from this document, but there is still a matter of incredulity. The man is not exactly trustworthy, as shown by this document.

"Probably plagiarized?" Wow.

And yeah. AIDS Truth...the organization run by people whose main message is this:

Moore has been bullying and threatening those who speak out against the AIDS theory for years. Here are two of Moore's statements: "We will crush all notable denialists, but we will disregard the foot soldiers because they are not worthy of our time." and "This is a war, there are no rules, and we will crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly."

There is no source for those quotes and the site is biased. Can you verify those quotes from an independent source?

There is no discussion, no debating there.

The moment you say there is no discussion, then you sell your soul away to irrational thought.

The people at AIDS Truth are simply interested in supporting industry. Perpetuating the myth.

You can say it, but can you prove it?

Dr. Maniotis is not a dishonest individual

But he is. In the letter quoted in the pdf document I linked (also available here), he says that he is a professor of pathology. He is not and never was. He was no even an associate professor. A search of his name on the UIC Pathology website shows that he was merely a Research Assistant Professor.

, and because AIDSTruth.org lists him as a "denialist" that doesn't discredit his science.

No that does not, but the fact that he is dishonest goes against his credibility. It is evidence that he is willing to lie to advance his agenda.

AIDSTruth is a shill website.

Proof?

It's what's called "Astroturf". Go look that up in the urban dictionary or something, if you don't know what I'm getting at.

"Creating the impression of public support by paying people in the public to pretend to be supportive. "

That's not true, or in a more conservative tone, highly unlikely. There is definitely a strong consensus among the scientific community. The HIV/AIDS link is supported by the Institute of Medicine[1], the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases[2], as well as the British Medical Association[3]. Research on HIV/AIDS goes on across the world. The drug companies cannot possibly bribe them all.

Yeah, H. Pylori is another joke. That is a bacteria that is named so because it is ALWAYS found in the PYLORIC region of the stomach

"In some individuals Helicobacter pylori also infects the corpus region of the stomach. "

, where ulcers TEND to form.

"Such ulcers [occurring from H. pylori infection] are more common in the duodenum than in the stomach itself."

But not because of the bacteria. It simply grows where the ulcer forms, because the bacteria's job is to break down dying tissue. That doesn't explain why the tissue is dying in the first place.

"Helicobacter pylori is a spiral-shaped Gram-negative bacterium that colonizes the stomach in about 50% of all humans ... In most individuals Helicobacter pylori infection is asymptomatic. However, about 10-15% of infected individuals will some time experience peptic ulcer disease."

Quotes from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/press.html

Which is often times low HCl levels, chief and parietal cell dysfunction due to diet, aspirin use and other drugs that react with the stomach lining, persistent stress, etc.

Evidence?

So yeah, the people that "discovered" H. Pylori "causes" stomach ulcers didn't discover a damn thing, lol.

Apparently you are ignorant of the evidence that supports the theory that H. pylori causes peptic ulcers. Barry Marshall swallowed a plate of H. pylori and got gastric ulcers. Someone else did it and the same thing happened. [4] Antibiotics have been successful in treating stomach ulcers.

Unfortunately you are missing the fact that the man could be of the opinion that ALL vaccines are "spurious". Just because you call a vaccine spurious, doesn't NECESSITATE that there MUST be other vaccines that are not spurious, and thus genuine. Or the idea is that the IDEA of vaccination is "genuine" in theory, but there is no physical, real vaccine that is not spurious.

"though I am sorry to add that the inoculation of the spurious sort has proved fatal to many children at Seville, who have fallen victims to the Smallpox after they had heen pronounced secure from that disease."

He never said that the vaccine was spurious. If he meant that, he would've said "inoculation is of the spurious sort," but that's not what he said.

"the inoculation of the spurious sort" means the same thing as "some spurious inoculations." He said that some of the vaccinations were spurious.

Your analysis of semantics is sad

That's rather ironic.

, dog.

I was in the chat room the yesterday, and another member told me that your avatar makes you look like a douchebag. Again, this contributes nothing to the discussion.

Great refutation. Excellent! "Hey Pot," said the kettle, "you're black!"

I've already given you the B cell-immune system basis of vaccination and you're still going to call them the same thing?

Riiight. I'm glad you're convinced. The FDA is comprised of unbiased, non-industry sponsored constituents. So is the EPA for that matter. *rolls eyes*
Have a good sleep. Don't let anyone shake your bed now...you might actually wake up.

Right. Everyone is being bribed by the drug companies! Even me! Oh please.

No, which is why you should get to know the institutions you criticize before you make asinine assumptions.

From testimony opposing Naturopathic Licensure in Massachusetts by the Massachusetts Medical Society[5]:
"Naturopaths Portray Themselves as "Primary Care Physicians," but Their Training is Substandard."

Following the heading "Naturopathic Practices are Bizarre, Irrational, and Unsafe" you will find all the ridiculous stuff they believe in. Dr. Atwood cites Naturopathic doctors and institutions.

Believe me, I will not be caught DEAD using a method of disease reversal that is not backed by SCIENCE.

I'm unsure about your definition of "science." Let me ask you this: Do you have a college degree?

I do know, however, that every year 300,000 die from normally prescribed and used medical drugs and procedures. 300,000.

I'd like to know where you got those stats.

Find me the stats on natural methods and show me how many die from diet change, or from even something like homeopathy (which doesn't work, but it doesn't kill either at least).

Unfortunately, it'll be rather difficult to find statistics on that since people tend to use conventional methods in combination with non-coventional methods. I can probably find a few isolated cases of non-conventional methods only, but it'll be difficult to find statistics on a large group of these people. I'll try though.

And yet the more meds they are given, especially if they are put on them from a young age, their progression and decline is vastly accelerated.

Evidence?

So I'm a troll because I disagree with you?

You're like a troll because you refuse to discuss things civily. If you cannot do that, then please leave.

Shit fuck ass cock twat. You're wrong. (lol)

Keep dodging my arguments. It just makes you look immature and stupid.

 

[paradigm667]

That typo can go either way really.

ATHEIST. I apologize! Non-believer. Heathen. Blasphemer. Areligious.

It's shows their lack of understanding of science and their lack of understanding undermines their credibility.

No because science is used to refute the use of vaccines. What some of the anti-vaccine advocates believe beyond vaccines I part ways with them there, but I am mature enough to disambiguate what IS useful info and what is irrelevant info. For instance "Jesus said to not put impure substances in the body" is not an argument. But not putting neurotoxins in our blood IS a good argument.

You have to admit, such uncivil behavior does nothing but impede discussion.

So does attacking my avatar. What does that do that helps discussion? Calling me a douche bag does what? Explain.

There is no source for those quotes and the site is biased. Can you verify those quotes from an independent source?

That was from an eMail send by Moore to an AIDS dissident.

The moment you say there is no discussion, then you sell your soul away to irrational thought.

So now you believe in "souls"? I thought I was the irrational one...

But he is. In the letter quoted in the pdf document I linked (also available here), he says that he is a professor of pathology. He is not and never was. He was no even an associate professor. A search of his name on the UIC Pathology website shows that he was merely a Research Assistant Professor.

No he was a professor of pathology as well as director of the cell bio/cancer research at UIC. He was fired, just as Rebecca Culshaw was fired due to our friend from above who vowed to "crush each one of them, one by one"...who wrote many letters to the UIC and got many other experts involved, and very soon after, Maniotis was fired from what I understand.

No that does not, but the fact that he is dishonest goes against his credibility. It is evidence that he is willing to lie to advance his agenda.

He's not dishonest. His views on AIDS got him fired. Not an uncommon thing in the "biz" these days.

The HIV/AIDS link is supported by the Institute of Medicine[1], the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases[2], as well as the British Medical Association[3]. Research on HIV/AIDS goes on across the world. The drug companies cannot possibly bribe them all.

There is definitely a strong consensus among the scientific community.

Consensus? Since when is that used to prove something?

The drug companies cannot possibly bribe them all.

Ever looked at a peer reviewed journal these days? You'll notice something. ADVERTISEMENTS. EVERYWHERE. From who? BIG PHARMA.
Ever looked at the members of those regulatory bodies and institutions you just mentioned. Take a closer look at the revolving door that lets in big pharma lobbyists and exchanges them for the medical institutes' constituents and vice versa. It's ugly. But I won't scare you anymore. There there...pleasant dreams friend. Don't let the truth stop you from enjoying a nice slumber.

"In some individuals Helicobacter pylori also infects the corpus region of the stomach. "

Yeah, like when they happen to DAMAGE other regions, thus the bacteria may find its way in those regions. But here's the biggest issue: Not all ulcers have H. Pylori growing on them, and not all areas where H. Pylori can be seen growing get ulcers.

"Such ulcers [occurring from H. pylori infection] are more common in the duodenum than in the stomach itself."

Ahh yes, and why is that? Because the duodenum is just below the pyloric region of the stomach. And some of the time, the damage often gets done more often than not to the duodenum, thus illiciting a bacterial proliferation. But why does the duodenum get damaged in the first place? Because of issues with lack of pancreatic action to neutralize the chyme thus effectively the chyme damages the duodenal region over time, as the lining of the duodenum is sensitive to acidic abrasion, as normally a properly functioning pancreas would release the correct amount of bicarbonate to bring the pH lower. When this doesn't happen, it begins to damage the lining. The fact that H. Pylori begins to proliferate there is OBVIOUSLY going to be a result.
But hey, I'm glad you're convinced by it. Good for you.

Evidence?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060920093207.htm
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/483596/how_aspirin_ibuprofen_cause_peptic_ulcers/

As far as low HCl, how about I just explain it to you, because it is from what I have learned in the past:
When we consume foods that require excessive pepsinogen release and HCl release in the stomach, such as meats, cheese, and refined grains, we overtax the stomach to produce way too much acid than it normally is capable or willing to produce. The results in something similar to a diabetic spike in insulin. We then get heartburn and so on. Part of that translates into a general condition called hyperchloridia, which is indeed linked to ulcers, because too much of the acid over time being present in the stomach results in those duodenal ulcers and also in pyloric ulcers and in other regions of the stomach. The condition however, typically turns into a hypochloridia state, as exhaustion sets in which can be anywhere from months to years in some people. The ulcer stays, but the low acid now allows more bacteria to grow there, and so low HCl can lead to bacterial proliferation by that route. There are others, but I'll stop there for now.

I was in the chat room the yesterday, and another member told me that your avatar makes you look like a douchebag. Again, this contributes nothing to the discussion.

And THUS, Talono discredited Paradigm667 once and for all!

'm unsure about your definition of "science." Let me ask you this: Do you have a college degree?

Yes. But that doesn't mean a thing. All that means is you are good at repeating information. If you can't think for yourself it's all useless. All the vastness of knowledge is useless because it becomes STATIC, not DYNAMIC. The difference is the person who possesses it and how they process it.
You, are a STATIC believer of knowledge. I do not think in those fixed terms. Your knowledge is based on: "Lets see what quackwatch.org says I should believe. Let's see what the corrupted medical establishment thinks. Let's see...give me my opinions, someone."

I'd like to know where you got those stats.

I'd like to know why you are unaware of them. Shame on you.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/10/29/medical_system_is_leading_cause_of_death_and_injury_in_us.htm

Unfortunately, it'll be rather difficult to find statistics on that since people tend to use conventional methods in combination with non-coventional methods. I can probably find a few isolated cases of non-conventional methods only, but it'll be difficult to find statistics on a large group of these people. I'll try though.

You go ahead and do that. Let me know when you find out the deaths due to nutritional approaches. You do that.

Evidence?

All meds have side effects of AT THE LEAST liver toxicity. Name one medication that DOESN'T have this side effect. Based on this the longer you are on drugs the more you decline in health. The earlier you are put on them, the worse off you are because you are merely combing the mirror, not addressing root problems only masking symptoms. This is just plain LOGIC. Amazing how you need evidence for logic. You've GOT to be kidding me man.

You're like a troll because you refuse to discuss things civily. If you cannot do that, then please leave.

Ohh? What of your attacks to me? That's civil though right? Because I'm some scumbag, so it's OK to insult me?
Interesting. How about if you can't be civil either, perhaps you ought to leave as well.

Keep dodging my arguments. It just makes you look immature and stupid.

My feet are firmly planted in the ground friend. I'm not dodging anything.

 

[c0nc0rdance]

paradigm667 is a dyed in the wool anti-science advocate. He believes his knowledge to be superior to the scientific world. He believes he possesses special insight not possessed by the rest of us. He believes himself a prophet. Only HIS god is alternative medicine. You are all persecuting his fundamentalist religion, which is why he is responding this way. Doesn't his logic follow like every creationist or religious fundy you have ever debated with?

"You are wrong, I am right. My God (alternative health) says so"

The logic is a series of begging the question and circular logic fallacies. Engaging with him in polite debate allows him to set the rules, and he can spew more unsupported and nonsensical points out than can be refuted with patient, careful examination of the science literature. The only way to debate these fundies is to agree to ground rules in each posting:
"Let's focus just on ..."
"I'm not interested in the 87 reasons you cut and pasted from a website ..."
"How about we only use arguments which are supported by peer-reviewed publications, and give proper citation ..."

He belongs to a subculture that swap misinformation on websites. The "devil" is anything that opposes their religion.
Whether it is:
1. modern medicine, advocating 200 years of the success of vaccinations... they are profiteers.
2. modern science, which has 20 years and 100,000 papers presenting evidence... they are self-deluding.
3. Nobel Prize winning scientists, who discovered H pylori's role in ulcers by swallowing live culture (DO NOT ATTEMPT) thus fulfilling Koch's postulates... they will be ignored.
4. modern agriculture, without which 90% of the planet would starve... they are careless poisoners.
5. modern peer-review, which is specifically how we can tell fact from fiction, they HATE THE MOST! ... peer-review is suppressing their ability to spread their God's message.

The sad truth is that you will have as much success talking people down from a belief in conspiracy theories or alternative health woo as you will a religious fundamentalist. Here's why, and it's not coincidence: They have been purged of doubt. The godhead is all.

That's right, paradigm, and all like him, are TRUE BELIEVERS. Don't get too close, when cornered, they can be violent and abusive. Best to back away slowly.

c0nc0rdance.

 

[ladiesman391]

I have to say I agree with both sides of this argument, I think paradigm's right in that good diet and sanitation have contributed greatly to the decline in disease in western countries, and also with his views on diptheria and iron (that iron levels need to be increased to avoid contracting the illness which can be done through food rather than vaccination), however I also believe there is a place for vaccinations in our modern day society., for example cervical cancer vaccinations.

I'm not against vax but I haven't been vaxed for over 12yrs (because I can't be bothered getting them done, not because of conspiracy theories) yet I have avoided contracting colds and flus year after year (until about 2 months ago when I contracted a bacterial virus on a very very muggy night, at football training, that absolutely f$%ked me and some other teammates up for 3 days until I got hold of some antibiotics). On the other hand my gf, who works in a busy retail store, rarely eats red meat (I eat lots of it and eat healthy) and has a history of poor diet and low iron levels regularly gets sick each year (sometimes quite severely) and her GP always tells her to rest and increase her iron levels, low and behold when she does the color in her face returns and she has a sharp rise in energy levels, the only difference in our lifestyles for the past 5 yrs has been diet and I've remained much healthier than she has.

IMO the less vaxes the better, if we can sustain a healthy society without them surely that would be the main goal. Increasing the standard of living, improving infrastructure and education will yield the best results for a large society (natural prevention is better than man made cure). But as we DO live in a large, complex society vaccinations have their use as they target those with poor hygiene and diet without discriminating (and can also help prevent serious disease as I mentioned above) but I think it's less effective than having better hygiene and diet.

Breastfeeding babies should be the starting point.

I also disagree that vaccinations are only produced for profits.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

IMO the less vaxes the better, if we can sustain a healthy society without them surely that would be the main goal. Increasing the standard of living, improving infrastructure and education will yield the best results for a large society (natural prevention is better than man made cure). But as we DO live in a large, complex society vaccinations have their use as they target those with poor hygiene and diet without discriminating (and can also help prevent serious disease as I mentioned above) but I think it's less effective than having better hygiene and diet.

Breastfeeding babies should be the starting point.

I also disagree that vaccinations are only produced for profits.

You're ignoring the benefits of herd immunity. That's a common thing that people do in relation to many if not all problems. One or two generations after the Great Depression, people started to tear down all the regulations that were enacted specifically because without those regulations economic collapse is inevitable... and look where we are today. By the same token, we're also a couple of generations past big polio, smallpox, measles, and other outbreaks that have been suppressed by vaccination. People who have never dealt with those diseases attack the preventative measures because they don't seem to realize that those measures didn't just poof into existence for no real reason.

 

[ladiesman391]

The "Death by medicine" issue is pretty ridiculous, I'm no expert but even I can determine that people will get sick and seek medical attention, it's no surprise mistakes will be made and people will die, medical attention is no guarantee for survival otherwise we'd all be hundreds of years old by now, but people will die anyway if they don't receive medical attention. Those figures should be compared to how many lives medicine saves each year and how many lives heart disease saves each year and how many lives cancer saves each year....

 

[ladiesman391]

You're ignoring the benefits of herd immunity.

You would get herd immunity if you had a sanitary society.

Vaccinations aim to target what? 98% of the population, imagine if you had 98% of the population eating healthy and being completely sanitary, that would produce herd immunity also....

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You're ignoring the benefits of herd immunity.

You would get herd immunity if you had a sanitary society.

Yeah, and you wouldn't need prisons if people just stopped committing crimes. Plus, you DO realize that diseases targeted by vaccines are caused by microorganisms, not by dirt?

 

[Giliell]

however I also believe there is a place for vaccinations in our modern day society., for example cervical cancer vaccinations.

Funny enough, that's the one vaccination I'm suspicous about.
For several reasons:
First, it seems like it may not have been tested enough for side effects. Those advocating it even admit that, saying that they would not risk withholding a possible precautionary meassure that could save lives for 2 or 3 more years.
Second: The effect hasn't been proven enough to me to spend billions and billions of Euros on it. I don't doubt that the vaccination does exactly as it tells: It gives you imunity against the momentarily two most agressive types of HPV.
Nobody knows what'll happen if those two of dozens of stems are removed and whether other stems will "pick up the role".
Thirdly: The "information" on this issue is so bad and the propaganda so high that my alarms go off.
Especially the claim "vaccination against cancer" is simply a lie. It's a vaccination against two types of HPV that can cause cervical cancer. It does not mean that everybody who has those two types will get cancer neither that being vaccinated means you won't get cervical cancer, but the propaganda sells it as if it did.

I'm not against vax but I haven't been vaxed for over 12yrs (because I can't be bothered getting them done, not because of conspiracy theories) yet I have avoided contracting colds and flus year after year (until about 2 months ago when I contracted a bacterial virus on a very very muggy night, at football training, that absolutely f$%ked me and some other teammates up for 3 days until I got hold of some antibiotics). On the other hand my gf, who works in a busy retail store, rarely eats red meat (I eat lots of it and eat healthy) and has a history of poor diet and low iron levels regularly gets sick each year (sometimes quite severely) and her GP always tells her to rest and increase her iron levels, low and behold when she does the color in her face returns and she has a sharp rise in energy levels, the only difference in our lifestyles for the past 5 yrs has been diet and I've remained much healthier than she has.

Wait, we're not talking about a common cold (if you'd gotten the flu antibiotics wouldn't have worked anyway and where you can't vaccinate against either). We're also not talking excusively about the flu (although flu shots have their merrits, especially if people have a lot of contact with other, especially elderly people). We're talking about polio, diphteria, tetanus, measles, chicken pox, rubella, hip B, hepatitis A and B, meningitis, and a lot of other very dangerous diseases most of us are happily unaware of THANX to vaccination.

IMO the less vaxes the better, if we can sustain a healthy society without them surely that would be the main goal. Increasing the standard of living, improving infrastructure and education will yield the best results for a large society (natural prevention is better than man made cure). But as we DO live in a large, complex society vaccinations have their use as they target those with poor hygiene and diet without discriminating (and can also help prevent serious disease as I mentioned above) but I think it's less effective than having better hygiene and diet.

Ehm, no. These matters are not to be discussed as "either or". Of course a healthy diet, good sanitation and hygene are important, and keeping yourself healthy might reduce your chances of contracting a disease, but saying that only people with bad hygene and such would be at risk from a disease is highly ignorant.
Those most likely to suffer most from an infection are those who are weak. The elderly, children, people with a medical condition. You can give them the best food and hygene in the world, but their imune system is not up to what that of a healthy adult is.
And here's the crucial role of herd imunity:
Those most at risk are also those who most likely cannot be vaccinated. Certain vaccines can be given to kids only at a certain age, but the disease would be most dangerous to them BEFORE that age.
Now, herd immunity greatly slows down the spreading of a disease. A vaccinated kid can't contract measles in Kindergarten and infect its 3 months old sibling at home (unless the kid is a non-responder). And no matter how well fed and well scrubbed that kid is, the risk of getting measles is pretty high.

Breastfeeding babies should be the starting point.

Yes, breastfeeding is good, it also gives babies some resistance against infections, but it cannot prevent them. It's most effective against minor colds, diarreha and such but it will not protect a baby from the measles.


I also disagree that vaccinations are only produced for profits.[/quote]