Some reasons why vaccination should be questioned.

[Spidermama]

This isn't meant to cause a flare up but rather to put wome points across which rarely get aired in the usual run of things....

1. Micro-organisms (bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites) do NOT cause diseases. They aid the cleaning-up process of healing.

1. Most micro-organisms associated with seriuos illnesses live within healthy people without causing any symptoms at all.

1. All so-called infectious diseases are the result of a toxic condition within the organ of the whole body (i.e. dis-ease.) The symptoms relate to the elimination effort by the body to return back to health.

1. Susceptibility to disease depends solely on the state of health of the body, NOT on the exposure to micro-organisms.

1. Natural immunity is not disease-specific; one does not need to have come in touch with all diseases in order to gain immunity against them.

1. The presence of antibodies is NOT an indication of immunity. They are only a small part of the blood immune response.

1. No vaccine containing 'pure' micro-organisms elicits an immune response. Only when a toxin is added to the vaccine does the body respond to it.

1. An unvaccinated child is NOT an unprotected child; it still has its natural immunity. Besides, trying to protect from soemthing that is not the cause is inappropriate.

1. The Lancet (12 Jan 1980) reported that the BCG vaccine, against TB, showed no evidence of protection but rtahter an increase in cases of TB.

10. Government statistics shwo that death rates of ALL infectious diseases have drastically fallen BEFORE the introduction of specific vaccinations. (Smallpox deaths rose by approx 275% immediately after the smallpox vaccination was enforced.)

HOWEVER... if you believe that vaccination gives you protection against infectious diseases, then it should not matter to you whether somebody else has been vaccinated or not.

(Compiled by Patrick Quanten, MD. Independent Health Advisor.)

science is questioning. the parameters and knowledge base shifts constantly.

there is an antigravitational force for eg.

science is nothing more than one way of understanding the world.

Sophable I don't think bundle is being vitriolic, I do think spidermama and others are peddling potentially dangerous bilge.
Sorry but that's the way I see it.

'Vicious and vitriolic'? As someone reading this thread I think that in a bizarre (and offensive) accusation to throw at Bundle. She has not abused anybody, which cannot be said for every post on this thread.

Absolutely, sophable. But science is a self-correcting way to see the world that's saved millions of lives.

Bundle is being silly. I think "vicious" is perhaps not the right word.

I suspect giggling at all this is probably the most sensible response, as I don't think people on opposite sides of this debate have much hope at all of really understanding each other.

Bundle hasn't called anyone 'hysterical' or told them to 'grow up' for example. I admire her patience.

I didn't say spider was a crackpot, nor do I think she is one. but I do think P.Quanten says some very questionable things. where's my vitriol? I haven't been aware of any but if I've been rude (really don't think I have) then I apologise to spidermama.

NQC you are right.

I retract the pumpkin, it was silly. sorry.

i'm sorry if that is a horrendous accusation.

i've just reread the thread and it was an over the top one i agree.

it is the sarcasm that was getting to me.

sorry

as you were.

I think that the likeyhood of Getting the condition may be determined by your state of health. OTOH, sometimes tiy can just be damned unlucky! Once you get it, your immune system may fight it off better than other, you might not. Again, some of this is down to your general heath, but some of it is just luck.

With dome inllnesses , it doesn't matter how good your immune system is, if you develop the disease , you are basically fucked. Rabies being the classic case . One you get rabies, ie if your immune system doesn't do a good enough job, and you develop the condition you are dead.

The Doctors comments were that bacteri etc do not cause diseases. This is total and utter bollocks.

While you can improve your chances of surviving by being, say not malnourised, obese, very old and very young, if you don't get the pathogen, you don't get the illness.

So I am polar opposite to the doctor quoted at the start.

HIV is one of the most undetstood of all viruses BTW, I can google for lots of pictures if you wish

(Some diseases are easiest if you are very young when you get them ... well, polio is, from what I know.)

bundle, being silly is probably sensible. I don't like seeing this sort of stuff posted unchallenged, but as point-by-point sensible detailed arguments (from the ever-patient mb) are going unanswered ...

Agree. Fight fire with fire I say

Do you think we have all these qualms about vaccination because we haven't had a major public health issue involving infectious disease for so long? If (God forbid) the H5N1 virus were to mutate to enable human-to-human transmission, and (God willing) there were a vaccine against that strain, would anyone turn down the vaccine?

so what did you all think when thimerosal was withdrawn?

didn't it make you question the safety of what had been touted as 100% safe if you don't vaccinate you are evil?

in medicine, as in all science, things change all the time. things previously proposed as the best thing since sliced bread are later discovered to be counterproductive or dangerous.

why on earth isn't it possible to see that the same may be true for the immunisation program?

is it that unquestionable? that if you propose an alternative point of view on it you are a nutter?

The thing that really winds me up, in this area and in many others. Ok, fine, let's assume science is full of crap. Fine. It's arbitrary, and you do have to take the word of a lot of people who have a lot of their lives invested in the whole science "industry", in a lot of different ways. And yes, Big Pharma has a lot of power, and has done damage, along with all the good. Fine. Let's take that all as given. Let's be skeptical.

So why on earth should I accept a random webpage from some bloke selling books about ear candles?!!?!?!?!

Seriously, if you're going to be bloody skeptical aboud science, why on earth would you gullibly swallow any old random crap about gems, ear candles, raw food diets, etc etc etc?

Good point NQC

The fact science changes, the fact it moves forward is its best strength. Yes, absolutely, some things doctors are doing now will change in the future. There will be more medical mistakes, hopefully none on the scale of thalidomide, but who knows?

But all this alternative shite is absolutely perfect just as it is? And doesn't need to change? Because god knows there isn't peer reviews sorting all that out!

that's a fair point NQC.

in my case i learned to trust our homeopath who specialises in non-vaccinated and vaccine damaged children (she would argue that most vaccinated children are low level damaged).

i was skeptical. i still am sometimes. but she has really really come up trumps over and over again. as opposed to our gp. so i've learned through experience to trust her.

i still constantly question our decision not to vaccinate. it is an ongoing process of doubt and renewed certainty and doubt.

Edzard Ernst is very interesting on the evidence base of complimentary medicine, nqc, he can't stand all the bunkum either.

NQC, the only point that I have chuckkled in this thread is at the description, now made twice of me as 'ever patient' Dear God, you should have a word with my students!

I think this is a very interesting thread. But if posts are made (on either side of the argument) we should question them rationally.

And FWIW I don't think that vaccination is a holy cow that can never be questioned. But if it is questioned it needs to be done rather better than with Dr Quantens first point that bacteria etc do not cause disease. And point 4 is cobblers as well

I have read some anti-vaccination stuff from Michel Odent that seemed pretty well-reasoned and sensible, fwiw.

Well, you're very patient on here. I'm afraid spidermama's initial post made me want to throw things at the computer or laugh uproariously. Perhaps both.

I really should parp myself off this sort of thread ... not vaccination threads per se, but the whole "anti science" thing ...

NQC- agree.

No, he's not a nutter because he challenges the vaccination programme, he is a nutter because he says totally stupid and proveably wrong things, like 'Micro-organisms (bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites) do NOT cause diseases. They aid the cleaning-up process of healing.' and 'No vaccine containing 'pure' micro-organisms elicits an immune response. Only when a toxin is added to the vaccine does the body respond to it.'

I am wondering why the OP does not respond to any of the points made so well by scientifically qualified posters, eg on how immunisation works and HIV?

(with NQC's pre-3pm posts that is - haven't read the other one yet)

bundle, I am v frustrated by the interaction between science and alternative medicine. From what I see, alternative practitioners often do about a billion times better on bedside manner (which does make a difference), but I wish alternative treatments were tested more often. Particularly herbal ones, as I suspect lots of those work well (although they can be dangerous if misused) but of course there's no money in them, as you can't patent them, so why would Big Pharma care?

The Bad Science guy in the Guardian makes me happy, on the subject of alternative medicine.