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.)

"I think it's a very complex issue but imo it is healthy to question what is going on and doctors aren't allowed to do that. "

I don't understand that statement, Socci - who is stopping doctors discussing and questioning?

ah, see I'd had this lent to me by FIL (public health prof), and borrowed this one from a colleague. Both hard to get hold of but both very good, though the second is edgy-making re hanta etc too

god socci. you don't want to take over here do you....i'm tiiiiired and feel like the last of the mohicans!!!

Is that cos you couldn't think of a response to my post sophable

Message withdrawn

nqc, have emailed you as crucial bits of your address missing (unless postman is mindreader)

expat, they're talking about columbus though, 1490's. the italians called it the spanish or french diesease, in japan (via india, africa) it was called manakabassam or the portuguese sickness! the turks called it the Christian Disease..

MrsB, I think I have the second one, at least I have one called The Virus Hunters by the same folk. I'm pretty sure I meant to buy that one, when I bought The Coming Plague instead, which turned out to be much better.

I do have some good stuff on prions as well, and food safety, but not enough on viruses per se.

Wow, anyone who thinks that all medics agree with each other in a blind way should go to an accademic comfirence and see the heated debates that happen there! WoW. the vile , bile and venom that can get churned up when someone posts some new research has to be seen to be believed!

It would made a circumcision/vaccination/holidays in school time debate on MN look like a stroll in the park!

The thought that conventioanl medicine is some monolithic organisation with only one set of ideas is totaly unfoundede.

For what it is worth IIRC 8 of the to 10 prescrived drugs come from plant soutces originally. there is a who area of science devoted to it, Ethnobotany

Message withdrawn

Yes and the WHO is now recommending artemisin as the best treatment and prophylactic for malaria in East Asia
It is based on Chinese herbal mediciane

Message withdrawn

I think doctors are under pressure to save lives and vaccinations are part of that.
Can't see a problem with it myself

(still breathing through my nose sophable)

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

The WHO is pro-vaccination though and they have no political axe to grind. They represent the whole world.

well socci it depends what you mean by "doctors".
the vaccination schedule isn't created by GPs, but it is reached by a process of analysis and research and understanding the statistics by bodies of medical scientists n(and other scientists, who loo at the behaviour of populations etc) using their clinical and scientific judgment.
I would say they are all "doctors" in the broader sense.
of course they are not infallible but I do believe that they are seeking to act in the best interests of the community.

Message withdrawn

actually in conversation with many doctors over the years I have been struck by - on the whole - their scrupulous objectivity and good judgment and above all their professionalism in putting the welfare of their patients first, whether we are talking about GPs or consultants and everyone in between. I just don't recognise these unthinking patsies that vaccinate because of political pressure because they are scared of the consequences.

Message withdrawn

Hmm, I find the picture of a medical profession cowed into not expressing opinions by fear of suffering the same fate as Wakefield quite hard to match with the doctors I know, who tend to be quite bolshie and confident and in most cases (though not all ) have a quite strong sense of integrity and vocation, not to mention that I don't know any doctors who would agree with that version of the Wakefield narrative.... not saying it's not true that there are doctors afraid to speak out etc, but I find it hard to believe - how widespread would you say it is, Socci?

Message withdrawn

(hard to believe it's the norm, I mean, not hard to believe that there a few)

actually I think the Wakefield story has many sides to it, and it certainly isn't some Black Hat, White Hat thing imo. I was particularly disturbed by some of the stuff surrounding threats made in (non) pursuit of the libel case. Wakefield is also capable of exerting pressure to stop things being reported, in not a particularly pleasant or ethical manner.

Message withdrawn

I don't think it's beyond reproach or a sacred cow but it is a bloody great solution to a whole heap of problems.