Philosophy Discussion Forums

Name some viruses and bacteria supposedly invented by scientists just for profits. Anti biotics and anti-retroviral aren't expensive and are used conservatively, because they develop a resistance to specific antibiotics.

Creative wrote:Etc, etc. etc. There is always some virus and some bacteria, and some vaccine, and some pill, and some doctor to go to. Literally billions of more bacteria, viruses, and diseases that can be created and of course there is always a corresponding pill (albeit expensive) that will "do something". I hope some people will look more deeply into this subject and begin to develop a healthier lifestyle that will prevent diseases and also develop more effective health practices that will treat the actual causes. My family as barely spent a dime on organized medicine in the last 30 years. Lucky ... or smart? Who knows?

How do you account for the near extinction of Polio?

Rederic wrote:How do you account for the near extinction of Polio?

Polio incidences were already going down very quickly prior to the introduction of vaccinations:

http://www.informedchoice.info/polioincidence.gif

Cases actually increased after polio vaccination:

vaxtruth.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploa ... -Polio.jpg

This is a very complicated issue. Not everyone who was exposed to the polio virus actually got polio - whatever polio actually is - there are so many diseases that one can lump into this category. Was the disease simply renamed and diagnosed differently - e.g. MD and all of the other similar diseases? Did we develop better health practices which led to a natural decline in these type of diseases. It is a very complicated topic. It is far too simplistic to draw a direct line from vaccination to whatever the medical community claims it eradicated. And what are the long term effects of all of these vaccinations?

I have taken the time to research this topic in depth and I have arrived at my own conclusions.

Smallpox and polio are the hard proof of the successes of vaccination, distrust in vaccination is a dangerous idea to spread. Remember the whole "MMR vaccine scandal"? A report falsely linked it to autism, and people stopped getting their kids vaccinated.

In the UK a man recently died of measles, a disease the MMR vaccine prevents, and his death is rightly blamed on the mistrust of the vaccination.

I suspect that they were living in a fairly cold environment in North East England. Cold weather weakens the immune system because the body needs to use most of its energy to keep itself warm. I still don't know what their diet was so I can't come to any conclusions until I have this information. But, I suspect they they would be in fairly close proximity to the Chernobyl disaster which occurred in 1986. The fallout from this disaster would have fallen into this region. It usually takes 20-30 years before the bad health effects occur. Because they all died at a similar period, I would suspect that this might have somethivng to do with it but I am only guessing.

Geordie Ross wrote:Smallpox and polio are the hard proof of the successes of vaccination, distrust in vaccination is a dangerous idea to spread.

Even more dangerous is propagation of false information. I have provided some information on the vaccination issue and there is much more available for anyone who is interested. Blind faith in any idea often leads to very unexpected consequences.

In the UK a man recently died of measles, a disease the MMR vaccine prevents, and his death is rightly blamed on the mistrust of the vaccination.

People die all the time from all sorts of problems. Dying in hospitals from incorrect treatment is the third leading cause of accidental death in the U.S.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

Maybe we should start propagating this piece of information along with the death of a single man in the U.K of unknown causes. Maybe the hospital or drugs he took killed him? Maybe?

Creative wrote:
I have already sited many such situations (e.g herpes simplex). [of overwhelming evidence]

No you haven't. You didn't for instance cite a source for any of your supposed knowledge about herpes simplex. You just made assertions. Here for instance is a factsheet about herpes simplex, highly sympathetic to natural remedies, which accepts and assumes that 'Herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections of the skin are caused by one of two viruses (HSV-1 or HSV-2).' (http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/11/2/93.pdf) Are you maintaining that a paper like this is a lie? if so, where is your counter-evidence?

Creative wrote: The statistics are skewed to fit the conclusion. You can always find some bacteria or virus in someone and related it to some disease.

No you can't. Cite a source, any combination of sources - since you said earlier in the thread that you have plenty of sources at your disposal - that provides evidence that statistics have been skewed, by accident or design, in any such study.

Creative wrote: Please read the WHO reports on this issue. They have clearly indicated that lifestyle choices is the by far the biggest cause of disease. This is absolutely nothing to do with germs.

But you mis-read the only source you cited from WHO. Non-communicable diseases do indeed provide the major cause of death, I certainly don't dispute that, and that public health measures have consistently been the major cause in reducing deaths (although that includes vaccination).

That means that communicable diseases cause a 'minor' proportion of deaths. This WHO report from 2002 ('http://www.who.int/infectious-disease-n ... /intro.pdf) says 'According to the latest WHO estimates, infectious diseases caused 14.7 million deaths in 2001,accounting for 26% of global mortality.' How on your theory did these people die? Are you saying they died not from communicable / infectious diseases? If so, what evidence do you have?

Creative wrote: There are no such studies [of vaccinations]. From time to time there are localized problems, even in highly vaccinated populations, at which time health officials merely recommend or require more vaccinations (much to the glee of the pharmaceuticals). Apparently the effects of the vaccination has simply "worn off". There is a ready-made explanation for everything.

What's more, the short-term and long term effects of injected so many vaccinations at such young ages has never been studied.

On the contrary, there have been hundreds of studies of the long-term effects of vaccinations. Here is one such (http://www.vaccines.mil/documents/libra ... ffects.pdf). It quotes: 'These data and the accompanying evaluation of an intensively immunized population provide evidence that no obvious adverse effects resulted from repeated immunization.' Where is your evidence to the contrary?

Creative wrote:
Even more dangerous is propagation of false information. I have provided some information on the vaccination issue and there is much more available for anyone who is interested. Blind faith in any idea often leads to very unexpected consequences.


(Nested quote removed.)


People die all the time from all sorts of problems. Dying in hospitals from incorrect treatment is the third leading cause of accidental death in the U.S.


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

Maybe we should start propagating this piece of information along with the death of a single man in the U.K of unknown causes. Maybe the hospital or drugs he took killed him? Maybe?

I think you're missing the point entirely, he didn't die of hospital drugs, it wasn't an unknown death, he died of measles. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22350001

Mcdoodle wrote:Here for instance is a factsheet about herpes simplex, highly sympathetic to natural remedies, which accepts and assumes that 'Herpes simplex virus (HSV) infections of the skin are caused by one of two viruses (HSV-1 or HSV-2).' (http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/11/2/93.pdf) Are you maintaining that a paper like this is a lie? if so, where is your counter-evidence?

As I have said for the third time, people have one or both of these viruses and exhibit no symptoms. It is not the cause. And as always, if someone has some symptoms, and doesn't test for virus, they will simply rename the disease.

No you can't. Cite a source, any combination of sources - since you said earlier in the thread that you have plenty of sources at your disposal - that provides evidence that statistics have been skewed, by accident or design, in any such study.

Much has been written on this subject, even in medical magazines, on how the medical industry skews data (by simply defining its own variables and criteria) as well as suppress studies that are either no supportive or are detrimental to their goal:

jsonline.com/features/health/drug-resea ... 25848.html

Now, this information is readily available with a simple Google.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ... Id=5325753

"Dr. SCHAFFNER: The early inkling is that, just a little bit, beginning to see some replacement disease due to other strains."

SILBERNER: What's happened is the vaccine has prevented the spread of the seven pneumococcal strains it contains, but it's allowed other strains to grow.

On the contrary, there have been hundreds of studies of the long-term effects of vaccinations.

Please, show me one study where they studied a cohort of vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated babies who received 20 vaccinations over a two year period , and the overall health well-being of the children at the end of 40 years.

Here is one such (http://www.vaccines.mil/documents/libra ... ffects.pdf). It quotes: 'These data and the accompanying evaluation of an intensively immunized population provide evidence that no obvious adverse effects resulted from repeated immunization.' Where is your evidence to the contrary?

These were adult men. It has nothing to do with the childhood vaccination program. This is exactly the kind of skewness that I am talking about. The medical industry substitutes grown men, with fully developed immune systems and already vaccinated as children, for babies. There are no studies as I described, i.e. an actual study of how vaccinations affect babies who are vaccinated in the proscribed manner compared to non-vaccinated babies over their lifespan. Cohorts are available since some religious groups reject vaccinations.

-- Updated May 20th, 2013, 7:19 am to add the following --

Geordie Ross wrote:I think you're missing the point entirely, he didn't die of hospital drugs, it wasn't an unknown death, he died of measles. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22350001

Nope, I think you are missing the point:

"A total of 84 people have been treated in hospital since it began while a post-mortem examination into the death of a man who died while suffering from measles proved inconclusive."

Who cares about vaccination side effects? I mean really... Would you rather be immunised against horrific deadly diseases, or get premature baldness or a vague skin rash? The pros and cons of vaccination aren't on a level playing field, the pros outweigh the cons vastly. Anti vaccination propaganda is not only unfounded, it is potentially dangerous, the MMR scandal is vivid proof of that. Fraudulent research was published and discouraged millions of people not to get the vaccine, its outrageous.

-- Updated May 20th, 2013, 7:27 am to add the following --

Nope, I think you are missing the point:

"A total of 84 people have been treated in hospital since it began while a post-mortem examination into the death of a man who died while suffering from measles proved inconclusive."

Measles has a death rate of 15% in 2011, 158,000 people died of measles world wide, that's around 430 people every day. Mealses vaccination resulted in a 71% decrease in measles deaths between 2000-2011.

The numbers speak for themselves, its conclusive. Vaccines work.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

Geordie Ross wrote:Who cares about vaccination side effects?

Precisely. Who cares? Let's just keep pumping more and more vaccinations into babies who have barely developed their immune systems and whatever happens happens. Maybe something like AIDS or Epstein-Barr or other weird disease, but who cares?

But that doesn't prevent scare tactics such as your posts. Now let's look at an actual measles outbreak and the results:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18445412

"The hospitalisation rate was 15% (71/491), mainly due to fever, patients (26.7%) presented with pneumonitis or pneumonia and two patients presented with encephalitis. There have not been any deaths to date."

Putting this aside, the WHO estimates that the actual death rate in developed countries is less than .1%.

Wow are you seriously saying vaccination causes AIDS? I don't know who has pumped you full of anti vaccine propaganda, but please don't spread it here. Did you read the statistics I posted? This is just statistics for measles, not mumps and rubella. Just measles.

Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available. In 2011, there were 158 000 measles deaths globally – about 430 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour. More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures. Measles vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2011 worldwide. In 2011, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.

Sources, world health organization

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

Geordie Ross wrote:Wow are you seriously saying vaccination causes AIDS?

Nope. But who cares? Right? You have absolutely no idea the ramifications and you don't care. Right?

Also, you left out that the death rate in developed countries is actually less than 1 in a 1000 and in the actual outbreak that I discussed in my post, there were no deaths in over 700 reported cases. Of course, the measles can be so mild there were probably hundreds if not thousands of other cases that were simply never reported.

Honestly, no I don't. The statistics speak for themselves, the benefits massively outweigh the risk of side effects. Basic research would show that, just Google "vaccine efficacy". There really isn't a debate to be had over vaccination, it works.

Putting this aside, the WHO estimates that the actual death rate in developed countries is less than .1%.

Yes that's in developed countries, where vaccination is standardised, and herd immunity is factored in. But you're being very selective with your data, rather dishonest.

Geordie Ross wrote:Honestly, no I don't.

That's obvious. There are plenty of people who do care. Your way of thinking is quite representative of the medical industry.

-- Updated May 20th, 2013, 8:04 am to add the following --

Geordie Ross wrote:Yes that's in developed countries, where vaccination is standardised, and herd immunity is factored in. But you're being very selective with your data, rather dishonest.

This has nothing to do with herd immunity since there is no immunity if someone contracted the measles. It has to do with death rates from people who supposedly have contacted the measles, have been reported, and have been treated. It is estimated at less than .1% ( 1 in a thousand) and in actual situations is zero such as the outbreak in Israel. The outbreak in Ireland may have resulted in one death and that was inconclusive.

The history of measles is quite interesting. You should read up on what parents use to do and how it is was treated. It was not scary at all when I was young. It was considered a way to get out of school.