Customer Discussions > Health forum

Anti Vaccines - Disease by Injection?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 5926-5950 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 6:57:27 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 1:31:15 PM PST
Does this mean people in mental institutions necessarily have VERY little physical illness then? You say they are unlikely to get cancer because their depression is still CA, so this means other conflicts cannot occur? I was meaning NEW conflicts which result from the original problem (i.e. anxiety) causing exponential increases in illness. But if a person can never have more than one shock, that would disprove the question.

As to your family members, does this mean a person could intentionally try to induce mental illness (maybe drink a lot if predisposed to depression or take a lot of mind-altering drugs if predisposed to schizophrenia) and then have carte blanche to do whatever they want with little to no ill health effects for life?

EDIT: Thinking further, this still confuses me. If GNM accounts for "mechanical" illnesses, then why would cigarettes and alcohol not affect them? Aren't nicotine and alcohol poisons??

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 7:26:25 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 8:55:03 AM PST
Spinoza says:
Melinda Warner says:

Since most of my longer posts on this subject haven't been answered (I know they're lengthy!), I have to ask a very straight forward question:

Does Shock A always result in Illness A? What determines if a shock causes a few days of sniffles or a fatal heart attack?

Spinoza says:

That is because we have no idea of what you mean when you use the term "shock" in relation to cancer or disease.

"Shock" is a term used in medicine to denote a very specific condition:

"Circulatory shock, commonly known simply as shock, is a life-threatening medical condition that occurs due to inadequate substrate for aerobic cellular respiration.[1] In the early stages this is generally an inadequate tissue level of oxygen.[2]

The typical signs of shock are low blood pressure, a rapid heartbeat and signs of poor end-organ perfusion or "decompensation/peripheral shut down" (such as low urine output, confusion or loss of consciousness). There are times that a person's blood pressure may remain stable, but may still be in circulatory shock, so it is not always a sign.[3]

Circulatory shock should not be confused with the emotional state of shock, as the two are not related. Circulatory shock is a life-threatening medical emergency and one of the most common causes of death for critically ill people. Shock can have a variety of effects, all with similar outcomes, but all relate to a problem with the body's circulatory system. For example, shock may lead to hypoxemia (a lack of oxygen in arterial blood) or cardiac arrest.[4]

One of the key dangers of shock is that it progresses by a positive feedback mechanism. Once shock begins, it tends to make itself worse. This is why immediate treatment of shock is critical.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_(circulatory)

"Acute stress reaction (also called acute stress disorder, psychological shock, mental shock, or simply shock) is a psychological condition arising in response to a terrifying or traumatic event. It should not be confused with the unrelated circulatory condition of shock, or the concept of shock value.

"Acute stress response" was first described by Walter Cannon in the 1920s as a theory that animals react to threats with a general discharge of the sympathetic nervous system. The response was later recognized as the first stage of a general adaptation syndrome that regulates stress responses among vertebrates and other organisms.

The onset of a stress response is associated with specific physiological actions in the sympathetic nervous system, both directly and indirectly through the release of adrenaline and to a lesser extent noradrenaline from the medulla of the adrenal glands. These catecholamine hormones facilitate immediate physical reactions by triggering increases in heart rate and breathing, constricting blood vessels. An abundance of catecholamines at neuroreceptor sites facilitates reliance on spontaneous or intuitive behaviors often related to combat or escape.

Normally, when a person is in a serene, unstimulated state, the "firing" of neurons in the locus ceruleus is minimal. A novel stimulus, once perceived, is relayed from the sensory cortex of the brain through the thalamus to the brain stem. That route of signaling increases the rate of noradrenergic activity in the locus ceruleus, and the person becomes alert and attentive to the environment.

If a stimulus is perceived as a threat, a more intense and prolonged discharge of the locus ceruleus activates the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system (Thase & Howland, 1995). The activation of the sympathetic nervous system leads to the release of noradrenaline from nerve endings acting on the heart, blood vessels, respiratory centers, and other sites. The ensuing physiological changes constitute a major part of the acute stress response. The other major player in the acute stress response is the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_stress_reaction

Which one do you mean?

There is strong evidence that BOTH circulatory shock AND acute stress reaction, can be a precursor to, a symptom of, or an artifact of, a disease or disease process. That much is demonstrably true, and no one is arguing that it is not.

It is obvious (painfully so; perhaps as painfully so as an actual heart attack?) that circulatory shock can precipitate a myocardial infarction (heart attack). Yes, there is definitely evidence for this. It's extremely common and the major proximal cause of death in the United States.

There is less evidence that an acute stress reaction could precipitate a myocardial infarction, but it is certainly possible that emotional/psychological stress can place stress on the heart muscle and cause cardiac insufficiency, if not cardiac arrest and death.

What is being argued is whether or not either circulatory shock or acute stress syndrome causes, or has something to do with, the etiology of cancer and now, it appears, common colds and upper respiratory infections and/or hay fever (as "sniffles" is a symptom, not a disease, and not a very specific one, and could be symptomatic of anything from a cold to hay fever to a deviated septum).

I can assure you, madam, there is no proven nor established link between either circulatory shock OR acute stress reaction and cancer or common, self-limiting upper respiratory tract infections or allergies to mold, pollen, dust, spores, etc., although a severe attack of asthma CAN precipitate an emotional/psychological crisis in susceptible individuals. It's very frightening when you are unable to breath.

Doctors call it "being afraid of not being able to breath;" the technical term is "fear of asphyxiation and death." It's quite a normal reaction, and can be extremely frightening while occurring.

It is generally not a severe shock, however, and resolves upon administration of inhaled corticosteroids or oxygen.

Feel better now? :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 7:34:30 AM PST
Linda K says: It is very common to hear of someone who has recently retired to suffer a heart attack, particularly men. They feel the territorial loss or even anger when a new, younger guy comes to take over their position...Women typically don't suffer territorial conflicts like men do. BUT once they hit menopause (and basically start losing estrogen, essentially becoming more "male") more and more their risk of heart attack increases as they think & react to situations more like men would."

Okay I just have to say it: there are a lot of icky sexist (and possibly racist) implications in GNM. While I believe there are some basic biological differences in men and women, I do NOT buy into the ludicrous notion that we are essentially two different species.

Men do not feel territorial conflicts because of testosterone! They are upset by things like retiring because men are SOCIALIZED to believe they are the ones who must provide for their families. Being a "man" in our society involves being a strong provider. Suddenly losing a part of your life you've been told makes you a man would be stressful. When it matters SO MUCH for men to be manly and women to be feminine, you better believe a person losing one of those "standard traits" would be stressed.

Likewise, women do not "become male" when they lose estrogen. It is incredibly offensive to suggest a person's femaleness is based solely on her levels of a certain hormone. In fact, it's offensive to say ANY person's gender is dependent on specific hormones. Would you say a man who has bi-lateral orchiectomy has "become female" as a result of the surgery?

While your ideas definitely support a heteronormative and cisgendered society, generalizations like these ignore and marginalize large portions of the population. Instead of telling people what does or does not make them the gender they identify as, how about we encourage people to be happy with being who they so choose?

I'd also like to point out that men typically have LOWER testosterone levels as they age. Why, then, does the incidence of heart attacks increase as men age? Furthermore, women may have less estrogen as they age, but it does not mean they have an increase in testosterone. And the idea that aging causes women to "think like men?" Do you truly believe men have such different thought processes from us? What does this even mean??

Sorry, I have to stop here before I get more angry.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 7:37:26 AM PST
"So why does Hamer feel he has any right to lecture mainstream medicine or the public on a topic he faults them on (pain management in cancer patients, which he claims should NEVER be done, as it interferes with "treatment,") then turn around and fault them for not recognizing the very link between a stressor and a disease he refuses himself to recognize or treat, but which oncologists and pain management specialists do every day at the hospital system I work for?"

Agreed. I was wondering this as well. Pain would of course cause more stress (i.e. "Hey, that hurts worse today, am I getting sicker?!") which I assume would have to halt all healing.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 7:38:37 AM PST
LOL. Sorry for the confusion.

The question is directed at Linda. I'm referring to shocks in the GNM sense, the conflicts that cause disease. :)

Posted on Dec 2, 2012 7:43:11 AM PST
Linda in an earlier post, you said: "Any "quasi-scientistic" ideological theory that tries to tell me that I am just like everyone else or that what affects me on an emotional, psychological, and organ level, should affect the next individual in exactly the same way and to the same degree, is flat-out lying."

Later you stated: "If it has lasted more than 9 months, the healing phase will result in a heart attack that is in 100% of cases fatal."

I really don't understand how GNM isn't doing exactly what you say is wrong with allopathic medicine. You say every male, every time will die if he has a specific problem and tries to fix it. In other words, these men will all have the EXACT same response emotionally, psychologically, and physiologically. How is this different?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 7:51:26 AM PST
Spinoza says:
Melinda Warner says:

Does this mean people in mental institutions necessarily have VERY little physical illness then? You say they are unlikely to get cancer because their depression is still CA, so this means other conflicts cannot occur? I was meaning NEW conflicts which result from the original problem (i.e. anxiety) causing exponential increases in illness. But if a person can never have more than one shock, that would disprove the question.

As to your family members, does this mean a person could intentionally try to induce mental illness (maybe drink a lot if predisposed to depression or take a lot of mind-altering drugs if predisposed to schizophrenia) and then have carte blanche to do whatever they want with little to no ill health effects for life?

Spinoza says:

It's perhaps simply anecdotal, as I have no formal information on the topic, but it seemed to me that the residents of psychiatric facilities I worked at appeared healthier physically, if not psychologically, to me, than patients or residents of hospitals, long-term care facilities, or rehabs. They also took far fewer medications, although they were, of course, prescribed more psychiatric medications.

This could simply be due to the fact that psychiatric facilities are not set up to provide treatment to patients with complex physiological diseases, and most such complicated patients are transferred to appropriate hospital and rehab facilities, where they are treated and stabilized before being sent back to the psychiatric facility.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 7:52:54 AM PST
Spinoza says:
Melinda Warner says:

LOL. Sorry for the confusion.

The question is directed at Linda. I'm referring to shocks in the GNM sense, the conflicts that cause disease. :)

Spinoza says:

My bad, then. Keep calm and carry on. :-)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 7:54:22 AM PST
OMG this is amazing. Thanks for posting! :D

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 7:55:50 AM PST
"This could simply be due to the fact that psychiatric facilities are not set up to provide treatment to patients with complex physiological diseases, and most such complicated patients are transferred to appropriate hospital and rehab facilities, where they are treated and stabilized before being sent back to the psychiatric facility."

Good point! I hadn't considered that. :)

Posted on Dec 2, 2012 8:45:21 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 8:49:53 AM PST
Andrew King says:
Melinda: "If Andrew found 2 quotes from people dismayed by the speech, it must mean EVERYBODY in the autism community was."

This is just another example of reading your own assumptions into what others say. Why should it bother you that many parents of autistic children do not blame vaccines for their children's problems, and do not appreciate the diversion of resources to chase this phantom?

"I can say authoritatively without question that having a child with autism has been my family's single greatest challenge and my own personal greatest challenge. My own opinion is that autism is one of the cruelest conditions that could befall a child or her parents...One thing that we're totally confident about is that Rachel's autism had absolutely nothing to do with the vaccines that she received. Even if we could turn back the clock and do it all over again, I can honestly say that we would still give Rachel her full complement of pediatric vaccines."

"We need a war on autism, not a war on childhood vaccines."

Peter Hotez, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.A.P., father of an autistic child and professor and chair of the Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Tropical Medicine at George Washington University

http://www.vaccinateyourbaby.org/safe/commentary/index.cfm

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 1:01:41 PM PST
So because some people believe that genetics is the only factor causing Autism they have the right to dismiss the concerns of thousands of parents who don't? Mark Blaxill brought the testimonies of over 300 families that do believe that vaccines contributed to their child's Autism, I personally have spoken to many families that feel the same way, should they not have a voice just because some believe it not to be the case?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 1:04:12 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 1:07:48 PM PST
ParrotSlave says:
GNM is not a theory, it is a hypothesis. I could hypothesize that the moon is made of blue cheese, not green cheese. From information available only to me, the existence of which has been suppressed by NASA in order to rationalize more funding, I might have determined that there had been a tiny fragment of blue cheese on Neil Armstrong's space suit, and that that fragment fell off onto the moon, and got diluted in moon dust and then shaken by successive stomping as he and other astronauts bounced on top of it. That diluted fragment got further diluted and vigorously shaken by the vibration of the Apollo spacecraft taking off, and has been getting more and more diluted and shaken year after year by micrometeorite impacts. The result, of course, is that the moon is now a gigantic chunk of homeopathic blue cheese.

The blue cheese theory "can consistently and reproducibly give the SAME explanation for all" lunar geologic questions "with NO exceptions to the rule, NO unexplainable "anomalies" and NO room for erroneous "mistakes of nature"."

Someone without a mind would quote this theory instead of asking the simple question, how do we know what we know?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 1:12:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 1:13:11 PM PST
Andrew King says:
"So because some people believe that genetics is the only factor causing Autism "

Which people are those? Surely not the parents I quoted.

And it's not that people who mistakenly blame vaccines for autism shouldn't have a voice - it's the contention of many parents with autistic children and professionals in the field that the vaccines-cause-autism advocates shouldn't get to dominate and drown out other voices, to the detriment of a highly valuable public health initiative and in the process wasting limited funds that should go to autism services and research into finding and treating autism's true cause.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 1:25:51 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 1:35:09 PM PST
Again with the examples of parents who don't believe autism and vaccines are related. We are well aware they exist, Andrew. I really and truly don't care that these parents don't blame vaccines. Why should they? Autism has many causes. You seem to be implying that unless every parent of an autistic child blames vaccines, there can be no validity to the theory.

You can quote parents unconvinced of the link until you're blue in the face and somebody will be able to counter each example with a parent who IS convinced vaccines caused their child's autism. Do you have a point you're trying to make or are you simply trying to drag this discussion down to an anecdotal level?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 1:56:03 PM PST
Just flagging this conversation for later visits, Linda. I'm a bit unavailable at the moment, but you are doing such a good job of jolting these ivory tower personnel with some simple truths, I worry that I am missing much.

BTW, in my understanding, based in part on an appreciation of the planetary and Universal entities, we are actually the causation of all our own "Accidents." The Edgar Cayce story makes it abundantly clear that all brains (animal included) are in constant communication universally, and that no accident can occur that is not first agreed to by the subconscious mind. Death is not as abhorrent to the subconscious mind as it is to the conscious. Indeed, I may not be able to circumvent all accidents, but their severity for me personally will be in harmony with my own brain functions. By that I mean, a tsunami or meteorite strike, for instance, may take out all and sundry, but I couldn't have been present for that event if my subconscious had not have accepted it.

Indeed, no one or no thing has more responsibility for my health, happiness and longevity, than I do. My forbears certainly shaped the patterns, but I execute the program. Until one accepts that simple fact, he/she must forever be a victim to some extent. The best cures come from facing up to one's own contribution, and rectifying it.

You are so correct about the Western World's `health' culture. In years to come it will be reviled and denigrated even more than we now revile Hitler's eugenics. But alas, it is only the extension of our animal husbandry habits, and is the way things are. Accepting that has been something of a challenge for me.

More later.

John$

Posted on Dec 2, 2012 2:02:23 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 2, 2012 2:05:24 PM PST
Andrew King says:
And another irony meter explodes.

It's not possible to "drag this discussion down to an anecdotal level" - it's pulled down every time someone insists anecdotes are data, that we shouldn't trust science and "I know in my heart" that vaccines did this, that or the other Bad Thing.

The congressional committee hearing on autism (which also heavily featured anecdotes) was brought up by another poster; I quoted people in the autism community who thought it was on the wrong track and hurting their cause.

"You seem to be implying"

Please, enough with falsely imputing opinions to me and other posters with whom you disagree (still waiting for you to back up your assertion that pro-immunization advocates dismiss any concerns about vaccines on the grounds that Wakefield is a fraud).

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 2:08:42 PM PST
Spinoza, you are entirely wrong. You sound like a priest from yesteryear......... "What is killing people is that they have not been baptised......" sort of thing.

If 'the system' is contributing anything at all (basic causation) to any real or manipulated longevity figures, it is only at the expense of living fully and freely. In other words, modern methods are only managing to keep them half alive. In repairing physcial damage from the said accidents, I argee, they are extending many lives beyond what would happen in the animal state, but as far as keeping us healthy, no, they only keep us sedated, subdued and doped out of our true potential. Humans are far closer to being like battery hens than they realize. ........ Kept alive for their eggs at all costs to the quality of their lives and their eggs.

Cheers,

John$

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 2:19:33 PM PST
Darks says:
Who are you to talk? Each time you click the "post" button, another irony meter goes nuclear.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 3:00:13 PM PST
"And it's not that people who mistakenly blame vaccines for autism shouldn't have a voice - it's the contention of many parents with autistic children and professionals in the field that the vaccines-cause-autism advocates shouldn't get to dominate and drown out other voices, to the detriment of a highly valuable public health initiative and in the process wasting limited funds that should go to autism services and research into finding and treating autism's true cause."

Let's look at your statement first you use the word "mistakenly" have you seen their children or their medical records to make the judgement that they are mistaken in thinking vaccines caused their children's Autism? "Wasting limited funds" if these children's vaccines are a contributor to their diagnosis of Autism, then how is this a waste of funds? Must I remind you yet again that they have only looked at the MMR and Thimerosal not all vaccines or combinations or even genetically susceptible subsets. "treating autism's true cause" please refer to my previous sentence.

If a portion of the Autism community wants to stop all talk about vaccines causing Autism then they are effectively silencing the voices of the parents who do believe that vaccines contributed to their children's Autism, there is no other way to look at this.

The fact is that even I do not believe that Autism can be blamed solely on vaccines as there are some cases in unvaccinated children and 90% + of most children would be Autistic but there is definitely some individuals who have been triggered by vaccination in to Autism and these groups deserve to be looked at, especially when the pressure to be vaccinated is getting more and more intense.

How can you expect these families to sacrifice their children for society's belief in vaccination when their children are getting hurt?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 3:02:25 PM PST
"Please, enough with falsely imputing opinions to me and other posters with whom you disagree"

KAPOW!!!! ( I wish I could type a mushroom cloud here)

Posted on Dec 2, 2012 3:24:42 PM PST
Andrew King says:
"If a portion of the Autism community wants to stop all talk about vaccines causing Autism"

Wrong. Here's an example of a parent of an autistic child whose views you are misstating (as quoted earlier):

"Even if vaccines had some influence on a tiny subset of autism cases (which no evidence suggests that they do), would that somehow translate into its being OK for VACCINES to dominate EVERY SINGLE DISCUSSION about autism? Why is it OK for a congressional hearing about the federal response to autism to spend an enormous amount of time talking about vaccines and mercury when of all the possible causatives in this condition, these have been researched to death with nothing to show for it? Why is it OK to talk on the one hand about 1 in 88, over and over, yet not address the very real, existing service and resource needs of those 1 in 88 and the autistic adults, as well? Why have we let a small, loud minority fearmonger their way into hijacking out national discussion about autism?"

This parent (Emily Willingham) says nothing about "silencing" others who blame vaccines - she however does not feel it is right for this minority to dominate discussions about autism, leading to misappropriation of resources badly needed to help those with this disorder.

You may resent her, but please don't misstate her views and those of other parents of autistic children who don't blame vaccines.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 3:32:39 PM PST
"You may resent her, but please don't misstate her views and those of other parents of autistic children who don't blame vaccines."

Hmmm, can you show me where I said I resent her? and just to refresh your memory...

"Please, enough with falsely imputing opinions to me and other posters with whom you disagree"

I wonder if you asked her if she believes the vaccination/Autism link should be talked about at all, what she would say?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 3:42:43 PM PST
If you had watched the video in it's entirety as I did, you would see that panel 2 talked mainly about much needed services especially for the adult Autism community and one panel member said I can't believe that vaccines is still on the table, so I think you will find it quite clear that some people in the Autism community do want the talk about vaccines and Autism to stop. Like I said before if they want to stop talking about vaccines that is fine, but don't try and stop others from doing so.

Another thing to think about is these senators were only bringing the concerns of their constituents to the hearing, they would not be focused on vaccines unless they have had a lot of people coming to them talking about vaccines contributing to their children's Autism.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 2, 2012 4:23:02 PM PST
I know right?? If only there were mushroom cloud emoticons...

Best of all, this is from the man who claims people who disagree with him must be crazy. Wild conjecture about the mental health of other posters? Fair game, but don't you dare explain how you perceive Andrew's words! X-D
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Health forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  227
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jun 17, 2011
Latest post:  Oct 22, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 17 customers

Search Customer Discussions