YED Best Books of the Month Amazon Fashion nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Subscribe & Save nav_sap_shop_all_hm_cal Shop now Book House Cleaning SneakyPete SneakyPete SneakyPete  All-New Echo Dot Starting at $89.99 Kindle Oasis Shop Now NYNN
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 7751-7775 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Posted on Feb 18, 2013 4:55:29 PM PST
ParrotSlave says:
C&E News has an interesting article on new ideas for building anti-flu drugs, based on the fact that researchers have identified a site that does not get mutated away when the virus changes (i.e., a site that is "conserved") and where it complexes with antigen-binding fragments of certain antibodies: http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i7/New-Starting-Point-Flu-Drug.html. The research in question is published at http://www.nature.com/nsmb/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nsmb.2500.html. I guess, though, that some would contend that, instead of spending all those resources on studying the molecular biology involved, we should just practice thinking strongly or something, or perhaps find a brand of strong honey instead.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 18, 2013 4:58:24 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 18, 2013 10:25:32 PM PST
ParrotSlave says:
Regarding the accountant, Isaac Golden, and his hallucinations about the supposed efficacy of homeopathic "vaccines," even other homeopaths have distanced themselves. See http://scepticsbook.com/2010/01/21/homeopathy-websites-prosecuted-for-false-advertising/.

Posted on Feb 18, 2013 5:35:09 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 18, 2013 5:41:51 PM PST
And as to other countries supposedly being "far ahead" of the U.S. in embracing homeopathy, it's true there are some places where taxpayers actually have to pay for those who think homeopathy is a good idea. But this is changing (notably in Europe) as resources become more precious and legislators are less willing to waste money on homeopathic nonsense.

"In the UK The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (STC) released a report, Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy, in which they conclude that homeopathy is failed science and should be completely abandoned - no further support in the NHS and no further research."

"Following that the British Medical Association has openly called for an NHS ban on homeopathy, calling the practice "witchcraft."

"Now German politicians are starting to echo the same sentiments."

"Karl Lauterbach, the centre-left Social Democrats' chair on the Bundestag health committee, told German news magazine Der Spiegel that insurers should be "prohibited from paying for homeopathy."

and

"According to Spiegel, Rainer Hess of the Federal Joint Committee for doctors and insurers also characterized the current situation as "extremely unsatisfactory."

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/taking-on-homeopathy-in-germany/

It's hard to reverse bad practices entrenched in government-financed health care, but at least a groundswell seems to be getting under way.
Hard to believe any government health service would waste money _and_ endanger children's lives through such quackery as "homeopathic vaccination".

Note: Isaac Golden, Mr. "Homeoprophylaxis" is based in Australia. Don't these poor folks have enough to contend with Down Under with the likes of Meryl Dorey and the AVN?

http://luckylosing.com/2012/05/28/isaacs-golden-moment/

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 12:38:38 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2013 12:57:47 AM PST
ParrotSlave says:
What an insult to science it is for them to have referred to homeopathy as a failed "science." Referring to it as failed magic, I could see. Or, perhaps, failed hallucinations--I could see that. But failed science? No way.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 9:30:32 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2013 9:31:57 AM PST
DJD says:
Parrotslave, what a good name for someone who just parrots what others say.

The article cited offered no evidence, nor do any of the other inflammatory remarks mentioned in the other references against homeopathy. Just because the "medical establishment" wants to prevent competition and curses and swears that it isn't "real science," do you have to debase yourself. The truth is people like you, Andrew and Michael treat science as if it were a holy person.

Science is not the catch all that you would have it be. You use the word science as if the mere mention of the word meant something tangible--well it doesn't. You can't just say something isn't scientific without indicating how it fails to be scientific. We have discussed at length that your definition of science and, those who are afraid of competition, narrowly define science in order to prevent anything that doesn't meet that narrow definition must be disregarded. Well, science and the scientific method does not provide certainty and it is high time that the ignorant politicians stop pandering to those in the healthcare industry who pay for their re-elections!

Science is a method to eliminate false belief it never did and still does not provide certainty. Therefore, Dr. Golden was correct to state that a small sample size does not give any certainty because even a large sample size does not provide any certainty!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 9:38:58 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 19, 2013 9:41:09 AM PST
In Europe, the vast majority of countries that recognize homeopathy as CAM or as its own entity require it practiced by a licensed medical doctors...unlike in the US where it's possible to get an ND license online and essentially practice under the radar of regulation.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 9:41:15 AM PST
"You can't just say something isn't scientific without indicating how it fails to be scientific."

I can start by saying that if a medical modality has not been through double-blind clinical trials, it has failed to meet basic scientific scrutiny.

Science certainly does not have all the answers, nor have I ever heard anyone claim that it did.

Nor does anyone claim certainty based on sample size. But a statistically-appropriate samle size based on mathematical principals is way better than finding a few people that suit your beliefs and using them as 'proof' homeopathy works.

Posted on Feb 19, 2013 10:18:58 AM PST
"The truth is people like you, Andrew and Michael treat science as if it were a holy person."

Yet another version of "you worship science"/"science is just another religion".

I find evidence on health worthwhile when it has been established through rigorous scientific research and clinical practice. There is nothing "holy" about using your brain to evaluate what others have established through hard work and sound science.

One wonders why people who repeat the mantra "your science is just another form of religion" apparently think it is such a devastating insult.

Why do you hate religion?*

*oddly, such folk are very often religious or devoted to some form of spiritual woo themselves.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 10:27:38 AM PST
Yes, Linda was nothing short of an acolyte fro GNM.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 11:57:24 AM PST
DJD says:
Michael,

"I can start by saying that if a medical modality has not been through double-blind clinical trials, it has failed to meet basic scientific scrutiny."

We have discussed at length the limitations of this "litmus test" you adhere to before recognizing something as legitimate. This "litmus test" ignores too many facts regarding human beings and totally disregards the fact that each human being is unique as is the reason for their health or lack of health. No double blind study is going to address or provide any degree of certainty regarding the efficacy of a product to be effective for everyone. Neither do double blind studies prevent children from being damaged by vaccines!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 12:01:53 PM PST
DJD says:
Andrew, you accept the clinical evidence of non-homeopaths, but you ignore the clinical evidence of practicing homeopaths like Dr. Golden and try to paint him as a quack. That is what the American Medical Establishment does to everyone who poses a threat to their livelihood. Why because more and more Americans are fed up with the failure of a system that is not based in any good theoretical foundation. Most people in the industry are practicing for profit regardless of their inability to heal anyone!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 12:17:18 PM PST
Funny how homeopathy can reverse vaccine damage when 1) vaccine damage is deemed anecdotal in the vast majority of cases in the first place (without bothering to rule out other factors), and 2) introducing more of a damaging substance (even in minute amounts) supposedly gets rid of that substance, despite the fact all of us are exposed to minute amounts of mercury/aluminum/etc simply from our environment - e.g. many homeopathic diet regiments allow tea - LOADED with aluminum.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 8:19:38 PM PST
Not to mention that they continually recommend causing further harm!

Cheers,

John$

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 8:24:25 PM PST
Thanks for that, Mike.

I was mostly referring to what was in the article. I am aware of quite a few folk investigating the bee venom, so much so that I wonder what kind of 'scientific or journalistic' bias kept all insect venom out of the National Geographic article.

Thanks for validating my notion that you and Danni are a team!

Cheers,

John$

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 8:36:30 PM PST
Well said, DJD. In my case I move the line beyond just alcoholism, to nicotine (ism) junk food, medical dependency and synthesised medicines.

Not that I would not bend over to give a cup of water to any person, but just that not being tied to the helping industry by way of my income stream, I don't assume my help will be beneficial to those who don't even walk in the light they already have.

My help is available to anyone (free of charge, especially via these pages! {Please don't ring, as I can ring you if I need further info}) when it comes to them really wanting to get insights into how they can stand on their own two feet and get well, stay well, use honey and enjoy top energy! I consider myself to have been a big help to many folk in my immediate contact, and always I feel satisfied when any person leaves my presence with a book on honey and a pot of the liquid sunshine!

I am happy to leave the world's masses in the kindly care of the WHO.

Cheers,

John$

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 19, 2013 8:49:43 PM PST
DJD, the really big kicker for many of those with a degree in science, is that it gives them the excuse or permission (they think "Authority") to class every idea that springs to their mind as 'Science.' They are especially good at quoting some source somewhere whose generalised conclusions match whatever it is they want to support.

These (lesser?) scientist also assume the authority to debunk any idea they dislike for whatever reason.

Real Scientists, as in honest students of the universe who seek a workable truth for the moment regardless of the past or the future, are quite a different cut of the cloth, and are not often so dogmatic when it comes to assessing or critiquing a new, novel, or controversial idea.

I have often stated that the run of the mill scientists of today are simply the reincarnated souls from the religions and regimes of the past. Maybe you have spotted already my analogy about several in here who I liken to cuckoos in clocks, as they pop out of their box at the appointed hour, announce the same messages they announced yesterday and promptly pop back into their box.

Science is simply a new word to replace one (that was sullied by falsehoods), known as TRUTH.

Cheers,

John$

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 3:43:20 AM PST
"No double blind study is going to address or provide any degree of certainty regarding the efficacy of a product to be effective for everyone."

No, which is why you never hear of a medical treatment that is touted as 100% safe and/or effective.

However, I trust the results of DB studies more than I do anecdotal stories on a web page or youtube videos.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 3:46:23 AM PST
"Thanks for validating my notion that you and Danni are a team!"

Says the man who give kudos to just about anyone, so long as they disagree with said individuals.

And the evidence lie all around us in posts to DJD!

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 3:56:22 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2013 4:11:07 AM PST
"I have often stated that the run of the mill scientists of today are simply the reincarnated souls from the religions and regimes of the past. "

Ah yes! We revisit the oft-stated paradigm that all scientist ever do is regurgitate what some professor taught them is school.

Problem is that in reality we are constantly called to think outside the box. I recently finished a revamp of an assay that was had to be taken off the market that was producing strange results.

It was an assay for a vitamin (so I guess the medical establishment *does* recognize vitamins!?) and the skewed results were regional. Turns out a small percentage of the population produces an antibody to a component in the assay reagents. So a way had to be found to neutralize said antibody in-vitro.

I use this example because the very nature of the it proves that we already know what DJD thinks we do not (that things will not work for everyone in the same way) BUT we can devise ways to make it work the vast majority of the time.

Sorry to disappoint, but feel free to come up with a new paradigm.

Posted on Feb 20, 2013 5:24:20 AM PST
"the fact that each human being is unique as is the reason for their health or lack of health."

This is a classic woo belief (starting from a premise which mainstream medicine recognizes, as it increasingly tailors therapies to fit different genetic profiles), but wildly exaggerating individuality in an attempt to dissuade people from seeking effective treatment.

Our supposed uniqueness is touted as a reason that "pharma drugs don't work", even as believers hype various supplements and "miracle foods" as prevention or cures for a wide range of diseases. If you point out this contradiction, you're told that we must try lots of alternative cures at random until we find one that works for our unique snowflake of a being.

Apparently, believers have lots of money and time to waste experimenting with products that have no evidentiary backing.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 7:05:59 AM PST
"and always I feel satisfied when any person leaves my presence with a book on honey and a pot of the liquid sunshine!"

Of course you do! Because you are profiting from the transaction. But same scenario is "evil" when others do it.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 7:47:16 AM PST
DJD says:
Andrew, you say, "This is a classic woo belief (starting from a premise which mainstream medicine recognizes, as it increasingly tailors therapies to fit different genetic profiles), but wildly exaggerating individuality in an attempt to dissuade people from seeking effective treatment."

Again, limiting human beings to their genetic profile, as if we were only bodies. If we are only the result of our genetic profile, we would have no alternatives we could choose from because we would be pre-programmed to act a specific way. Since, history has demonstrated that not only do we have choice, but that we can change our minds and think differently, then genetics does not trump who we are at our core, what makes us tic and ultimately what determines our health.

Vaccination isn't treatment, and more importantly it isn't effective. Treatment is something provided when a problem exist that you believe you can prevent. However, you don't recognize the cause of disease and ill health, which ultimately is a spiritual problem or a spiritual lesson. The theory behind vaccination is that humans are powerless in the face of disease. That is a false teaching that attempts to convince the masses or use the concept of learned helplessness. You keep telling them they are weak and need that synthetic, mechanized crap or they can't be well or they might die. Well, in the grand scheme of things people need not fear death because it only exist for those who reject eternal life and truth and who live in contradiction to their own human condition in the grand scheme of life.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 8:26:07 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2013 8:27:03 AM PST
"However, you don't recognize the cause of disease and ill health, which ultimately is a spiritual problem or a spiritual lesson."

So those bacteria in your system or damage to an organ is caused by spiritual means? Quid pro quo does everyone have the same spirit? Or there some type of magical measurement invloved?

" The theory behind vaccination is that humans are powerless in the face of disease."

Absolutely false. The theory behind vaccination is that the body is the best thing to fight a disease. Vaccinations are merely an assistance to thte immune system (More proof you have no clue regarding immunology)

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 9:11:02 AM PST
DJD says:
Michael,

The bacteria or agent that results in disease symptoms is a catalyst it is not the cause. Science can only provide answers to how questions. It cannot provide answers to why questions. How a person becomes infected is not the same as why did this person become infected and this person who was right next to him did not.

In reply to an earlier post on Feb 20, 2013 9:31:09 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2013 9:31:40 AM PST
Science does give us the why in many cases, you just choose to ignore it.

"How a person becomes infected is not the same as why did this person become infected and this person who was right next to him did not."

We don't all have cookie-cutter immune system or the same lifetime antigen exposure and AB retention. Virulence of a microbe can and does affect different people differently..this is a fact, not some mystery. Exposure routes differ as well. If you have one person inhaling a sneeze and another rubbing their eye, you can have the exposure difference of a million viruses/bacteria particles or more. One person may already have been exposed to a certain strain and have a considerably built immunity, the other not. This is common sense....not some great spiritual mystery that can only be addressed by homeopathy.
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 18 customers