Your Garage Buy 2 kids' books and save Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer DrThorne DrThorne DrThorne  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Shop Now
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 176-200 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011 4:46:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 14, 2011 10:20:39 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
What these geniuses fail to realize is that our oceans are already infinite dilutions of virtually every substance that has ever existed on the planet. If their theories were correct, then a vial of seawater would cure every single disease known to man, and then some. They hallucinate that the water remembers all of the things that were ever in it. That's frightening, actually: what about all the people who drowned, like the Titanic victims. Does the water have a memory of that? And, if you want to get technical, just think of all the human waste that ends up in the ocean. Logically, sea water is really just a homeopathic solution of human urine. Enjoy your swim and your ocean fish!

What I do wonder about, and have never seen discussed, is what I call "anti-homeopathy." Just for a joke, let's pretend that their theories are correct. Then, it would logically follow that infinite dilutions of some things would cause diseases, just as infinite dilutions of other things would treat them. So if you wanted to harm your neighbor, you could go to an anti-homeopath--sort of like a witch doctor--and find out what infinitely diluted substance would cause, say, rabies, and give your neighbor that infinitely diluted solution. The perfect crime! With anti-homeopathy you could kill people and get away with it, since the police would never be able to recover the weapon, since there would be none. Maybe I could sell my idea to the Mafia.

When people start talking about water "remembering" things, then I say, get some Thorazine. Look at it logically: memory is information. If water is "remembering" anything, it has to be storing that information somewhere. When you remember something, your brain stores that information physically. When your computer "remembers" something, that information is physically stored. Show me where water is supposed to "store" this information. Does each molecule have an assistant that writes down all the information? Does each molecule have a clipboard or briefcase?

Think about it. Take a spoonful of water out of your toilet bowl. Talk to the water, ask it how it is today, ask it where it was yesterday, or the day before. That may sound ridiculous, but there actually exist people who think that water is susceptible to your mental state, i.e., that it behaves differently in the physical world when you think "happy" thoughts than when you think "angry" thoughts. I haven't seen their theories on how many feet away you can be for this "effect" to occur, or how it is alleged to work when different people are all present thinking different types of thoughts.

Ask yourself, does the water remember being in the water pipe in your house? Does it remember being in the city water line? Does it remember being in the water purification plant? Does it remember being in the ground or lake that your city got it from? Does it remember being in a rain cloud? Since the water molecules get all mixed up, do the individual water molecules remember each other, the ones they were next to a minute ago, or what? Considering just the mixing that occurs in solution leads to an impossible amount of "remembering" that would have to be done without adding other substances into the water. Does water molecule #475 in your beaker remember that it was next to molecules #376 and #687 five minutes ago, and that it was next to an atom of lead at 5:32 PM yesterday? That would require a phenomenal amount of information content to be stored in each water molecule. Show me where and how this information is stored, and, even better, show me how it is accessed.

What I am trying to do is to show you how you can reduce such concepts to absurdities by accepting the premise and seeing what its truth would imply. For instance, you would have to ask, is it just the hydrogens that do the remembering, or just the oxygens, or the molecules themselves? And is this some property of just the individual molecule, i.e., if we were to extract a single molecule and place it elsewhere, would that single molecule "remember" anything? Or is this supposed "remembering" a property of some multiple of water molecules? If so, how many? And since they all get mixed up and move around in solution, how does that work? At this point, you should realize the the whole concept is a hallucination, which is why I keep joking about there not being enough Thorazine prescribed in our society.

Posted on Jul 14, 2011 5:03:36 PM PDT
Brian says:
"When you dilute your "medicine" out of that effective range..."

You imply here that you know all there is to know about "effective ranges" of homeopathic preparations. Do you? Really? Care you show us your homeopathic credentials?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011 5:09:40 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
How can there be an effective range of something that contains no molecules of anything besides water or lactose? Duh.

Posted on Jul 14, 2011 5:11:07 PM PDT
Brian says:
"Just for a joke, let's pretend that their theories are correct. "

Yes, it is a joke to switch focus from a real issue here - vaccines, to a non-issue - homeopathy. No one is forcing you or threatening you into using it. And no newborn is given homeopathic preparations.

Now, back to dangers of vaccines.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011 5:27:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 14, 2011 10:24:52 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
You mean back to the danger of non-vaccinating. I have yet to see anyone arguing against vaccination look at the population-based question of, let's take, say, a million people, vaccinate them with vaccine, and another group of a million people, as identical in all respects as we can make it, but don't vaccinate them, and compare the disease results of those two groups over time. That is the only question that public health officials are interested in, and the only question that I find relevant to the issue of whether or not we should vaccinate: what are the odds. Forget about Billybob who thinks that the vaccine caused his tooth decay. Forget Sally down the street who believes that she is "fated" to get this or that disease, and that nothing will prevent it. In only a few cases can we ever know for sure that there was a cause/effect relationship; that's why we have to look at large numbers. When you look at any such group, you have to realize that, no matter what you do, some of them are going to be sick, some of them are going to die. The question we have to determine is whether the administration of a vaccine (or any drug, actually) was causative. Does a particular vaccine result in less disease and fewer fatalities? If there is no difference in the groups, then trash the vaccine or drug or whatever. I am not pro or con all vaccines: I am pro whatever works and con whatever doesn't. If eating cow patties will reduce the incidence of encephalitis, then eat cow patties. I look only at the results.

The incidence of smallpox on earth is now zero. The incidence of polio is zero in most places. Duh. I wonder why. I have never known anyone who contracted tetanus. I wonder why. Duh....And that new vaccine to treat certain cancers--not prevent cancer, but treat cancer that has already appeared--a vaccination that has shown no side effects--I would love to see the anti-vaccinators say, oh, no, we don't want a cure for our cancer, we'd rather die in pain without treatment or undergo some treatment that might have horrible side effects because "everybody knows" that vaccines are evil.

By the way, I am still opposed to the cessation of mandatory smallpox vaccination, simply because of the threat that it might be used as a weapon of bio-terrorism. As late as 1967, WHO reported that the worldwide mortality rate from smallpox was still more than 2 million people in a single year--that was before the final vaccination campaigns had been concluded. The disease was declared eradicated by 1980. Thank God for vaccination, and let us pray that anyone who opposed that effort--or who opposes similar efforts--rot in hell.

Even "modern" medical treatment for smallpox is only supportive at best. One of the two researchers who contracted smallpox via the laboratory died as a result, in 1978, despite the best that "modern" medicine could offer. Today's antivirals might be more effective, but we'll never know, hopefully.

Posted on Jul 14, 2011 5:58:16 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 14, 2011 5:59:05 PM PDT
clb says:
oral polio vaccine can cause polio, true enough.

smallpox vaccine likely only gave immunity for 3 years, researchers were vaccinated every 3 years or so, and nope the smallpox vaccine did not wipe out smallpox. that would be quarantine.

vaccines have more cons then most people realize. no vaccine alone has ever stopped a disease. not smallpox, not polio.
thinking of TB
TB , no vaccine used in USA. why did TB almost disappear from the USA without a vaccine?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011 6:08:29 PM PDT
clb says:
God did not give us vaccines, however Satan did.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011 6:27:34 PM PDT
renee says:
Check and see about a Vaccine Waiver, due to "personal beliefs", or religion, etc. Each state is different. Don't let a big pharma drone just tell you it can't be done. It could just be a form you sign and turn in to the school each new year. Keep your original if it needs to be notorized. Talk to parents, holistic practicioners preferably with their own kids in your own state about this.

School nurses are famous for bullying parents into vaccines when there are other choices.

Posted on Jul 14, 2011 6:40:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 15, 2011 12:04:06 AM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
As with most vaccines, smallpox vaccination effectiveness declines with the length of time since the vaccination. It provides good protection for at least 10 years, and antibodies have been found in the serum of those who were vaccinated in the 40s and 50s. Scientists argue about how much protection that still provides, but it provides some: the presence of the antibodies proves that. I remember having to ask for a revaccination, since it was not on my doctor's to-do list. If it had only been good for three years, we would have been having to have boosters for it every three years all the time that the disease remained a viable threat.

One of the most ironic thing about the elimination of smallpox via vaccination is that, with the elimination of smallpox vaccination, HIV became pandemic, and studies suggest that this correlation is not accidental: immunity conferred by that vaccination seems to also protect against HIV by inhibiting the replication of the HIV virus. See http://news.gmu.edu/articles/2952. So maybe we've had a, at least weakly effective, vaccine against HIV all this time.

And, speaking of correlation in time and the thinking that events might be related, surely, if there is a link between the emergence of AIDS and the discontinuation of smallpox vaccination, might there not be a correlation between the emergence of, say, autism and that discontinuation? There is no evidence whatever to support that idea, only a mere correlation in time, but it would certainly be ironic--and I would laugh my behind off at those who have been believing that autism was caused by a vaccination--if it turned out that smallpox vaccination were proven to be preventive against autism. There is a curious, separate connection between smallpox and HIV, however, unrelated to vaccination. It is theorized that smallpox epidemics having been so widespread and devastating caused a certain genetic change, the CCR5-Δ32 deletion allele, to increase in occurrence, a genetic change that confers resistance to the effects of smallpox, but also some resistance to HIV. There is a fascinating discussion of that at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC299980/.

John Donne said that "any man's death diminishes me for I am a part of mankind." I must say that I am certainly less diminished when such deaths are preventable, so when someone opposed to vaccination contracts the disease that was preventable, I am not overly sympathetic. I don't laugh on their graves, since my sympathy and sorrow is that they didn't have enough sense to get the vaccine: what a waste that humans should die and suffer from something preventable, like from not wearing a seatbelt. On the other hand, maybe it's better for the species in the long run. Only the strong survive.

Posted on Jul 14, 2011 7:41:17 PM PDT
clb says:
death from a vaccine is the only preventable death.

I had a measles shot, got measles anyway, amazingly I still breathe, the measles shot did not save my life, however extra Vit. A during the course of the disease likely did , of course in recent years science has tried to poo poo the use of Vit.A 's usefulness while sick with measles.

if your living anywhere in the world , and your child is malnourished and or suffering from other medical issues, there is no question measles disease is dangerous and can kill. not so much just because of measles , just about any disease could kill a child in poor health, but because the child is already in bad health and therefore suffers greatly when sick with measles.

insert any disease could be a killer, to a child in that state, due to lack of medical attention and proper nutrition, before becoming sick. so lack of medical attention and food kills children, not lack of vaccines.

Vitamin A saves lives in children under two who have measles, the science says so.

there will always be disease, where there is filth, unclean water, poor sanitation, lack of nourishing food, etc, even with the use of vaccines. what saves lives , fixing those conditions which promote disease.

there are no vaccines for almost every disease on the planet. however what is killing kids today, here in the USA is cancer. cancer in children is up. vaccines may play a role there. and independent research, studying the dangers of vaccines is not being done. automobiles must pass more safety tests and no one is forced to buy a car, and one can sue the car manufacturer for damages, not so with vaccines. file first with the government, good luck there.

children in some countries interact with monkeys, children infected with measles can pass measles to monkeys and then monkeys play a role in measles transmission.

I don't hear anyone crying , vaccinate the monkeys!!!!! maybe due to the fact, monkeys are short on $$$$.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011 7:43:06 PM PDT
"death from a vaccine is the only preventable death."

Death from a preventable disease is not a preventable death?

Posted on Jul 14, 2011 8:47:22 PM PDT
For my 2 Cents, I think it goes both ways, I think some Dr's are in it for the benefit of man kind, but that is shrinking, while they may be the majority I feel that most major medical Doctors and medical pharmacies are in it for the money alone. You don't understand what I went through Growing up, But God changed all that. I am drug free after being declared Autistic (Asperger's) and am now fighting the weight that years of Medication helped put on me. Of course, I am going with the more natural route, hCG (Doctor S was one of those doctors I believe is in it for the benefit of man kind)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011 9:42:08 PM PDT
Shaun S Chu says:
Did you consider that maybe your kid is sensitive to pain? Kids cry when stuff hurts. I mean, a tetanus shot is just no fun, and tons of children cry. It's pretty normal.

Did you consider that maybe your three year old was a bit too unruly for school because you sent a THREE YEAR OLD to school? That's a bit young, don't you think? Preschool isn't usually until five, and a lot of kids skip it and head to kindergarten at about 6. A three year old is a toddler for crying out loud. You don't just send them off to school. You can teach them at home in a comfortable, flexible environment, or send them to daycare.

Did you consider that it's pretty messed up to give Ritalin to a toddler? It's like the lovechild of cocaine and amphetamines. Even without the arguments against the existence of ADD/ADHD in children, it's insane parenting to want to drug your children out of hyperactivity without trying some serious discipline and lifestyle changes.

It seems a lot like the problem isn't really with the vaccines or your child. It seems like you don't have any idea how to take care of your child. Shipping off to school bye age 3, giving him Ritalin, and then, when he reacts badly (which is somehow a surprise to you), you pump him full of OTHER crap to "fix" it. Did you even consider sitting down and thinking any of this through, or did you just flip out when your kid wasn't "normal," and "happy?"

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011 9:42:54 PM PDT
clb says:
maybe you missed my point, vaccines do not prevent death, they are not designed to do that. they are designed to prevent a certain disease. which they certainly don't do very well. vaccines fail, and most offer short term immunity at best.

vaccines do not all work in the same may, there is nothing magically about a vaccine in preventing death. that's a falsehood. one can still get sick with the very same disease the vaccine was suppose to protect against. how is that preventing death? death is not preventable due to a vaccine. how does one prove the vaccine saved a life?

other factors in preventing disease and death are more important, which i mentioned earlier.

disease is not preventable via a vaccine alone, other factors must be in play. clean water, children must not be malnourished, carrying parasites, and or have other untreated medical issues if they do, vaccines will likely fail to save these children. they need food not a vaccine.

kids are still dying in the third world and vaccines are not in short supply. however the other factors certainly are lacking in some areas of the world. such as,

clean water, proper medical attention, lack of vitamins, food etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011 10:26:31 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 14, 2011 11:36:33 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
clb, you failed to mention something else that seems to be missing in some areas of the world, i.e., a good scalpel or pair of scissors to use to keep them from reproducing so wildly. There is a "revolutionary" new procedure for vasectomies discussed in a recent Wired, at http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/.

"how does one prove the vaccine saved a life?"--you cannot point to any one person and say that that particular life was "saved" since you don't know who would have contracted the disease without it or who of those would have died.

What you can do is look at large numbers of people. Look at smoking, for example. If you took 10,000 male smokers who just started smoking today, and followed them for their lifetimes, eventually about 1700 of them will develop lung cancer (barring a medical miracle.) You have no idea which ones will do so, or when the cancers are going to occur individually. If you look at 10,000 male non-smokers, and followed them for their lifetimes, only about 130 of them will develop lung cancer. Again, you have no idea in advance which ones will and which ones won't. (There are genetic predispositions, though, such as the presence of the RGS17 gene, that put some individuals more at risk, but genetic testing is not a normal medical test.) And if you look at the 1700 smokers who get lung cancer, you would not be able to tell any of them that their lung cancer was absolutely caused by their smoking: they might have been one of that 130 who would have got it anyway. But it is as certain as that night will follow day that a certain fraction of smokers are going to get lung cancer. We can't say exactly: in one group of 10,000, it might be only 1650. Or it might be 1800. And if we break down the group of smokers into subgroups, the ones who smoke a lot will have a much higher incidence of cancer those who only smoke a little. Yes, there might very well be some smokers who live to be 100 while smoking 3 packs a day and never being ill--individuals who will then be used by some as examples to "prove," to those without minds, that smoking is harmless. And, if you know smokers, you will no doubt discover the common trait of citing all their fellow smokers who don't have lung cancer (yet) as "proof" that the statistic is invalid.

But it is this kind of data that public health officials use to make decisions, such as whether to approve a vaccine or launch an immunization campaign. It's not rocket science: the numbers are difficult to crunch since there are so many confounding factors, but the decision is not difficult. The problem with something like influenza is that nobody has any way of knowing for certain how lethal a new strain is going to turn out to be, and in such cases, they tend to take the paranoid approach--which I approve of--of assuming the worst. And I don't consider trying to protect public health to be "playing God."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 14, 2011 11:15:53 PM PDT
K S says:
You left out the answer to the question, as well: there are procedures in place to report and receive compensation for actual adverse reactions.

That said: Last I checked, ADD/ADHD and autism were actually being suspected as being prenatal, if not genetic, in origins. If vaccines have much to do with it, it actually is most likely a failure of the mother to keep herself current on her shots (or be sufficiently violent towards sources of infection) -- ever checked into why you want to be current in your Rubella shots if you're female, before you get pregnant?

Careful examinations of the epidemiological data on diseases we commonly vaccinate for do place the current decline to the start of vaccinations -- the number of infections in any given year was never a constant, just like some years the flu going around rarely sent anybody to the doctor while in other years you got something like the Spanish Flu which filled graves.

Personally? I know immunology quite well--mostly from a biotechnology perspective, and the application of proteins derived from the HLA region (there's some mutations in that area that, if you have them, will prevent you from getting particular cancers)...the main advice I can give, while not being a doctor:

* Don't get vaccinated while pregnant or sick.
* If you're female, make sure you're current before trying to get pregnant.
* You probably can, if you live in an area where most of the population is vaccinated, choose to be a bit more leisurely about your own child's vaccinations.
* If at all possible, BREASTFEED. As long as you're already immune--you got your basic shots all nicely current, right?--your child will be getting antibodies off of you. Evidence seems to currently favor this also doing a hell of a lot to help ensure that the immune system develops correctly. If it's a problem with your milk and not the baby, check to see if there's a local group that will supply you with breast milk.
* Check the risk groups when considering a vaccine that isn't on the standard list. If you're not in them, don't bother. These consider both the risk of you getting infected and the risk of you/those around you if you do get infected.
* Retrovirii are for life. You never lose them. They will stay in your genes. Even worse, they have been found to be passed down the generations. Yes, it's not impossible for your descendents to suffer from diseases you caught before they got conceived.
* Measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, polio, and chicken pox are all diseases you want to have a shot against. All have very well-tested vaccines available, all have serious consequences.

The whole idea that there's any relationship between vaccines and autism originated from when the first symptoms of autism usually become noticeable--in fact, there's good reason to believe that the actual cause is well before then, as the brain is proving to be vastly more durably designed than we used to think. (Please accept 'any decent recent basic textbook on biological psychology' instead of specific studies.)

Posted on Jul 15, 2011 12:06:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 15, 2011 1:25:08 AM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
I just found my yellow certificate issued by HEW a long time ago. It states, "The International Certificate of Vaccination or Revaccination is an official statement that you are adequately protected against a disease that could be a threat to the United States and other countries. It is second in importance only to the passport in permitting uninterrupted international travel." The certificate was only valid for 3 years when it comes to smallpox, so despite the fact that there was no such revaccination interval domestically, for the purpose of international travel, you had to do so. I was revaccinated against smallpox on 7/31/70 and 6/21/77, so I've had it three times in my life. The ONLY contraindications listed on the form are, "(a) eczema and other forms of chronic dermatitis in the individual or household contact; (b) and[sic] altered state of immunity due to serious disease or drug treatment; (c) pregnancy; and (d) infancy (under one year of age)."

The term "threat to the United States" being applied to infectious diseases certainly makes one think. I imagine that there are some who would consider those who disregard such threats to be enemies of the state.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 3:55:38 AM PDT
Darks says:
"If, by being unvaccinated, you would be more likely to cause injury to another, not intentionally on your part, of course, would that give the state the right to demand that you be vaccinated, or is the control of infectious diseases not anything that the state should be concerned with?"

So this would either be the part where you present evidence that unvaccinated people are more "likely to cause injury to another" than vaccinated individuals, or the part where you admit that such evidence does not exist and that your entire post wasn't even worth the effort I took to read it.

Posted on Jul 15, 2011 5:03:34 AM PDT
I just want to say something about Homeopathy, I do understand that looking at it scientifically it seems shaky, but the fact is I have seen it work. My son has severe eczema, various allergies as well as Autism, when we have used homeopathy for him his eczema disappears. We tried it a few years ago but discontinued it when we became financially strained, and his eczema returned. I started it again this year and once again it has disappeared, he used to have it on all the creases of his body as well as all over the trunk of his body and now his skin is completely normal. How do you explain this as nothing has changed except the fact that we have started up his homeopathy again?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 7:51:32 AM PDT
jennifer says:
Faye I would love to know what homeopathic medication you gave your son . I would like to do the same. Can you email me at skgc1234@gmail.com Thanks

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 8:49:05 AM PDT
DJD says:
I'm not sure what you mean by "stronger" when you are talking about a medicine. Are we talking drug or homeopathy. In homeopathy the effectiveness of a remedy is determined by the patient's need. The strength of the remedy is not in how much of a material substance is contained in the remedy, but its effectiveness at restoring health. For instance, if you are treating someone for allergies maybe an allergic reaction to poison oak, you would probably prescribe an acute remedy of say anacardium in a low potency of 6c, and repeat as needed until relief came. However, this potency has no materially measurable amount of the substance in it. See "hormesis" in toxicology. Now, if the patient were a chronic sufferer of poison oak or had a severe case, I might suggest a higher potency of 30c or higher. This is more diluted, but considered stronger in that it is trying to active the bodies natural healing process more rapidly. If you go higher in potency 200c you are going to effect different levels of the organism which for an acute illness is not required. However, it is possible that even at higher doses relief might not come, especially to a chronic sufferer. In this case, the patient has an underlying blockage preventing the anacardium from taking effect. I would recommend a known remedy to remove such blockage graphite probably in a 30c and follow with anacardium in a 30c.
Because we were dealing with a physical illnesses and its known cause these lower potencies can be very effective. When you start dealing with chronic issues and unknown causes you will probably at some point need higher potencies because they go to deeper levels of healing a patient.
Higher potencies are not materially stronger, they are potentially stronger in their ability to effect the organism kind of like giving a broad spectrum antibiotic rather than a specific antibiotic but not because you don't know what the causative bacteria is because in the case of homeopathy you don't know how invasive in the system the problem originated.

Posted on Jul 15, 2011 8:57:23 AM PDT
DJD says:
I'm not sure what you mean by "stronger" when you are talking about a medicine. Are we talking drug or homeopathy? In homeopathy the effectiveness of a remedy is determined by the patient's need. The strength of the remedy is not in how much of a material substance is contained in the remedy, but its effectiveness at restoring health. For instance, if you are treating someone for allergies maybe an allergic reaction to poison oak, you would probably prescribe an acute remedy of say anacardium in a low potency of 6c, and repeat as needed until relief came. However, this potency has no materially measurable amount of the substance in it. See "hormesis" in toxicology.

Now, if the patient were a chronic sufferer of poison oak or had a severe case, I might suggest a higher potency of 30c or higher. This is more diluted, but considered stronger in that it is trying to activate the bodies natural healing process more rapidly. If you go higher in potency 200c you are going to effect different levels of the organism which for an acute illness is not usually required. However, it is possible that even at higher doses relief might not come, especially to a chronic sufferer. In this case, the patient has an underlying blockage preventing the anacardium from taking effect. I would recommend a known remedy to remove such blockage. I would probably try graphite in a 30c and follow with anacardium in a 30c. Because we were dealing with a physical illness and its known cause these lower potencies can be very effective. When you start dealing with chronic issues and unknown causes you will probably at some point need higher potencies because they go to deeper levels of healing a patient.

Higher potencies are not materially stronger, they are potentially stronger in their ability to effect the organism, kind of like giving a broad spectrum antibiotic rather than a specific antibiotic but, not because you don't know what the causative bacteria is. In the case of homeopathy, with chronic issues you don't know how long the problem has been there. The degree of invasiveness in the system will vary according to each patient.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 11:01:00 AM PDT
The problem is that the threat TODAYis not polio, mumps or measles. It is autism and ADD, and the diagnosis of, and the treatment for. Until they can conclude WHAT the cause of the increase ove the past 10 years is for Autism, then it is understandable to be concerned with the vaccinations. They know it is something environment, but cannot pinpoint it, or combination of ITS. Statistically it is waaay more likely that your child will become autistic then get any of the diseases that we insist children are vaccinated for.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 15, 2011 11:12:19 AM PDT
Actually, the main argument of many anti-vaxers is that vaccines WERE design to prevent death, which is why in the other thread death rates were used to show their alleged uselessness. But I do agree, they primarily prevent disease. But vaccines aren't the primary defense, however they have been proven effective in many situations. It's just the health care system applies them in a blanket manner without paying attention to specific situations.

Posted on Jul 15, 2011 12:00:17 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 15, 2011 12:44:40 PM PDT
Brian says:
"Actually, the main argument of many anti-vaxers is that vaccines WERE design to prevent death"

Actually, my main argument is that there is no way to know what is in those vaccines and even less knowledge about their long term effects. As a matter of fact, there are NO long term studies as to their safety, but plenty of data to support doubts about both their safety and effectiveness. No one knows any of that (their contents and safety), not even doctors and nurses who administer them.

To repeat my previous post: would you board a plane where people did not know what was in their luggage? Probably not. But you would let something in your or your child's bloodstream without knowing full well what it is?

SV40 is a great example of that. To think that it was "just one mistake" is naive at best, and deadly at worst. SV40 is barely a tip of the iceberg. We don't eve know all the possible infections, therefore we cannot just asume that SV40 was the last mistake.
Unfortunately, people have a hard time connecting causes and effects when effects take longer than hours to appear. In addition, very few parents would want to admit their responsibility in making their own child sick by giving them a vaccine, so what we have is a world of silent pandemic, due to feelings of guilt among those parents. Most of those who have a child with ADD or autism or learning disability will admit to having the child vaccinated but would fight to the end that vaccines were NOT the cause, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. It makes them sleep better.

What pro-vaxers argue is POTENTIAL of vaccines not their REALITY: if they were truly and perfectly sterile/clean, if we could really know their contents and long term effects, and if experience proved that they were perfectly safe, then, AND ONLY THEN, they would be a good idea - for some infections. I am thinking rabies and tetanus here, perhaps one or two custom vaccines and not much else.

But with money being more important than human life, I am not holding my breath for that to happen. There is already plenty of evidence of manipulations in that area which can even be observed in posts here
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

Search Customer Discussions