You are here

Required Immunizations

Dragging this topic into the appropriate forum!!

To bring everyone up to speed:

1) Lots of places are starting to require H1N1 vaccines as well as standard flu shots.
2) When in crowded/confined spaces is this appropriate?
3) Is taking a cue from history justification for these actions?

Can you guys please tell me what you think about Baxter making and distributing Vx infected with avian flu?

I'm just curious if you guys believe it's not true or if you think it doesn't matter or what. Thanks.

0 likes

Can you guys please tell me what you think about Baxter making and distributing Vx infected with avian flu?

I'm just curious if you guys believe it's not true or if you think it doesn't matter or what. Thanks.

Well, it's in the news.

Unfortunately, some people are less detail-oriented than others.  Isn't it awful to have to depend on people?  They're so... human.

It matters.  Clearly, it matters.  However, it supports greater oversight of vaccine manufacturing.  Nothing else.

Obviously, you would rather a lot of people die of preventable diseases for your "liberty."  That's cool.

0 likes

I dunno, when I watched the interview with Jane Burgermeister she seemed to think it couldn't just be a slip-up or oversight.

0 likes

I dunno, when I watched the interview with Jane Burgermeister she seemed to think it couldn't just be a slip-up or oversight.

Well. It looks like you had already made up your mind going into the question.  Why did you even ask?

What would their motive be?  Are they terrorists?

0 likes

I'm just curious about someone from a different point of views opinion.

0 likes

I'm just curious about someone from a different point of views opinion.

On which point?

0 likes

As you can see from my previous post, I was curious what people thought about what Jane Burgermeister has to say about mandatory Vx and the contamination of the H1N1 Vx.

0 likes

hesp, I began reading her evidence report, but it is 134 pages.  I did read section IV about how she thinks swine flu is an artificial virus.  Her argument goes something like (paraphrased): "Scientists have not been able to isolate swine flu in any animal.  It has a unique gene.  Therefore, since we don't know where it came from, it is lab-engineered."  Her logic is just bankrupt.  Furthermore, she links to an article about a WHO investigation that says perhaps the epidemic occurred when some human error allowed certain viruses to escape vaccine production facilities or the like.  This has happened before in history and would not be so outrageous.

In fact, Gibbs, the main scientist she cites, has been quoted as saying "I don’t think it could be a malignant thing.  It’s much more likely that some random thing has put these two viruses together.”

From this reading alone, I think she is intentionally being misleading.  She is making bioterrorism claims, and using people like Gibbs as evidence, when they themselves are in total disagreement with her.  She is taking words and facts totally out of context, and it is very obvious.

So thus far I am not impressed and am inclined to believe she is donning a tinfoil hat. 

Anyway here is the full text: http://www.infowars.com/media/17044769-Evidence-of-the-Use-of-Pandemic-Flu-to-Depopulate-USA.pdf

hesp, which parts have you read?  I may or may not get around to reading the rest but I'm curious what part makes you think her claims are legit.

0 likes

Also, the motive she presents is the following:

"Evidence that an international corporate criminal syndicate,
which has annexed high government office inside the United
States, is intent on carrying out a mass genocide against the
people of the United States by using an artificial (genetic) flu
pandemic virus and a forced vaccination program
to cause mass death and injury and depopulate America in
order to transfer control of the United States
to WHO, the UN and affiliated security forces (UN troops
from countries such as China, Canada, the UK and Mexico
etc)."

I mean, that doesn't even make sense.  She seems a bit loony.

0 likes

As you can see from my previous post, I was curious what people thought about what Jane Burgermeister has to say about mandatory Vx and the contamination of the H1N1 Vx.

Not that this is going to change your opinion at all, but this Burgermeister person seems to be capitalizing on the belief that healthcare should be perfect.  I have no interest in reading her work, but you portray it as: "If it happened, it can't have been a mistake, it must have been an underhanded conspiracy."  This may shock you, but people make mistakes.  It's usually a series of small mistakes that is the most dangerous.

Were you curious?  Your response was that "X said Blah."  Let me tell you something.  A lot of people say a lot of things.  Gee whiz.  Some of those people are wrong, and there are pretty dire consequences.  There was a big "scare" in the 70s/80s that pertussis vaccine was causing encephalopathy.  Turns out it didn't.  You know what happened instead?  A lot of kids died of pertussis, because some countries stopped vaccinating.

I'm going to veer off topic a tiny bit.  The belief that mistakes can't/should never happen in the medical field/pharmaceutical field/etc. is one of the reasons it's unpleasant to practice medicine in the United States today.  Fear of litigation leads to extremely costly defensive medicine.

0 likes

hesp, I began reading her evidence report, but it is 134 pages.  I did read section IV about how she thinks swine flu is an artificial virus.  Her argument goes something like (paraphrased): "Scientists have not been able to isolate swine flu in any animal.  It has a unique gene.  Therefore, since we don't know where it came from, it is lab-engineered."  Her logic is just bankrupt.  Furthermore, she links to an article about a WHO investigation that says perhaps the epidemic occurred when some human error allowed certain viruses to escape vaccine production facilities or the like.  This has happened before in history and would not be so outrageous.

The unique genome is a function of Genetic Shift.  The animals that got H1N1 might already be dead having already passed it on.  Orthomyxoviridae have a genome with 8 segments.  When a cell is co-infected with more than one kind of virus, it can result in repackaging of different segments: Genetic Shift.  It's the generally agreed upon cause of every major flu pandemic (including 1918) in history.

Quote:
In fact, Gibbs, the main scientist she cites, has been quoted as saying "I don’t think it could be a malignant thing.  It’s much more likely that some random thing has put these two viruses together.”

From this reading alone, I think she is intentionally being misleading.  She is making bioterrorism claims, and using people like Gibbs as evidence, when they themselves are in total disagreement with her.  She is taking words and facts totally out of context, and it is very obvious.

So thus far I am not impressed and am inclined to believe she is donning a tinfoil hat. 

Anyway here is the full text: http://www.infowars.com/media/17044769-Evidence-of-the-Use-of-Pandemic-Flu-to-Depopulate-USA.pdf

hesp, which parts have you read?  I may or may not get around to reading the rest but I'm curious what part makes you think her claims are legit.

0 likes

"If it happened, it can't have been a mistake, it must have been an underhanded conspiracy."  

This is exactly the impression I get from reading her text itself.  She is trying to capitalize on the mass fear induced by a flu pandemic itself.   Her evidence is very, very poor.

For instance, Section XI: Evidence of the involvement of President Obama.  "Also, as the pressure increases on Obama to produce a valid Birth certificate, Obama and his international criminal syndicate backers are seeking to accelerate the declaration of a Pandemic Level 6 by WHO to avert the political destablisation of their front man."

Seriously.  She is saying that because Obama went to Mexico and didn't get swine flu, he was secretly vaccinated.  And this means that he is behind the scenes supporting the entire epidemic so as to divert attention from his (non-existent) lack of citizenship.

Yeah, I'm done with you, Ms. Burgermeister.  She's just pulling random events out of her ass and trying to correlate them.

eta:  Yeah exactly, deinekes.  The entire time I was reading that bit, I was thinking, "OK....and?"  We learned about genetic shift in high school biology.  She's spouting on about it like it's some novel idea.

0 likes

I'm not sure of the context of that quote about the "random thing" that put two viruses together (and therefore not malignant)... because the combination of two viruses, like two serotypes of influenza, is exactly what makes it virulent. :/

I was reading some similar stuff on the internet... how H1N1 is about depopulating the US/world, or how it will lead to implanted RFID chips, and one of the points that each of these theories seem to rely on is that the hysteria (whether spread by the media or government) caused by the H1N1 flu will somehow cause this horrible turn of events. But... writing such conspiracy theories is surely causing/spreading hysteria, right?

0 likes

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, fb.  She is probably one of the type who goes on and on about hysteria and unwarranted panic caused by the government, when that is actually what she is causing.  I don't really get it.  Can people not accept that sometimes bad, large-scale events like diseases just happen, and that every bad thing that happens is not premeditated?  And just because the government can't bandage it up right away doesn't mean the government is on the bad side?  It's kind of a bizarre search for some higher meaning when it doesn't really exist and everything is really pretty simple. 

Anyway, she obviously lacks or is choosing to ignore pretty basic virology understandings, and it's probably just as well she was dismissed from her job.  What she did is hugely irresponsible.

0 likes

There are only 3 causes of dis-ease in the body: accumulation of toxins, nutritional deficiencies, and emotional stress. There is nothing else. Aside from physical harm (gun shot wound, car wreck, ect…)

I disagree.  Those 3 can contribute to disease.  However... I refer you to the mnemonic "VINDICATE"

Vascular
Infectious
Neoplasm
Drug
Iatrogenic
Congenital
Anatomic
Trauma
Environmental

Quote:
First and foremost you have to understand that germs do not cause diseases at all period… no matter what those nice people in the white lab coats with those cute titles attached to their names said.

You would have to understand that germs do not and cannot attack healthy tissue. They are scavengers and there only job is to reduce waste (Toxins). This is why your stool is full of them as well as your garbage and sewers. Germs are purifying agents and are beneficial. If they were what you all believe they are they would surely have consumed our skin right before our eyes by now....

This is both true and not true.  Intact healthy skin is one of the best defenses against bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, etc.

You are also correct that the human body is covered in bacteria and yeast.  Candida and staphylococcus epidermidis cover our bodies.  Staphylococcus Aureus colonizes many peoples' nasopharynx along with neisseria meningitidis and streptococcus pneumoniae.  In the bowel, there are bacteroides fragilis, eschericia coli, clostridium difficile, etc.  However, these bacteria and fungi(Candida) have developed commensal relationships with us, and the body has developed tolerogenic processes to reduce the attack on them.

In the gut, there's a great deal of retinoic acid, which increases the production of regulatory T-cells, which dampen the immune response to these bacteria.  The bacteria do quite a bit to help us, e.g.they produce vitamin K.  As long as they stay where they're supposed to stay, then things are all good.

The fact of the matter is that you're splitting all bacteria into either completely good or completely bad.  The reality is that there's a range.

However, the presence of bacteria in an inappropriate place is one of the many causes of disease.  E. Coli in the blood stream is not good.

Quote:
A clean well circulating body has nothing for a germ to infect (decompose)….I myself allow my body time to detox and have not been sick in nearly 4 years and counting…..This is not a coincidence, I understand that when you ingest toxins faster than you release them the body will employ germs to help eliminate the waste.  What I’m trying to say is that the only way the body would create these germs in the body or allow foreign invaders inside the body is if there is a need for cleaning or decomposing waste or dead organic matter….This will happen only when the toxins in the body reach a level that threatens the entire life of the body….Infection is another way of saying the body is trying to avoid suffocatiing in its own waste....

Macrophages ingest apoptotic and necrotic bodies.  While what you say makes some sort of sense, it's not true.

Quote:
Now I have a question to for you….If germs can attack and kill healthy tissues, organs, and organisms, wouldn’t you think we would have all been destroyed by now???? We breathe them in every hour of the day and there are more germs in our body than there are cells.

Absolutely not.  You're splitting.  Not all "germs" are created equal.  Many bacteria are harmless... especially if they stay where they're supposed to stay.

While we have more germs on our bodies than cells, there is a commensal relationship.  Some germs will always produce disease, though.  Shigella is one example.

Some "germs" are good, some "germs" are neutral, some "germs" are bad.

Quote:
Oh by the way, if the world followed the true laws of creation there would be no such thing as a nobel prize….There wouldn’t be a need to continue to claim success for discovering  new diseases (symptoms) that our foolish life styles cause in the first place. As though, giving a symptom a name means you have any real understanding of it.....

None of these diseases can affect or infect a person that keeps a clean well circulating body. As germs only attached themselves to worn out, decaying, or dead tissues and cells. So the cure is in the cause….stop the cause and you have found the cure…..It’s that simple but our egos, ignorance, and fears would never allow us to see it….The germs you speak of are the result not the cause…..This is why some bugs found in one persons gut can cause pain and discomfort and the same bug in another’s wont cause any pain at all…..why because there have to be tissues that need to be decomposed…..

If germs were the cause of disease we would all be victims of one or more germs at all times…..They are every where….

Again with the splitting!  Some of the bacteria have neutral effect!

The fact that we're covered in bacteria and fungi does not disprove that some "germs" cause disease.

"Disease usually results from inconclusive negotiations for symbiosis, an overstepping of the line by one side, a biologic misinterpretation of borders"
-Lewis Thomas, Germs 1974

I'm going respond to this the best I can as it is  late and I'm sleepy....I forget, but I believe you are saying that there are good and bad bacteria/virus'/fungus.....If this is what you are saying this is not true.....They all have the same purpose and that is to break down and decompose waste and worn out cells/tissues in the body......As for the idea that germs can be harmless as long as they don't move to the wrong part of the body is false as well.....I'll give you an example....

According to research H. Pylori  causeS stomach ulcer....however everyone that has the bug present in their stomach doesn't develope stomach ulcers.....The main question we need to ask is not whether an individual who suffers from a ulcer is infected with H. pylori, but why this bacterium is more active or proliferates in some individuals rather than in others......And why does it return after the drug treatment  "cures" it..... In other words, there must be another reason for the ulceration than simply the presence of a particular bacteria that half of the people on this planet share.....Also, this bug remains in the stomach and has nothing to do with moving to the wrong part of the body.... Why would this happen? It only would happen if there is something that needs to be decomposed and removed.....It's the H. Pylori's function like all other germs is to go places where dead, damaged cells and toxins need to be broken down and removed....If you eat too  much food (over eat) not all of i can be digested. The preseence of undigested food in the stomach is a cause of continuous irritation and toxicity.....In addition, certain foods and food combinations are so difficult to digest that they stay in the stomach too long, thereby overstimulating acid secretions. All this damages, weakens or destroys stomach cells. A proliferation of H. pylori bacteria occurs in direct response to the damage caused by inapproprate foods and eating habits....If the cells weren't damaged and the over load of toxins were not present the H. pylori would be "good" although could turn "evil" over time.....The truth is all germs are good we just have a tendency to call them bad when we don't understand them and they can be scary at times.....

Also, no germ has to develope a relationship with the body for it not to kill it or get rid of it..... The body completely understands it's relationship with germs the minute we are born ant that is why it allows germs to infect us as children to help build immunity......

To say that macrophages also remove foreign material doesn't hurt my view it helps it.....just more prooof that the body is capable of getting rid of foreign material as I have already stated....Germs is a specific way just as macrophages is.....so I'm not sure I follow you....

Vascular- This is too easy…..Trans-fat for example is a fat that damages blood vessels and causes the body to attach cholesterol to them to keep the body from releasing blood clots into the blood stream (Think of it as a band-aid). Trans-fats are TOXINS (man made chemicals).

Infectious- This is what I have explained….Infection is the result of the body employing germs to help clean up waste that is now out of control and threatening the life of the body….

Neoplasm- This is the result of toxins that have accumulated in the body to the point that they threaten the life of the entire host. A tumor is created by the body out of self defense from our life style….That’s the real ‘dis-ease’ cause in the body. If toxins begin to accumulate in the breast for instance, the body will create a tumor (additional flesh to absorb the toxins and prolong the life of the cells. You see the tumor stands between the toxins and the cells to continue to allow oxygen and  glucose to the cells. This is why some tumors are not cancerous, however, once the tumor becomes saturated with toxins the tumor and the breast will turn cancerous. This means that they go from aerobic to anaerobic cells….Meaning they go from cells that need oxygen to survive to cells that can survive with little or no oxygen at all…At this point the cells are not only suffocating they are also starving as glucose cannot reach the cells, much like the oxygen.(Toxins are blocking the route) The “cancerous” cells begin to eat the waste to derive glucose, this allows them to survive and remove the waste all at the same time….Cancer is a final rescue mission not a disease.(Sorry so long)

Drug- All man made drugs are toxins and poisonous to the body…..The only place for drugs and surgery are in emergency situations….They can only hinder the healing process in the body otherwise….

Iatrogenic- This is usually caused by the MD providing toxic drugs to stop the bodies healing response….To me this falls into the category of being shot or attacked….Or by surgery of course.....

Congenital-I’m sure you understand that whatever the mom ingest is what the baby ingest….So the same truth still applies….Toxins, nutritional deficiencies, and emotional stress still apply…..

Anatomic- If you are referring to deformity then….If the body doesn’t have the needed fuel (nutrients) to grow it will not….will often be deformed…..

Oh by the way.....no disease is inconclusive....They all have there origins in one of the three causese I noted in my last post.....This is why I have personally seen "patients who had disease that was unexplained by the mecial establishment, but over came the symptoms by clearing congestion in the body and learning to love and except themselves as they are..... when you learn to work with the body as oppose to fight it you will see you don't have to name a disease, you can just take steps to allow the body to heal itself...Once you put it back in the position to do so..... Also the idea of treating each symptom with a different drug is good for business but bad for the patient...When you see leaves dying on a plant, you don water the leaf you would water the root of the problem, so to speak......

Once we learn to trust in the body's wisdom and intelligence to heal itself we will be free from fear. We will then have the courage to work with the body and not against it.....We cannot blame anyone for our illness and we must understand that everything that happens to us is useful, regardless how threatening or painful it may appear to be......

Anyone ready to take that step I will be happy to assist you in any way I can.......

0 likes

I'm going respond to this the best I can as it is  late and I'm sleepy....I forget, but I believe you are saying that there are good and bad bacteria/virus'/fungus.....If this is what you are saying this is not true.....They all have the same purpose and that is to break down and decompose waste and worn out cells/tissues in the body......As for the idea that germs can be harmless as long as they don't move to the wrong part of the body is false as well.....I'll give you an example....

According to research H. Pylori  causeS stomach ulcer....however everyone that has the bug present in their stomach doesn't develope stomach ulcers.....The main question we need to ask is not whether an individual who suffers from a ulcer is infected with H. pylori, but why this bacterium is more active or proliferates in some individuals rather than in others......And why does it return after the drug treatment  "cures" it..... In other words, there must be another reason for the ulceration than simply the presence of a particular bacteria that half of the people on this planet share.....Also, this bug remains in the stomach and has nothing to do with moving to the wrong part of the body.... Why would this happen? It only would happen if there is something that needs to be decomposed and removed.....It's the H. Pylori's function like all other germs is to go places where dead, damaged cells and toxins need to be broken down and removed....If you eat too  much food (over eat) not all of i can be digested. The preseence of undigested food in the stomach is a cause of continuous irritation and toxicity.....In addition, certain foods and food combinations are so difficult to digest that they stay in the stomach too long, thereby overstimulating acid secretions. All this damages, weakens or destroys stomach cells. A proliferation of H. pylori bacteria occurs in direct response to the damage caused by inapproprate foods and eating habits....If the cells weren't damaged and the over load of toxins were not present the H. pylori would be "good" although could turn "evil" over time.....The truth is all germs are good we just have a tendency to call them bad when we don't understand them and they can be scary at times.....

Also, no germ has to develope a relationship with the body for it not to kill it or get rid of it..... The body completely understands it's relationship with germs the minute we are born ant that is why it allows germs to infect us as children to help build immunity......

To say that macrophages also remove foreign material doesn't hurt my view it helps it.....just more prooof that the body is capable of getting rid of foreign material as I have already stated....Germs is a specific way just as macrophages is.....so I'm not sure I follow you....

Well, I wish you well in your efforts to stay healthy.

Quote:
Vascular- This is too easy…..Trans-fat for example is a fat that damages blood vessels and causes the body to attach cholesterol to them to keep the body from releasing blood clots into the blood stream (Think of it as a band-aid). Trans-fats are TOXINS (man made chemicals).

Ridiculous.  Nobody wants to put clots into the blood stream.  In the venous system, this leads to pulmonary embolism, which is often fatal.

The current thinking is that LDL is oxidized and are phagocytosed by macrophages through an interaction with CD36.  The resultant foam cells are unable to move out of the intima of the vessel and there is resultant intimal hyperplasia with the formation of a fibrous and smooth muscle cap over it.  The dome of the atheroma is rough and thrombogenic.

Quote:
Infectious- This is what I have explained….Infection is the result of the body employing germs to help clean up waste that is now out of control and threatening the life of the body….

Well, good luck.

Quote:
Neoplasm- This is the result of toxins that have accumulated in the body to the point that they threaten the life of the entire host. A tumor is created by the body out of self defense from our life style….That’s the real ‘dis-ease’ cause in the body. If toxins begin to accumulate in the breast for instance, the body will create a tumor (additional flesh to absorb the toxins and prolong the life of the cells. You see the tumor stands between the toxins and the cells to continue to allow oxygen and  glucose to the cells. This is why some tumors are not cancerous, however, once the tumor becomes saturated with toxins the tumor and the breast will turn cancerous. This means that they go from aerobic to anaerobic cells….Meaning they go from cells that need oxygen to survive to cells that can survive with little or no oxygen at all…At this point the cells are not only suffocating they are also starving as glucose cannot reach the cells, much like the oxygen.(Toxins are blocking the route) The “cancerous” cells begin to eat the waste to derive glucose, this allows them to survive and remove the waste all at the same time….Cancer is a final rescue mission not a disease.(Sorry so long)

WHAT?!

You scare me, dude.

Quote:
Drug- All man made drugs are toxins and poisonous to the body…..The only place for drugs and surgery are in emergency situations….They can only hinder the healing process in the body otherwise….

Some people are genetically predisposed to high cholesterol, etc.  Look up familial hypercholesterolemia, essential hypertension, etc.

So you're saying when something ACTUALLY does go wrong, medicine and surgery should be used.

Quote:
Iatrogenic- This is usually caused by the MD providing toxic drugs to stop the bodies healing response….To me this falls into the category of being shot or attacked….Or by surgery of course.....

Not sure where you're going with this.  Physicians and surgeons are human.

Quote:
Congenital-I’m sure you understand that whatever the mom ingest is what the baby ingest….So the same truth still applies….Toxins, nutritional deficiencies, and emotional stress still apply…..

While some congenital defects, e.g. spina bifida, can be associated with congenital defects, not all can.  Some are just bad luck.

Heterotaxy in the separation of mitochondria can change the gene-dose effect of a specific mitochondrial disorder.

Inborn errors of metabolism and storage diseases... phenylketonuria, homocysteinuria, maple syrup urine disease, tay-sachs, ceroid lipofuscinosis, wilson's disease, von Gierke's disease, Pompe's disease... none of these fit into your nice little boxes.

Quote:
Anatomic- If you are referring to deformity then….If the body doesn’t have the needed fuel (nutrients) to grow it will not….will often be deformed…..

Oh by the way.....no disease is inconclusive....They all have there origins in one of the three causese I noted in my last post.....This is why I have personally seen "patients who had disease that was unexplained by the mecial establishment, but over came the symptoms by clearing congestion in the body and learning to love and except themselves as they are..... when you learn to work with the body as oppose to fight it you will see you don't have to name a disease, you can just take steps to allow the body to heal itself...Once you put it back in the position to do so..... Also the idea of treating each symptom with a different drug is good for business but bad for the patient...When you see leaves dying on a plant, you don water the leaf you would water the root of the problem, so to speak......

Once we learn to trust in the body's wisdom and intelligence to heal itself we will be free from fear. We will then have the courage to work with the body and not against it.....We cannot blame anyone for our illness and we must understand that everything that happens to us is useful, regardless how threatening or painful it may appear to be......

Anyone ready to take that step I will be happy to assist you in any way I can.......

Would it be great if everyone followed a healthy diet and exercised?  Yes.  That would be a dream world.  However, people would still get sick.  People would still get cancer.  Babies would still get born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome.

Well.  Good luck.

0 likes

H. pylori is not in everyone's stomach. About half of the population has it, and like many bacteria, it is not always pathogenic, and its pathogenicity is increased if certain biological conditions are met. There are many catalysts to ulcers, including use of NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, stress, and possibly acidic food. One of the effect of NSAIDs (well, most of them) is to inhibit mucous secretion in the stomach and increase acid secretion, because they inhibit prostaglandins (which both are part of inflammation and protection of the stomach lining). Glucocorticoids work similarly. When someone is stressed, they have higher levels of endogenous glucocorticoids, like cortisol, which has the same effect as therapeutic glucocorticoids. The conditions in the stomach then predispose it to invasion by H. pylori. Much like taking powerful antibiotics for a long enough time will predipose a person to intestinal colonization by C. difficile. Often, the host has to be compromised in some way for such an infection to occur. It doesn't mean the microbe isn't responsible for the illness experienced, it is just that the illness has many contributing factors.

To say that all germs are nice germs is an oversimplification. Some microbes, sure enough, are beneficial to us in certain environments, so long as the immune system keeps them in check. For instance, it's not exactly a peaceful environment in the intestines among the bacteria and the host cells. Paneth cells in the intestine continually release anti-microbials that kill the commensal bacteria, and there is always some IgA (an antibody) that is being secreted for the same reason. When someone is severely compromised or dies, these protections are no longer in place and the bacteria quickly invade the host tissue, digesting it and causing sepsis (well, assuming they're not dead). Again, it's the microbes that are causing the disease, but the body simply allowed it. Some bacteria are never beneficial - like certain strains of E. coli or C. difficile. With E. coli, it can take simply introducing it to a health GI tract to cause disease. For C. difficile, it needs most of the other bacteria that would normally be the intestines to be gone. But in either case, the host is healthy.

Trans-fats are actually not always man-made. They occur in small quantities naturally; they're just not nearly as common as the cis-forms. If you look up most fat-containing foods on a site like nutritiondata, you'll see they either have a little bit of trans fats (like a cup of canola oil has 0.7g) or the data hasn't been done yet. That's why recommendations for trans-fats is to consume less than 1g per day (or 2% of total fat, or there are other standards), rather than 0. Most anything can be toxic in sufficient quantity, including things that are completely necessary for life, like iron or potassium. (not saying that trans-fats are necessary, just that a lot of people look at "toxicity" like it means lead and radioactivity, rather than just something over the safe limit.

There are many causes of cancer, but ultimately it is the DNA damage/mutation that allows a cell line to survive despite the signals from the body for it to destroy itself. This damage may be caused by a toxin, like a free oxygen radical that destroys a few bases of DNA, altering genes (which might make that cell unresponsive to signals from other cells). Or it could be caused by sunlight, which also damages DNA all the time. Or it could simply be caused by errors by the cell itself, which is why cancer is more common is very active areas of the body that are always replacing cells, such as the colon, or it is more active when something causes the cells to need to replace themselves more often (such as, yeah, a toxic cause, or a persistent infection, or even chronic scratching of the skin). Cancer is not converting toxic derivatives of glucose into glucose - in fact, tumors tend to use up plenty of glucose, which is why many people with active tumors will have hypoglycemia. Sometimes these "toxins" that are a result of lack of oxygen simply require presence of oxygen to convert back to its non-toxic precursor (i.e., lactic acid built up during exercise can convert back to pyruvate), or through circulation it can simply be excreted by the kidneys (other metabolic acids). When tumors cause hypoxia to surrounding tissue, though, the result is necrosis, which can also occur simply be the pressure caused by the tumor. In this case, the immune system is responsible for cleaning up the dead material (toxic stuff or not), generally the neutrophils or macrophages. The materials get broken down and recycled within the cell.

Some drugs are exact versions of what your body is already supposed to be producing. Others mimic the effects, by binding to the same receptors and causing the same reaction. Other inhibit receptors, etc etc... The point is that not all drugs are the same, and some drugs are just like what's in the body. What's more is that plenty of what people eat are just like drugs to the body - caffeine, theobromine (from chocolate), theophylline (from tea), and even those antioxidant supplements. Because you take something in a dry pill form, does that make it bad? And what of toxic plant compounds? The liver is largely what rids the body of toxic compounds/drugs/etc ultimately. But it's not like it can tell where something came from. It sees the active compounds in natural therapies the same as compounds in food the same as drug compounds - it's all waste it has to get rid of, one way or another.

Iatrogenic just means it was caused during treatment. This could mean an infection as a result of contamination during surgery, no drug involved. Or yeah, it could be drugs. It could also be a chiropractor pressing on your back too hard.

I'm not sure if what you're saying about congenital disease you believe applies to anything congenital. What about color blindness? Not really debilitating, but a disease no less. Are you saying that the mom was exposed to a toxin, and denying that there really was a defective gene on the X chromsome that has been passed down through thousands of years? Or that mutations must always have a toxic cause to begin with? The cell's replication machinery makes mistakes pretty frequently in the grand scale of things, but it has ways of editing genes back into normal. Even so, sometimes mutations persist. That might mean cancer, it might mean loss of some sort of function (fertility, color vision, whatnot). But a lot of those mutations will wind up with pretty much no effect - maybe an enzyme has a totally different amino acid then normal, but in a place where it doesn't affect function. Or, a mutation could lead to having red hair rather than, say, blonde. You're life isn't any worse off, so the gene gets passed on. The mutation could be harmful, such as sickle cell anemia (but beneficial if you frequent malaria!), or it could be beneficial (resistance to HIV through the CCR5 gene). Mutations have several causes, and several effects. Nothing in biology is so black and white.

I get that means that sometimes, certain drugs can be very harmful to an individual. Harmful under certain circumstances. The same for bacteria. Or, for some people, a certain treatment might not work, and they find an herb does. Or vice versa. But it doesn't mean drugs are trash, as is surgery and other conventional treatments. What about all the people who take prescriptions or undergo surgery, and they do absolutely great? What about the majority of people who do not suffer deleterious effect from a drug, and benefit from it?

It seems like you (childofzion) see a lot of this stuff as good vs. bad, and very much black and white. But it's never so simple. Nothing ever is.

0 likes

I'm going respond to this the best I can as it is  late and I'm sleepy....I forget, but I believe you are saying that there are good and bad bacteria/virus'/fungus.....If this is what you are saying this is not true.....They all have the same purpose and that is to break down and decompose waste and worn out cells/tissues in the body......As for the idea that germs can be harmless as long as they don't move to the wrong part of the body is false as well.....I'll give you an example....

According to research H. Pylori  causeS stomach ulcer....however everyone that has the bug present in their stomach doesn't develope stomach ulcers.....The main question we need to ask is not whether an individual who suffers from a ulcer is infected with H. pylori, but why this bacterium is more active or proliferates in some individuals rather than in others......And why does it return after the drug treatment  "cures" it..... In other words, there must be another reason for the ulceration than simply the presence of a particular bacteria that half of the people on this planet share.....Also, this bug remains in the stomach and has nothing to do with moving to the wrong part of the body.... Why would this happen? It only would happen if there is something that needs to be decomposed and removed.....It's the H. Pylori's function like all other germs is to go places where dead, damaged cells and toxins need to be broken down and removed....If you eat too  much food (over eat) not all of i can be digested. The preseence of undigested food in the stomach is a cause of continuous irritation and toxicity.....In addition, certain foods and food combinations are so difficult to digest that they stay in the stomach too long, thereby overstimulating acid secretions. All this damages, weakens or destroys stomach cells. A proliferation of H. pylori bacteria occurs in direct response to the damage caused by inapproprate foods and eating habits....If the cells weren't damaged and the over load of toxins were not present the H. pylori would be "good" although could turn "evil" over time.....The truth is all germs are good we just have a tendency to call them bad when we don't understand them and they can be scary at times.....

Also, no germ has to develope a relationship with the body for it not to kill it or get rid of it..... The body completely understands it's relationship with germs the minute we are born ant that is why it allows germs to infect us as children to help build immunity......

To say that macrophages also remove foreign material doesn't hurt my view it helps it.....just more prooof that the body is capable of getting rid of foreign material as I have already stated....Germs is a specific way just as macrophages is.....so I'm not sure I follow you....

Well, I wish you well in your efforts to stay healthy.

Quote:
Vascular- This is too easy…..Trans-fat for example is a fat that damages blood vessels and causes the body to attach cholesterol to them to keep the body from releasing blood clots into the blood stream (Think of it as a band-aid). Trans-fats are TOXINS (man made chemicals).

Ridiculous.  Nobody wants to put clots into the blood stream.  In the venous system, this leads to pulmonary embolism, which is often fatal.

The current thinking is that LDL is oxidized and are phagocytosed by macrophages through an interaction with CD36.  The resultant foam cells are unable to move out of the intima of the vessel and there is resultant intimal hyperplasia with the formation of a fibrous and smooth muscle cap over it.  The dome of the atheroma is rough and thrombogenic.

Quote:
Infectious- This is what I have explained….Infection is the result of the body employing germs to help clean up waste that is now out of control and threatening the life of the body….

Well, good luck.

Quote:
Neoplasm- This is the result of toxins that have accumulated in the body to the point that they threaten the life of the entire host. A tumor is created by the body out of self defense from our life style….That’s the real ‘dis-ease’ cause in the body. If toxins begin to accumulate in the breast for instance, the body will create a tumor (additional flesh to absorb the toxins and prolong the life of the cells. You see the tumor stands between the toxins and the cells to continue to allow oxygen and  glucose to the cells. This is why some tumors are not cancerous, however, once the tumor becomes saturated with toxins the tumor and the breast will turn cancerous. This means that they go from aerobic to anaerobic cells….Meaning they go from cells that need oxygen to survive to cells that can survive with little or no oxygen at all…At this point the cells are not only suffocating they are also starving as glucose cannot reach the cells, much like the oxygen.(Toxins are blocking the route) The “cancerous” cells begin to eat the waste to derive glucose, this allows them to survive and remove the waste all at the same time….Cancer is a final rescue mission not a disease.(Sorry so long)

WHAT?!

You scare me, dude.

Quote:
Drug- All man made drugs are toxins and poisonous to the body…..The only place for drugs and surgery are in emergency situations….They can only hinder the healing process in the body otherwise….

Some people are genetically predisposed to high cholesterol, etc.  Look up familial hypercholesterolemia, essential hypertension, etc.

So you're saying when something ACTUALLY does go wrong, medicine and surgery should be used.

Quote:
Iatrogenic- This is usually caused by the MD providing toxic drugs to stop the bodies healing response….To me this falls into the category of being shot or attacked….Or by surgery of course.....

Not sure where you're going with this.  Physicians and surgeons are human.

Quote:
Congenital-I’m sure you understand that whatever the mom ingest is what the baby ingest….So the same truth still applies….Toxins, nutritional deficiencies, and emotional stress still apply…..

While some congenital defects, e.g. spina bifida, can be associated with congenital defects, not all can.  Some are just bad luck.

Heterotaxy in the separation of mitochondria can change the gene-dose effect of a specific mitochondrial disorder.

Inborn errors of metabolism and storage diseases... phenylketonuria, homocysteinuria, maple syrup urine disease, tay-sachs, ceroid lipofuscinosis, wilson's disease, von Gierke's disease, Pompe's disease... none of these fit into your nice little boxes.

Quote:
Anatomic- If you are referring to deformity then….If the body doesn’t have the needed fuel (nutrients) to grow it will not….will often be deformed…..

Oh by the way.....no disease is inconclusive....They all have there origins in one of the three causese I noted in my last post.....This is why I have personally seen "patients who had disease that was unexplained by the mecial establishment, but over came the symptoms by clearing congestion in the body and learning to love and except themselves as they are..... when you learn to work with the body as oppose to fight it you will see you don't have to name a disease, you can just take steps to allow the body to heal itself...Once you put it back in the position to do so..... Also the idea of treating each symptom with a different drug is good for business but bad for the patient...When you see leaves dying on a plant, you don water the leaf you would water the root of the problem, so to speak......

Once we learn to trust in the body's wisdom and intelligence to heal itself we will be free from fear. We will then have the courage to work with the body and not against it.....We cannot blame anyone for our illness and we must understand that everything that happens to us is useful, regardless how threatening or painful it may appear to be......

Anyone ready to take that step I will be happy to assist you in any way I can.......

Would it be great if everyone followed a healthy diet and exercised?  Yes.  That would be a dream world.  However, people would still get sick.  People would still get cancer.  Babies would still get born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome.

Well.  Good luck.

.As long as you buy into theory that there is no cause and effect for every so called disease.....you will continue to believe that some people have good luck and some have bad luck.....This line of thinking keeps one from not only taking responsibility for their own health but alos hinders the body's ability to heal itself.....As the mind plays a big part in the healing process

Good luck to you....

0 likes

H. pylori is not in everyone's stomach. About half of the population has it, and like many bacteria, it is not always pathogenic, and its pathogenicity is increased if certain biological conditions are met. There are many catalysts to ulcers, including use of NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, stress, and possibly acidic food. One of the effect of NSAIDs (well, most of them) is to inhibit mucous secretion in the stomach and increase acid secretion, because they inhibit prostaglandins (which both are part of inflammation and protection of the stomach lining). Glucocorticoids work similarly. When someone is stressed, they have higher levels of endogenous glucocorticoids, like cortisol, which has the same effect as therapeutic glucocorticoids. The conditions in the stomach then predispose it to invasion by H. pylori. Much like taking powerful antibiotics for a long enough time will predipose a person to intestinal colonization by C. difficile. Often, the host has to be compromised in some way for such an infection to occur. It doesn't mean the microbe isn't responsible for the illness experienced, it is just that the illness has many contributing factors.

To say that all germs are nice germs is an oversimplification. Some microbes, sure enough, are beneficial to us in certain environments, so long as the immune system keeps them in check. For instance, it's not exactly a peaceful environment in the intestines among the bacteria and the host cells. Paneth cells in the intestine continually release anti-microbials that kill the commensal bacteria, and there is always some IgA (an antibody) that is being secreted for the same reason. When someone is severely compromised or dies, these protections are no longer in place and the bacteria quickly invade the host tissue, digesting it and causing sepsis (well, assuming they're not dead). Again, it's the microbes that are causing the disease, but the body simply allowed it. Some bacteria are never beneficial - like certain strains of E. coli or C. difficile. With E. coli, it can take simply introducing it to a health GI tract to cause disease. For C. difficile, it needs most of the other bacteria that would normally be the intestines to be gone. But in either case, the host is healthy.

Trans-fats are actually not always man-made. They occur in small quantities naturally; they're just not nearly as common as the cis-forms. If you look up most fat-containing foods on a site like nutritiondata, you'll see they either have a little bit of trans fats (like a cup of canola oil has 0.7g) or the data hasn't been done yet. That's why recommendations for trans-fats is to consume less than 1g per day (or 2% of total fat, or there are other standards), rather than 0. Most anything can be toxic in sufficient quantity, including things that are completely necessary for life, like iron or potassium. (not saying that trans-fats are necessary, just that a lot of people look at "toxicity" like it means lead and radioactivity, rather than just something over the safe limit.

There are many causes of cancer, but ultimately it is the DNA damage/mutation that allows a cell line to survive despite the signals from the body for it to destroy itself. This damage may be caused by a toxin, like a free oxygen radical that destroys a few bases of DNA, altering genes (which might make that cell unresponsive to signals from other cells). Or it could be caused by sunlight, which also damages DNA all the time. Or it could simply be caused by errors by the cell itself, which is why cancer is more common is very active areas of the body that are always replacing cells, such as the colon, or it is more active when something causes the cells to need to replace themselves more often (such as, yeah, a toxic cause, or a persistent infection, or even chronic scratching of the skin). Cancer is not converting toxic derivatives of glucose into glucose - in fact, tumors tend to use up plenty of glucose, which is why many people with active tumors will have hypoglycemia. Sometimes these "toxins" that are a result of lack of oxygen simply require presence of oxygen to convert back to its non-toxic precursor (i.e., lactic acid built up during exercise can convert back to pyruvate), or through circulation it can simply be excreted by the kidneys (other metabolic acids). When tumors cause hypoxia to surrounding tissue, though, the result is necrosis, which can also occur simply be the pressure caused by the tumor. In this case, the immune system is responsible for cleaning up the dead material (toxic stuff or not), generally the neutrophils or macrophages. The materials get broken down and recycled within the cell.

Some drugs are exact versions of what your body is already supposed to be producing. Others mimic the effects, by binding to the same receptors and causing the same reaction. Other inhibit receptors, etc etc... The point is that not all drugs are the same, and some drugs are just like what's in the body. What's more is that plenty of what people eat are just like drugs to the body - caffeine, theobromine (from chocolate), theophylline (from tea), and even those antioxidant supplements. Because you take something in a dry pill form, does that make it bad? And what of toxic plant compounds? The liver is largely what rids the body of toxic compounds/drugs/etc ultimately. But it's not like it can tell where something came from. It sees the active compounds in natural therapies the same as compounds in food the same as drug compounds - it's all waste it has to get rid of, one way or another.

Iatrogenic just means it was caused during treatment. This could mean an infection as a result of contamination during surgery, no drug involved. Or yeah, it could be drugs. It could also be a chiropractor pressing on your back too hard.

I'm not sure if what you're saying about congenital disease you believe applies to anything congenital. What about color blindness? Not really debilitating, but a disease no less. Are you saying that the mom was exposed to a toxin, and denying that there really was a defective gene on the X chromsome that has been passed down through thousands of years? Or that mutations must always have a toxic cause to begin with? The cell's replication machinery makes mistakes pretty frequently in the grand scale of things, but it has ways of editing genes back into normal. Even so, sometimes mutations persist. That might mean cancer, it might mean loss of some sort of function (fertility, color vision, whatnot). But a lot of those mutations will wind up with pretty much no effect - maybe an enzyme has a totally different amino acid then normal, but in a place where it doesn't affect function. Or, a mutation could lead to having red hair rather than, say, blonde. You're life isn't any worse off, so the gene gets passed on. The mutation could be harmful, such as sickle cell anemia (but beneficial if you frequent malaria!), or it could be beneficial (resistance to HIV through the CCR5 gene). Mutations have several causes, and several effects. Nothing in biology is so black and white.

I get that means that sometimes, certain drugs can be very harmful to an individual. Harmful under certain circumstances. The same for bacteria. Or, for some people, a certain treatment might not work, and they find an herb does. Or vice versa. But it doesn't mean drugs are trash, as is surgery and other conventional treatments. What about all the people who take prescriptions or undergo surgery, and they do absolutely great? What about the majority of people who do not suffer deleterious effect from a drug, and benefit from it?

It seems like you (childofzion) see a lot of this stuff as good vs. bad, and very much black and white. But it's never so simple. Nothing ever is.

I never said that H. pylori was in everyone’s stomach…You completely missed my point….I said that all germs are good as they serve their purpose only when we provide them with an environment to do just that(it can be avoided with a balanced lifestyle)….Everything you’re pointing out about stomach illness is all caused by an imbalanced lifestyle….Whether it be stress, antibiotics, eating foods that should not be mixed together (like steak and potatoes for instance, one requires alkaline secretions and the other requires acidic secretions for digestion, they cancel each other out causing the body to over produce acid damaging the stomach causing ulcers), or taking toxic drugs (medicine)….This can all be avoided by living a balanced lifestyle….Disease is not natural it’s just normal because most live an imbalanced lifestyle…..

All I can say is that we agree to disagree….The body has anti cancer drugs and anti bacterial/fungus/viral drugs that it can secrete whenever it needs…If it doesn’t do this it’s in the body’s best interest and for a reason…..It looked like you said the body allowed the microbes to proceed with the infection…..If that is what you’re saying, then yes we agree and that’s only because of the internal pollution in the body….Once the pollution is removed the infection will cease….Has your Doctor ever told you to let a virus run its course? What do you think causes it to go away….You think it gets full and doesn’t want to eat any longer…Or do you think the body was weak enough to be invaded but somehow became strong enough during the infection to fight it off?

Yes, too much of a healthy thing can be bad….but not like too much of an unhealthy thing…..The difference can mean life or death….

There is only one cause of cancer….That is congestion in the body….I don’t know if you are aware of this but the body is continually turning over the cells of the entire body….In about 2 years time the cells you have today will no longer be there…If there is damage to a gene it will simply be turned over and replaced with a new one(like all other cells that are damaged, you should begin to ask yourself why all other cells and genes that are damaged are turned over and those that turn cancerous are not) The reason has nothing to do with the Sun….I can’t believe that people would even buy that craziness….Cancerous cells do not eat up glucose, they can’t get glucose anymore than the normal cell could because the toxins are blocking absorption….If it’s not toxic there is no need to clean it…

All I can say is if you believe that what is created in nature can be duplicated in a laboratory….Is good luck with that….Let me know how far that gets you….I guess you don’t believe the body can tell the difference from plant based vitamins and the synthetics you buy at the vitamin shop….Geez….You can’t just believe what they tell you because they wear a nice white lab coat….If these chemicals were truly the same….Every single one of them would not cause some sort of damage to the body…..

There are no defective genes….Genes only follow orders from the body and their environment…You have been lied to and led to believe that the body makes mistakes and that health is all a big roll of the dice….It’s a lie….

Let me be clear again, in emergency situations drugs and surgery are a great addition and can be very beneficial, however, drugs nor surgery are any good for preventive measures and should not be used to prevent the body’s own healing actions(what you call sickness)….And these people that you speak of that do so well on these drugs, pay them a visit after prolonged use of any of the drugs and you may change your mind…

All I can say is that health is not as complicated as you believe(very simple actually)….as long as you believe this way you will believe everything from the sun causes cancer to man made chemicals are identical to the natural ones put here by our creator….And you will surely have what you believe….

Good luck to you too….

0 likes

There is only one cause of cancer….That is congestion in the body….I don’t know if you are aware of this but the body is continually turning over the cells of the entire body….In about 2 years time the cells you have today will no longer be there…If there is damage to a gene it will simply be turned over and replaced with a new one(like all other cells that are damaged, you should begin to ask yourself why all other cells and genes that are damaged are turned over and those that turn cancerous are not) The reason has nothing to do with the Sun….I can’t believe that people would even buy that craziness….Cancerous cells do not eat up glucose, they can’t get glucose anymore than the normal cell could because the toxins are blocking absorption….If it’s not toxic there is no need to clean it…

All I can say is if you believe that what is created in nature can be duplicated in a laboratory….Is good luck with that….Let me know how far that gets you….I guess you don’t believe the body can tell the difference from plant based vitamins and the synthetics you buy at the vitamin shop….Geez….You can’t just believe what they tell you because they wear a nice white lab coat….If these chemicals were truly the same….Every single one of them would not cause some sort of damage to the body…..

There are no defective genes….Genes only follow orders from the body and their environment…You have been lied to and led to believe that the body makes mistakes and that health is all a big roll of the dice….It’s a lie….

Yes, some bacteria are totally neutral or even beneficial, until the body is weakened. Some aren't ever beneficial.

Yes, I am aware of cell turnover. But these new cells don't magically arise. They arise through the mitosis of older cells (though many cells also die, so there's a balance there). Therefore, those new cells (ideally) have the same genes as the older cell. Though the genes are made with newer materials, with one out of the two strands being new, it is the same "information" (or molecular sequence), so genes are not actually turned over. However, when the cell is duplicating its genes for the purpose of dividing, the cell can make errors (although rare), which may alter some genes (or it could have no effect). Some things cause DNA to change through damaging it (and the cell  may or may not be able to repair it), and that can be free radicals or other carcinogens. And yeah, UVB radiation will cause that in skin cells, as will many other forms of radiation. The atmosphere filters out a lot of harmful radiation coming from the sun, but UVB is not filtered out.

What fuel do cancerous cells run on? Cells need *something* to maintain themselves, and more to grow, which is exactly what cancer does. People with active cancer will have hypoglycemia, despite eating normally and having no prior history. Also, even if these people eat the amount of nutrients per day that they apparently need to stay the same weight, they will still continue to lose weight. The tumor has a pretty high metabolic demand, so it's basically stealing nutrients from the rest of the body. And the easiest and best thing for a cell to run on is... glucose.

If you isolate a vitamin from a fruit, determine its structure and composition, and see that it is the same as synthetic vitamin C, are they not the same? That's not to say that eating a whole fruit will have the same effects as the tablet... something as basic as the pH of the fruit can enhance the absorption of the vitamin, and the fruit probably contains other beneficial antioxidants. On the other hand, some plants have chemicals that can inhibit the absorption of their nutrients, like spinach that contains oxalates that prevent you from getting the calcium in spinach. In that case, maybe it's better to take a calcium supplement (if it's specifically calcium you're looking for, and not all the other things in spinach), or at least another high-Ca vegetable without oxalates.

I'm not saying that individual health is completely by chance, or that good nutrition and lifestyle has no effect. But while environment has an effect, the inherent makeup of one's body also effects disease processes and the likelihood of many diseases, and that's in the genes. Maybe there are no "bad" genes, but there are nonfunctional ones, or ones that transcribe a protein that isn't as effective as it would normally be. And yeah, in some cases a single gene leads to a detrimental defect, like sickle cell disease.

To say that it's these people in white coats lying to you, as though there's some conspiracy en masse about science... is to invest a lot of power, intelligence, and competence to regular people who just like science. I get that some people think their doctor knows absolutely everything about everything, but to believe that scientists are somehow deceiving the general public about many basic sciences and lab equipment and research is also a little far-fetched and lends too much authority to the individuals wearing those coats. They study science, try to figure out what's true and what's not, and make sure by repeating experiments. Independent labs repeat these experiments. Are they all in on it? How much effort and organization would that take? Wouldn't it just be easier to go ahead and claim that some natural things cure disease, and then invest in that if it's all about money? Or if they're so powerful, change the law that allows them to patent natural products and make their money that way?

I know some people who immediately assume natural, holistic cures don't work and couldn't work. And I know some people who immediately assume they will, no matter what they are. Some of either kind of person are doctors. Seriously, these are just individuals who truly believe what they're telling you. I can't say the same for some pharmaceutical companies who don't think there are as many adverse effects to their drugs as there really are when they release the drug into the market, but as those adverse effects are reported, it becomes known to the medical community. In other words, doctors should be aware of the potential harmful effects of the drugs they're prescribing, and the signs. They (shouldn't be) aren't blindly prescribing, and don't choose a drug name out of a hat.

There has been some research with natural cures, with mixed results. Some things, like St John's wort, do have their claimed effects, and have been shown to even outperform their synthetic competitors (in that case, anti-depressants). This is shown by the same scientists that "lie" about other things. Other cures or conventional wisdom, not so much. Like taking megadoses of vitamin C while already sick, and (I believe) echinacea. But they're aren't a whole lot of those studies, probably because there's no money in it, sadly. It would be one of the benefits regulating herbal supplements, but then the downside is the subsequent cost of those supplements. Either way, it's a mixed bag; some things may work, others may not. But at least synthetic drugs are tested, and there's data about how much is toxic, side effects, how many people it works in, etc. With many natural remedies, there's no such information. With some others, you might have information about how much is toxic, but not how or if it actually works. How do we know the people marketing these things aren't also lying to us? They have no reliable evidence to show their products work.

The point is, the scientific community tries to see if therapies work, how well, when it's dangerous, etc. If they find a drug that is pretty safe, has few adverse effects, and does a really good job and preventing cancer of all kinds, would it still be harmful in your views? I can see why someone might oppose it, if the same effects can be achieved by having a healthy lifestyle, and otherwise unhealthy people are using it as a crutch. But when it comes down to it, drugs and foods are all mixtures of chemical compounds, and your body doesn't exactly sort them into different piles because all the drugs are "bad" and all the foods are "good."

It's not that I believe all these things are inconceivably complicated, but it's just that you are oversimplifying everything. Like, lets say most colon cancers are preventable by eating more fiber. That doesn't mean all cancers can be prevented indefinitely by diet. Or that somehow, little kids who get leukemia somehow got a lot more toxins in their system than other kids, and it has nothing to do with genetics. That being said, people with genetic problems really have toxic problems, because, though people with down's syndrome have an extra 21st chromosome, that's irrelevant because genetics don't have a whole lot to do with some diseases, so it's obviously got to be toxins here too. I think that you, instead, are the one who needs more education on this. It's a cop out to say that reading scientific/medical information is pointless because it's written by the people who are wrong about all this; it's the best we actually know to date. That's like saying I have a feeling Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong, but I'm not doing to study math to disprove it because many mathematicians and physicists believe that theory, and therefore their studies are tainted with that error. Instead, people who study enough of those subjects can then rework the theories with an adequate knowledge base. Same thing with medicine. The people who figured out antioxidants and free radicals are the same people who believe the "misinformation" that disease can be caused by a microscopic organism.

To the extent that something has been rigorously studied, it's not about a matter of opinion. It's about facts. If you believe that all these facts are actually deception propagated by a community of people who actually want to help people, and instead trust your own conjecture more, then "good luck to you" too.

0 likes

Pages

Log in or register to post comments