Vaccines: how do I talk to my anti-vac wife about it?

[RationalVetMed]

... it would never cross your mind that vaccinations could have anything other than beneficial effects except on those poor unfortunate individuals who had underlying conditions but were given the vaccine without the precaution of a physical examination.

No one has ever claimed that vaccinations could have anything other than beneficial effects.

The severely chronically ill should consult with a professional and possibly even attend a supervised fasting center as the challenge of addressing decades of accumulated toxicity is not for the fainthearted.

So you are advising that people with chronic diseases might consider fasting - idiotic.

... you can no more argue with people who think disease is caused by germs and viruses than you can argue with people who think sin is caused by Satan.

What about Capsid's report of that dramatic decrease in viral disease following vaccination in Africa - you haven't even asked for clarification on that one. What's the difference between a germ and a virus btw?

Unfortunately, there are numerous "alternative" industries waiting to pounce, each no doubt just as convinced that their palliative methods are correct...

... and the same amount of "evidence" you have for your 'natural hygiene' (which is to say, none) - how are us poor evidence-based types supposed to tell the difference?

Oh, hang on, there isn't any.

Yuri

 

[laca]

In closing, you can no more argue with people who think disease is caused by germs and viruses than you can argue with people who think sin is caused by Satan.

Wrong. People who think germs and viruses cause disease do so based on evidence. People who think Satan is real are almost as deluded as you are.

 

[trusetheeker]

Yeah, the pattern is old and uneducated sources. Did you really think there was any reason to take things written less than fifty years old or by hacks like Eleonara McBean and Russell Blaylock?

It really shows how shallow your position is when you have to go back a century for "evidence."

I like the way that the ancient texts give exactly the same message that the anti-vaxxers are giving today. Continuity and solidarity. Unlike the pro-vaxxers who change their tune with each new generation of vaccines.

It also disproves the lie that Dr Andrew Wakefield started the whole anti-vaxxer movement.

The fact that the vaccination industry was a scourge and a scam right from its start as an ancient ritual doesn't change regardless of how much bad science gets generated to support it.

 

[trusetheeker]

Yet you are actively advocating for the blatant disregard of the advice of people trained to deal with disease.

You're right! If my arm's half-severed, I should go to a used-car salesman or an accountant because they're unlikely to try to vaccinate me while I'm there.

Believe me I'd prefer to go to an emergency staffed by Natural Hygienist doctors but because of the monopoly held by the medical industry, they don't exist. They couldn't stand the competition so successfully lobbied the government to outlaw their competitors who were winning in the lifesaving department even if just by the placebo affect.

 

[laca]

Yeah, yeah, yadda-yadda. Got anything that even remotely resembles evidence for anything you've claimed so far?

 

[ehcks]

I like the way that the ancient texts give exactly the same message that the anti-vaxxers are giving today. Continuity and solidarity. Unlike the pro-vaxxers who change their tune with each new generation of vaccines.

Knowledge changes. As we learn how things work, we often find we were wrong in the past, and have to change how we think.

That's how literally everything works. There is nothing we understand perfectly, and there simply can't be. If you try to claim we do, you are just wrong.

 

[Tatyana]

In closing, you can no more argue with people who think disease is caused by germs and viruses than you can argue with people who think sin is caused by Satan. It's only because some people finally get fed up with the failure of the industry that they will even consider the possibility of an alternative. Unfortunately, there are numerous "alternative" industries waiting to pounce, each no doubt just as convinced that their palliative methods are correct but with the same failing: they ignore the lessons of nature.

Natural Hygiene is nothing more than applying the laws of nature; living in harmony with the laws of life to achieve total health. All of the knowledge required to build and maintain a human being is contained in one fertilized ovum and from that springs a complete organism so complex and resilient that it dwarfs anything that humans have created through our combined intellects. There is nothing that we can teach our bodies about health. The best that we can do is provide it with the optimum environment for it to operate in and then just enjoy living.

Thanks for reading this far.

By natural hygiene, do you mean orthopathy, a form of vitalism?

Not all diseases are caused by bacteria and viruses, however, there are some that are, and we have evidence.

How far do you take the claim about bacteria and viruses? What about our gut flora, or that a significant proportion of our DNA is actually viral? How does that fit into natural hygiene?

The germ theory could also be considered to be a part of the 'ancient texts', as this was first theorised in ancient Hindu texts, and it does dates back further than orthopathy.

What laws of nature are you referring to?

 

[commandlinegamer]

Natural Hygiene is nothing more than applying the laws of nature; living in harmony with the laws of life to achieve total health.

Which would be what exactly?

 

[trusetheeker]

Survive? Yes, to some degree obviously. But how many died of and were permanently injured by infectious diseases prior to prophylaxis?

I suspect that, as a rule, the answer is none. Before man started living in cramped, unhealthy conditions in ghettos, working in sweathouses or swamps, using the waterways as sewers, spraying poisons on fruit and vegetation, obtaining drinking water from lead pipes, breathing factory and vehicle emissions and any of the countless other methods that we've devised to ruin our health, disease would have been a little known experience.

Sure, there would have been bad times such as the supervolcano eruption in Asia about 70,000 years ago when just about all above ground vegetation was killed off. Homo sapiens would have had to survive on whatever could be found while wandering across vast deserts searching for potable water. Anyone who made the mistake of drinking or eating anything contaminated by the poisonous ash would likely have exhibited many of the symptoms that we associate with disease today and died due to the inability to reach sustenance.

Check out the demise of the Fuegians as discovered by Darwin and Fitzroy. In perfect health when found but in short order on the journey back to England, 4 had been vaccinated for smallpox and one died of smallpox shortly after that. (A 75% success rate - very good.)

In an effort to recover a stolen boat on his prior voyage, Fitzroy took several hostages. Four were taken to England. Fitzroy explained,

When about to depart the Fuegian coast, I decided to keep these four natives on board, for they appeared to be quite cheerful and contented with their situation; and I thought that many good effects might be the consequence of their living a short time in England. . . . I shall procure for these people a suitable education, and, after two or three years, shall send or take them back to their country (2: 54).

The sailors renamed them Boat Memory, York Minster, Fuegia Basket, and Jemmy Button. Though all were vaccinated, Boat Memory died of small pox.

Not to worry though because before long, the white man's diseases, greed and alcohol had brought the population to extinction.

---

It is a vapid argument that mere survival for some is acceptable. I have also found anti-vax arguments (particularly those who rely upon that bastion of lunacy, whale.to are rife with eugenics, which you appear to be suggesting.

Sorry but I was not suggesting that our species "merely" survived. It is more likely that they thrived as they would have been living in the "garden of Eden" so to speak with fresh fruit and vegetation available year round. We know of one natural disaster where they would have been "thrown out of the garden" and many would have had to learn to live on less choice fare just to survive.

The move from hunter/gatherer to farmer saw another downturn in health:

Biological Changes in Human Populations with Agriculture

Agriculture has long been regarded as an improvement in the human condition: Once Homo sapiens made the transition from foraging to farming in the Neolithic, health and nutrition improved, longevity increased, and work load declined. Recent study of archaeological human remains worldwide by biological anthropologists has shown this characterization of the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture to be incorrect. Contrary to earlier models, the adoption of agriculture involved an overall decline in oral and general health. This decline is indicated by elevated prevalence of various skeletal and dental pathological conditions and alterations in skeletal and dental growth patterns in prehistoric farmers compared with foragers. In addition, changes in food composition and preparation technology contributed to craniofacial and dental alterations, and activity levels and mobility decline resulted in a general decrease in skeletal robusticity.

- - -
And I'm certainly NOT suggesting eugenics. Heck, I can barely spell the word. Perfect health is the birthright of every living creature and each organism strives for ultimate health. With a species correct diet of wholesome, natural foods as well as a clean and pleasant environment, all of us will achieve our ultimate health. Unfortunately, generations of poor diets, less than optimal environments and the outrageous treatment of patients (especially women) by the medical and other industries have robbed many of us of our highest potential.

The less-resilient of humans will succumb quicker to a toxic environment and lifestyle than those with higher vitality. The answer to keeping them alive and healthy is not injecting them with foreign matter cultured on chicken eggs or monkeys although I've heard that hanging a dead crow by their front door is mighty effective.

 

[trusetheeker]

Vaccines work.

No, they don't.

I am sorry you have had a bad experience with some people in the medical community, but vaccines do work.

Thanks but they still don't work.

Correlation is not causation, either with the cause you assert (vaccines) or with the cure (natural health).

I agree; however ignoring correlation because it doesn't fit with the vaccination paradigm is proving to be hazardous to our health and well-being. Look around you and note all the sickness and misery from infant cancer victims to sudden deaths of young adults and beyond. Cancer is a growth industry (no pun intended) as are heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.

It's very difficult to prove that any of these are caused by vaccinations but any unnatural attack on the body is bound to have negative results. Whose to say that the chronic illnesses are not directly related to our intake of flouride, lead, aluminum, mercury and other toxic materials foisted on us by various industries and often sanctioned by the medical industry and the government bodies meant to be looking after our welfare.

Vaccinations do seem to work because they can devitalise the body sufficiently to prevent it being able to mount a self-healing acute disease. Just as well as upon first sight of a detoxifying rash, cough or nasal discharge, some doctor will prescribe a toxic substance of some sort to make the symptoms go away. Continued suppression of the body's natural attempts to reduce toxicity results in chronic illness where the body no longer has sufficient vitality to restore health without drastic intervention.

 

[trusetheeker]

No, antibiotics have nothing to do with 'weakening the immune' and that term is almost entirely rubbish.
...

No offense, but you are really clueless about what the immune system is.

No offense, but you really have your "head up and locked!" Antibiotics have everything to do with poisoning living organisms with the intent of defeating the nasty bugs that attack us. You could call them antibacterial because that's what they are.

Antibiotics are just as deadly to individual human cells as they are to individual bacteria and when swallowed or injected, they cause the body to mount an aggressive defensive action to protect the body from this invasion. Because this inhibits or halts altogether the body's attempts at healing whatever else is wrong with it, you often experience the cessation of whatever symptoms were causing the patient concern.

The body is the master of its domain. Bacteria survive in the body only because we have a symbiotic relationship with them which was established millions of years ago by our earliest ancestors (whatever they may have been.) Bacteria are the garbage collectors of our system and wherever waste material needs to be broken down for removal, that's where you'll find them. Doctors and scientists observe the presence of bacteria in a wound or affected tissues and think "the bacteria are causing disease" when in fact they are there because of the disease. They then prescribe antibiotics because they think that they're wiser than the human organism. The antibiotic reduces the body's vitality as it has to waste additional energy fighting this toxic substance which in effect reduces the "immune system."

 

[trusetheeker]

By having more children, and hoping one will or two will survive.

Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein, had five children and only one survived to adulthood.

Do you seriousy want us to go back to the days when every family has to bury at least one child? Are you that clueless?

Perhaps you know what these children died of. So far I've only found references to one baby that apparently died of convulsions during the night. No mention of the cause of death or the circumstances surrounding them.

No surprise here that you presume that vaccination would have saved them.

 

[trusetheeker]

As I like to observe, the human species I guess survived. But what about most of us?

I'm 21 years old. I would have been killed three times over by now from diseases if I had been born a mere 100 years ago. But thanks to modern medicine, I'm still alive. And that means something to me.

Probably due more to modern sanitation and hygiene notwithstanding all the attempts by modern industries to poison us in 1000 different ways. The oil industries latest fiasco in the Gulf of Mexico is a prime example which could and still might have a global impact.

 

[trusetheeker]

No one has ever claimed that vaccinations could have anything other than beneficial effects.

Uh? I think that you'll find that anti-vaxxers all over the world are saying just that.

So you are advising that people with chronic diseases might consider fasting - idiotic.

Tell that to the chronically ill people who regained their lives by fasting.

---

What about Capsid's report of that dramatic decrease in viral disease following vaccination in Africa - you haven't even asked for clarification on that one. What's the difference between a germ and a virus btw?

Yes, I read that report and wasn't surprised that the Gates family were huge backers of this ingenious program for increasing sales of vaccines to 3rd world countries by using money from various benefactors. The Carnegies and the Rockefellers and many other families used this same ploy to increase their fortunes and control markets while also controlling education systems, etc. Follow the money and then decide who's benefitting whom.

... and the same amount of "evidence" you have for your 'natural hygiene' (which is to say, none) - how are us poor evidence-based types supposed to tell the difference?

Oh, hang on, there isn't any.

Think what you like or better yet, follow links to a very good, free course on Natural Hygiene aka Life Science and see where it leads you.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Perhaps you know what these children died of. So far I've only found references to one baby that apparently died of convulsions during the night. No mention of the cause of death or the circumstances surrounding them.

No surprise here that you presume that vaccination would have saved them.

Another died of dysentery and a third of malaria/fever. There was another child, who wasn't actually Mary Shelley's (and may have been her step-sister's, or a servants or a foundling) who also died before the age of 2 in the care of foster parents, but I haven't been able to discover the cause of death.

 

[Chris Haynes]

I like the way that the ancient texts give exactly the same message that the anti-vaxxers are giving today. Continuity and solidarity. Unlike the pro-vaxxers who change their tune with each new generation of vaccines.

It also disproves the lie that Dr Andrew Wakefield started the whole anti-vaxxer movement.

The fact that the vaccination industry was a scourge and a scam right from its start as an ancient ritual doesn't change regardless of how much bad science gets generated to support it.

Yes, there have been those who have fought against vaccines since the first form of variolation started. So what?

It does not mean they are correct. Immanuel Pfeiffer learned the hard way that his ideas would not protect him from smallpox:

Health officers surreptitiously observed Pfeiffer after the visit, and on February 8, 1902, he was found to be critically ill in his home in Bedford. The following day, the headlines read, “Pfeiffer Has Smallpox. Anti-vaccinationist May Not Live.”

And some who were initially against inoculation actually changed their minds when they looked at the evidence.

You are just demonstrating you do not understand science, history or and have closed your mind to anything that goes against your beliefs. You have not put forth any real evidence, and you will most likely be unable to answer the following questions:

1) What event prompted the creation of the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race? Why was Balto so important to several children?

2) What happened to Roald Dahl's oldest child?

3) What prompted the Whitman Massacre?

4) What caused the rate of measles to plummet 90% in the USA between 1960 and 1970 (image file)?

 

[Chris Haynes]

Another died of dysentery and a third of malaria/fever. There was another child, who wasn't actually Mary Shelley's (and may have been her step-sister's, or a servants or a foundling) who also died before the age of 2 in the care of foster parents, but I haven't been able to discover the cause of death.

To be truthful, medical diagnostic and record keeping were not terribly advanced 180 years ago. I am not sure that is understood by trusetheeker. Mozart had six children, and only two survived to adulthood. I'm sure there are no records of the causes.

 

[Tomblvd]

Truthseeker, in the early 90s the Hib vaccine was introduced. At the time, around 20,000 children became sick each year in the US. Following the introduction of the vaccine, infection rates all but disappeared (99% effectiveness). What could have possibly changed in the environment to cause these infections to virtually disappear in only a couple of years?

 

[laca]

trusetheeker, are you familiar with this:

That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

You've done nothing but asserting stuff without a shred of evidence. Either you start bringing up evidence or you're just rambling. Your choice.

 

[Giordano]

trusetheeker, are you familiar with this:

That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

You've done nothing but asserting stuff without a shred of evidence. Either you start bringing up evidence or you're just rambling. Your choice.

Exactly! And I imagine that someone such as trusetheeker who does not believe that micro-organisms cause disease will ever be convinced by any rationale discussion of the value of antibiotics or vaccines. For some people the 19th century has yet to arrive.