Another Hib qu - how likely to get it within the week after shot? - Page 8

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

I hadn't heard of Naessens. Thanks. I remember reading Lynes' book on Rife and was fascinated. This will be some more interesting reading.

His Somatic cycle theory is fascinating. Get hold of the book The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens by Christopher Bird. They are going very cheap on Amazon used

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

I hadn't heard of Naessens. Thanks. I remember reading Lynes' book on Rife and was fascinated. This will be some more interesting reading.

Lets not forget Gunther Enderlein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_Enderlein

his discoveries have also been "marginalized" by modern science

He caused more sensation, however, when he developed and published his concepts about a pleomorphism of microorganisms. Concept of pleomorphism was quite controversial at the end of the 19th century and the beginning 20th century. At the end the monomorphism concept of Louis Pasteur took overhand.

[carriebft]

I still don't get how to look at this different idea of disease and see how the capsule can cause hib/ the vaccine causes hib. Even looking at how you guys are phrasing your theories still does not seem to agree with this idea that hib vaccine causes the disease.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I don't think I'd ever heard of Beauchamp before. I'm amazed, truely! I have been wanting people to explain this to me for ages. Do most of the people on the forum who don't subscribe to orthodox germ theory go for this instead? Is there any relationship between this and miasmas, or is that a red herring? Does this theory get unified with homeopathy, or is that just confusing things.

Nothing to do with homeopathy, but it doesn't negate it either.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by uccomama

Nothing to do with homeopathy, but it doesn't negate it either.

OK. Thanks. I had homeopathy down as coming from the time when miasmas were the dominant theory. I guess perhaps you could look at that as a different way of explaining the same thing. I'm so grateful for these straight forward answers.

[anewmama]

How about BOTH of the theories are right? To me, that would bring medicine into modern times and not keep the evolution of medicine and health stuck in a time warp for EITHER approach.

How about the environment is AS important in addition to the "destructive" abilities of organisms?

I do alternative medicine so I am not unfamiliar with how some of it works and those medicines or models of healing very much subscribe to the environment model of health and disease. But I would never want to ever rely on one medicine alone. Or only be allowed access to one. Which is why I have done both because I think they BOTH have extremely valid points and can be complimentary.

Modern medical science has to disprove the environmental factor or prove it with studies. Alternative medicine (for lack of another comprehensive word) accepts it as a fact or as the building blocks for a particular medical model (acupuncture, chinese medicine, etc) And this is what bothers me more... the assumption that in order for alternative to be valid, it has to undergo rigorous scientific study to gain any kind of acceptance. Ie, acupuncture for improving/helping with fertility. Whereas Chinese medicine has an ancient model already in place where acupuncture already has shown to be beneficial. They don't need scientific controlled studies to prove it.

I am running out of net time for the day so i can't think of a fast example. but there are other treatments that alternative medicine has accepted as fact that modern medicine has successfully debunked.

So back to organisms.. what if they both have the ability to invade and cause disease in a healthy individual as defined by the "perfect environment" in one person but in another no disease manifests and they also have an equally 'perfect environment'.

How do you define that perfect environment? SOOO Many factors play into it that it's almost undefinable and simply referencing acidic or alkaline is not enough. Chinese medicine has not always healed. Ying/Yang is not always enough. More has got to be going on....

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by anewmama

How about BOTH of the theories are right? To me, that would bring medicine into modern times and not keep the evolution of medicine and health stuck in a time warp for EITHER approach.

How about the environment is AS important in addition to the "destructive" abilities of organisms?

I do alternative medicine so I am not unfamiliar with how some of it works and those medicines or models of healing very much subscribe to the environment model of health and disease. But I would never want to ever rely on one medicine alone. Or only be allowed access to one. Which is why I have done both because I think they BOTH have extremely valid points can be complimentary.

OK, but presumably there is some underlying truth that all of these models of disease are trying to describe? We can pick and choose therapies based on these theories of disease on the basis that we find they do or don't work, but they can't all be literally true, can they? Like I say, I can imagine that miasmas and Bechamp might be to some extent the same thing described in different language (perhaps because I hardly understand Bechamp), but Pasteur and Bechamp seem to be saying mutually contradictory things.

[Th1Th2]

Beauchamp's cellular theory actually supports the science behind cell-mediated immunity which is the most important immune response in humans. Vaccination is based on junk science that thwarts this homeostasis by biased activation of humoral immunity, alteration of microorganisms to become invasive and introduction of other toxic contaminants that are indigenous to the body. No matter how healthy a person is, as long as he is bombarded with these toxins invasively, the body will deteriorate.

[shuttlt]

Oh dear. So many pages of reading to do to understand this.

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Beauchamp's cellular theory actually supports the science behind cell-mediated immunity which is the most important immune response in humans. Vaccination is based on junk science that thwarts this homeostasis by biased activation of humoral immunity, alteration of microorganisms to become invasive and introduction of other toxic contaminants that are indigenous to the body. No matter how healthy a person is, as long as he is bombarded with these toxins invasively, the body will deteriorate.

However, your theory in relation to vaccination falls apart when unvaccinated get sick. Or when vaccinated are perfectly healthy. I was vaccinated as a child and I am 44. I have neither diabetes, autism, auto-immune diseases, arthritis, or ANY type of chronic disease. If I develop any of these in 20 years, are you going to say that it was due to vaccination 50 years ago?

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

OK. Thanks. I had homeopathy down as coming from the time when miasmas were the dominant theory. I guess perhaps you could look at that as a different way of explaining the same thing. I'm so grateful for these straight forward answers.

Yeah, I don't go the homeopathy route for myself or my family either, but I certainly don't discount those who do. I hadn't heard the miasma thing in years. I'm having flashbacks to biology classes. I don't much see the relationship either.

Originally Posted by uccomama

His Somatic cycle theory is fascinating. Get hold of the book The Persecution and Trial of Gaston Naessens by Christopher Bird. They are going very cheap on Amazon used

Thanks again. And I will get it.

Lets not forget Gunther Enderlein

My first exposure to these concepts were Rife's discoveries under his microscope. I remember during my AIDS researching days, following Gallo's original cancer virus research. What was he doing? Who was he following? I don’t think this is all unrelated.

I was always fascinated with the possibility that within our own cells a microbe could evolve to different stages including bacterial and viral. Very interesting. Rather than fear a foreign intruder called a virus, what if our own body was the home of the virus and it just became as the result of a process of degradation. To have a microscope that can actually observe this process live would be amazing and zeitgeist-changing, which I guess is why people like Rife and Reich always end up in prison, mysteriously dead or ridiculed into obscurity.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by carriebft

I still don't get how to look at this different idea of disease and see how the capsule can cause hib/ the vaccine causes hib. Even looking at how you guys are phrasing your theories still does not seem to agree with this idea that hib vaccine causes the disease.

Because the polysaccharide capsule is the MAJOR VIRULENT factor (disease-causing) of Hib bacteria. Take it out from the bacterium and the bacterium will be a useless microorganism in the hands of phagocytosis. Like Clostridium tetani, it is the endospore that is causing the neurotoxin resulting to tetanus not the cell body per se. Of course, using non-virulent components in the vaccines is a waste of effort if these components will not cause the disease. Therefore, the Hib vaccine actually causes the Hib disease.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

I was always fascinated with the possibility that within our own cells a microbe could evolve to different stages including bacterial and viral. Very interesting. Rather than fear a foreign intruder called a virus, what if our own body was the home of the virus and it just became as the result of a process of degradation. To have a microscope that can actually observe this process live would be amazing and zeitgeist-changing, which I guess is why people like Rife and Reich always end up in prison, mysteriously dead or ridiculed into obscurity.

This is the crux of Naessens work and with his Somatascope one is able to view the entire cycle of the somatid, which Naessens describes as the precursor of DNA.

From Christopher Bird's book:

"Over years of careful microscopic observation, and laboratory experimentation, Naessens went on to discover that if, and when, the immune system of an animal, or human being, becomes weakened or destabilized, the normal three-stage [Somatid] cycle goes through 13 more successive growth stages to make up a total of sixteen separate forms, each evolving into the next.

All of them have been clearly revealed in detail by motion pictures, and stop-frame still photography, at his microscope. This weakening he attributes, just like Béchamps, of whose findings he was also unaware, to trauma that can be brought on by a host of reasons, ranging from exposure to various forms of radiation, or chemical pollution to accidents, shocks, or DEPRESSED PSYCHOLOGICAL STATES, and many more.

By studying the cycle, as revealed in the blood of human beings suffering from various degenerative diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, mutiple scerosis, lupus, particularly cancer and, most recently, AIDS, Naessens has been able to associate the development of the forms in the sixteen-stage pathological cycle with all of these diseases. More importantly, he has been able to predict the eventual onset of such diseases long before any clinical signs of them have put in an apearance. In other words, he can "pre-diagnose" them".

[carriebft]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Because the polysaccharide capsule is the MAJOR VIRULENT factor (disease-causing) of Hib bacteria. Take it out from the bacterium and the bacterium will be a useless microorganism in the hands of phagocytosis. Like Clostridium tetani, it is the endospore that is causing the neurotoxin resulting to tetanus not the cell body per se. Of course, using non-virulent components in the vaccines is a waste of effort if these components will not cause the disease. Therefore, the Hib vaccine actually causes the Hib disease.

But it isn't the disease causing part...we've been through that for the past 6 pages....you are wrong. Can you show anything that proves what you are saying except to say "well some people don't believe germs cause disease" -- that doesn't prove that the capsule causes the disease!

and around and around we go.

I should just bow outta this one.

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Therefore, the Hib vaccine actually causes the Hib disease.

ANd that's why we have so many HiB cases, right?

Yeah me, too, bowing out. I am getting dizzy.

To quote something I read recently:

But the field [science] as a whole needs to be convinced though evidence, and they [scientists] always remain skeptical. When you believe something, you're inclined to see the data through that lens and get the data to fit the belief. The best, revolutionary scientists are those who can hold strongest to the need to use the data to build the theory, not the opposite.

You simply can't have a scientific theory that starts with a theory and then point only to the evidence that supports it - that's not a theory based on evidence, that's evidence based on theory.

Where is the data?!

[carriebft]

and what causes hib in unvaccinated kids?

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by anewmama

However, your theory in relation to vaccination falls apart when unvaccinated get sick. Or when vaccinated are perfectly healthy. I was vaccinated as a child and I am 44. I have neither diabetes, autism, auto-immune diseases, arthritis, or ANY type of chronic disease. If I develop any of these in 20 years, are you going to say that it was due to vaccination 50 years ago?

It depends on how many vaccines have you gotten so far. An unvaccinated healthy child who got sick NATURALLY will be fine. Getting sick is a part of homeostatic balance. Now if an unvaccinated malnourished child got sick NATURALLY will depend on his body's elimination process. There is a chance that he will survive or eventually dies of toxicity. And vaccinating them will even make them worse.

Like I said, vaccination is designed to promote a prolonged and abnormal immune response. It is just a matter of time.

[carriebft]

what is just a matter of time?

An unvaccinated healthy child who got sick NATURALLY will be fine.

what about the deaths of previously healthy unvaccinated kids from hib both now and prevaccine?

[kiara7]

Good Lord, you guys will find a new can of worms to open, won't you?:

But yes, please someone SHOW and TELL how hib vax causes hib disease and the numbers. PLEASE!!!!!

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by anewmama

ANd that's why we have so many HiB cases, right?

The medical community's proclivity to diagnose a Hib disease in an unvaccinated person is likely possible the same manner NOT to diagnose Hib in vaccinated individual even though the latter is having adverse reactions like otitis media, URTI, etc,