Vaccine-induced diseases - Page 2

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Well the problem is these dead bacteria are foreign to the body and that they have to destroyed (phagocytosis) and eliminated from the body. In order to do that, the body has to manifest symptoms. It will be a BIG problem if the body keeps the disease which can lead to toxicity.

OK. What you just said is the bit I am failing to translate into my terminology. I'll have another go...
I think we all agree that in clearing the dead bacteria/virus there will be an immune reaction which may, or may not give rise to clinical symptoms. What I don't understand is when you say "It will be a BIG problem if the body keeps the disease which can lead to toxicity". What do you mean by "keeps the disease". Do you mean that the immune system does not in fact manage to get rid of the dead bacteria/virus, do you mean that the state of the immune system after the bacteria/virus is gone IS the disease, do you mean something else?

By inches we are moving closer to an understanding.

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

I've been following these few threads and this view of disease. I think symptoms are key here, because if you isolate pathogen associated with a disease, without the actual symptoms... what do you have? If you have the symptoms of a particular disease, but haven't isolated the bug or isolate a different one... what do you have?:

That's easy. It's called Normal Flora.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

That's easy. It's called Normal Flora.

That is certainly one thing it might be. I guess it depends on the pathogen and what it's likely to do. Assuming you believe in the standard HIV virus causes AIDS thing, then you might have the virus kicking around for quite a while without symptoms, but I wouldn't call it normal flora.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Do you mean that the immune system does not in fact manage to get rid of the dead bacteria/virus,

By inches we are moving closer to an understanding.

I think this is what he/she means. I think there is implication that without the engaging the cellular immune response, the pathogen is never totally eliminated, coupled with being in it's attenuated/dead form, the human organism doesn't properly recognise it.

Am I understanding you correctly t1/2?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

I think this is what he/she means. I think there is implication that without the engaging the cellular immune response, the pathogen is never totally eliminated, coupled with being in it's attenuated/dead form, the human organism doesn't properly recognise it.

Am I understanding you correctly t1/2?

In which case, Eureka! Th1Th2?

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

OK. What you just said is the bit I am failing to translate into my terminology. I'll have another go...
I think we all agree that in clearing the dead bacteria/virus there will be an immune reaction which may, or may not give rise to clinical symptoms. What I don't understand is when you say "It will be a BIG problem if the body keeps the disease which can lead to toxicity". What do you mean by "keeps the disease". Do you mean that the immune system does not in fact manage to get rid of the dead bacteria/virus, do you mean that the state of the immune system after the bacteria/virus is gone IS the disease, do you mean something else?

By inches we are moving closer to an understanding.

You're almost there. Thank God.

This is the reason why I keep on saying that vaccines do in fact cause diseases. Some people are confused with symptoms as diseases. Wrong. They may not have symptoms after vaccination but in reality they are keeping the disease and their body is unable to eliminate these microorganisms until it reaches to a point when the body becomes toxic. Why does it happen? Because vaccines are prepared with attenuated/weakened/dead/live microorganisms which are intended to produce less or no clinical symptoms and they are also formulated with adjuvants to prolong and enhance the abnormal immune response. What happens next is disaster.


.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by carriebft

This only works to bolster your theory in the mind's of others if they agree to change/redefine all the terms to meet your definitions.

Could you tell me which definitions are being changed? I'm trying to understand too, and my apologies for coming late into the discussion - but I did read the HiB thread that ignited this dialogue.

I believe the definition of subclinical would apply here, no? :

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

That is certainly one thing it might be. I guess it depends on the pathogen and what it's likely to do. Assuming you believe in the standard HIV virus causes AIDS thing, then you might have the virus kicking around for quite a while without symptoms, but I wouldn't call it normal flora.

I don't believe in man-made AIDS but I believe in retrovirus.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

They may not have symptoms after vaccination but in reality they are keeping the disease and their body is unable to eliminate these microorganisms until it reaches to a point when the body becomes toxic. Why does it happen? Because vaccines are prepared with attenuated/weakened/dead/live microorganisms which are intended to produce less or no clinical symptoms and they are also formulated with adjuvants to prolong and enhance the abnormal immune response. What happens next is disaster..

I understand what you are saying. This issue with these posters, is that you have no evidence to support this viewpoint.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

I don't believe in man-made AIDS but I believe in retrovirus.

OK. I don't know nearly enough to digress with you down that avenue. Perhaps someday.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

Originally Posted by th1th2

They may not have symptoms after vaccination but in reality they are keeping the disease and their body is unable to eliminate these microorganisms until it reaches to a point when the body becomes toxic. Why does it happen? Because vaccines are prepared with attenuated/weakened/dead/live microorganisms which are intended to produce less or no clinical symptoms and they are also formulated with adjuvants to prolong and enhance the abnormal immune response. What happens next is disaster..

I understand what you are saying. This issue with these posters, is that you have no evidence to support this viewpoint.

I realize that Th1Th2 was being clearer than I realized if an_domhan's interpretation is correct.

Is there any evidence Th1Th2?

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

I think this is what he/she means. I think there is implication that without the engaging the cellular immune response, the pathogen is never totally eliminated, coupled with being in it's attenuated/dead form, the human organism doesn't properly recognise it.

Am I understanding you correctly t1/2?

Double jeopardy. Vaccines are notorious for being biased towards humoral mediated immunity causing depression of cell-mediated immunity where phagocytosis takes place regardless of the microorganism. However , the addition of adjuvants makes it even worse.

[runes]

Is it that by exposing children's immune systems to have subclinical responses to decoy pathogens in vaccinations, that they are primed to have abnormal immune responses for the rest of their life?

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

I understand what you are saying. This issue with these posters, is that you have no evidence to support this viewpoint.

To be chronically asymptomatic amidst vaccine-induced immunity is definitely keeping the disease inside the body. This is the goal of vaccination, to keep them symptom-free as much as possible but not disease-free.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

Double jeopardy. Vaccines are notorious for being biased towards humoral mediated immunity causing depression of cell-mediated immunity where phagocytosis takes place regardless of the microorganism. However , the addition of adjuvants makes it even worse.

Perhaps, and while you may be able to piece together bit by bit actual peer reviewed evidence to support this... you are still applying your own interpretation of the process, or rather, the interpretation of those that do not act in concert with conventional medicine.

If you lack peer reviewed evidence, this is okay too, as opinions are entitled and needn't be fact based. Those watching might be able to accept the fact that you are expressing your opinion, if you'd admit as much. Even if there is just a researcher that has reviewed some peer reviewed evidence that agrees with your assertion, that would further your assertions.

Just as a friendly observation.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

To be chronically asymptomatic amidst vaccine-induced immunity is definitely keeping the disease inside the body. This is the goal of vaccination, to keep them symptom-free as much as possible but not disease-free.

Again, a very interesting observation - but it is yours. Unless, you are able to direct us to either a text, or some sort of peer reviewed evidence that supports this assertion?

[Th1Th2]

Originally Posted by kidspiration

Is it that by exposing children's immune systems to have subclinical responses to decoy pathogens in vaccinations, that they are primed to have weird, abnormal immune responses for the rest of their life?

This is the reason natural diseases/infection shouldn't be eradicated to give these vaccinated people a chance to rectify their immune system.

[medusaatemydog]

Originally Posted by an_domhan

Perhaps, and while you may be able to piece together bit by bit actual peer reviewed evidence to support this... you are still applying your own interpretation of the process, or rather, the interpretation of those that do not act in concert with conventional medicine.

If you lack peer reviewed evidence, this is okay too, as opinions are entitled and needn't be fact based. Those watching might be able to accept the fact that you are expressing your opinion, if you'd admit as much. Even if there is just a researcher that has reviewed some peer reviewed evidence that agrees with your assertion, that would further your assertions.

Just as a friendly observation.

The thing is most 'peers' are reluctant to put out any truth about the harm vaccines are doing for fear of thier careers and lives being destroyed. If there was someone to do research on what vaccination is actually doing to people they would omit the evidence and only publish what is acceptable to the pharmecutical bottom line.

[Th1Th2]

A peer review is another big lie.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Th1Th2

This is the reason natural diseases/infection shouldn't be eradicated to give these vaccinated people a chance to rectify their immune system.

Surely you realise that this requires a bit of conspirational thought, and a stretch of thought process for the majority?