or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › 32 million Americans now have antibodies that target their own tissues
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

32 million Americans now have antibodies that target their own tissues - Page 3

post #41 of 67
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

We don't appear to agree on the definitions of the terms "isolate" (as it applies to the study of viruses), and "primary research paper."  I'm absolutely satisfied that the links I have provided contain those things.



Your links provided nothing of the sort. Isolate means the pure virus isolated and scientifically characterized and photographed by EM. The research should be reproducible. This should be a very simple thing to do given the technology we have today. So why haven't they done it? 

post #42 of 67

"Isolate" means the virus was grown in a lab culture without other viruses present.  This has been done.  There are photos, which I put in the thread.  HIV has been photographed by more than one lab, which means the results have been reproduced.  

post #43 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

Sorry teach! I can't do your homework for you.  wink1.gif

The fluoride used in water supplies and oral care is poison, and you can read all about it on the internet. I'll send you off with my favorite video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2886269353175462948

 

Thanks for reading the Bush eugenics link!



I skimmed.  It's pretty repetitive of a lot of other work.  It was a little unusual to see the Queen sucked in - she usually gets a pass on account of having been in the Blitz.

 

I can't watch your video.  It has sound, and I have to at least pretend not to be watching TV while my kids are awake.  And while they're falling asleep - it's a small house.  And my dh gets pretty miffed if I watch youtube while falling asleep myself (he claims it's not sleep-inducing), so it's pretty much no youtube except for 90 minutes while the kids are at free skate on Sundays, unless I have grading to do, in which case not even then.  Can you summarize?  Is it like in Doctor Strangelove?  If you don't have time, can I just assume it's like in Doctor Strangelove?  I love that movie.  

post #44 of 67

Stik, I know it's off-topic, but since BeckyBird brought up Aspartame, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Aspartame?

post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

http://history.nih.gov/nihinownwords/assets/media/pdf/publications/Koch_Postulate.pdf

 

This is a paper exploring Koch's postulates as applied throughout the last hundred years, and how they've been adapted to viruses and new technology. It's worth reading. The evidence that HIV is the virus that causes AIDS has only become more convincing since 1992, when the linked article was published. This is an old debate and it has long since been settled.



You know, just because one side says, "it has long since been settled" does not mean that it is either correct or settled.

 

One could just as easily point to Duesberg's work and say, "it has long been settled, the way HE views it."  But that doesn't make it settled, either.

 

The best we can say is, there are strong arguments on both sides--and then the experts should take a better look.  They not only didn't take ANY kind of look after Duesberg made his case, but their behavior--blacklisting him and doing everything they could to shut him up--implies that they are covering something up.

 

As always, follow the money trail.  It sure as heck doesn't lead to Duesberg.

post #46 of 67

The video is called the Fluoride Deception. That sums it up! It's a quick, entertaining, crash course about fluoride. Instead of sending boring links that nobody will read, the video is entertaining! I haven't seen Dr.Strangelove, so you're probably making fun of me somehow, but that's ok.

 

If you would like websites and studies about the dangers of fluoride, I can send the links. Honestly, since I believe fluoride is so dangerous, I'm morally obliged to warn others. 

 

 

 

post #47 of 67

"They not only didn't take ANY kind of look after Duesberg made his case"

The web is littered with responses to his arguments. If anything too much time and effort has been spent blowing his objections out of the water.  I don't know how well being an AIDS denialist pays in money (although he's paying the bills somehow), it must feed his ego in spades.

post #48 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Stik, I know it's off-topic, but since BeckyBird brought up Aspartame, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on Aspartame?



I prefer the flavor of aspartame in diet coke to the flavor of corn syrup in non-diet sodas.  I have no other opinion on the issue, and feel strongly that taking the time and effort to form one would constitute an unreasonable intrusion on my ukulele practice schedule.  But if you have an opinion on the matter that you would like to discuss, accompanied by an explanation of how you came to feel the way you do, that might be useful to people seeking to judge the value of your advice on matters related to their health, so please do share if you're feeling that urge.  

 

 

 

Quote:
The video is called the Fluoride Deception. That sums it up! It's a quick, entertaining, crash course about fluoride. Instead of sending boring links that nobody will read, the video is entertaining! 

BeckyBird, I regret that you find my research citations boring.  It's not your fault.  The American educational system has been greatly remiss in teaching people to find their own fun, and the consequence is that millions of people can't be bothered to read stuff with data in it.  I assure you it's gripping once you get into it.  Your video may be entertaining (although I suspect that you and I do not define that word in the same way), but it is also 28 minutes and 36 seconds long.  Apparently we also have divergent definitions of "quick."  By my estimate, your video is about 25 minutes and 6 seconds longer than I can watch, even during a Sunday Free Skate, before my attention wanders to print media.  But if you would like to explain what YOU think about fluoride and why you think it, that might also be useful for the forum.  

post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post



I prefer the flavor of aspartame in diet coke to the flavor of corn syrup in non-diet sodas.  I have no other opinion on the issue, and feel strongly that taking the time and effort to form one would constitute an unreasonable intrusion on my ukulele practice schedule.  But if you have an opinion on the matter that you would like to discuss, accompanied by an explanation of how you came to feel the way you do, that might be useful to people seeking to judge the value of your advice on matters related to their health, so please do share if you're feeling that urge.  

 

 

 

BeckyBird, I regret that you find my research citations boring.  It's not your fault.  The American educational system has been greatly remiss in teaching people to find their own fun, and the consequence is that millions of people can't be bothered to read stuff with data in it.  I assure you it's gripping once you get into it.  Your video may be entertaining (although I suspect that you and I do not define that word in the same way), but it is also 28 minutes and 36 seconds long.  Apparently we also have divergent definitions of "quick."  By my estimate, your video is about 25 minutes and 6 seconds longer than I can watch, even during a Sunday Free Skate, before my attention wanders to print media.  But if you would like to explain what YOU think about fluoride and why you think it, that might also be useful for the forum.  


 


Haha, oh my goodness!  We have a miscommunication here! I promise you, I did not mean your research citations were boring. In fact, I enjoy reading. What I meant was that I often provide links to articles, and I wonder if anyone ever bothers to read them. They can be long and boring to most people, I know. Videos,on the other hand, are entertaining, and they are good at getting the point across. I've provided links countless times, but I was hoping that by telling you it was a video, you might be willing to watch. (You admitted that you only skimmed my eugenics article.)  I want to get the information out there, so the video was meant not only for you, but for everyone!  I hope I can encourage people to learn more about fluoride, and that video is a great place to start. If you are interested in reading material, then I'll dig up links for you. I just hope you will read them!

 

No, I did not miss your "zing" either. In your quirky, impolite way, you've implied that I am a product of the failed American educational system. How sweet of you. stillheart.gif  (Actually, I guess we're even for my "learn some true history" comment.)

 

  It's just--you seem to be an intelligent person-- how could you NOT know about the dangers of fluoride?  Don't you think you should learn about it, at least for the sake of your children? All kidding aside. I hope you don't offer your children food containing Aspartame!?  Yes, corn syrup is bad, so is too much sugar, but Aspartame is terrible for your health.  I'm shaking my head here.  Arguing is fun and all, but at a certain point you have got to stop and be serious.

 

Good night Stik!

post #50 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post


 


Haha, oh my goodness!  We have a miscommunication here! I promise you, I did not mean your research citations were boring. In fact, I enjoy reading. What I meant was that I often provide links to articles, and I wonder if anyone ever bothers to read them. They can be long and boring to most people, I know. Videos,on the other hand, are entertaining, and they are good at getting the point across. I've provided links countless times, but I was hoping that by telling you it was a video, you might be willing to watch. (You admitted that you only skimmed my eugenics article.)  I want to get the information out there, so the video was meant not only for you, but for everyone!  I hope I can encourage people to learn more about fluoride, and that video is a great place to start. If you are interested in reading material, then I'll dig up links for you. I just hope you will read them!

 

No, I did not miss your "zing" either. In your quirky, impolite way, you've implied that I am a product of the failed American educational system. How sweet of you. stillheart.gif  (Actually, I guess we're even for my "learn some true history" comment.)

 

  It's just--you seem to be an intelligent person-- how could you NOT know about the dangers of fluoride?  Don't you think you should learn about it, at least for the sake of your children? All kidding aside. I hope you don't offer your children food containing Aspartame!?  Yes, corn syrup is bad, so is too much sugar, but Aspartame is terrible for your health.  I'm shaking my head here.  Arguing is fun and all, but at a certain point you have got to stop and be serious.

 

Good night Stik!


I read the citations.  I would have read your eugenics article more thoroughly, but I've been there, done that, had the shirts printed, and held a bake sale for that issue.  I'm not willing to watch anything for 28 minutes.  Ever.  If you don't want me to hear about an issue, a 28 minute vid is the perfect medium.  On the other hand, you could state your position instead of relying on someone else to take 28 minutes to do it for you.  

 

It is my considered opinion, backed up by every dentist I have ever met, the ADA, and the label on my toothpaste, that fluoride prevents cavities.  I hear aspartame is bad for you, but since I mostly get my caffeine from coffee instead of diet coke, I don't really care.  It would shock you to learn what my children eat, listen to, watch, and do with their spare time.  Sometimes it shocks me too.  But that's neither here nor there.  

 

The stated purpose of this forum is to provide information to parents who are just beginning to research their decisions about vaccination.  To that end, it is useful for posters in this forum to be transparent about their beliefs, prejudices, and biases, so that parents who are just beginning to research their vaccination decisions can effectively evaluate the purpose, value, and limitations of advice they find here.  

 

If you assert that vaccines and fluoride are both pieces of a larger puzzle that involves damage to public health, I think it would be informative and helpful to the forum's target audience if you explained what you think is up with fluoride, and why you think that.  And aspartame, if you've a mind to.  I don't need citations or sources, I just want to know what you think about the issue and why.  Lay it out.  Let it be seen.  

post #51 of 67

Stik:

 

All the pediatric dentists I have used are in favor of TOPICAL fluoride.  They are not in favor of fluoride in the drinking water. Several countries have banned fluoride in drinking water.  To my knowledge, those countries have not banned the use of topical fluoride.

 

As far as aspartame goes, I'll share my own personal anecdote, understanding that to you, I'm a complete stranger on the internet, with no published, peer-reviewed studies to back what I say.  But I'd like your understanding in return, that, though this is to you merely an anecdote, to ME, it's pretty compelling, and I think you might understand why I share it.

 

The father of my best childhood pal was one of the original chemists who helped develop aspartame for Searle.  When my friend told me what he was working on (my father was a chemist as well, so both she and I were science nerds, and interested in such details), I thought that was really cool (a new, no-calorie sweetenere, 200 times as sweet as sugar, wow!), and I asked if he brought home free samples.

 

The answer, of course, was no, he did not bring home free samples, and in fact, refused to let his family eat ANYTHING with artificial sweeteners, especially Nutrasweet, when it came out.

 

You see, his initial tests showed that it was carcinogenic.  The lab rats developed brain cancers.

 

He recommended that, on that basis, aspartame NOT be submitted to the FDA for approval.

 

His studies were buried, and since they were officially the property of Searle, he was not allowed to publish them.  They did other studies, which were tweaked, and Aspartame, of course was submitted to and approved by the FDA.

 

Of course, there are now conflicting studies on whether or not Aspartame is linked with brain cancers.  The industry-funded studies indicate that it is quite safe. The independent studies show exactly the opposite.  Not surprisingly, brain cancer and neurological problems, especially migraines, top the list of complaints against Aspartame.

 

To you, this will be an utterly unsubstantiated rumor on the internet.

To me, it's my friend's father, telling me  that Searle buried studies--HIS studies--showing that Nutrasweet was carcinogenic. Of course, now, decades later, we can find all kinds of other independent tests, that conclude pretty much what he concluded back then.

 

But perhaps you prefer the industry-funded studies, which conclude Aspartame is safe.

 

So go ahead--let your kids eat all the Aspartame-sweetened yogurt they want, and all the Aspartame-sweetened kids' drinks they can hold.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Stik:

 

All the pediatric dentists I have used are in favor of TOPICAL fluoride.  They are not in favor of fluoride in the drinking water. Several countries have banned fluoride in drinking water.  To my knowledge, those countries have not banned the use of topical fluoride.

 

As far as aspartame goes, I'll share my own personal anecdote, understanding that to you, I'm a complete stranger on the internet, with no published, peer-reviewed studies to back what I say.  But I'd like your understanding in return, that, though this is to you merely an anecdote, to ME, it's pretty compelling, and I think you might understand why I share it.

 

The father of my best childhood pal was one of the original chemists who helped develop aspartame for Searle.  When my friend told me what he was working on (my father was a chemist as well, so both she and I were science nerds, and interested in such details), I thought that was really cool (a new, no-calorie sweetenere, 200 times as sweet as sugar, wow!), and I asked if he brought home free samples.

 

The answer, of course, was no, he did not bring home free samples, and in fact, refused to let his family eat ANYTHING with artificial sweeteners, especially Nutrasweet, when it came out.

 

You see, his initial tests showed that it was carcinogenic.  The lab rats developed brain cancers.

 

He recommended that, on that basis, aspartame NOT be submitted to the FDA for approval.

 

His studies were buried, and since they were officially the property of Searle, he was not allowed to publish them.  They did other studies, which were tweaked, and Aspartame, of course was submitted to and approved by the FDA.

 

Of course, there are now conflicting studies on whether or not Aspartame is linked with brain cancers.  The industry-funded studies indicate that it is quite safe. The independent studies show exactly the opposite.  Not surprisingly, brain cancer and neurological problems, especially migraines, top the list of complaints against Aspartame.

 

To you, this will be an utterly unsubstantiated rumor on the internet.

To me, it's my friend's father, telling me  that Searle buried studies--HIS studies--showing that Nutrasweet was carcinogenic. Of course, now, decades later, we can find all kinds of other independent tests, that conclude pretty much what he concluded back then.

 

But perhaps you prefer the industry-funded studies, which conclude Aspartame is safe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


This is fine.  It's an anecdote, but you own it, which allows people to evaluate it fairly when considering their own decisions.  I could wish you had cited some of the studies to which you refer, but it's good enough.  

 

Here's what I'm not OK with:

 

 

 

Quote:
So go ahead--let your kids eat all the Aspartame-sweetened yogurt they want, and all the Aspartame-sweetened kids' drinks they can hold.

 

I've brushed off comments about my children earlier in this thread, but apparently my message isn't getting through.  I can think of a million reasons why this bothers me and brings nothing to the conversation, but I'm going to boil it down to this, for clarity and concision: My children aren't involved in this conversation.  Leave my kids alone.

 

 

post #53 of 67

vaccinations is useful for the children,I belive as a 31 year nurse. we have been vaccining children for years, no problem..And we see there are no longer some illneses..every body knows that

 

post #54 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

"Isolate" means the virus was grown in a lab culture without other viruses present.  This has been done.  There are photos, which I put in the thread.  HIV has been photographed by more than one lab, which means the results have been reproduced.  


Sorry that isn't good enough. The "isolate" you showed me were particles, not pure HIV virus. That is absolutely no proof of HIV virus. If that is the only proof science can provide for HIV or any virus for that matter, then we are all being duped. The virus needs to be isolated from cell tissue, purified, scientifically characterized and photographed by EM. Please tell me why our scientists are unable to do this? It has been done with viruses that infect sea algae, so why can't it be done with human, animal or plant viruses? 

 

 

post #55 of 67

You have yet to provide an alternate, labelled, cited image demonstrating that these particles are what you say they are.  I provided citations from trustworthy sources.  I'm not going to believe my sources are wrong until you provide an equally trustworthy refutation from a scientific source stating that those images are not HIV.  

post #56 of 67
Reign it in, y'all... this forum is geared toward newcomers who are just getting started in making their vaccination decision.

This is NOT the place to debate the origins of HIV, flouride, aspartame, etc.

You all are longtime members and know this already, so I thank you for bringing this back on topic. thumb.gif
post #57 of 67
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

You have yet to provide an alternate, labelled, cited image demonstrating that these particles are what you say they are.  I provided citations from trustworthy sources.  I'm not going to believe my sources are wrong until you provide an equally trustworthy refutation from a scientific source stating that those images are not HIV.  


Come on. The description with the EM photograph said they were endogenous particles, it never said that it was pure, isolated HIV. So you provided the proof with your "trustworthy" sources. 

 

The purification of HIV was never done, according to Luc Montagnier who received the Nobel Prize for the "discovery" of HIV, talking in an interview he said:

 

 

 

Quote:
I repeat we did not purify.
 
[H]ere was so little production of virus it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of virus from a gradient. There was not enough virus to do that. Of course one looked for it, one looked for it in the tissues at the start, likewise in the biopsy. We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology typical of retroviruses. They were very different.

 

So the question remains if Montagnier didn't purify/isolate the HIV virus, how does he know it exists, or any other virus for that matter? Just asking.

post #58 of 67

I could provide you with more images.  This one is particularly lovely: http://ictvdb.bio-mirror.cn/Images/Cornelia/hiv-1_em.htm

 

But I don't think that's what you're looking for.  It sounds like you're going in another direction entirely.  Are you questioning the existence of all viruses ever?  Because that's a fascinating approach to the issue.  Not one I agree with, but if that's what you believe, you should explain that (and explain why) in more detail.  

post #59 of 67
Mizram and stik, I repeat:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosaic View Post

Reign it in, y'all... this forum is geared toward newcomers who are just getting started in making their vaccination decision.
This is NOT the place to debate the origins of HIV, flouride, aspartame, etc.
You all are longtime members and know this already, so I thank you for bringing this back on topic. thumb.gif

Please, stay on topic or I'll have to close the thread. You can take it to PM if you want to discuss these topics more.
post #60 of 67
Thread Starter 

My apologies Mosaic, I did not see your post before I posted mine. I will post no more on the subject. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › 32 million Americans now have antibodies that target their own tissues