or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Vaccination: A Mythical History
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vaccination: A Mythical History

post #1 of 141
Thread Starter 

I thought this was a great retelling of the original fairytale! It is possible that the early practice of vaccination might have assisted in the spread--not decline--of smallpox. How so? Read the tale and find out!

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/08/27/vaccination-a-mythical-history-by-roman-bystrianyk-and-suzanne-humphries-md/

 

There was something else in the story that took me completely by surprise, and I wanted to share. You might know that I LOVE apple cider vinegar, or ACV for short. Well, as legend has it, a very effective cure and preventative for smallpox was.....wait for it........

 

Apple Cider Vinegar!! :joy Yes, ACV saved the day, so you might want to consider adding it to your health regimen!

 

Quote:
 During this time with vaccination as virtually the only medically promoted way to deal with disease, there were doctors finding amazing successes with smallpox using other methods.

(Hooray for alternative medicine!)

Quote:

 In 1899 Dr. Howe also demonstrated vinegar’s ability to protect a person from acquiring smallpox. Those who used the vinegar protocol were able to take care of other people with smallpox without fear of contracting the disease. The author notes that despite several hundred exposures, vinegar was protective against smallpox and was considered an “established fact.”[41]
post #2 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

I thought this was a great retelling of the original fairytale! It is possible that the early practice of vaccination might have assisted in the spread--not decline--of smallpox. How so? Read the tale and find out!

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/08/27/vaccination-a-mythical-history-by-roman-bystrianyk-and-suzanne-humphries-md/

 

There was something else in the story that took me completely by surprise, and I wanted to share. You might know that I LOVE apple cider vinegar, or ACV for short. Well, as legend has it, a very effective cure and preventative for smallpox was.....wait for it........

 

Apple Cider Vinegar!! :joy Yes, ACV saved the day, so you might want to consider adding it to your health regimen!

 

 

It's a good thing medicine and science has come so far since the 1800s.  For instance :

 

 

It wasn't until the early 1900s that doctors started realized this was probably not good for babies. It was used in the 1800s to sooth babies and each ounce of Mrs. Winslow's Soothing Syrup contained 65 mg of pure morphine. Other similar syrups contained "...morphin sulphate, chloroform, morphine hydrochloride, codeine, heroin, powdered opium, cannabis indica." 

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=990CEED71E39E333A25753C3A96E9C946196D6CF

Lobotomies were used into the 1940s as a cure for depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia.  The inventor of the lobotomy even won the nobel prize for it in 1949. 

 

And lets not forget bloodletting! "Bloodletting persisted into the 20th century and was even recommended by Sir William Osler in the 1923 edition of his textbook The Principles and Practice of Medicine.[12] " 

 

Arsenic and mercury were used to treat syphilis. 

 

Opium was prescribed for almost anything, including constipation. 

 

The 1800s was infamous for all the "snake oil" type of remedies. "In 1862, Mixer'sCancer and Scrofula Syrup claimed to treat "Cancer, Tumors, Erysipelas, Abscesses, Ulcers, Fever Sores, Goiter, Catarrh, Salt Rheum, Scald Head, Piles, Rheumatism, and ALL BLOOD DISEASES." 

They also invented a dizzying array of devices, such as electric insoles and magic shoes, to cure sore feet and crippling conditions.

Consider, too, the Health Jolting Chair of the 1880s. It resembled a garden-variety armchair--only rigged with springs and levers. Its advertising promised that the chair would give "efficient exercise to the essentially important nutritive organs of the body."

 

It wasn't until the 1900s that the FDA cracked down with new legislation to prohibit adulteration or misbranding of foods and drugs, as well as false advertising.

http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/look-back-old-time-medicines?page=2

So basically, people could claim almost anything in the 1800s and since there is no scientifically plausible way that vinegar protects you from smallpox, I think it's safe to say that if there were ever another outbreak we should stick to the vaccine ;) 

TLDR: Just because someone said something worked in the 1800s doesn't make it true. 

 

post #3 of 141
Yes, if we are walking down medical memory lane, let's remember the early versions of the Polio Vax in the 30s/40s that gave folks Polio, the Cutter Incident, radiation for tonsillitis, & the incidences where Hemophiliacs were knowingly infected with HIV as late as the 1980s!
post #4 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Yes, if we are walking down medical memory lane, let's remember the early versions of the Polio Vax in the 30s/40s that gave folks Polio, the Cutter Incident, radiation for tonsillitis, & the incidences where Hemophiliacs were knowingly infected with HIV as late as the 1980s!

Thank you!! Sorry, Teacozy, but as I was reading that all I could think of was how your argument argues for NOT trusting the medical establishment.
post #5 of 141
Medicine evolves as new information appears. Like the realisation that vaccination can protect people from getting sick.....

Science is not fixed - it changes with improved evidence. You can either read that and think "oh I shouldn't trust anything they say then as they might change it", or you can think (as I do) that "they're doing the best they can with the available evidence to give the best opinion". You can't ask for more than that in my opinion.
post #6 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Medicine evolves as new information appears. Like the realisation that vaccination can protect people from getting sick.....

Science is not fixed - it changes with improved evidence. You can either read that and think "oh I shouldn't trust anything they say then as they might change it", or you can think (as I do) that "they're doing the best they can with the available evidence to give the best opinion". You can't ask for more than that in my opinion.

 

Would that include the 75% of oncologists who would not give themselves or their families chemo, yet they have no problem about administering it to their patients?

post #7 of 141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 there is no scientifically plausible way that vinegar protects you from smallpox, I think it's safe to say that if there were ever another outbreak we should stick to the vaccine ;) 

Why do you say this? I understand some of you adore vaccines and modern medicine, but do you believe anything natural can prevent or cure a disease? Do vitamins, minerals, and nutrition have no role in health? Or, like the FDA, do you think only a drug can treat, cure, and prevent disease?

 

If disease rates go down after a vaccine is used, you wholeheartedly believe vaccination was the reason. Do you believe the early practice of smallpox inoculation was responsible for the decline of smallpox? I don't, because there is evidence it may have actually spread the disease. Why do you have a hard time believing vinegar successfully prevented and cured smallpox? Is it because there are no gold standard studies to support the claim? Even so, that doesn't mean it isn't true, so you really can't say there is no merit to the vinegar cure.  Why do you think there is there no "scientifically plausible" way? If you were a biochemist, you might change your mind. Not all scientists believe drugs are the one and only cure for disease.

 

Vinegar cures have been around much longer than vaccines. Unfortunately, nobody is getting rich off of vinegar. Still, it might benefit you to read more about it, and maybe give some a try the next time you feel a cold coming on. 

post #8 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Medicine evolves as new information appears. Like the realisation that vaccination can protect people from getting sick.....

Science is not fixed - it changes with improved evidence. You can either read that and think "oh I shouldn't trust anything they say then as they might change it", or you can think (as I do) that "they're doing the best they can with the available evidence to give the best opinion". You can't ask for more than that in my opinion.

I do understand that medicine is changing and new ideas are coming out all the time. I don't deny that improvements are constantly being made, and I don't distrust science across the board.

But I have learned from history and from the status quo that science is not perfect. It's wrought with human error and greed, especially now. I start out skeptical and go from there. I assume nothing just because someone in authority or with certain credentials says I should. I seek my own counsel.
post #9 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

Would that include the 75% of oncologists who would not give themselves or their families chemo, yet they have no problem about administering it to their patients?
Interesting. Do you have a source for this?
post #10 of 141

"Why do you have a hard time believing vinegar successfully prevented and cured smallpox? Is it because there are no gold standard studies to support the claim? Even so, that doesn't mean it isn't true, so you really can't say there is no merit to the vinegar cure. " 

 

Same way I know that eating a chocolate bar or gummy worms won't cure pneumonia or treat AIDS.  We know what ingredients are in vinegar and we know that there is not an ingredient in it that would have any scientific merit in preventing smallpox. 

 

Would anyone here rather their child get pneumonia or and infection or get into an accident in the 1800s vs 2013?  Somehow I seriously doubt it...

 

"Interesting. Do you have a source for this?" 

 

I'd like to see a source as well, Mirzam. 

post #11 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chknlovr View Post
 
Interesting. Do you have a source for this?

 

Of course, it was a McGill university survey of oncologists who were involved chemotherapy drug trials, they were asked what degree of faith they placed in therapies they were administering. They were asked to imagine if they had cancer which of the six current trials would they choose. Of the 118 lung cancer doctors, 79 responded, of which 64 said they would not consent to be in any trial containing Cisplatin. 58 of the 79 said that all trials in question were unacceptable due to the ineffectiveness of chemo and its unacceptably high degree of toxicity. I don't have the actual link because it is on my long dead computer. The questionaire was conducted several years ago, I think around 2007.

post #12 of 141
"Would anyone here rather their child get pneumonia or and infection or get into an accident in the 1800s vs 2013? Somehow I seriously doubt it..."

I don't really understand what the point of this question is. No one is denying that there are great things about today's medical treatment, especially emergency care. It's a generalization to assume that just because someone questions some areas of medicine and recognizes its past successes and mistakes that somehow we deny all medical treatment. It's just a stereotype and not based in anything real. It's not a logical argument.
post #13 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

"Why do you have a hard time believing vinegar successfully prevented and cured smallpox? Is it because there are no gold standard studies to support the claim? Even so, that doesn't mean it isn't true, so you really can't say there is no merit to the vinegar cure. " 

 

Same way I know that eating a chocolate bar or gummy worms won't cure pneumonia or treat AIDS.  We know what ingredients are in vinegar and we know that there is not an ingredient in it that would have any scientific merit in preventing smallpox. 

 

Would anyone here rather their child get pneumonia or and infection or get into an accident in the 1800s vs 2013?  Somehow I seriously doubt it...

 

"Interesting. Do you have a source for this?" 

 

I'd like to see a source as well, Mirzam. 

 

See above post for source.

 

Just what pharmaceutical can cure anything, smallpox or whatever? All drugs do is poison the enzyme system. If the result is desireable is classifed as beneficial, if it undesirable it is called a adverse effect. All drugs create side effects - good or bad - that is what they are designed to do.

 

Trauma care is not pharmocology.

 

Actually, chocolate has many properties that promote healing, so that wasn't a good example to use. 

post #14 of 141
Mmmmm.... Chocolate. ;-)
post #15 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

See above post for source.

 

Just what pharmaceutical can cure anything, smallpox or whatever? All drugs do is poison the enzyme system. If the result is desireable is classifed as beneficial, if it undesirable it is called a adverse effect. All drugs create side effects - good or bad - that is what they are designed to do.

 

Trauma care is not pharmocology.

 

Actually, chocolate has many properties that promote healing, so that wasn't a good example to use. 

 

Of course certain medical conditions can be cured.  Are you saying there is no difference between a cure and a treatment? For instance, you can treat a certain kind of diabetes but you can't cure it. HIV can be treated but not cured. The term "cure" means that, after medical treatment, the patient no longer has that particular condition anymore.

 

"Actually, chocolate has many properties that promote healing, so that wasn't a good example to use. "

 

Unless you think that the treatment for a child coming into the ER with pneumonia should be chocolate, it's a good example. 

post #16 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

Of course, it was a McGill university survey of oncologists who were involved chemotherapy drug trials, they were asked what degree of faith they placed in therapies they were administering. They were asked to imagine if they had cancer which of the six current trials would they choose. Of the 118 lung cancer doctors, 79 responded, of which 64 said they would not consent to be in any trial containing Cisplatin. 58 of the 79 said that all trials in question were unacceptable due to the ineffectiveness of chemo and its unacceptably high degree of toxicity. I don't have the actual link because it is on my long dead computer. The questionaire was conducted several years ago, I think around 2007.

 

Several years ago indeed.  It was 1985. And it was not cancer in general but for non-small-cell lung cancer.  

 

I can't find the specific study online, but this article discusses the results:  http://www.cancernetwork.com/display/article/10165/66128?verify=0

 

Here is another study from a few years later which discusses oncologists chemo choices for themselves for different types of cancer.  Note that they would nearly all use chemo for Hodskins disease while the great majority would not for resectable colon cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1977523/pdf/brjcancer00072-0193.pdf Cancer treatment as well as therapie to deal with the side effects of chemo have continued to make huge improvements since then. 

 

Which bring up the important point that just as doctors make different choices for themselves depending on the type of cancer, treatment recomendations also differ based on the cancer.  What percentage of non-small-cell cancer patients actually received chemo for their cancer?   How many of the doctors who would refuse it for themselves were actually pushing it for their patients or even recommending it?   That is information I don't have right now, but it would be interesting to see. 

 

(This blog post led me to theabove links http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/do-75-of-doctors-refuse-chemotherapy-on-themselves/)

post #17 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Of course certain medical conditions can be cured.  Are you saying there is no difference between a cure and a treatment? For instance, you can treat a certain kind of diabetes but you can't cure it. HIV can be treated but not cured. The term "cure" means that, after medical treatment, the patient no longer has that particular condition anymore.

 

"Actually, chocolate has many properties that promote healing, so that wasn't a good example to use. "

 

Unless you think that the treatment for a child coming into the ER with pneumonia should be chocolate, it's a good example. 

 

:truedat:

 

Too add to the cure, while chemotherapy only prolongs life without curing for many cancers, and may not be helpful at all for certain cancers, there are also cancers for which it is very effective.  Most cases of childhood leukemia are cured these days, and that is primarily thanks to chemotherapy. 

 

Too add to disease we still can't cure but can treat,  cystic fibrosis is caused by simple bad luck of recessive gene.  We still don't have a cure (perhaps gene therapy will provide one someday, but I think that day is still a long way off), but not that long ago, cystic fibrosis patients typically died in infancy or early childhood, and it was quite rare for them to make it to twenty. Now while some still die young, the average lifespan is into their forties, and that is thanks to modern medicine.  How  many have seizure conditions that left untreated would lead to a horrible life and early death but are able to go about their day fairly normally thanks to seizure medications?  Asthma rates may have gone up due to human caused pollution and other choices, but whatever the cause, it exists and asthma patents survive and live much better lives thanks to effective medication.  The list goes on and on. 

 

And antibiotics are our best example of a cure.  How often due you hear of people getting rheumatic fever from a  case of strep or dying of scarlet fever?  You don't because most strep is still easily cured with a simple course of antibiotics, as are so many bacterial infections that would have caused terrible suffering or death in the past. Most ear infections clear up on their own, but for those that won't, I am grateful we can treat them now - my grandmother suffered terribly and had permanent hearing loss from an ear infection that nearly killed her.  An ear infection.  It's hard to imagine now.  

post #18 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Of course certain medical conditions can be cured.  Are you saying there is no difference between a cure and a treatment? For instance, you can treat a certain kind of diabetes but you can't cure it. HIV can be treated but not cured. The term "cure" means that, after medical treatment, the patient no longer has that particular condition anymore.

 

"Actually, chocolate has many properties that promote healing, so that wasn't a good example to use. "

 

Unless you think that the treatment for a child coming into the ER with pneumonia should be chocolate, it's a good example. 

No it is still a lousy, condescending comment, that really does not warrant acknowledgment. Why do I bother?

post #19 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
 
 

 

And antibiotics are our best example of a cure.  How often due you hear of people getting rheumatic fever from a  case of strep or dying of scarlet fever?  You don't because most strep is still easily cured with a simple course of antibiotics, as are so many bacterial infections that would have caused terrible suffering or death in the past. Most ear infections clear up on their own, but for those that won't, I am grateful we can treat them now - my grandmother suffered terribly and had permanent hearing loss from an ear infection that nearly killed her.  An ear infection.  It's hard to imagine now.  

Actually no, antibiotics cure nothing, only the body is able to heal. Antiboitics merely kill microbes, and the cost of which can be devastating to the microbiome. Not to mention the devistation of antibiotic resistant bacteria which kills hundreds of thousands (if not more) worldwide.

post #20 of 141
MRSA. CDiff.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Vaccination: A Mythical History