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 - Page 2

post #21 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

MRSA. CDiff.

 

What does this mean?

post #22 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
 

 

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/)

 

Thanks for clarifying that, pers.  That makes a lot more sense than "75% of oncologists would refuse chemotherapy for themselves and their family."

post #23 of 141
Just listing some of the deadly consequences that come from deifying medical tools & applying them non-judiciously, downplaying their risks & emphasizing their benefits.

We see this with the VAST overuse of medical imaging, especially radiation.

As well as overuse of Induction & Cesarean, to maternal health detriment.
post #24 of 141
post #25 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

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.

 

Really??  Surely you can see that not killing microbes can be devastating to the patient infected with them.  For me, concern with the macrobiome (i.e. me, my children, my neighbor, you) trumps that of the microbiome. 

 

I'd be interested to see the cost/benefit analysis that summarizes deaths from not using antibiotics vs. deaths from antibiotic-resistent that seems to form the basis of this statement.

post #26 of 141
Well actually, decimating the Microbiome actually is what creates the 'open field' needed for diseases like CDiff to thrive. As well as chronic digestive issues.
post #27 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
 

 

 

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.  

 

And yet vaccines are almost unilaterally a one size fits all program.

post #28 of 141
Fecal transplants are the wave of the future!
post #29 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

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.

 

That's splitting hairs/arguing semantics. 

 

Antibiotics kill the microbes causing the damage allowing the body to heal itself.  In many cases, the immune system would have fought off the infection eventually anyway, but often not before more damage would have been done, sometimes crippling permanent damage, and we may end up with things such as rheumatic fever. In other cases the body can't quite fight off the bacteria (such a chronic syphilis), or the bacteria may quickly overwhelm the body and kill the person.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Just listing some of the deadly consequences that come from deifying medical tools & applying them non-judiciously, downplaying their risks & emphasizing their benefits.

We see this with the VAST overuse of medical imaging, especially radiation.

As well as overuse of Induction & Cesarean, to maternal health detriment.

 

That there are problems with overuse/abuse of bacteria and antibiotic resistant bacteria are reasons to educate on the proper use of antibiotics, work to prevent infection to begin with as much as possible, and to support research into new antibiotics and treatment options.  It is not reason to quit using antibiotics and it does not negate the good that has been done by antibiotics or the huge amount of lives that have been saved by them.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

And yet vaccines are almost unilaterally a one size fits all program.

 

Not really. 

 

Just like chemo is the default best option for leukemia and several other cancers, vaccination is the best option for preventing measles, rubella, mumps, hib, etc..  

 

However, I've been vaccinated for yellow fever - have you?  I'm willing that most people here have never even been offered it, and that is due to a difference in our needs. I was travelling to an area where it was a risk.  Most of us will never even be offered a rabies shot.  Most of us who were vaccinated for polio got the oral vaccine, but kids today get the less effective but safer polio shot because while there is still a risk of polio importation, polio numbers are so low that it is much less of a risk than it used to be. While vaccines are believed to be safe for most kids/people, even many with immune conditions or other diseases, there are also some who are not vaccinated due to known allergies or certain immune conditions for vaccinated is contraindicated. 

 

There is a vaccine for tuberculosis which is still given some places but not routinely in North America as it is not very effective and not the best method of controlling tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is slow to spread and normally requires prolonged contact so can be controlled by antibiotic treatment (forced at times.. here at least you can be locked up for failure to comply) and tracking down contacts who may be infected (and yes, there are problems with antibiotic strains developing, but still, it is one disease I am happy we've had antibiotics for - what else are you going to do with tuberculosis?). Typhoid vaccine is also not given here because unlike measles and stuff, typhoid really can be easily controlled by sanitation, and so sewage treatment and safe food handling is a better option for dealing with it here than vaccination. Other vaccines are only given to people at increased risk of contracting certain diseases or at increased risk of suffering serious complications of the diseases.  

post #30 of 141
Thread Starter 

Vinegar is a PREbiotic--

"A prebiotic is a selectively fermented ingredient that allows specific changes, both in the composition and/or activity in the gastrointestinal microflora that confers benefits upon host well-being and health."

 

Maybe vinegar DID help prevent, and even cure, smallpox. It could have strengthened the patient's immune system, which protected him from infection, or helped cure him once already infected. Is this scientifically plausible enough for you? If nutrition has no relation to health, then why don't we all just eat at McDonald's for every meal? What is the point of living a healthy lifestyle if there is no benefit? I could be saving lots of money by eating at the dollar menu!

 

There is also a common misconception that people who support natural cures must not support conventional medicine. There are many aspects of modern medicine I appreciate, such as emergency care. In certain cases, drugs can be helpful.  I would like to see supporters of conventional medicine acknowledge the benefits of nutrition and natural cures, but that probably won't happen any time soon.

 

Also, sorry for the random ramblings, but this part really annoys me......when a natural cure works, why is it always attributed to the placebo effect? :dizzy   What a nice way for science to write off something it cannot explain. 

post #31 of 141
Thread Starter 

Also, what about the idea that early smallpox inoculation actually spread the disease?  Is this something that vaccine defenders can address?

post #32 of 141

Clearly smallpox inoculation spreads smallpox. That is why we have had so much smallpox in recent years. 

 

Oh. Wait. Smallpox died off so much that the vaccination program was stopped. 

 

I was never even vaccinated against smallpox. Were you? By the time I was born, it was no longer considered necessary because smallpox had been eliminated. 

post #33 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by crayfishgirl View Post
 

Really??  Surely you can see that not killing microbes can be devastating to the patient infected with them.  For me, concern with the macrobiome (i.e. me, my children, my neighbor, you) trumps that of the microbiome. 

 

I'd be interested to see the cost/benefit analysis that summarizes deaths from not using antibiotics vs. deaths from antibiotic-resistent that seems to form the basis of this statement.

The thing is I don't believe that microbes cause disease, but they are the mechanism by which the body heals, the microbes either break down or build up cells. We need them to maintain health.  It like blaming the fireman who come to put out the fire, for the fire. If you decimate them then, you are not only interferring with the body's natural healing process, you are messing with the immune system (or more accurately the healing support system), hence MRSA, CDiff etc. You are also risking auto immune disease.

 

Having an healthy, balanced microbiome is the key to good health, and easy, complication free healing.

post #34 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by erigeron View Post
 

Clearly smallpox inoculation spreads smallpox. That is why we have had so much smallpox in recent years. 

 

Oh. Wait. Smallpox died off so much that the vaccination program was stopped. 

 

I was never even vaccinated against smallpox. Were you? By the time I was born, it was no longer considered necessary because smallpox had been eliminated. 

 

The plague died out too, but there never was a vaccine for that. Real history shows that vaccination had no impact on smallpox's demise, only its proliferation. 

 

And, yes I was vaccinated against smallpox, twice, because it didn't take the first time, and barely took the second time. 

post #35 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
 

 

 

 

 

 

Not really. 

 

Just like chemo is the default best option for leukemia and several other cancers, vaccination is the best option for preventing measles, rubella, mumps, hib, etc..  

 

However, I've been vaccinated for yellow fever - have you?  I'm willing that most people here have never even been offered it, and that is due to a difference in our needs. I was travelling to an area where it was a risk.  Most of us will never even be offered a rabies shot.  Most of us who were vaccinated for polio got the oral vaccine, but kids today get the less effective but safer polio shot because while there is still a risk of polio importation, polio numbers are so low that it is much less of a risk than it used to be. While vaccines are believed to be safe for most kids/people, even many with immune conditions or other diseases, there are also some who are not vaccinated due to known allergies or certain immune conditions for vaccinated is contraindicated. 

 

There is a vaccine for tuberculosis which is still given some places but not routinely in North America as it is not very effective and not the best method of controlling tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is slow to spread and normally requires prolonged contact so can be controlled by antibiotic treatment (forced at times.. here at least you can be locked up for failure to comply) and tracking down contacts who may be infected (and yes, there are problems with antibiotic strains developing, but still, it is one disease I am happy we've had antibiotics for - what else are you going to do with tuberculosis?). Typhoid vaccine is also not given here because unlike measles and stuff, typhoid really can be easily controlled by sanitation, and so sewage treatment and safe food handling is a better option for dealing with it here than vaccination. Other vaccines are only given to people at increased risk of contracting certain diseases or at increased risk of suffering serious complications of the diseases.  

There are a *few* vaccines that are offered to some people but not others, but so what?  Yes, vaccines are often done unilaterally, hence the name of certain campaigns - such as "every child by two."   In the USA, Canada, etc - all (or almost all) children are expected to get all vaccines on the schedule and on time - with little discussion of whether this child is at high risk for Hep.B (for instance) or at high risk for rotavirus complications.  There is even less discussion and understanding of who vaccines would be a bad idea for, due to potential reactions.  

post #36 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

 

The plague died out too, but there never was a vaccine for that. Real history shows that vaccination had no impact on smallpox's demise, only its proliferation. 

 

And, yes I was vaccinated against smallpox, twice, because it didn't take the first time, and barely took the second time. 

 

Not all infectious diseases are the same. The plague was transmitted differently than smallpox and had different symptoms and effects on the body. You cannot simply just compare measles to the black plague or smallpox to the black plague. The major black plague epidemic only lasted 3-5 years but wiped out a third of the European population. By comparison, smallpox has been around for thousands and thousands of years. 

 

Why has chicken pox not died out? Why was there not a drastic drop in incidence until the vaccine? Or measles? Why is almost no other infectious disease eradicated?  

 

Here is an interesting article that explains why the plague died out so quickly 

 

"The likely explanation is just this: the Black Death was simply too deadly to persist. Evolutionary theory tells us that a pathogen that kills all its victims will eventually run out of victims, leading to its own extinction. The plague bacteria needed to evolve into something less virulent, and that seems to be what happened. A bug that doesn’t kill its host is far more successful evolutionarily. (Just look at the common cold, which we can’t seem to get rid of.)

The same thing happened to the “Spanish” flu virus, the one that cause the terrible 1918 flu pandemic. It too evolved into a milder pathogen, and it is still with us today – the 2009 influenza pandemic was caused by a direct descendant of the 1918 virus."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2011/09/02/the-black-death-is-dead-thanks-to-evolution/

The plague killed 2/3 of its victims and the Spanish Flu pandemic killed up to 20 percent of people who got it, and ultimately killed up to 6 percent of the global population in just one year.  This flu was also different in that " it mostly killed young adults, with 99% of pandemic influenza deaths occurring in people under 65, and more than half in young adults 20 to 40 years old.[47] This is noteworthy, since influenza is normally most deadly to weak individuals, such as infants (under age two), the very old (over age 70), and the immunocompromised. " 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_flu_pandemic

 

post #37 of 141

the plague was spread by fleas..

Quote:
It was said the Black Death began in the most remote regions of the Mongol empire, and spread along their trade routes to the Black Sea port of Caffa, from which it spread by ship to Italy and all of Europe. It was caused by a deadly microbe - Yersina Pestis - carried in the stomachs of fleas infecting the common rats which so heavily infested the towns of the Middle Ages. As the disease killed the rats, the fleas moved onto other hosts - human beings. Once the humans were infected, they themselves became highly contagious, spitting and coughing contaminated blood. In some cases, death came within a day, taking whole families between one morning and the next.

http://www.history.co.uk/shows/the-plague/season-1/about.html;jsessionid=0C6A44A3D1B95C7460408A8144D9DBD4?

 

i was watching a documentary on the history channel about cats, and the show went on to say during the time of the plague was when the housecat became useful in killing the rats..for some reason the plague didn't kill the cats.

post #38 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Also, what about the idea that early smallpox inoculation actually spread the disease?  Is this something that vaccine defenders can address?

 

There are two methods discussed in the article.  The first one is variolation of which the article says: "There was one major and generally unacknowledged drawback to variolation – those inoculated could and did spread smallpox creating more deaths than there would have been naturally."

 

This is most likely true.  It is absolutely true that variolation spread smallpox - it was the deliberate infection of a person with smallpox material from someone who had had a minor case, and people infected this way were less likely to die than people who caught smallpox the normal way as the mild case was often (but not always) variola minor rather than the method of infection may have resulted a milder and more localized case.  Wikipedia actually has a great description of how this is thought to have worked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inoculation#Mechanism. Of course while the death rate wasn't a high as for naturally caught smallpox (variola major, at least) many people died of it, and some of the people deliberately infected with smallpox this way may never have caught and spread smallpox naturally.  

 

Did Jenner's cowpox vaccine spread smallpox?  Well, there were no alcohol wipes or disposable syringes or single use needles in those days.   I don't think vaccination with cowpox was responsible for large outbreaks of smallpox, but for a time it was done by arm to arm method - a person would be infected with cowpox, and then when a blister formed at the site of infection material would be taken from it to infect/vaccinate someone else and so forth.  If the first person was already incubating smallpox at the time of vaccination, could the material taken from their vaccination site have smallpox along with in or in place of cowpox?  I don't know for sure, but I would expect so, and could imagine that smallpox may have been spread this way on occasion.  Syphilis certainly was.  

 

I would guess (and this is speculation) that while cross contamination could till have been possible, this would have been much less likely once they changed to incubating cowpox on a poor cow instead of directly from person to person this was much less likely, and I am certain this wouldn't have been a problem by the big push to end smallpox in the last century as by that time they would have had a much greater ability to protect against contamination and ensure they were infecting people with the correct thing. (This paragraph and the one previous are mostly just my personal speculation) 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

The thing is I don't believe that microbes cause disease, but they are the mechanism by which the body heals, the microbes either break down or build up cells. We need them to maintain health.  It like blaming the fireman who come to put out the fire, for the fire. If you decimate them then, you are not only interferring with the body's natural healing process, you are messing with the immune system (or more accurately the healing support system), hence MRSA, CDiff etc. You are also risking auto immune disease.

 

Having an healthy, balanced microbiome is the key to good health, and easy, complication free healing.

 

By this logic, do you think that the Leicester method was useless and there is absolutely no point in quarantining people with smallpox or any other disease?

 

There are certainly bacteria that are harmless as well as bacteria that we depend on and need to survive.  I do believe that nutrition and lifestyle matter, and that poor nutrition, stress, lack of sleep, lack of exercise, etc. can weaken the immune system and make you more susceptible to disease, but that is all stuff that mainstream medicine says too.  

 

What I object to is the idea that there is some state of disease-proof purity you can attain if only you eat the perfect diet (plant based or paleo or living food or whatever depending on who you listen to) and take the right supplements and avoid chemicals you will be protected from all disease.   People with poor health/nutrition may get sicker and be more likely to be killed by thing other people are just a little under the weather from, and starting from a position of good health you are more likely to recover from serious illness than those who are unhealthy to begin with, but if you get bit by a rabid animal or heavily exposed to something really nasty such as ebola or inhale anthrax, you are still going to be in trouble.  Our bodies aren't perfect and not all bacteria or viruses are of equal strength. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

There are a *few* vaccines that are offered to some people but not others, but so what?  Yes, vaccines are often done unilaterally, hence the name of certain campaigns - such as "every child by two."   In the USA, Canada, etc - all (or almost all) children are expected to get all vaccines on the schedule and on time - with little discussion of whether this child is at high risk for Hep.B (for instance) or at high risk for rotavirus complications.  There is even less discussion and understanding of who vaccines would be a bad idea for, due to potential reactions.  

 

There is discussion of that though.  There is just disagreement over where the risk/benefit line is.  Oral polio was stopped because it has a higher risk than vaccine and American/Canadian children are unlikely to be exposed to polio, so he risk of the vaccine was seen as greater than the risk of the disease (as things stand now) and so they moved to a less effective but safer vaccine.  Hepatitis B vaccine is given because the vaccine is believed to be very safe, safe enough that it the risks from the vaccine are thought to be less than the risk of disease even to children who have low risk of catching the disease.  A lot of people disagree with this, but that is the thought. 

post #39 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Also, what about the idea that early smallpox inoculation actually spread the disease?  Is this something that vaccine defenders can address?

 

The authors in the article were referring to the practice of variolation, not vaccination - at least as far as I could follow (I found the article to be a bit of a mess.  Interesting, but it will take me a while to parse through everything they strung together.). 

 

I don't know that much about variolation, but I've been interested lately.  I found this chapter on its history in the treatment of smallpox in Smallpox and Its Eradication, which is available as an e-book online.  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwhqlibdoc.who.int%2Fsmallpox%2F9241561106_chp6.pdf&ei=CSYtUqeFBcmWiQLl0ICQDA&usg=AFQjCNGa7495XgZX3z8HFVw5soCI2bVQVA&sig2=E0PsPlJ9q-YLFTpvxB4PAA&bvm=bv.51773540,d.cGE 

 

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing, but its also pretty interesting.  It seems likely that variolation did increase or prolong epidemics.  However, one of the common practices was to isolate people when they were variolated so it also seems like at least some doctors were aware that it could spread disease - contrary to what the authors of the OP article suggested.

 

 

I'm curious about the idea that microbes don't cause disease.  What was the cause of smallpox then and why are sanitation measures effective in preventing its spread?

post #40 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwill View Post
 
 

 

I'm curious about the idea that microbes don't cause disease.  What was the cause of smallpox then and why are sanitation measures effective in preventing its spread?

 

First, smallpox is not a highly contagious disease, one doctor, Dr Charles Campbell believed it was an insect borne disease, carried by bedbugs.

 

"As a matter of fact, perhaps it is safe to say that not more than 10 per cent of the people ever would take smallpox if sleeping in the same bed with an infected smallpox victim." Dr William Howard Hay (1937)

 

"Dr Charles A.A. Campbell, MD of San Antonio, USA, who was for years in charge of an isolation hospital made exhaustive experiments in order to demonstrate that smallpox is contagious, but found that this is not the case." From Health for All, The Scare Diseases by Keki Sidwa

 

"Smallpox is about as contagious as stumbling over a rock. Dr. Herbert M. Shelton slept in the same bed with his brother while the latter was in the so-called infectious stage with vesicles all over. Yet Dr. Shelton did not develop smallpox." Dr Vivian Virginia Vetrano

 

 

"This child, although living in the same room with the patients at the Pest House, had not acquired the smallpox, after being exposed to it all of the time for a period of six weeks; yet upon the fifth day after returning home, this child acquired the initial fever. I then examined their house and found it to be literally alive with bedbugs." Dr Charles Campbell

 

Another myth about smallpox is that is a deadly disease. What killed was not smallpox but the allopathic treatment of smallpox, as was demonstrated by the city of Leicester, which discontinued vaccination and had way fewer deaths than vaccianted cities. It has been know since the 1600s how to reduce smallpox deaths (without vaccination), physician, Sir Thomas Sydenham , devised a cure and achieved a 1 to 2 percent death rate compared 50 percent.

 

"Provide no mischief be done by either by physician or nurse, it is the most safe and slight of all diseases - Thomas Sydenham"

 

200 years later allopathic doctors were seeing a mortality rate of 18 to 26 percent. Not so for homeopathic physicians who were way more successful, from W.L.Bonnell MD, My Experience with Smallpox and Internal Vaccination

 

"Nearly one-half of my cases were treated in the city pest-house, and here especially there was a chance for comparison of the homeopathic and the "old school" method. Not one case receiving homeopathic care died, while the "old school" doctors lost twenty percent of their cases."

 

Smallpox is a very interesting example of how we have been hoaxed.

 

It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with vaccines when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated - Glenn Dettman, MMA, BA, PhD, 

 

 

(If you are curious about questioning of the germ theory, start by reading about the germ vs cellular theory - Pasteur vs Bechamp.)

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