Vaccination: A Mythical History - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 141 Old 09-07-2013, 03:48 PM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,950
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)

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]
Mirzam and applejuice like this.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#2 of 141 Old 09-07-2013, 08:04 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
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. 

 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#3 of 141 Old 09-07-2013, 10:49 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#4 of 141 Old 09-07-2013, 10:58 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
#5 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 01:38 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,798
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
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.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#6 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 06:30 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
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?


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#7 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 06:58 AM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,950
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
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. 


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#8 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 07:24 AM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
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.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
#9 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 07:58 AM
 
chknlovr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
Imakcerka and teacozy like this.
chknlovr is offline  
#10 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 08:25 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)

"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. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#11 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 08:43 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
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.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#12 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 08:47 AM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
"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.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
#13 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 08:49 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
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. 

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#14 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 08:53 AM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,983
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Mmmmm.... Chocolate. ;-)

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
#15 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 09:04 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 394 Post(s)
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. 

Imakcerka likes this.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#16 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 09:23 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
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/)

teacozy likes this.
pers is online now  
#17 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 09:51 AM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
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.  

Imakcerka and teacozy like this.
pers is online now  
#18 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 09:54 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
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?


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#19 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 10:00 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
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.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#20 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 10:30 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
MRSA. CDiff.
dinahx is offline  
#21 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 10:33 AM
 
chknlovr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

MRSA. CDiff.

 

What does this mean?

chknlovr is offline  
#22 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 10:34 AM
 
chknlovr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 80
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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."

chknlovr is offline  
#23 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 10:49 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
applejuice likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#24 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 10:51 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
dinahx is offline  
#25 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 11:02 AM
 
crayfishgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 563
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.


Camille~
Mama to F (3/09) and S (3/11); and never forgetting my babe gone too soon angel1.gif(4/10).

crayfishgirl is offline  
#26 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 11:10 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Mirzam, applejuice and rachelsmama like this.
dinahx is offline  
#27 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 11:58 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,155
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
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.

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#28 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 12:14 PM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Fecal transplants are the wave of the future!
Imakcerka likes this.

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#29 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 01:06 PM
 
pers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
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.  

teacozy likes this.
pers is online now  
#30 of 141 Old 09-08-2013, 01:36 PM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 1,950
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)

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. 

applejuice and sassyfirechick like this.

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off