Vaccines, $$$ & "fight the virus NATURALLY"! - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 250Likes
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-04-2014, 10:06 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Please stay on topic.
My personal choice for my child frankly is none of your business or relevant to this thread.

I do not support experimental procedure in general but again that is not what this is about nor is it about diphtheria no matter how you keep after it.
You said natural is always better. Not "natural is only better when treating X". So it is relevant to ask for clarification about other non natural treatments in the context of your statement.

But go ahead, continue to dodge the question

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-04-2014, 10:13 AM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
You said natural is always better. Not "natural is only better when treating X". So it is relevant to ask for clarification about other non natural treatments in the context of your statement.

But go ahead, continue to dodge the question
First I NEVER said treating X is better, nothing even close to it.
Where do you have me quoted as even saying that?
I'm not dodging a thing - if you desire to talk about another subject please do so on a thread about the subject you desire to talk about.

Are you interested in the PRO vaccine line on plane ride away or money or do you simply wish to twist the news reports on natural?
serenbat is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 10:15 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
As per the profit line of questioning, I thought this statement made by someone named Todd W summed it up nicely.

"I really don't understand why you (non vaxxers) villify someone getting paid for the work that they have done. I assume that none of you get paychecks and just altruistically donate your time to your employers. That's the only explanation I can think of. "

The above was in response to a comment about Paul Offit, but the same idea applies to vaccine manufacturers. They are a company that has to make money. Trials cost millions and take years.

Ebola is scary and gets a lot of media attention when there is an outbreak, but malaria kills more people in a single day than ebola has in close to 30 years. 3,000 children die A DAY from malaria, or one child every 30 seconds.

Years can go by without a single Ebola death. When there are outbreaks it's usually between 50-200 deaths. To again put these numbers in perspective, it is estimated that between 6,000-24,000 people die a year from getting struck by lightning.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson

Last edited by teacozy; 08-04-2014 at 10:46 AM.
teacozy is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 10:18 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
First I NEVER said treating X is better, nothing even close to it.
Where do you have me quoted as even saying that?
I'm not dodging a thing - if you desire to talk about another subject please do so on a thread about the subject you desire to talk about.

Are you interested in the PRO vaccine line on plane ride away or money or do you simply wish to twist the news reports on natural?
Oh for Pete's sake. X being anything. Meaning, you didn't just say you only thought treating Ebola (or add in any other specific disease) was better. You said treating things naturally was always better. Using the term always opens the door to discussing/asking for clarification on treatments other than ebola.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 10:33 AM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Oh for Pete's sake. X being anything. Meaning, you didn't just say you only thought treating Ebola (or add in any other specific disease) was better. You said treating things naturally was always better. Using the term always opens the door to discussing/asking for clarification on treatments other than ebola.


YES for Pete's sake twisting a news story into trying to make this thread a personal issue on my child- so way OT isn't it???
Always happens naturally!
serenbat is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 10:36 AM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
As per the profit line of questioning, I thought this statement made by someone named Todd W summed it up
Yes! ALL about making money! I agree!! The bottom line is money!
serenbat is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 10:44 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Here are the stats from the CDC on Ebola outbreak cases and deaths from 1976 to present.

Not including this year, there has been an average of fewer than 85 cases of ebola a year world wide. That's not even deaths, just cases.

I was in a rush so feel free to re check my math, but you get the idea.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/resourc...eak-table.html

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 10:49 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Oh whoops, that link actually listed more than just Ebola. Was in a rush and didn't even notice. So that number is actually going to be much lower.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 11:05 AM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
It is certainly perceived as being some great threat given the coverage and the comments being made in the US. Since only .3% don't vaccinate and the majority do, those who are fearful must be those who vaccinate .
serenbat is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 11:27 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Ok, just looking at the Ebola deaths since 1976 and including the abnormally high numbers from the current outbreak bringing the average up, we're still only talking about an average of 57 deaths a year globally from ebola.

Of course any death from ebola is sad, but I'm guessing most of us can understand from a business/economical perspective that an ebola vaccine is not a high priority. 57 deaths a year out of the billions on our planet is a relatively minuscule number of people.

The disease is just not all that contagious, and usually cannot travel far due to how deadly it is. Which is obviously a good thing.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 12:13 PM
 
crazyms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Way down south
Posts: 1,190
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 71 Post(s)
I want to bring up a point to the OP about the money issue. I agree with you but I thought of one point that I think got overlooked to begin with.

Yes it takes money to make a vaccine (we already knew that)
Yes there is some profit to be made and the companies as businesses want that (okay fine... it's business we get that)
Here's the problem I'm seeing: the "no market" comment.

There's ALWAYS a market for a vaccine. Even if the disease is not likely to be an issue for a population they will still vaccinate for it if the treatment is available and a doctor recommends it which is seen constantly with the current vaccination schedule. New vaccines are added all the time with little to no resistance from the vaxxers.

Michelle mom to DD , DS , & lil DD plus and spending my days
crazyms is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 01:26 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyms View Post

There's ALWAYS a market for a vaccine. OR you make one! Even if the disease is not likely to be an issue for a population they will still vaccinate for it if the treatment is available and a doctor recommends it which is seen constantly with the current vaccination schedule. New vaccines are added all the time with little to no resistance from the vaxxers.
Well simply looking at the population numbers in the current countries effected, I see enough but I don't get to make that call. Given there is no reason (IMO) to say it will always be confined either, that one would think, should factor it. The US govt need another reason? Compared to a small percentage that gets another type of vaccine, personally I don't understand the justification. I feel the economy of the region (money money money) is behind much of it.

BUT accord to Teacozy -
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Of course any death from ebola is sad, but I'm guessing most of us can understand from a business/economical perspective that an ebola vaccine is not a high priority. 57 deaths a year out of the billions on our planet is a relatively minuscule number of people.
According to the links I provided - http://www.vox.com/2014/7/31/5952665...nt-it-happened

The problem, instead, is the economics of drug development. Pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to pour research and development dollars into curing a disease that surfaces sporadically in low-income, African countries. They aren't likely to see a large pay-off at the end — and could stand to lose money.

AGAIN, it's about money NOT that there is not a NEED.



These outbreaks affect the poorest communities on the planet. Although they do create incredible upheaval, they are relatively rare events. So if you look at the interest of pharmaceutical companies, there is not huge enthusiasm to take an Ebola drug through phase one, two, and three of a trial and make an Ebola vaccine that maybe a few tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people will use.

Poor people, not a profit IMO


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ebola-vacci...esting-1458951

Money is not the only hurdle in vaccine development.

In all the news stories I have read, in one way or another money is mentioned. Money IMO seems to trump in the end no matter what. Pretending it's not a concern and it's ALL about need doesn't seem correct. If it is not about money, why keep bringing it up?

ETA- apparently the Defense Dept has some money (surprise?!) http://www.vox.com/2014/8/3/5962381/...-halted-trials
But TKM-Ebola has attracted the interest of the government. The Defense Department awarded it a contract for $140 million in 2010, after the vaccine proved completely effective in treating non-human primates in chimps. The government's interest in vaccinating against Ebola is largely rooted in preventing bioterrorism attacks, where the disease could be used a weapon.

If there is a will - a way? but BIG Pharma likes money $$$$$$ - http://www.newsweek.com/us-sitting-p...accines-262870

The lack of funding is largely due to a lack of interest shown by pharmaceutical companies, for whom a rural, relatively low-kill African disease presents no lucrative market.

Research money isn't the issue, making a profit (lucrative) seems to be......seems like when every article talks money it must somehow be about money and if you can't make a TON of it, forget it!

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 


Last edited by serenbat; 08-04-2014 at 01:51 PM.
serenbat is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 01:27 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

Of course any death from ebola is sad, but I'm guessing most of us can understand from a business/economical perspective that an ebola vaccine is not a high priority. 57 deaths a year out of the billions on our planet is a relatively minuscule number of people.

Who is this "us" you speak for?

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 


Last edited by serenbat; 08-04-2014 at 02:12 PM.
serenbat is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 02:19 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Doesn't look like natural was better. The two Americans were given a "top secret" experimental serum that had only ever been tested on monkeys. It appears to have worked.
To be clear here - I did post about blood transfusions up thread and posted links too. This "serum" is - blood, by the way last time I checked that was still natural

http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsod...ts-second-case

Both Brantly and Writebol received an experimental treatment for Ebola — a blood serum derived from a person who survived an Ebola infection. Brantly also received a blood transfusion from a 14-year-old boy, who recovered from Ebola, Samaritan's Purse said.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014...-it-might-help
Here's the idea: A person who had managed to fight off the infection may have developed antibodies that circulate in the blood and that could neutralize the Ebola virus.

This isn't as crazy as it might seem. In fact, these "sera" were a common treatment for infectious diseases in the 19th century, before antibiotics came along. Sera are proven treatments for many infectious diseases, including diphtheria and botulism. In fact, the immune globulins used to treat tetanus today are a refined version of this process.

"For example, if you step on a nail and are exposed to tetanus, and you've never been vaccinated, you can get something called tetanus immune globulin, which works immediately," says Dr. E. Richard Stiehm, a pediatrics professor at the UCLA School of Medicine. These antibodies only stay in your body for about four weeks, he says, but that's often enough time to treat a sudden infection like Ebola.



There is a difference between antibodies and antibiotics.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 02:35 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Ok, just looking at the Ebola deaths since 1976 and including the abnormally high numbers from the current outbreak bringing the average up, we're still only talking about an average of 57 deaths a year globally from ebola.

Of course any death from ebola is sad, but I'm guessing most of us can understand from a business/economical perspective that an ebola vaccine is not a high priority. 57 deaths a year out of the billions on our planet is a relatively minuscule number of people.

The disease is just not all that contagious, and usually cannot travel far due to how deadly it is. Which is obviously a good thing.
I think much of the objection is to the "business/economical" part of the argument. I suspect that there'd be fewer objections if the reasoning was something like: ebola is a particularly difficult disease to study, and the resources that would be necessary to tackle it fully would have more impact if they were put towards reasearch into malaria, and various other tropical diseases that are easier to study and affect more people.
rachelsmama is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 02:55 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
To be clear here - I did post about blood transfusions up thread and posted links too. This "serum" is - blood, by the way last time I checked that was still natural

http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsod...ts-second-case

Both Brantly and Writebol received an experimental treatment for Ebola — a blood serum derived from a person who survived an Ebola infection. Brantly also received a blood transfusion from a 14-year-old boy, who recovered from Ebola, Samaritan's Purse said.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014...-it-might-help
Here's the idea: A person who had managed to fight off the infection may have developed antibodies that circulate in the blood and that could neutralize the Ebola virus.

This isn't as crazy as it might seem. In fact, these "sera" were a common treatment for infectious diseases in the 19th century, before antibiotics came along. Sera are proven treatments for many infectious diseases, including diphtheria and botulism. In fact, the immune globulins used to treat tetanus today are a refined version of this process.

"For example, if you step on a nail and are exposed to tetanus, and you've never been vaccinated, you can get something called tetanus immune globulin, which works immediately," says Dr. E. Richard Stiehm, a pediatrics professor at the UCLA School of Medicine. These antibodies only stay in your body for about four weeks, he says, but that's often enough time to treat a sudden infection like Ebola.



There is a difference between antibodies and antibiotics.
They did receive blood transfusions from people who had survived ebola as part of an experimental treatment (which didn't seem to work, as the Dr. still deteriorated quickly) but that is not what the "top secret" serum was.

According to CNN "The medicine is a three-mouse monoclonal antibody, meaning that mice were exposed to fragments of the Ebola virus and then the antibodies generated within the mice's blood were harvested to create the medicine. It works by preventing the virus from entering and infecting new cells."

There is a video on CNN where Sanjay Gupta explains that the vial of medicine had to be kept and transported at sub zero temperatures and then thaw naturally at room temperature before use. That is not a "natural" treatment.

Further, the treatment for diphtheria, according to the CDC:

Diphtheria treatment today involves:

Using diphtheria antitoxin to neutralize (counteract) the toxin produced by the bacteria.
Using antibiotics to kill and eliminate diphtheria bacteria About 1 out of 10 people who gets diphtheria will die. Diphtheria patients are usually kept in isolation, until they are no longer able to infect others — usually about 48 hours after antibiotic treatment begins. "

The way diphtheria antitoxin is made is by collecting blood from horses who have been artificially injected with the toxin grown in a lab by scientists and then separating the antitoxin rich serum from the blood and purifying it for human use.

I do not consider that to be a "natural" treatment.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 03:13 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Making a bucket load on money on the Ebola vaccine isn't the main point of this exercise IMO, it is all about control, achieved through fear. teacozy is right when she says Ebola is not a huge deal in the scheme of things (of course it is a huge deal for those that have it, or are in the middle of an outbreak).


teacozy wrote:
Quote:
The disease is just not all that contagious, and usually cannot travel far due to how deadly it is. Which is obviously a good thing.
I would also add it needs hot and humid conditions and 'dies' quickly in air conditioning.

You are right, so why all the fear mongering in the MSM, I ask? I know very little about Ebola, but found this blog written by someone who describes themselves as having a "morbid fascination" with the Ebola virus and other hemorrhagic fevers, like Marlburg and Lassa, and I found it to be enlightening. It talks about transmission and the misinformation published not only in the MSM, but also in the alternative media. Both guilty of fear mongering. Ebola is not well suited for a bio-weapon.

I also spent some time looking through my collection of homeopathic books, curious as to what they did to treat the disease, most are old and many are very obscure, and I found no reference to Ebola. I even found a book for treating infectious diseases for missonaries, but no mention of any hemorrhagic disease. I then turned to Dr Thomas Levy's book Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases & Toxins, which did have a chapter on Ebola. First he said that Ebola [virus] wasn't recognized until 1976, which is probably why there was no reference to it all in the older texts. He said that Ebola like the other hemorrhagic fever diseases share clinical features like capilliary fragility and are, in fact, similar to scurvy. The Ebola virus rapidly and totally metabolizes and consumes all vitamin C in the bodies of its victims that an advanced state of scurvy is produced after a few days of the disease. Levy, says that when the vitamin C stores are rapidly depleted by large infecting doses of an aggressive virus, the immune system gets depleted and compromised.

Levy says that to date no virus has been shown to be resistant to the proper dosing of vitamin C, but not all viruses have been treated with Klenner-sized doses.

Quote:
Cathcart (1981), who introduced the concept of bowel tolerance to vitamin C, [h]ypothesizes that Ebola and other accute hemorrhagic fevers may well require 500,000 mg of vitamin C to reach bowel tolerance!
Benfield and Stone (1975) who treated viral infections in animals, found no virus not to respond to intravenous vitamin C. They found vitamin C to be a non-specific, non-toxic virucidal agent. Although, they said successful therapy appears to depend on using it in sufficiently large doses.

So, are medical teams using vitamin C to treat the Ebola victims, both African and US? I don't know for sure, but I would hazard a guess of a great big NO.

ETA: for those that enjoy reading Jon Rapport, he has written several blogs on the Ebolagate.

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/category/ebola/

t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 08-04-2014, 03:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
They did receive blood transfusions from people who had survived ebola as part of an experimental treatment (which didn't seem to work, as the Dr. still deteriorated quickly) but that is not what the "top secret" serum was.

According to CNN "The medicine is a three-mouse monoclonal antibody, meaning that mice were exposed to fragments of the Ebola virus and then the antibodies generated within the mice's blood were harvested to create the medicine. It works by preventing the virus from entering and infecting new cells."

There is a video on CNN where Sanjay Gupta explains that the vial of medicine had to be kept and transported at sub zero temperatures and then thaw naturally at room temperature before use. That is not a "natural" treatment.

Further, the treatment for diphtheria, according to the CDC:

Diphtheria treatment today involves:

Using diphtheria antitoxin to neutralize (counteract) the toxin produced by the bacteria.
Using antibiotics to kill and eliminate diphtheria bacteria About 1 out of 10 people who gets diphtheria will die. Diphtheria patients are usually kept in isolation, until they are no longer able to infect others — usually about 48 hours after antibiotic treatment begins. "

The way diphtheria antitoxin is made is by collecting blood from horses who have been artificially injected with the toxin grown in a lab by scientists and then separating the antitoxin rich serum from the blood and purifying it for human use.

I do not consider that to be a "natural" treatment.
Did you contact NPR and let Dr. Stiehm know how wrong his statement was?

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 03:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
Making a bucket load on money on the Ebola vaccine isn't the main point of this exercise IMO, it is all about control, achieved through fear. teacozy is right when she says Ebola is not a huge deal in the scheme of things (of course it is a huge deal for those that have it, or are in the middle of an outbreak).


teacozy wrote:
I would also add it needs hot and humid conditions and 'dies' quickly in air conditioning.

You are right, so why all the fear mongering in the MSM, I ask? I know very little about Ebola, but found this blog written by someone who describes themselves as having a "morbid fascination" with the Ebola virus and other hemorrhagic fevers, like Marlburg and Lassa, and I found it to be enlightening. It talks about transmission and the misinformation published not only in the MSM, but also in the alternative media. Both guilty of fear mongering. Ebola is not well suited for a bio-weapon.

I also spent some time looking through my collection of homeopathic books, curious as to what they did to treat the disease, most are old and many are very obscure, and I found no reference to Ebola. I even found a book for treating infectious diseases for missonaries, but no mention of any hemorrhagic disease. I then turned to Dr Thomas Levy's book Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases & Toxins, which did have a chapter on Ebola. First he said that Ebola [virus] wasn't recognized until 1976, which is probably why there was no reference to it all in the older texts. He said that Ebola like the other hemorrhagic fever diseases share clinical features like capilliary fragility and are, in fact, similar to scurvy. The Ebola virus rapidly and totally metabolizes and consumes all vitamin C in the bodies of its victims that an advanced state of scurvy is produced after a few days of the disease. Levy, says that when the vitamin C stores are rapidly depleted by large infecting doses of an aggressive virus, the immune system gets depleted and compromised.

Levy says that to date no virus has been shown to be resistant to the proper dosing of vitamin C, but not all viruses have been treated with Klenner-sized doses.



Benfield and Stone (1975) who treated viral infections in animals, found no virus not to respond to intravenous vitamin C. They found vitamin C to be a non-specific, non-toxic virucidal agent. Although, they said successful therapy appears to depend on using it in sufficiently large doses.

So, are medical teams using vitamin C to treat the Ebola victims, both African and US? I don't know for sure, but I would hazard a guess of a great big NO.

ETA: for those that enjoy reading Jon Rapport, he has written several blogs on the Ebolagate.

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/category/ebola/
thank you for posting!

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 03:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rachelsmama View Post
I think much of the objection is to the "business/economical" part of the argument. I suspect that there'd be fewer objections if the reasoning was something like: ebola is a particularly difficult disease to study, and the resources that would be necessary to tackle it fully would have more impact if they were put towards reasearch into malaria, and various other tropical diseases that are easier to study and affect more people.
I suspect the Defense Dept has the money, all indications is they do, thus why they did the funding!

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 03:25 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Oh, I forgot to mention something else Dr Levy wrote about Ebola virus which I found interesting. (p110)

Quote:
For those that fear that the Ebola virus is the untreatable disease just waiting to strike down their perfect health, consider the recently published evidence that indicates a symptom-free Ebola infection can and does occur in human beings. Leroy el al (2000) looked at a number of individuals who were in direct contact with patients sick with Ebola but who never developed symptoms. Evidence in blood testing of these patients revealed that a strong inflammatory response early in the course of the infection process had taken place, and that roughly half of the symptom-free group also developed Ebola virus-specific antibodies.

t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 08-04-2014, 03:32 PM - Thread Starter
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,407
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 126 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
You are right, so why all the fear mongering in the MSM, I ask?
I don't personally fear it one bit. I don't fear.......a plane ride away.......Nor do I VPD. I do find the contradictions pure irony on the part of the PRO vaccine community and the news media (that I also find extremely PRO vaccine) and the talk related to vaccine I feel are just a matter of time. Actually the calls for the vaccine are getting quite the attention.

I don't buy they won't find a market for it. I do feel this "outbreak" will drive a demand and thus $$ ching-ching, a reason and finally a profit!

Let's always remember vit C doesn't make that big profit!!! nor dose D or the A or the rest, exception K!

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 04:27 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Here is another article by the author of the blog I posted above. As we have been talking about the miracle treatment Kent Brantly received, sounds a bit fishy. Make of what you will.




t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 08-04-2014, 04:45 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
Here is another article by the author of the blog I posted above. As we have been talking about the miracle treatment Kent Brantly received, sounds a bit fishy. Make of what you will.



Does this blogger believe in chemtrails and the illuminati too?

Seriously, that is ridiculous. They blood tested him for ebola, it was not just a guess or a hunch.

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 04:48 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Oh, look. Isn't this ironic.

A patient is being tested for Ebola in NYC as we speak. The person is in isolation.

"A patient admitted to New York City's Mount Sinai hospital is being tested for Ebola after returning from West Africa with "high fever and gastrointestinal symptoms," according to news first reported by ABC-7. This report has been confirmed in a statement provided to Business Insider and in a press conference on Monday.
Hospital officials said they expect to have answers within the next 24-48 hours about whether the disease is Ebola or not. The samples will arrive for testing at the CDC sometime tonight or tomorrow.

According to Mount Sinai, the patient arrived early Monday morning and is "in strict isolation." At a press conference, a hospital official said he returned from West Africa "within the past month," but could not provide any further details about the patient."

http://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-p...r-ebola-2014-8



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-p...#ixzz39SyWEvGf

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 04:53 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post


Does this blogger believe in chemtrails and the illuminati too? What does that have to do with this thread?

Seriously, that is ridiculous. They blood tested him for ebola, it was not just a guess or a hunch.
.... and you saw the test results? They can say anything they want.

t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 08-04-2014, 04:54 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
Oh, look. Isn't this ironic.

A patient is being tested for Ebola in NYC as we speak. The person is in isolation.

"A patient admitted to New York City's Mount Sinai hospital is being tested for Ebola after returning from West Africa with "high fever and gastrointestinal symptoms," according to news first reported by ABC-7. This report has been confirmed in a statement provided to Business Insider and in a press conference on Monday.
Hospital officials said they expect to have answers within the next 24-48 hours about whether the disease is Ebola or not. The samples will arrive for testing at the CDC sometime tonight or tomorrow.

According to Mount Sinai, the patient arrived early Monday morning and is "in strict isolation." At a press conference, a hospital official said he returned from West Africa "within the past month," but could not provide any further details about the patient."

http://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-p...r-ebola-2014-8



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-p...#ixzz39SyWEvGf

Ramping up the fear.....

t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 08-04-2014, 04:56 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Oh and teacozy, if you had READ the article, you would have seen this, the timeline of Dr Brantly's illness.

Quote:
Lets get this straight (and believe me, "getting the story straight" is not easy when literally hourly they are changing the "facts" surrounding this story!): On July 22 Brantly began showing his first symptoms of infection. By my count that is 14 days ago, but please feel free to pass me a calculator and a calendar to verify this number..... He began showing symptoms 14 days ago and was immediately isolated. 9 DAYS later he is approached with a untested, "miracle cure" ..... OK, so 14 - 9 = 5 . Today is August 4th, 5 days ago was July 31, right? So Brantly started showing symptoms of "ebola" infection on July 22, 9 days later on the 31 of July he is given a mysterious serum that had "miraculous" effects within an hour, he showered himself the next day, got on the private plane and he arrived in the US on August 2nd..... \

t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
Old 08-04-2014, 05:06 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
Oh and teacozy, if you had READ the article, you would have seen this, the timeline of Dr Brantly's illness.
He was administered the serum 9 days after first showing symptoms according to the CDC article I linked earlier today too.

What's your point?

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
Old 08-04-2014, 05:17 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,610
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
He was administered the serum 9 days after first showing symptoms according to the CDC article I linked earlier today too.

What's your point?
The point is if he had Ebola Zaire, given the time frame there would be no way a miracle 'serum' could have saved him. His internal organs would have been liquified.

t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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