Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[InChrist]

It's not a mere assumption. It's a demonstrable claim. As discussed over and over in this thread.

It certainly is a claim repeated over and over by the pharmaceutical companies which manufacture the vaccines. How demonstrable this claim is at benefiting health is another question since it is the vaccines themselves which have been spreading the diseases, which the claim was they were supposed to prevent, along with causing other harmful consequences to overall health.

"The research is hard to ignore, vaccines can trigger autoimmunity with a laundry list of diseases to follow. With harmful and toxic metals as some vaccine ingredients, who is susceptible and which individuals are more at risk?

No one would accuse Yehuda Shoenfeld of being a quack. The Israeli clinician has spent more than three decades studying the human immune system and is at the pinnacle of his profession. You might say he is more foundation than fringe in his specialty; he wrote the textbooks. The Mosaic of Autoimmunity, Autoantibodies, Diagnostic Criteria in Autoimmune Diseases, Infection and Autoimmunity, Cancer and Autoimmunity – the list is 25 titles long and some of them are cornerstones of clinical practice. Hardly surprising that Shoenfeld has been called the "Godfather of Autoimmunology" – the study of the immune system turned on itself in a wide array of diseases from type 1 diabetes to ulcerative colitis and multiple sclerosis.

But something strange is happening in the world of immunology lately and a small evidence of it is that the Godfather of Autoimmunology is pointing to vaccines – specifically, some of their ingredients including the toxic metal aluminum – as a significant contributor to the growing global epidemic of autoimmune diseases."
Attacking Ourselves: Top Doctors Reveal Vaccines Turn Our Immune

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Whether in or out of context you said human life is a virus..."spreading the virus of life" and..."we'd probably be much better off as that would allow for a massive dying off of humans which would substantially increase and improve the quality of the earth".

If you feel this way then why are you in favor of vaccines which you believe save many lives? Wouldn't be better from your perspective if there were massive epidemics so many humans would die off and substantially increase and improve the quality of the earth?

There is, quite obviously, a worlds of difference between supporting vaccines and showing the folly of worrying about homosexuals not reproducing given their are billions of us.
And, yes, the earth would be better off if their were far less of us. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't prevent horrible suffering if we have the means to avert it.

 

[InChrist]

There is, quite obviously, a worlds of difference between supporting vaccines and showing the folly of worrying about homosexuals not reproducing given their are billions of us.
And, yes, the earth would be better off if their were far less of us. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't prevent horrible suffering if we have the means to avert it.

Okay, I understand what you are trying to say and will give you the benefit of a doubt. Yet, it does seem that you have a bit of a dichotomy going on in your perspective to see human life as a virus.

 

[McBell]

Okay, I understand what you are trying to say and will give you the benefit of a doubt. Yet, it does seem that you have a bit of a dichotomy going on in your perspective to see human life as a virus.

I wonder what say, dolphins think of humans?
Or better yet wolves.

I mean, look at it from their perspective.
Humans have destroyed how much of the Earth?

 

[McBell]

It certainly is a claim repeated over and over by the pharmaceutical companies which manufacture the vaccines. How demonstrable this claim is at benefiting health is another question since it is the vaccines themselves which have been spreading the diseases, which the claim was they were supposed to prevent, along with causing other harmful consequences to overall health.

"The research is hard to ignore, vaccines can trigger autoimmunity with a laundry list of diseases to follow. With harmful and toxic metals as some vaccine ingredients, who is susceptible and which individuals are more at risk?

No one would accuse Yehuda Shoenfeld of being a quack. The Israeli clinician has spent more than three decades studying the human immune system and is at the pinnacle of his profession. You might say he is more foundation than fringe in his specialty; he wrote the textbooks. The Mosaic of Autoimmunity, Autoantibodies, Diagnostic Criteria in Autoimmune Diseases, Infection and Autoimmunity, Cancer and Autoimmunity – the list is 25 titles long and some of them are cornerstones of clinical practice. Hardly surprising that Shoenfeld has been called the "Godfather of Autoimmunology" – the study of the immune system turned on itself in a wide array of diseases from type 1 diabetes to ulcerative colitis and multiple sclerosis.

But something strange is happening in the world of immunology lately and a small evidence of it is that the Godfather of Autoimmunology is pointing to vaccines – specifically, some of their ingredients including the toxic metal aluminum – as a significant contributor to the growing global epidemic of autoimmune diseases."
Attacking Ourselves: Top Doctors Reveal Vaccines Turn Our Immune

Do you know what they call alternative medicine that works?

 

[psychoslice]

Do you know what they call alternative medicine that works?

Alternative medicine that woks, the same as allopathic medicine that works.

 

[philbo]

I am not suggesting that there were not disease epidemics throughout history, but I think if you do the research it is apparent that these diseases which you have listed and the mortality rates associated with them were in decline BEFORE vaccines were introduced.

The mortality rates for the various diseases have decreased as we get better at treating them, and as nutrition improves. In a recent measles outbreak in Africa, better nutrition (including vit A supplements) halved mortality from 14% to 7% - but if you catch measles in the West, it's more of a 1:3000 (or 0.03%) mortality these days. But it has never got down to zero, and one in six people who get measles need hospitalization.

The decreasing mortality rate shouldn't be confused with a decreasing incidence rate: without vaccines, the number of people getting measles would still be in the hundreds of thousands in every year there was an outbreak, so hundreds would still be dying and many tens of thousands would be in hospital needing treatment for the typical side-effects of measles: encephalitis, pneumonia, that sort of thing. Today we can keep people with pneumonia alive (hence the decrease in mortality), but it's still a lot nastier than any of the side-effects from the vaccine.

Saying "oh, but not as many die as used to, therefore we don't need to have anything to prevent us getting the disease" is not an attitude I would like anyone involved with public health to be taking.

Yet, many of these same diseases have been and are now spread by the vaccines themselves.

There are a tiny handful of vaccine-caused polio cases (VDPV) - one in a hundred million or so shots of vaccine - and with decent herd immunity they don't cause outbreaks - they're not being "spread by the vaccines", that's a gross distortion. To quote the WHO:

Since 2000, more than 10 billion doses of OPV have been administered to nearly 3 billion children worldwide. As a result, more than 10 million cases of polio have been prevented, and the disease has been reduced by more than 99%. During that time, 20 cVDPV outbreaks occurred in 20 countries, resulting in 758 VDPV cases.

Again.. it's a question of relative risk.



...and to finish: I see you still have no evidence for vaccines causing autism. You linked to a page containing 86 (no! it's up to 99) research papers which someone with no scientific knowledge and a financial incentive to rubbish vaccines has put together and you're too uncertain to pick specific articles from there because you know full well they won't stand up to scrutiny - and this is presumably the best you've got, right? The time has got to come when you admit you have nothing other than an unsubstantiated fear from reading too many scientifically-illiterate web pages, and even if you don't trust your CDC/FDA, what about every other health department everywhere else on the planet?

 

[philbo]

Alternative medicine that woks, the same as allopathic medicine that works.

No, alternative medicine that works is called "medicine" - what is still "alternative medicine" in the words of Tim Minchin has either not been shown to work or has been shown not to work.

 

[psychoslice]

No, alternative medicine that works is called "medicine" - what is still "alternative medicine" in the words of Tim Minchin has either not been shown to work or has been shown not to work.

This is where the ignorance arises, just because something hasn't been proved by science doesn't mean it doesn't work.

 

[philbo]

This is where the ignorance arises, just because something hasn't been proved by science doesn't mean it doesn't work.

"has either not been proven to work, or has been proven not to work"

..that's not an ignorant statement, it's a statement of *exactly* how things are.

 

[psychoslice]

"has either not been proven to work, or has been proven not to work"

..that's not an ignorant statement, it's a statement of *exactly* how things are.

Acupuncture has been around for a very long time, it hasn't been proven to work by science, but it has an 75 to 80% success rate, and also many doctors are using it in their clinics.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, alternative medicine that works is called "medicine" - what is still "alternative medicine" in the words of Tim Minchin has either not been shown to work or has been shown not to work.

Actually, there are many alternative medicines that have become accepted into main stream health. Chiropracty is one such example.

 

[philbo]

Acupuncture has been around for a very long time, it hasn't been proven to work by science, but it has an 75 to 80% success rate, and also many doctors are using it in their clinics.

Accupuncture? The discipline based on mysticism and, while it can deliver localised anaesthesia (probably through stimulating adenosine release), most of its claims are unsupported, and as a local anaesthetic has harm levels way above what real medicine would use?

Actually, there are many alternative medicines that have become accepted into main stream health. Chiropracty is one such example.

Another discipline which has taken one mnor area where they can show medical benefit and pretended they could do *loads* more, somewhat bravely shown to be bogus by Simon Singh - rather than use research to show they could do what they claimed, the British Chiropractic Association sued for libel, and lost. They lost so badly, and email went round from them telling all their chiropractors to remove claims they couldn't substantiate from their websites.. which was pretty much all of them.

Both of those are very good examples of the lack of standards and in some cases downright duplicity of alternative medicine practitioners: they both claim way more than they can deliver and cause more harm than real medicine equivalents.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

[QUOTE="philbo, post: 4299301, member: 47615"
Another discipline which has taken one mnor area where they can show medical benefit and pretended they could do *loads* more, somewhat bravely shown to be bogus by Simon Singh - rather than use research to show they could do what they claimed, the British Chiropractic Association sued for libel, and lost. They lost so badly, and email went round from them telling all their chiropractors to remove claims they couldn't substantiate from their websites.. which was pretty much all of them.[/QUOTE]
It depends on the chiropractor, just, in the same way, it depends on the western medical doctor.
Western medicine is filled with examples of exaggerations and false claims, especially in it's earlier days. It's gotten better, but all you have to do is turn on the TV and you'll see commercials of how certain drugs have not delivered on promises, have had terrible side-effects, and have risks that outweigh the possible benefits.

 

[Nietzsche]

Acupuncture has been around for a very long time, it hasn't been proven to work by science, but it has an 75 to 80% success rate, and also many doctors are using it in their clinics.

Acupuncture can feel good. But feeling good does not always translate to actually improving health. Opiates will make you feel amazing, and for hundreds of years they(and alcohol, and cocaine, ect) were prescribed for all manner of ailments. They made the patient feel much, much better. But there are only a handful of things they actually cure or aid. Acupuncture has never been shown to actually do anything other than elevate mood. That can be extremely helpful, make no mistake, but elevated mood can be achieved in countless ways.

Chiropractic is similar. I've had spinal problems for years now, and I won't deny that I got some measure of limited relief from a chiropractor visit. But it's always, always temporary. 48 hours tops. Mix that with how prohibitively expensive that is and, well, screw it. Just give me pain-meds. I can take those through the day, double up if needed, ect. Pain-meds also don't cost your first-born son to get, unlike Acupuncture or seeing a Chiropractor.

 

[psychoslice]

Acupuncture can feel good. But feeling good does not always translate to actually improving health. Opiates will make you feel amazing, and for hundreds of years they(and alcohol, and cocaine, ect) were prescribed for all manner of ailments. They made the patient feel much, much better. But there are only a handful of things they actually cure or aid. Acupuncture has never been shown to actually do anything other than elevate mood. That can be extremely helpful, make no mistake, but elevated mood can be achieved in countless ways.

Chiropractic is similar. I've had spinal problems for years now, and I won't deny that I got some measure of limited relief from a chiropractor visit. But it's always, always temporary. 48 hours tops. Mix that with how prohibitively expensive that is and, well, screw it. Just give me pain-meds. I can take those through the day, double up if needed, ect. Pain-meds also don't cost your first-born son to get, unlike Acupuncture or seeing a Chiropractor.

That could be true, but still there are many people who swear to these treatments as being beneficial, and in the end that is all that matters.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That could be true, but still there are many people who swear to these treatments as being beneficial, and in the end that is all that matters.

A lot of people swear a gluten free diet has improved them, although you will find no physiological reasons for this feeling good. I remember some people saying the Atkin's diet made them feel good, until they found themselves with no energy to exercise.

 

[psychoslice]

A lot of people swear a gluten free diet has improved them, although you will find no physiological reasons for this feeling good. I remember some people saying the Atkin's diet made them feel good, until they found themselves with no energy to exercise.

Yes that can happen, I suppose like a placebo, but a placebo will only work up to 35% of the time, where as acupuncture will give up to 80% success rate, as for the Aitkin's, I think its a bad way of eating, far too much protein.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes I am schizo, but that doesn't mean I know everything about being schizo, or how we are born that way.

You most likely know more about what it is to be schizophrenic than the average person.

And once again, there is no evidence that shows that vaccines cause autism.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have read many studies that marijuana is not good for schizophrenia (although specific cannabonoids may have some benefits rather than the full amount provided by raw pot), but I haven't read anything on it inducing schizophrenia. It may be possible, given the genetic predispositions of schizophrenia, but it's very likely there haven't been many studies looking into it given there hasn't been a lot of research looking into pot in general. Afterall, we're so uptight about in America we don't even grow it for raw hemp, which has a ton on industrial and commercial applications and is utterly unusable recreationally.

It does appear that most studies show that marijuana use isn't good for schizophrenia. As you say, the rest is inconclusive at the moment.
Some studies show that people who are already predisposed to schizophrenia that smoke pot as a child or teen can hasten the onset of schizophrenia or exacerbate the symptoms. While others say that people who are schizophrenic may be more likely to smoke marijuana than the general population.

Historically there haven't been a ton of studies done in the US on marijuana due to it's categorization as a Schedule 1 Drug.