Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sequel Thread To Holistic Doctors, and medicine
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 240 of 307 (426537)
10-07-2007 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by purpledawn
10-07-2007 10:53 AM


Re: Evolution and Vaccines
According to the National Vaccine Information Center, a woman who recovered naturally from childhood measles is usually protected for life, and will pass some antibodies on to her child. These protect it for its first year of life. If the mother was immunized and never had the disease, then her baby is vulnerable from birth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by purpledawn, posted 10-07-2007 10:53 AM purpledawn has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 241 of 307 (426538)
10-07-2007 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by purpledawn
10-07-2007 11:06 AM


Re: Drugs side effects (Doctors need to be educated)
Thanks PD, I will go there and have a read

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by purpledawn, posted 10-07-2007 11:06 AM purpledawn has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 247 of 307 (426647)
10-08-2007 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Percy
10-07-2007 8:06 PM


Vaccinations
I mentioned this Percy, and as the purpose of this forum is debate then I'm not following the rules unless I'm willing be challenged and defend my position. I've needed a bit of a cool-off period. My apologies for getting emotional at times. Believe it or not, I did well with competitive speech-making in high school. The problem is that they never gave me any formal training, no lessons in logic, nothing. Maybe I got good at persuading people using anecdote as well as a sprinkling here and there of some quotes and information from prestigious sources. I'm trying to re-learn how to go about doing things while I'm here.
Having said that, I find myself in an odd position. I am refuting creationist arguments on another website. Here I am making myself look like an ass because I have views that are not always supported by the clinical study evidence required here, and indeed which are often in opposition to it. All I can say is that I'll give evidence where I can, and I'll explain where I can, though what I confess I'm working from is what I feel deep down is right. That's not at all logically defensible, I'm aware, and if people used that excuse then they could justify believing in everything from UFOs to the end of the world tomorrow. However, I have built my views on many things I've heard and read about and I don't tend to file them away for the purposes of debate. I'll see what I can find now to give what I've said some support.
Firstly, when I said a person is well protected against disease if they are healthy, what I meant was that they are less likely to suffer ill effects from the diease, not that they are any less likely to have the virus in their body. So I'm not in disagreement with anything you said about that. I'm glad you agree that good health enables a person to fight a virus off more successfully. There's plenty of evidence that disease is so widespread in developing countries because of poverty, resulting in poor nutrition and living conditions. My position there is that vaccinations are best until those countries can be assisted to improve the standard of living of their citizens.
In wealthy developed countries, this is a hazier issue in my opinion. Well-nourished children are not going to be so prone to the worst effects of diseases, especially if they are taking large amounts of vitamin C. I know that my daughter is in excellent nutritional health. The risk is small that if she does contract a disease like measles or mumps, she will suffer disabling effects from them. I do understand that the risk is not zero. However, as I have said, the risk of vaccination is not zero either.
To date no studies have been performed to compare human populations vaccinated and populations unvaccinated. No one can claim that we know for sure that vaccines are safe. The number that children receive has mushroomed in the past two decades. In 1985 children were vaccinated for 7 diseases. Now it's 16, for which they receive 37 separate vaccination encounters. Vaccines, as I'm sure you are aware, do not just consist of inactivated viruses. They contain substances like ethylene glycol (antifreeze), phenol/carbolic acid, formaldehyde, aluminum, neomycin, streptomycin, and thimerosal. Of these, thimerosal has received the most attention because it consists mostly of ethyl mercury. Thimerosal was withdrawn from many pediatric vaccines in 1999 as a result of concerns over the neurodevelopmental toxicity of organic mercury, although it is still used in influenza, diptheria, and pertussis vaccinations.
No studies have been done on the safety of injecting these compounds directly into the bloodstream, though there is growing evidence of the harm that mercury can cause. Why inject such a poison into a person? (For that matter, why put it in someone's teeth?) Babies who are only a few days old are being injected with these substances.
I am also concerned about the way the vaccine cultures are developed. They are grown and strained through animal or human tissue; for example monkey kidney tissue, chicken embryo, embryonic guinea pig cells, calf serum, and human diploid cells (the dissected organs of aborted foetuses, as in the rubella vaccine). The problem with animal cells is that during serial passage of the virus through them, the animal RNA and DNA can be transferred from one host to another and undetected animal viruses may slip past quality control testing procedures. This happened in 1955-61 with SV40 (simian virus #40) which has carcinogenic properties. All three types of Sabin's live polio virus vaccine were contaminated, though the "killed" vaccines were contaminated as well. The virus has also been found in subsequent generations, suggesting that it has been passed down from parent to child. You can read more about this here.
Some vaccines have used bovine-derived materials from the USDA's BSE list. A polio vaccine was recalled in the UK in 2000 over concerns about BSE.
There is also an issue about the effect vaccines have on the immune system. Injecting a virus, alive or dead, bypasses the natural lines of defense in the body. There has been speculation that vaccines could cause autoimmune diseases. Gulf War Syndrome could fall into this category. This article gives a more detailed explanation.
Contracting a disease often gives lifelong immunity. If we hadn't started vaccinating for rubella, then young women would not have to worry about it during pregnancy because the vast majority will have already been exposed to the virus and will have immunity. However, the rubella vaccine does not give this lifelong immunity. Arguably, the natural immunity conferred from the contraction of the virus is better than the uncertain immunity given by a vaccine. It's not hard to find cases where people immunized with any given vaccine, ended up contracting a virus they had been vaccinated against.
I repeat that these viruses are, on the whole, not as dangerous as we are told to believe. Certainly not to people who are in good health. You said:
Measles is not usually dangerous, but it is so highly contagious that in an unvaccinated society it would sweep through in epidemics, disabling the economy and seriously compromising public safety.
Was every nation on earth disabled by measles outbreaks until the vaccine was introduced? No. Are the Amish devastated by it now? No.
You mentioned chicken pox. The vast majority of people have been exposed to it by the time they are adults -- or would have been, before vaccinations. To my knowledge I have never had it, and I am 35. I have been in close contact with people who have had it, including my sister and my daughter. it's possible that I had such a mild case of it at some point that symptoms never surfaced. Do I want to be vaccinated? Given the sorts of concerns about vaccines that I have raised here, no. I eat a healthy diet and take my vitamin C megadoses. If I did contract chicken pox, I'm quite prepared to ride it out.
You mentioned diptheria. There are many different forms of non-toxin-producing, interrelated, relatively harmless "diphtheroids" that live with lots of other so-called disease-causing bacteria in our throats, on our skin, or in the environment, as you can read about here. It is environmental factors which are mostly to blame for cases of diptheria.
"The eradication of diphtheria will not come through the serum treatment of patients, by the immunization of the well, or through the accurate clinical and laboratory diagnosis of the case and the carrier followed by quarantine; rather it will be attained through the mass sanitary protection of the populace subconsciously practised by the people at all times." (JAMA, 1922, p. 682.)
You might also be interested in reading this extract from a 1912 book titled Leicester: Sanitation verses Vaccination. Close to home for me. It starts by describing "The Inoculation Mania."
That's a summary of my case Percy. It's why I believe that there's more danger for my daughter in being vaccinated than there is in her potentially catching something like measles or mumps. She's already received most of her vaccinations and I regret this; but at least I am informed about vaccinations now and can make good decisions for us both in the future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Percy, posted 10-07-2007 8:06 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by AdminPD, posted 10-08-2007 9:44 AM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 250 by Trixie, posted 10-08-2007 10:15 AM Kitsune has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 249 of 307 (426651)
10-08-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by purpledawn
10-08-2007 9:30 AM


Re: Complementary
It sounds like you've got a lot of resources around you, including Dr. Mercola himself -- must be reassuring! Yes this looks like a good site. Critics here might want to note that they also offer conventional cancer therapies alone or in combination with naturopathic approaches.
Hope they give vitamin C IVs -- that would be the first thing I'd ask for if I wanted cancer treatement anywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by purpledawn, posted 10-08-2007 9:30 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by purpledawn, posted 10-11-2007 7:46 AM Kitsune has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 254 of 307 (427085)
10-09-2007 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by nator
10-08-2007 9:02 PM


Re: Evolution and Vaccines
Nator if you want to discuss vaccines, Purple Dawn asked us to move to the vaccines thread. That's where we are now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by nator, posted 10-08-2007 9:02 PM nator has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 255 of 307 (427086)
10-09-2007 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Percy
10-09-2007 3:50 PM


Re: Staying alive to 100: Living longer, living stronger
What exactly are her methods? I'd like to see an example, for instance of her cancer protocol. Does she practice orthomolecular medicine?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 10-09-2007 3:50 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Percy, posted 10-09-2007 7:56 PM Kitsune has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 264 of 307 (427394)
10-11-2007 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Percy
10-11-2007 10:23 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
experience tells us that talking someone out of a false belief is usually just not possible.
No chance of persuading you of anything then Percy
I enjoyed this post though. You come across with a very patient and logical style which is also entertaining. Everything you've said here is eminently sensible. I also appreciate the fact that you never lost your cool with me or tried any bating tactics, which is more than can be said for others elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Percy, posted 10-11-2007 10:23 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Percy, posted 10-11-2007 11:37 AM Kitsune has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 272 of 307 (427469)
10-11-2007 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Percy
10-11-2007 2:57 PM


Re: Statistical Bias
And the true believers might be right! After all, science is tentative and will always change its views in light of new evidence or improved insight. But history is against them. It just doesn't happen. A hundred years from now there will still be believers in UFOs and ESP and Bigfoot and alternative medicine, just as there were a hundred years ago.
A hobby of mine: Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization
Talking here has been teaching me a lot about myself. If I'm refuting a creationist then I've got my skeptic hat on with the best of them. In some other areas, as you've seen, I am driven by a different beat. It just seems to be how I am. I have a brain but it isn't a thoroughly scientific one -- though I admire people with scientific intelligence. If I were a scientist I'd be more like the inventor with the frizzy white hair, pulling wild ideas out of my hat and experimenting and finding one or two things that are maybe ahead of my time, as well as a lot of silly stuff that doesn't work so well. My sights are usually set on the future and what other people think doesn't really bother me.
I thank you for helping to pin me to the ground a little more. But I'm never going to look at things 100% in a scientific way. There are times for that, and other times when it is perhaps more of a hinderance than a help.
I hasten to add that by "unscientific," I mean thinking in a way that contradicts the rules you have set out here in some way. For me, in most cases the biggest contradiction I am guilty of is believing the consensus opinion to be wrong. Probability says that they are more likely to be right -- but there is no guarantee of that; and people have to question, especially when lives are at stake, and evidence is present to indicate that something is going wrong.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Percy, posted 10-11-2007 2:57 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by nator, posted 10-11-2007 9:52 PM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 276 by nator, posted 10-11-2007 10:04 PM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 279 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 7:48 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 283 by Percy, posted 10-12-2007 8:59 AM Kitsune has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 281 of 307 (427614)
10-12-2007 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by nator
10-12-2007 7:48 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
I'm starting to feel like a hypocrite when I debate with creationists. And I hate that.
Don't you think I also hate the fact that I have to look to places like Nexus Magazine to find information? That homeopathy appears to be nothing more than using water? That people think orthomolecular medicine is nonsense? That they want me to quarantine my child from infants because I don't want to vaccinate her? (For the record, it's hypotheitcal anyway because she's already received everything apart from boosters.) Do you think I like the fact that my introduction to this forum, which I admired so much while I was lurking, has essentially been an exercise in making 90% of the people here think I'm a fruit loop?
Here's what is real for me. I know what happened when I tried to find help for my depression through the allopathic system. It made me sicker rather than better. I have met many other people who have experienced far worse, again at the hands of doctors who are supposed to be helping us. We have found help from my ND. I guess it's like the other people here who say they believe in ghosts or whatever because they had a personal experience. Only they know what the circumstances were, and how likely it was to have been a genuine experience rather than a hallucination or a mistake. But forevermore, they know that whenever they talk to a skeptic, they will never be believed. That's where I am. You will never believe me because I cannot present the evidence that you want. In your eyes that means I am likely to be mistaken. In my heart I know I am not.
Everything else I've been saying here has been built up from that. It means I have to call the whole mainstream of medicine into question. And place my trust in a system that is ridiculed by many. It means I have to believe in some conspiracies. I hate conspiracy theories. But in the end I have to continue to stand up for what I know to be right, and take the heckling if I have to. To change my mind and think the way you want me to think means placing my trust in mainstream doctors and medicine again. Nator, they're hopeless in so many ways. I'm certainly not the only person who thinks that drugs are overprescribed, that they often don't work, and that they are likely to be more harmful than most people realise.
BTW the Bigfoot stuff is probably in the same category as the poltergeist stuff. Maybe I was yanking your chain a little -- not yours personally -- but if people here think I'm such a fruit loop already, I figured why not toss it out. It's not particularly relevant to anything, just interesting. I'm interested in astronomy for the same reasons maybe -- that I can't wait to find out what intriguing discoveries are made next, what new things we can learn, and how they might change what we thought we knew.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 7:48 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 8:50 AM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 285 by Percy, posted 10-12-2007 9:13 AM Kitsune has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 284 of 307 (427620)
10-12-2007 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Percy
10-12-2007 8:59 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
Bottom line Percy: If I were to decide to think like this, it would mean putting my trust in mainstream doctors again. They've got it wrong too many times for myself and people I know. There's also much wisdom in ceasing an activity if it has failed again and again in the past. Why on earth should I go back to the people who couldn't figure out my IBS and who threw drugs at my depression?
Not going to happen, so matter how many lessons in skepticism people give me here. The scientific consensus underpinned by the best studies available can still be wrong, and I believe it is in many different ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Percy, posted 10-12-2007 8:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Percy, posted 10-12-2007 9:28 AM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 287 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 9:39 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 288 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 9:48 AM Kitsune has replied
 Message 290 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 9:51 AM Kitsune has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 289 of 307 (427628)
10-12-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by nator
10-12-2007 9:39 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
LindaLou, do you think that the nonscientific approach to making claims about reality that Creationists use is sometimes the best way to determine something reliable about the natural world?
Let me put it this way. Fossils exist. Biological processes can be seen to work and are understood. We can study DNA. These are all about as factual as you can get. A creationist has to deny the reality of all this, or claim that all scientists are liars.
Now let's look at the claim that most drugs are safe and effective. This is by no means supported by the same kind of incontrovertible evidence. It assumes that the germ theory of disease and everything else we think we know about the human body is correct. That drugs are usually the best way to treat a condition. That if we look hard enough, we can produce better and better drugs that target specific symptoms. That the studies carried out on the drugs are by and large unbiased, fair, and accurate. And that no other method of treatment is going to be better because no other method of treatment is as tried and tested.
It requires a person to have faith in mainstream opinion simply because it is mainstream opinion. In a way I'd say that this is an appeal to authority. There are facts that support other opinions, it's just that there aren't as many studies and the mainstream often does not want to listen.
The evidence for the efficacy of drugs is not of the same nature as the evidence for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 9:39 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 10:12 AM Kitsune has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 291 of 307 (427630)
10-12-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by nator
10-12-2007 9:48 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
How does this lamentable situation make unscientific, untested medical practices any more valid?
It means that people who have failed to find help in the allopathic system must find that help elsewhere, even if it means putting faith in a less-tested system. With the hope that in the future, that system will become more mainstream. How else is it going to happen if people are not trying it and saying it works? Look at the mainstream scientists here. How many of them are willing to consider any idea at all that deviates from the mainstream? This kind of system makes it extremely difficult for new ideas or innovations to take hold.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 9:48 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 10:30 AM Kitsune has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 292 of 307 (427631)
10-12-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by nator
10-12-2007 9:51 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
OK, yes I remember reading this. I'd say I'm honestly very glad that you sorted the problem. I'm after what works, not "alt med at all costs."
If it were me, then if she were as out of control as it sounds, I'd probably have her tranquilised to the point where she wasn't a danger to herself or others. I would then look into alt med therapies. Maybe by the time the disease had progressed that far, there wouldn't be a lot I could do. But I would try. I would try a diet and vitamins approach first.
I think the key here really is in prevention, but you can't get the past back. There are a lot of things associated with risk of alzheimer's that could be avoided.
If the drugs are working for you, then that's great. Point being-? I never said that all drugs should be dispensed with. Sometimes they are necessary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 9:51 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 10:18 AM Kitsune has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 296 of 307 (427637)
10-12-2007 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by nator
10-12-2007 10:18 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
I'm not telling you what to do in your case; that is entirely your decision, and you know all the factors. I was saying what I myself would probably choose to do.
If we are trading anecdotes, you might be interested in some of the cases cited on this site. Scroll down and read "Freedom Beyond Hopelessness." It's about a daughter who helped her mother back to health when her mother had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic and was close to death.
Mental illness is a symptom of an underlying problem. If the problem can be corrected before too much damage has been done, health will return. Drugs treat symptoms not root causes of illness. This is why I personally would choose to pursue some kind of nutritional therapy before I resorted to drugs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 10:18 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 10:42 AM Kitsune has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4331 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 299 of 307 (427681)
10-12-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by nator
10-12-2007 10:42 AM


Re: Statistical Bias
Do you have any evidence to suggest that nutritional therapy is effective in elderly people with rapid-onset Altzheimers and severe Bipolar disorder?
Yes, if you are willing to have a look at the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine:
Alzheimer's Dementia: Some possible mechanisms related to vitamins, trace elements and minerals, suggesting a possible treatment
Nutritional Aspects of Senile Dementia of the Alzheimer Type
DoctorYourself.com: Alzheimer's Disease
nutritional studies on patients with bipolar disorder
An article in Discover Magazine which talks about EMPowerplus, a dietary supplement for bipolar with an interesting history
Another article from Discover Magazine, titled : Can common nutrients curb violent tendencies and dispel clinical depression?
One reason that orthomolecular psychiatry was treated with such derision in the 1960s and early ’70s was that biologists had only a faint understanding of the physical effects that nutrients had on the brain. In the past two decades, however, researchers have begun to gain a better understanding of the brain’s biochemical machinery. Psychiatrists now know that nutrients are the brain’s backstage crew, endlessly constructing and maintaining cellular set designs, directing players to their marks. They also play important roles in the creation of chemical messengers thought to mediate mood, such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by nator, posted 10-12-2007 10:42 AM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024