|
Author
|
Topic: Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill?
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Great thread, very eloquent
quote:
Its completely unnecessary for the majority of the general public. The reason why, is that influenza has a propensity for mutation. Hell, that's practically its job. And by the time you get vaccinated, there is already a new strain seeking a host. And the old vaccine is already antiquated. A normal persons white blood cell count and their overall antibodies can fight the Flu. But, some people do need it. But if anyone thinks that getting a Flu vaccine is going to save them, that is not necessarily the case.
You do know that the 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic killed 50-100 million people worldwide in just 12 months, don't you? It is estimated that fully one fifth of the population of the world had the flu that year.
In the U.S., about 28% of the population suffered, and 500,000 to 675,000 died. In Britain 200,000 died; in France more than 400,000. Entire villages perished in Alaska and southern Africa. In Australia an estimated 10,000 people died and in the Fiji Islands, 14% of the population died during only two weeks, and in Western Samoa 22%. An estimated 17 million died in India, about 5% of India's population at the time. In the Indian Army, almost 22% of troops who caught the disease died of it. The strain was unusual for influenza in that this pandemic killed many young adults and otherwise healthy victims - usual influenzas kill mostly newborns, the old, and the infirm. People without symptoms could be struck suddenly and within hours be too feeble to walk; many died the next day. Symptoms included a blue tint to the face and coughing up blood caused by severe obstruction of the lungs. In later stages, the virus caused an uncontrollable hemorrhaging that filled the lungs, and patients drowned in their body fluids. In fast-progressing cases, mortality was primarily from pneumonia, by virus-induced consolidation. Slower-progressing cases featured secondary bacterial pneumonias, and there may have been neural involvement that led to psychiatric disorders in a minority of cases. Some deaths resulted from malnourishment and even animal attacks in overwhelmed communities. The thing is, getting the flu vaccine is generaly harmless, and could protect millions of people from getting the flu. There is no guarantee that the next strain of Influenza isn't going to be as deadly, or worse, than the one that killed so many in 1918.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 7:51 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Great thread, very eloquent
quote:
I like naturopathy because it seeks alternative answers before using drugs. I don't think it could hurt. And there definitely seems to be alot of naturopathy 'haters' out there, for whatever reason. Its one thing to say that it foesn't work, but the alternative is dangerous pharameucitcals that people essentially become addicted to. I just believe strongly that alternatives should be sought in every case before going to pharmacology.
But Juggs, using herbs IS pharmacology. They are drugs. If herbs weren't drugs, then taking them wouldn't have any effect. That's WHY people take them, isn't it? That's why they are called "medicinal herbs", right? It's just pharmacology that is completely unregulated, largely untested, and extremely lucrative for the people who manufacture and sell them by reason of the facts I mentioned. We literally do not know what chemicals many of these herbs contain, and some of them have hundreds and even thousands of compounds. Some might be useful, some inert, and some toxic. In addition, there are no standards at all regarding companies to control the potentcy of doses, between brands nor within a brand from lot to lot. It is far, far riskier to use most herbs, for these reasons. Why people think that they will be magically protected from harm when using herbs simply because they are "natural" or something, I have no idea. Curare is natural. Arsenic is natural. Cyanide is natural. From Home Page | Quackwatch
When potent natural substances are discovered, drug companies try to isolate and synthesize the active chemical in order to provide a reliable supply. They also attempt to make derivatives that are more potent, more predictable, and have fewer side effects. In the case of digitalis, derivatives provide a spectrum of speed and duration of action. Digitalis leaf is almost never used today because its effects are less predictable. Many herbs contain hundreds or even thousands of chemicals that have not been completely cataloged. Some of these chemicals may turn out to be useful as therapeutic agents, but others could well prove toxic. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 71 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-21-2006 9:10 PM | | Hyroglyphx has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Great thread, very eloquent
Are you interested in starting a thread on the likely effectiveness of castor oil packs, PD?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by purpledawn, posted 11-22-2006 7:26 AM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Quack book
quote:
I use the book "Prescription for Nutritional Healing" by Phyllis A Balch. It gives good explanations of diseases, with known causes and how it affects the body. Then it gives suggested remedies and life style change recommendations.
Quackwatch lists this book under their "nonreccommended" list.
Clicking any link brings up a page containing a description of the condition plus information about causes and treatments taken from the second edition of Prescription for Natural Healing, by James F. Balch, Jr., MD, and Phyllis A. Balch, CNC [4] James F. Balch, Jr., is a urologist who practiced in Indiana but is no longer listed as licensed in the state medical board's directory, so I assume that he now devotes his time to writing. In a predecessor book published in 1987, he described how Phyllis had counseled hundreds of his patients and used hair analysis and cytotoxic testing as a guide [5]. (Both are quack tests [6,7].) During the mid-1990s, James was also associated with A. Glenn Braswell, a mail-order retailer who flooded the country with brochures (some accompanied by letters under Balch's name) for dubious herbal and supplement products [8]. The book's back cover describes Phyllis Balch as "a certified nutritional consultant who received her certification from the American Association of Nutritional Consultants and has been a leading nutritional consultant for almost two decades." She also founded "Good Things Naturally,"a health-food store in Greenfield, Indiana. AANC is a thoroughly disreputable organization whose only membership requirement has been payment of a $50 fee and whose "CNC" designation is based on passage of an open-book examination based mainly on the contents of quacky books [9] About 450 of the book's 608 pages provide an A-to-Z compendium of health problems and the authors' lists of nutrients that are "essential," "very important," "important, "or "helpful." Some lists contain more than thirty items. The authors recommend daily dosages of 3,000 mg or more of vitamin C for everybody ("for maintaining good health") and higher doses (up to 20,000 mg/day "under a doctor's supervision") for dozens of problems. They also recommend daily dosages of emulsified vitamin A ranging from 50,000 to 100,000 IU for many conditions and 75,000 IU for "maintaining healthy eyes." [4:258] The vitamin C dosages are high enough to produce severe diarrhea; and the vitamin A dosages are high enough to cause liver injury. From a scientific viewpoint, the book's advice is loony from beginning to end, but the dietary supplement industry loves it because it enables retailers to refer their customers to an "authoritative" source of advice for nearly every problem the customer may have [10]. In 1993, posing as potential customers, FDA agents visited health food stores in 20 communities and asked (a) "What do you sell to help high blood pressure?" (b) "Do you have anything to help fight infection or help my immune system?" and (c) "Do you have anything that works on cancer?" In response to about 20% of the queries, the retailer looked up the answer in Prescription for Nutritional Healing or advised the agent to refer to or purchase it [11]. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 74 by purpledawn, posted 11-22-2006 7:26 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 78 by nator, posted 11-22-2006 8:37 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
Message 78 of 327 (365334)
11-22-2006 8:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by nator
11-22-2006 8:22 AM
|
|
Re: Quack book
PD, I know that you have said that you don't reject modern science or medicine, but I really do think you need to become much more selective in what you accept as true regarding health claims. It would serve you well to get a better grounding in basic human physiology, as well. But as far as knowing what websites and books to believe regarding medical and health claims, I give you "How to Spot a Quacky Web Site" by Dr. Stephen Barrett.
The best way to avoid being quacked is to reject quackery's promoters. Each item listed below signifies that a Web site is not a trustworthy information source. The hyperlinks will take you to articles on Quackwatch that explain why. The same criteria can be used to identify untrustworthy books, talk-show guests, etc. General Characteristics Any site used to market herbs or dietary supplements. Although some are useful, I do not believe it is possible to sell them profitably without deception, which typically includes: (a) lack of full disclosure of relevant facts, (b) promotion or sale of products that lack a rational use, and/or (c) failure to provide advice indicating who should not use the products. During more than 35 years of watching the health marketplace, I have never encountered a seller who did not do at least one of these three things. Any site used to market or promote homeopathic products. No such products have been proven effective. Any site that generally promotes "alternative," "complementary," and/or "integrative" methods. There are more than a thousand such methods. The vast majority are worthless. Any site that promotes "nontoxic," "natural," "holistic," or "miraculous" treatments. False Statements about Nutrition: Everyone should take vitamins. Vitamins are effective against stress. Taking vitamins makes people more energetic. Organic foods are safer and/or more nutritious than ordinary foods. Losing weight is easy. Special diets can cure cancer Diet is the principal cause of hyperactivity. False Statements about "Alternative" Methods: Acupuncture is effective against a long list of diseases. Chelation therapy is an effective substitute for bypass surgery Chiropractic treatment is effective against a large number of diseases Herbs are generally superior to prescription drugs. Homeopathic products are effective remedies. Prayer can influence the course of disease. Spines should be checked and adjusted regularly by a chiropractor. False Statements about Other Issues: Fluoridation is dangerous. Immunizations are dangerous or do more harm than good. Amalgam ("silver") filings should be removed because they make people sick. All teeth that have had root-canal therapy should be removed because they make people sick. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by nator, posted 11-22-2006 8:22 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Quack book
quote:
I agree with most of what he's said, but I do take issue with the comments on vitamins and organic foods. I find it funny that he doesn't consider organic foods to be ordinary food.
Based upon what do you disagree with him? Also, replace the word "ordinary" with "conventional" and you will, I think, understand his meaning.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by purpledawn, posted 11-22-2006 8:59 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Great thread, very eloquent
quote:
Not sure what I could add if you want hard facts. I only have my experience and what I've read (if I can find the info again.) in books. I would join in, but I don't know that I can prove anything to your safisfaction.
What I'm interested in is, given the lack of facts, why, and how you think it does what you think it does.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by purpledawn, posted 11-22-2006 3:40 PM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Great thread, very eloquent
But Juggs, using herbs IS pharmacology. They are drugs. quote:
Synthetic drugs is what I'm referring to, not botanicals.
I know. Both synthetics and botanicals are drugs. The difference being that synthetic drugs are isolated, purified, consistently-potent, and regulated by law, and botanical drugs are not.
If herbs weren't drugs, then taking them wouldn't have any effect. That's WHY people take them, isn't it? That's why they are called "medicinal herbs", right? quote:
Yes, but I'm saying that if a natural remedy exists, why take synthetic drugs that have many different side effects?
What makes you think that botanical drugs as a group don't have many different side effects, even more than synthetics? Like I said, herbs in their unrefined state can have hundreds, even thousands of compounds in them, all of which have potential to cause side effects. The problem is, we don't know the chemical makeup of many, many botanical drugs since the manufacurers are not required to find out and tell you. Every drug has side effects, synthetic and botanical alike. Taking any drug, synthetic or botanical, is a benefit/risk equation, and since the compounds in synthetics are 1) tested before release to market, and 2) isolated, while botanicals are not tested and there may be thousands of other unknown compounds in any given botanical, which one sounds safer to you?
quote:
If that remedy doesn't remedy you, then, sure, try another avenue.
But why would you use a botanical when you don't even know what's in it, what potentcy it is, what side effects it might have?
We literally do not know what chemicals many of these herbs contain, and some of them have hundreds and even thousands of compounds. Some might be useful, some inert, and some toxic. quote:
Let me give your a for-instance: Many people by lozenges to help with sore throats when they could just gargle some salt water or a lemon/honey/water solution. And anything could become toxic in excess. For instance, alot of people take Vitamin A supplements. I think we'd all agree that vitamin A is good for you in a proper dosage, but you can consume toxic levels.
I don't understand how this comment addresses the argument I presented. I agree that Vitamin A can be toxic in high levels. The point is, we don't even know what is in most of the medicinal herbs on the market, let alone know how toxic any of the compounds might be, either alone or in combination with other drugs or foods.
Curare is natural. Arsenic is natural. Cyanide is natural. quote:
So are vitamins. Some things in nature can kill you and others can heal you.
And do you want to be the one to find out which ones kill you by ingesting something before it is shown to be safe and effective?
quote:
That really bears no reflection on the matter. Neither of those have any medicinal purpose to them. Codeine does, but it kills people too.
The point I was making is that the tone of your previous post implied that botanical drugs were somehow more "healthy", safe, and have fewer side effects than synthetics simply because they were "natural" (i.e. not synthetic). That is simply not true, and is a myth propagated by the multi-billion dollar "nutritional supplement" industry.
When potent natural substances are discovered, drug companies try to isolate and synthesize the active chemical in order to provide a reliable supply. They also attempt to make derivatives that are more potent, more predictable, and have fewer side effects. In the case of digitalis, derivatives provide a spectrum of speed and duration of action. Digitalis leaf is almost never used today because its effects are less predictable. Many herbs contain hundreds or even thousands of chemicals that have not been completely cataloged. Some of these chemicals may turn out to be useful as therapeutic agents, but others could well prove toxic.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!" - Ned Flanders
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-22-2006 6:02 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Proper Testing
The difference being that synthetic drugs are isolated, purified, consistently-potent, and regulated by law, and botanical drugs are not. quote:
And a lot of people are trying to get that changed.[
That is true. You know who is most resistant to this sort of change in the botanical drug industry? The manufacturers and sellers of botanical drugs, that's who. They pay big bucks to several high-powered lobby groups that have thus far successfuly blocked any legislation that would require them to show that their drugs are safe and effective. This would tend to indicate to me that they care much more about continuing to make fabulous profits than about the health and welfare of consumers. Given this fierce resistance to having to demonstrate their products' efficacy and safety, and given their utter lack of any existing reguation, I wonder why consumers continue to trust these drugs at all, let alone think they are better or safer or have fewer side effects than synthetics? It seems they have swallowed the marketing Kool-Aide. They would rather believe than know. Edited by schrafinator, : fixed spelling
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by purpledawn, posted 11-23-2006 4:46 AM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Proper Testing
quote:
Change takes time.
Well, no, it really doesn't have to take time at all in this case. Congress could pass a law tomorrow that would require botanical drugs to be regulated just like all other drugs.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by purpledawn, posted 11-23-2006 4:46 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Ephedra
quote:
He's mixing up a remedy for hayfever, not putting it in a dietary supplement. (A dietary supplement is a product taken by mouth that contains a "dietary ingredient" intended to supplement the diet.)
Well, no, that's not what a dietary supplement is, in reality. Most every herb used as a drug, including ephedra, is labeled a "dietary supplement". This is because "dietary supplements" do not have to prove that they are safe and effective. It's the huge loophole that all of the prescribers, sellers, and manufacturers of "dietary supplements" use to get around the requirement that they show their products are safe and effective.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 101 by purpledawn, posted 11-24-2006 9:11 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Dietary Supplement Claims
quote:
If a supplement is hazardous, it is the job of the FDA to take action.
See, that's backwards. The responsibility should be on the manufacturers and sellers to demostrate that their products are not harmful and actually do what they say they do. They shouldn't be permitted to sell those products before this. You know, just like every other drug sold in the country. As it is now, we taxpayers are currently footing the bill every time the FDA has to do all of the clinical trials and scientific research on these "nutritional supplements" (i.e. botanical drugs) if they start to get reports of poisonings or severe side effects. It's only after doing all of this taxpayer-funded research (that the company should have had to do in the first place) can the FDA order a recall of dangerous products. The more I read about this industry the more I think people who take herbal drugs are playing russian roulette with their health and lives, all the while happily forking over billions to the ammunition suppliers. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by purpledawn, posted 11-24-2006 12:04 PM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Change Resistant
These are, indeed, guidelines. The bottom line is, pd, why do feel so easy about putting hundreds, perhaps thousands of unknown, untested chemical compounds into your body? That's what I really want to know, if I may be so bold to ask.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Change Resistant
quote:
But we don't want congress to go the wrong direction. I want the freedom to choose.
Sure, but I want the company producing and selling any drug, botanical or synthetic, to be required to investigate it's theraputic benefits (if they even exist) and side effects and shown that the former outweight the latter before being permitted to sell it. That way it is possible to make an informed choice. Right now, it is well-nigh impossible to make an informed choice when purchasing botanical drugs, since very little research of the sort I mentioned has been done.
quote:
Anything used incorrectly can cause harm, whether it's an herb or an over the counter drug.
I agree. If you don't know anything about a herbal drug, how can you know how to use it "correctly"? Just because a Naturopath or herbalist says they know about the drug doesn't mean much. Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 98 by purpledawn, posted 11-24-2006 6:59 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
|
|
Message 113 of 327 (365863)
11-24-2006 8:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 112 by Buzsaw
11-24-2006 7:16 PM
|
|
Re: tentative devil's advocate
Buz, how many people in the world die from prescription drugs compared to the number of people who die from not having access to them? quote:
That is a very relative question, relative to whether they have availed themselves to alternative safer health treatment, relative to how apprised they are on diet adjustments for optimum health, relative to whether they need to keep on drugs already prescribed, relative to how dangerous the prescription drugs used are and a host of other factors.
OK, then let me narrow the question. Buz, how many people in the world die from prescription antibiotics compared to the number of people who die from not having access to them?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 112 by Buzsaw, posted 11-24-2006 7:16 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 114 by Buzsaw, posted 11-24-2006 11:16 PM | | nator has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2