[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I would hardly call it trivial. It was in fact central to the claim. And because you knew nothing about it, you repeated that claim... demonstrating how misinformation spreads unless people reach a certain level of competence.

Again, you are missing the point and focusing on a triviality because it remains quite clear that an infant cannot excrete mercury as well as an adult.

There is cause to believe that these metals (including thimerosal) could be contributing factors to many childhood illnesses.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again, that has nothing at all to do with what I was talking about, and perhaps that is an illustration of my point. My point is that misinformation spreads more easily than good information, because it takes a basic level of competency to spot that something is incorrect, and why. This gets worse when we are dealing with rather technical bio-medical information.

It is true that misinformation can spread, but more and more researchers are agreeing that vaccines may be contributing to these disorders, some of whom are biochemists.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, they really are not. Please define

a) "These Disorders"
b) how many researchers agree, since when, and how many do not.

If not, you are making stuff up. If you where a blogger, someone else would spread it.

But hey in the new world, you would never say that unless you had proof positive that you were right, wouldn't you? It is only because you can justify it that you are talking out of your ass..

I'm not making stuff up. And what are you ranting and raving about regarding the new world? I would not give advice that I'm not sure of. If in the new world you want to, and you feel strongly that you know whereof you speak, then who is stopping you from giving it? There is no one looking over your shoulder. But you would have to live with the guilt if someone was hurt by your advice. It's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Once again beside the point. I was referring to your approach: you would rather inflict the risk of not being vaccinated on your children than the risk of taking a vaccine, because of an emotional bias, regardless of any factual information.

Even if the odds are telling me it's better to vaccinate, it is still my choice to make. What if I am one of those people whose child got injured, even if it's a small risk? And what if I trusted your judgment regarding the shot and my child had a fatal reaction? How would you feel?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sure - a selfish choice, however. You just gave an example where you chose to let your child run more risk because it makes you feel better.

You still don't get it. This is not a black and white subject Vivisectus. There are lot of unknowns.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

- Infants do not have a blood-brain barrier
- Infants do not produce bile
- In-breeding causes mutations

Obviously.

Given that you clearly show a profound ignorance about the relevant field, do you feel competent to judge the information?

I believe that the studies coming out are showing that there is a correlation between vaccines and immune dysfunction in some children. I'm not telling you what to believe.

Yes. I know I'm biased in the direction of safety, and they just don't know enough about this new vaccine/combination schedule. As a parent I would be very cautious.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You presuppose your choice is the safest, which you cannot support. In fact, all the facts show it is in fact not the safest approach at all. Your bias is against vaccines, not "towards safety".

You have a different mindset than I do. I don't believe vaccinations for every new disease that comes down the pike is necessary, and can be dangerous. You can think I'm selfish if you want.

I guess you didn't read the article I posted, which makes me feel like we're talking at each other. The only way I will continue this conversation is if I post an article and we break it down, otherwise, it's a waste of my time. Here's a small section that I think is relevant.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That would be quite an ordeal - especially if you are going to be posting articles of the caliber below. Let us have a quick look:

[I]The primary foundational platform for nutrition and the other natural sciences is the validated assumption that whether your personal belief is that our human race originated through divine creation, millions of years of tweaking evolution, or because we were dumped off hitchhikers from passing extraterrestrial travelers, the fact is that the human body with all its countless integrated systems and functions is a true miracle to behold.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Useless waffle and emotive prattle.

And when it works, it works with extraordinary efficiency.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Stupid thing to say, and devoid of anything useful.

Therefore the first area of investigation and suspicion that a natural practitioner looks to when there is disruption of wellness in a person, is what aspects aren’t working properly.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

More waffle with next to no information in it.

Restore proper fuel (nutrition), organ functions, immune system response, and reduce toxic load and exposure, and son of a gun, more times than not, things start workin’ again.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Facts not in evidence, full of presuppositions, and some of it is plain stupid.

In stark contrast, the notion that has been developed and sold by much of modern medicine and virtually all of the pharmaceutical community is that we are all hapless potential victims of every new mutated pathogen, rogue gene, disease and disorder that this dangerous world throws in our paths, and the best way to deal with all the mayhem is not through proactive actions or education that would promote superior lifestyle changes to restore bodily defense and balance, but the initiation and protracted use of drugs that have absolutely no intent or expectation of fixing the problems, but are instead designed to mimic or confound normal bodily regulation systems in order to keep the patient in a perpetual state of reliance on those drugs.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Facts not in evidence, and full of loaded language.

The earlier in life one starts on drugs, the longer they will be both physically and mentally dependent on layered and cascading courses of medications. This is the harsh reality, which represents nothing other than a downward spiral for proper long term health management.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Outright lies in this one, facts not in evidence, and more emotive claptrap.

Unfortunately these two philosophies about the sources and paths to wellness are not only highly divergent in strategy, but represent virtual polar opposites with respect to how results are assessed and measured. The ideal outcome for natural medicine is to provide proactive preventative strategies and then be confident that an ongoing healthy report card is sufficient retrospective evidence of the wisdom of such strategies. Ideal outcome for conventional modern medicine has been reduced to reactively waiting until negative symptoms and conditions develop and then prescribing drugs and other courses of care to try to counteract those symptoms perpetually. “How long do I need to stay on these drugs Doc?” Answer: “How long to you want to live?”

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

More of same.

Understand that the resulting process that has been established and refined within the last century through the FDA here in the U.S. may initially have had the best intentions of providing a proving ground to protect the uninformed and unwashed masses from being subjected to promoted drugs and other treatments that might be anywhere between ineffective to dangerous. But very unfortunately this same process has now been adulterated into being used to redefine and exclusively own such terms as “disease”, “treatment” and “cure”, and the game has been rigged to exclude virtually all protocols, products and services outside their powerful and growing purview from being considered as valid, effective or legitimate.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Untrue: the only problem is that you have to prove your protocols work in clinical tests.

Well, I am glad that is over. Now what on earth was the point of that?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So I do think there is quite a lot of evidence that a "Healthy immune system" does not in fact protect you from the diseases we vaccinate against, at least not to the levels that a modern person would find acceptable.

You are comparing diseases that are not even in existence today, not necessarily due to herd immunity. Did you listen to the video I posted this morning?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Far from it - the majority are unfortunately not yet wiped out, and thanks yo anti-vaxxers, quite a few are making a comeback. Worse: by allowing small clusters to survive, it is possible they will mutate and develop new resistances to vaccines.

What scaremongering!!

That's not true. I would absolutely give someone an antibiotic if they were seriously ill. I would probably give my child a vaccine if there was a real pandemic (not a made up one). I'm talking about overloading the body with vaccines that are unnecessary because the disease may never come back due to better nutrition, hygiene, and living conditions in the Western world.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then why are the measles coming back among unvaccinated kids in the Netherlands? Are they all poorly nourished? We lost 1 kid per thousand. Why is pertussis killing kids again?

Actually, the children were vaccinated.

I don't trust all empirical studies when you are dealing with many co-factors. Double blind studies work in many instances, but they have also failed glaringly. Look at the egg/cholesterol fiasco and you'll know what I mean.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is no qualitative difference in the studies you do not trust, except one: they do not agree with your biases.

That's not true, but you have to look at the design of the test. Empirical studies to prove that a drug or vaccine is not harmful to the body is virtually impossible using this type of methodology because you don't have all of the contributing factors that could be playing a part in the cascade of events that are leading to the disorders we're seeing today.

That's not it. I just don't believe that the science is reliable when it comes to pinpointing why children are getting these illnesses. The unfortunate result is that each side is holding onto their position without budging (kinda like the government shut down ), and guess who loses? The children.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Like I said: you don't trust science that does not agree with your bias. SImple as that.

I like when science works. I don't like when science doesn't work, and yet they continue to claim their studies are irrefutable.

You are wrong here because what you don't know can hurt you. I'm glad you're not my doctor.

The body knows how to utilize natural chemicals by its structure. Example: progestin and Premarin were used by menopausal women and they had to stop the study because women were getting breast cancer. Natural bioidentical hormones don't seem to cause the same problem.

On what grounds should we avoid these?

I'm not saying we should avoid all drugs if we absolutely need them, but it is my philosophy that we should make an effort to try to heal the body through natural means first.

This is not always true though. Antibiotics have saved countless lives. Drugs to help people with aids have saved lives. It is also true that some plants can be deadly so this approach to health does not mean all natural products are safe.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then making a decision based on "naturalness" is useless.

I am speaking for myself. I would rather prevent an illness from arising by eating healthy foods, getting fresh air, avoiding stress, than getting ill and having to rely on drugs. It appears that natural living is beneficial in ways that cannot be duplicated in a test tube.