Tylenol/Paracetamol etc - CHICKEN POX: WHY DO CHILDREN DIE?

[Sheri Nakken]

MISCFEVER5: Tylenol/Paracetamol etc - CHICKEN POX: WHY DO CHILDREN DIE?

Info on using tylenol/calpol/paracetamol and other things for fever - DANGER
Gary L Krasner wrote:
The following article originally appeared in the Well Beings newsletter,
a publication of Vaccination Alternatives, NYC,

[Shannon Nelson]

By the more mainstream understanding, it is white blood cells which
devour the dead and injured cells. It occurs to me that they look very
similar to bacteria (at least to *me* they seem similar)--I wonder
whether the person who originated the "bacteria-as-scavengers" position
might have actually been seeing white blood cells at work, and
*thought* they were bacteria? Especially since that last
phrase--"Otherwise, these dead cells would become accumulated toxic
waste themselves"--seems to overlook the presence or role of the white
blood cells entirely...

I'm sure bacteria *do* scavenge toxic materials too, but have a hard
time with the idea that they are always benign (in fact to me that
absolutely flies in the face of both scientific evidence and common
experience), and also find it odd that the white blood cells' role has
been entirely overlooked...
This article really should contain the caveats that others have given
here...
At a minimum, re the fact that fever in heatstroke is a different
situation (body's temp regulating system has been overwhelmed); and
risk of dehydration etc.
[...]

I think that "never" is too strong a word there... (Would like to hear
more details about the case Simon mentioned!)
That I would agree with.

Then why the success of the "tradition" of e.g. "chicken pox parties",
where moms bring their little 'uns to "catch" the bug and get it over
with? If it's not contagious, then why do the "parties" do their job?

I know we've gone round about this already... But I don't think I've
read any answer to that question, for instance?

Ah, and that is an important phrase: "in titers low enough that their
waste products do not affect us." For some pathogens the toxic titer
level is generous, while for others it is low.

When I have read descriptions of the way "causation" is determined, to
me it seems convincing. I don't understand how one can say there is no
proven causation. When you take a healthy animal, inject it with a
pathogen, it dies and is found to be crawling with said pathogen, in
what way does that fail to prove causality? Maybe the rabbit could
have been saved thru fasting and liver cleanses, but I don't think
that's really the point...
Best,
Shannon

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Shannon,
Well, not if they had any idea of bacteriology at all:-)

White blood cells are *much* bigger than bacteria.

Actually the reasoning below is all mixed up. It is well recognized
that *most* of the bacteria are harmless (saprophytes) that do neither
harm nor good. Some of these do live on scraps e.g. in the
bowels, on the skin, in the mouth, throat etc. -- it *may* be that
some of these do good that way. *Some of them* indeed live in a
symbiotic relationship.

Every time we breathe we inhale lots and lots of bacteria and viruses.
Most of them are the above. When we inhale pathogens, most of the time
also nothing happens - depending on the amount and the virulence of
the pathogens and on the defense mechanisms of the body. By that, the
immune system is actually strengthened. Therefore too much hygiene,
especially for kids, is contra-indicated. Also IMO5~ iodine etc. on
wounds (it would be carrying the topic to far to explain why I think
the latter)

Small amounts of pathogens, as e.g. Salmonella, also Streptococcus,
Staphylococcus and many others *may* be kept in check
by the (immune) system. This is the reason for carriers, who do not
get sick themselves but may infect others who do get sick. (Typhus
Mary, many people, expecially doctors and nurses in the hospitals who
carry Streptococcus in their throats.)

All this applies to the "ouside", however - i.e. skin and the mucous
membranes connecting with the outside.

Microbiologists etc. may find it hard convincingly to
contradict people like Lanka - who, it seems, in in the process of
being discovered by the English speaking community - as far as viruses
are concerned, because the isolation etc. of viruses is hard and
things concerning viruses are hard to demonstrate. And I am even
pretty sure that as far as viruses are concerned, a lot is still
unknown (a fact most virologists would probably agree to)

But as far as bacteria are concerned and the plasmodia etc. the
argument is ludicrious. After all, what would people and animals need
an immune system for, why should anyone want to strengthen it, if
there is nothing from the outside attacking us? The immune system is
definitely a lot older than our toxic environment - it was there when
water and air was pure, when people and before other animals were
hunters or grazers roaming around.

Regards

Luise
Especially since that last

--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Shannon Nelson]

Okay, I wasn't sure of that, but also, as I said, found it odd that the
WBCs weren't mentioned at all...
All of this I understand, no quarrel!

More good points.
The "no such thing as pathogens" position is mysterious to me...
Shannon

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]