Vaccine Dosage challenge

[John Harvey]

Carol, Lisa: thank you!

John
--
"And if care became the ethical basis of citizenship? Our parliaments, guided by such ideas, would be very different places."
—Paul Ginsborg, Democracy: Crisis and Renewal, London: Profile, 2008.

[healthinfo6]

John,
Are there comparisons as to what one's antibody levels are after an illness, i.e.; chicken pox, for those unvaccinated vs those vacciinated for chicken pox?
Is it generally shown vaccination leads to higher antibody levels than would naturally occur after being infected?
Does a vaccinated person develop even more antibodies if exposed to a virus they have been vaccinated for?
While I won't question your accuracy, this scary description doesn't explain how and why there are many "healthy" people who are vaccinated and rarely if ever get sick.
Is it possible what doesn't kill you makes you stronger?
Just look at olympic athletes, those in triathalons, etc. besides those who are generally in good health, despite being vaccinated.
Again, is this 100% proven vs. anecdotal?
How can one be sure since simultaneously as vaccine use has increased, the food supplies of many countries have been infiltrated with additives, preservatives, possibly genetic engineered ingredients, highly refined sweeteners, engineered oils, etc. One only has to peruse the supermarket shelves to see the bombardment of what most people eat daily as more influential and damaging than may be their vaccinations.
As the economies of the world falter and inflation and/or hyperinflation increases, people won't be able to afford healthier food alternatives if they so desire.
For example, type 1 diabetes is considered autoimmune, type 2 is not, rather inherited predisposition and/or lifestyle.
Type 2 is now on a miuch higher, epidemic-level trajectory, than type 1, despite increased use of vaccines. There is not an epidemic of type 1.
Thus, it seems incorrect to blame vaccines on all the current and future health ailments that face us but moreso, diet and your inherited genetic disposition.
May I suggest you post this as a Wikipedia article, as a search on vaccination will usually show those articles first. Anyone wishing to add to your descriptions can freely do so.
Susan

[comdyne2002]

No matter how much spin or technobabble one pontificates about vaccines, the concept is flawed and totally insane. Germs are not the cause of disease, they are the result of it. Vaccines have never been scientifically proven to work and its is well acknowledged that they produce a lot of damage to the body.

You can thank Dr. Frist for further corrupting our legal system by shifting the burden of responsibility away from the vaccine manufacturers to the government which has a review panel (death panel?) that pays out a fraction of billions of dollars to those injured by an unwarranted assault by their doctor who injected a witches brew of foreign proteins into a body not designed to fend off such a gross violation of Nature's laws.

Antibodies do not provide any protection what so ever. In fact, one only has to look at the so called AIDS epidemic to see that antibodies don't protect the owner of that disease from eventual destruction. All that antibodies do is produce a record of a past or current infection.

The entire allopathic medical system is based upon the incorrect Pasteur Germ Theory which was debunked by others at the time of discovery. Pasteur stole the concept from Rudolf Vershow who later recanted his theory after Bechamp explained to him the error of his thinking.

There can be no justification for this filthy and barbaric practice. Mankind didn't survive for thousands of years from a lack of vaccines.
The Creator isn't that stupid, only his children are. Caveat Emptor! Carmi Hazen

[healthinfo6]

reposted with hopefully formatting intact.
John,
It is also why the measure of "success" -- the antibodies unnaturally produced in this manner -- bear little relation to the measure of natural immunity, even when gauged by antibody titres
Are there comparisons as to what one's antibody levels are after an illness, i.e.; chicken pox, for those unvaccinated vs those vacciinated for chicken pox?
Is it generally shown vaccination leads to higher antibody levels than would naturally occur after being infected?
Does a vaccinated person develop even more antibodies if exposed to a virus they have been vaccinated for?
While I won't question your accuracy, this scary description doesn't explain how and why there are many "healthy" people who are vaccinated and rarely if ever get sick.
Is it possible what doesn't kill you makes you stronger?
Just look at olympic athletes, those in triathalons, etc. besides those who are generally in good health, despite being vaccinated.
Again, is this 100% proven vs. anecdotal?
How can one be sure since simultaneously as vaccine use has increased, the food supplies of many countries have been infiltrated with additives, preservatives, possibly genetic engineered ingredients, highly refined sweeteners, engineered oils, etc. One only has to peruse the supermarket shelves to see the bombardment of what most people eat daily as more influential and damaging than may be their vaccinations.
As the economies of the world falter and inflation and/or hyperinflation increases, people won't be able to afford healthier food alternatives if they so desire.
For example, type 1 diabetes is considered autoimmune, type 2 is not, rather inherited predisposition and/or lifestyle.
Type 2 is now on a miuch higher, epidemic-level trajectory, than type 1, despite increased use of vaccines. There is not an epidemic of type 1.
Thus, it seems incorrect to blame vaccines on all the current and future health ailments that face us but moreso, diet and your inherited genetic disposition.
May I suggest you post this as a Wikipedia article, as a search on vaccination will usually show those articles first. Anyone wishing to add to your descriptions can freely do so.
Susan

[John Harvey]

Hi, Susan --
I'm sure there are -- and that others on this list can put their fingers on them more easily than I could. But one has to consider how much importance to place on the comparison. First, antibodies are neither necessary nor sufficient for protection against many of the diseases that vaccines are posed to prevent; people have been shown in some instances to be fully immune who have had no antibodies whatever to an illness, and other with a plethora of antibodies to it have succumbed readily. Second, antibody titres from natural exposure to many such illnesses (including chickenpox, I understand) last for a lifetime; strangely, antibody titres from the vaccines posed as substitutes for natural immunity against these same diseases do not. (Again, my apologies, but I'd suggest that others will have readier access to the details of this than I do.)
I don't know; again, though, comparing two completely different measures (which are anyway measure of unknown import) may not be particularly useful. The former is purely a surrogate for any measure of immunity; the latter, by contrast, is a record of the body's success in dealing with the illness.
Ditto.
Mm. Neither does understanding various means by which tobacco causes lung cancer explain how your grandmother died in her sleep at the age of 96 without acquiring lung cancer. But we don't imagine that that means that our understanding of those mechanisms is fundamentally wrong; merely that our knowledge is incomplete. Naturally, various individual constitutions will succumb variously readily.
If you examine the claim that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, you find that it's exactly equivalent in meaning to the claim "What doesn't make you stronger will kill you". They're the same claim. They don't have the same mind-numbing reassurance value, though, do they. The latter formulation is merely clearer in its implication that if something (such as a vaccine) is not, as you might imagine it is, making you stronger, then it is killing you. Yes, it's possible.
You mean the same ones who have a greater than even chance now of dying of a degenerative illness the origins of which modern medical "science" is begging all of us every day for donations to discover? Yes, let's look at these people. Let's compare their long-term health with that of unvaccinated members of the same populations. It shouldn't be a radical idea; it should be ho-hum. Yet for some reason almost zero research has been done to explore it.
The mechanisms (at least some!) of this are fairly well understood these days and generally accepted, yes. Vaccines stimulate humoral immune responses that look appropriate to an illness of interest and thereby derange the functioning of the cell-mediated immune response. I was taught this in (first-year) university biology some ten or twelve years ago by a lecturer who had no quibble with vaccines and obviously believed the usual guff about their post-hoc role in medical history, so it wasn't some hearsay developed as a hypothesis convenient for opposition to vaccination.
You're right there: epidemiological evidence is the soundest evidence, and it's increasingly difficult to uncover as foods are increasingly adulterated with ingredients that their manufacturers and growers go to great lengths to hide. It's no accident that, with the sophisticated science philosophy, powerful statistical tools, fast computers, and unprecedented surveillance and data-collection technologies now at our disposal, it is more difficult today than ever before to collect, collate, and understand the relevant data.

That problem is essentially a political problem: a problem of the misuse of resources and power. It's not a problem of whether there's any sound basis for trusting the results of evolutionary success. Our organisms use a range of subtle, sophisticated, intricately interacting means of responding to immune insults, means that have been selected to cope well with almost all the infectious agents we've rubbed up against over many generations, and even with novel ones. They have not, however, evolved to do so while simultaneously suffering the insults of vitamin depletion, mineral depletion, sodium excess, fat hydrogenation, heavy-metal aerosols, mercury dental implants, sedentariness, sunlight depletion, social isolation, sucrose and fructose shocks, replacement of bone and nerve calcium by fluorine, and endocrine disruptors and pesticides in food and water.

Add to this largely uncontrolled and largely conscious pollution the completely deliberate introduction of sophisticated drugs designed not to support but to overcome and replace immune responses, and you have the basis for lifelong dependence based on intractable ignorance. Spice it up with a little fear-mongering; control the media; utterly ignore the compelling evidence against your simplistic historical claims; and blame the blameless as your standard means of damage control, and an entire population is putty in your hands.

Then confuse the picture even further by using the political machinery of the media to recreate the false-history recipe—the one that worked so well with vaccinations—to justify secret and then mandatory adulteration of food (and animal feed) by GMOs. Deliberately confound evolutionary (natural) and the artificial selection that farmers have practised for five thousand years and more—which cannot be patented and are not highly lucrative—with techniques of splicing genes from one organism into the genome of another, which can be patented and can be highly lucrative as long as the public cannot choose to reject the goods. (Sound familiar?

And there in a nutshell you have a completely artificial basis for claiming that "science"—actually just privately owned technological parasitism on publicly funded science—is solving the very problems that you create. (And if that doesn't sound familiar, read up on the history of puerperal [childbed] fever, an infectious illness that resulted directly from obstetric practice with even less respect than present obstetric practice has for evolutionary history but that naturally demanded—you guessed it—medical intervention.)

None of this is an excuse for more of the same. Rather, it is cause for taking stock; to think calmly and clearly before buying into "solutions" to "problems"; to reevaluate the origins of our understanding. It is cause for questioning our unquestioned assumptions. It is cause for setting aside belief and returning to first principles in a reborn effort to discover the world in which we imagine we are living.
Not if they don't set aside their comforting illusions and insist on it, they won't, no.
Assuming you mean vice versa (blame vaccines for, rather than on, the ailments), I'd wholly agree. Vaccines are just one more means of social manipulation, just one more tool of social control, and a readymade perpetual-money machine for funding political control. They have a special place in history at this moment, however, as they, along with GM crops, are the battleground upon which the war on human liberty is being fought most intensively and most viciously. That's because both these convergent technologies have unprecedented potential for the binding of social and political power to big money. To ignore the war on liberty is to lose it.
Thank you for the thought. I'm afraid I don't know enough to justify doing that, and anyway Wikipedia seems to have been sufficiently infiltrated by anti-democratic interests to ensure that if I were to give the article sufficient intellectual weight to be significant, it would quickly be edited into mediocrity or removed entirely. Just look at the impossibility of getting into Wikipedia any objective description of homoeopathy and its research results. Vaccination skepticism faces those same obstacles and probably in greater concentration. Homoeopathy merely presents an alternative approach to medical treatment in general and is easily derided through generalisations and ready prejudices. Questioning vaccination threatens directly the greatest source of income of the most powerful corporations on the planet. Those employed full-time to troll lists such as this capably keep very close control of such potential threats as Wikipedia. Of course, there are alternative citizen encyclopaedias. But the spread of ideas may be less controllable through such structures as this list exemplifies.

Kind regards,

John

--
"And if care became the ethical basis of citizenship? Our parliaments, guided by such ideas, would be very different places."
—Paul Ginsborg, Democracy: Crisis and Renewal, London: Profile, 2008.