Posted on: 03-11-04 18:21:39
Quote:
Orginally posted by DiogenestheCynic
Your first site is of some sleazeball Mercotan who calls himself a doctor. His credentials are unknown and his disclaimer at the bottom is enough to realize the crap that he puts on his site.
Far from being a "sleaze" he is a qualified medical doctor, with a practice in the Chicago, IL area.
He is a doctor just like any other you go to.
Just because you don't agree with his ideas doesn't make him a "sleaze" - maybe you can prove that your medical credentials are better than his.
Quote:The Weston A. Price Foundation is not concerned simply with nutrient-dense foods, but by the overall concept of natural health and healing through traditional means.
Your other URL is only an isolated article by an individual doctor and that too is limited to discussion on autistic children. By what logic do you connect it to the mankind at large? The foundation itself is concerned mainly with nutrient-dense foods. Again, by what logic are you quoting this site in discussion of flu shots??
They are an internationally reknown organisation and their credentials are impeccable.
Quote:It is neither false nor misleading that vaccines contain thimerosal - which is a mercury based preservative.
Limiting our discussion to flu shot, please substantiate your claim that the flu shot vaccine has any of the ingredients(except virus) you mention and how they are harmful if they do. Else as I said, your post is a load of trash!
You might be an advocate for alternative medicine and nature cure etc etc, but please do not spread false and misleading information.
It is neither false nor misleading that vaccines contain aluminium - another toxic metal.
There are several other chemical compounds that cause different types of reactions and damages in different people.
But most doctors simply pump vaccines without regard to a person medical history or specific known and unknown allergies.
Heck, even Wal-Mart has drive-by vaccination clinicks set up for giving you shots of this poison.
What is false and misleading is the progpaganda and the [mis]information spread by the mainstream media who create a panic among people to get vaccinated during the so-called "flu season".
If you choose to get vaccinated every week, I couldn't care less, but you cannot call this information false and misleading - your ignorance and refusal to accept that vaccines may not be as safe as claimed is what is false and misleading.
Again, I have researched both sides of the issue - you haven't.
You asked for links and I posted some.
I am not going to spend hours finding and posting every single website out there on the Internet that discusses the potential dangers of vaccines for both babies and adults.
You can just as easily use Google or a search engine to find that same information - if you care to spend the time.
And, unlike you, I wish you the best of health.
Quote:
Orginally posted by jake3d
yes, so life expectancy should be going down right?
If you compare life expectancy today with the industrial revolution period (say 1600s - 1900), then yes, you will find an improvement.
During the industrial revolution, the populations of the rapidly industrialising countries were living under very poor diet and sanitary conditions.
Think of the coal mines, the cotton mills, the sweatshops....obviously life expectancy could only have gone up.
With the stablisation of the rate of industrialisation and the workers' rights movements, etc. their conditions improved and thus life expectancy.
Doctors also found cures for common diseases *of this period*.
Most of those diseases were a creation of the social and economic conditions under which the people lived.
If this had not been the case, those same diseases would have existed in all those pre-industrial, remote communities, like the ones studied by Dr. Price.
However, there is no evidence of such diseases existing.
When you compare life expectancy with pre-industrial age, things get very fuzzy.
Most of the pre-industrial communties were self-sufficient isolated fishing or farming communties.
Very sparse data is available about them, and most of the data has been doctored by the earliest settlers, especially the Christian missionaries who were eager to prove that they are bringing health, happines and religion to those "savage" communties.
If you can spare the time, read the following:
http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/nasty_brutish_short.html
The gist of the article is:
"In order to believe that our society has "progressed," we must believe first that the lives of our ancestors were indeed nasty, brutish and short. But, as study after study has confirmed, the health of traditional peoples was vastly superior to that of modern industrial man."
Our life expectancy per se is higher today because most of the diseases that cut life short are curable now (not necessarily due to vaccines).
However, we have greatly multiplied the number of other diseases that did not exist up until a 100 years ago - like diabetes, stroke, BP, heart disease, etc.
Think about it.....
Quote:
Orginally posted by OneIsACrowd
Our life expectancy per se is higher today because most of the diseases that cut life short are curable now (not necessarily due to vaccines).
However, we have greatly multiplied the number of other diseases that did not exist up until a 100 years ago - like diabetes, stroke, BP, heart disease, etc.
Think about it.....
One...you are debating established data with rhetoric.
Though i do not dismiss the use of vaccines, I am skeptical about the overuse of things like antibiotics. I also believe that the extra emphasis on 'sanitizing' our surroundings has resulted in inability of the body to build immunity...especially in our young ones. This could explain the increasing incidences of allergies in kids. However, like you I rely on hearsay.
An analogy:There simply is not enough data to prove that 'natural' and 'organic' food/methods lead to better health. Infact it is highly unlikely that organic farming can feed the worlds growing population. In the absence of data, we are forced to fall back on rhetoric and 'gut feelings' and things like 'organic tastes better'. May work for us but not everyone.
Anyway, since you seem o have missed it, here is info from the link again...note: it tracks the period AFTER the industrial revolution
"Thereafter, it has increased rapidly to between 55 and 60 in the 1950s, 60 to 70 in the 1960s, and 70 to 80 years in 1995. "
Once you do have data, to back up your assumptions, please share. Anything else, albeit well meaning, is guess work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
just my opinion. i aggree with the idea of vaccines. some diseases are terrible and the body needs to the vaccine for survival (small pox, polio etc). But some diseases e.g. flu, feaver, cold, rash..it sounds abit senseless to have to take a shot since the body is expected to be able to combat it.
Either way i would opt for the surity of no flu by taking the shot. Either way I am still undecided!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
smile ...
Quote:
Orginally posted by michelle288
just my opinion. i aggree with the idea of vaccines. some diseases are terrible and the body needs to the vaccine for survival (small pox, polio etc). But some diseases e.g. flu, feaver, cold, rash..it sounds abit senseless to have to take a shot since the body is expected to be able to combat it.
Either way i would opt for the surity of no flu by taking the shot. Either way I am still undecided!
Its a personal decision. Some things you want to consider are if people in your immediate family have a weakened immune system or existing medical conditions. E.g: an elderly family member who lives with you OR a child who is prone to asthmatic attacks. Your immune system maybe able to withstand the flu...however the risk maybe greater for the family member. In such situations it maybe wise to consult your doctor and get advice from the same. Some doctors may suggest that all the family members be innoculated.
Lastly, not to be insensitive to your original query but medical advice from the internet is inherent with flaws galore. If you are looking for consensus...taking multiple opinions from medical professionals is a better option.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
flu shots may be good but i'm just worried about the BIRD FLU.
motto of the year - stay off the fowl side of things.
btw, i heard babies can get flu shots too. what gives? 'n r they any good?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
i am back 
Quote:LOL !
Orginally posted by beautysalon
flu shots may be good but i'm just worried about the BIRD FLU.
motto of the year - stay off the fowl side of things.
Bird flu is another case of what we are doing to our environment and animal/bird species that are so essential to our survival.
We pump them with antibiotics, hormones, genetically modified foods, and God knows what else !
No wonder they are sick, and no wonder we are sick by eating them !
