4 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1 Tue, Oct 25, 2011 - 5:22pm
Joined: Sep 26, 2011


I know there are many who feel adversely about Wiki, but this is a good starting point:

How about we talk about it here? Those who feel strongly enough one way or another will have a place to re-visit every once in a while.

My take on the matter is here:

I have no final word or opinion on the matter, so don't expect one. But here are a few points:

- the fundamental concept/premise/effect mechanism of vaccines, both bacterial and viral, is VERY compelling. The whole point is to enable the human immune system to build defenses against disease in a SKIRMISH/SPAR rather than in a WAR/DUEL. I personally happen to believe in the concept, though also believe that vaccinating against chicken pox is lunacy.

- the issues, as I've seen them in the 'kooky internet pages' revolve to a large degree not so much around the active ingredients, but the delivery mechanisms, the preservatives, and the (allegedly possible) potential for long-term side-effects as a result of THESE (not the weakened pathogen itself)

- the aim of human welfare is SO far removed from the goals of the current biomed/pharma industry, that healthy skepticism is just that, healthy. Worked with pharma co's for years - sure, effectiveness and safety are important. Nearly as important as the universal perception of effectiveness and safety...

- there have been a few cases of botched/ineffective/deadly vaccinations which drive panic as opposed to reasoned, scientific investigation. That does not mean these cases were not botched.

- follow the money. Which drives more vaccinations, more doses ordered and stockpiled by governments, more fearful, panicky people willing to embrace a solution to a crisis -- and hence more profits? More disease or less disease? A better overall endogenic immune response capability in 'modern' Western societies, or a weaker one?

- a generation or two ago, children played in the dirt, picked up 'filthy, unsanitary' objects regularly, were exposed to non-hypoallergenic pets, livestock and wildlife on a daily basis. They developed their immune systems the way they were supposed to -- by coming up against non-human materials, and learning how to deal with them. Do you think the massive urbanization, sterilization fetish and multi-billion dollar antiallergenic industry have made things better or worse?

-vaccines which were tested on and proven to work decades ago on a reasonably healthy, active, 'normal' population might not have changed a bit. But how many % of Americans are now morbidly obese? Is the trend worldwide getting worse or better? Do you think, all else being equal, their response to the same, tested, safe and effective weakened pathogens can be expected to be the same? How about all the kids who never got breastmilk as infants, out of convenience or selfish comfort rather than necessity or deprivation/poverty?

As the lead-in implies, I am supportive of the concept, dubious about the execution. Would welcome knowledgeable, informative opinions and facts on the matter. Have a personal stake in the matter, 'irons in the fire', as it were, so I am truly curious.

Edited by: JY896 on Nov 8, 2014 - 5:24am
Tue, Oct 25, 2011 - 9:05pm
Dr Durden
Twin Cities, MN
Joined: Jun 14, 2011

Many great points, JY.What

Many great points, JY.

What most don't get is that the role of vaccines in society is as much (or more) political than it is biological. Study this dude named Antoine Bechamp and his contributions to microbiology:

And now on with the requisite, inane anecdotal posts and the frivolous arguments that come from them. Because, hey, who needs any real science when history doesn't lie....:vomit:

Got GIABO? "It's called the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." ~George Carlin
Tue, Oct 25, 2011 - 9:28pm
Joined: Jun 15, 2011
48274 I suggest taking a look at some of these articles. I too worked for big pharma at the highest levels. The number of succesful multimillion dollar lawsuits that have occurred in recent years, handling of clinical trials including design, and the continued and much ignored problem of resistance issues due to the overprescription of antibiotics (a very serious issue) all speak to the fact that pharma is less concerned with safety and efficacy than it is the bottom line. I could give many case examples but this is not the forum for it. Don't get me wrong there are some life saving pharmaceutical interventions but in general we've been overprescibed in just about every therapeutic category. the underlying principle regarding vaccines is a good one. It is the entire philosophy of homeopathic remedies which was the mainstream medicine at the beginning of the century. They are used much more in Europe than in the U.S. and every pharmacist in Germany must also be familiar with botanicals such as St. Johns Wort. The pharmaceutical companies know that this movement will take away profits that is why they spend millions of dollars in Europe to design comparitive studies. I know because I saw the all the paperwork and the amount of money spent. The over regulation of approved therapies in this country deters smaller companies from every bringing a viable solution to market as they don't have millions and millions to spend on trials. This is not accidental.

Wed, Oct 26, 2011 - 1:48am
Joined: Jun 14, 2011

as long as big pharma is

as long as big pharma is getting paid by the insurance companies, then the welfare of the people is not their concern. Get rid of health insurance and you solve that part of the problem. However, getting rid of health insurance means you have to have a very strong currency. So now we're back to square one.. finding some way to restore stability and purchasing power in our currency.

Become a gold member and subscribe to Turd's Vault


Donate Shop

The TFMR Silver Round
Buying Gold