And you thought Jenny McCarthy was bad ... - Page 5

shuttlt · 26th June 2012, 09:36 AM

trusetheeker,

Incidentally, it seems to me pretty clear that you think that this Hygiene thing is falsifiable. Perhaps I am getting confused between Natural Hygiene and enervation-toxaemia theory which your quote before implied was non-falsifiable.

Would I be right in thinking that Natural Hygiene is enervation-toxaemia theory + a bunch of specific therapies that might either work or not.

All my previous posts about equivalence between germ theory and "Natural Hygiene" should probably be "germ theory and enervation-toxaemia theory".

ehcks · 26th June 2012, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

A toxic or injured body is not capable of digesting food as all expendable energy will be diverted to restoring homeostasis. Any food ingested will just sit in the system and putrefy/ferment adding to the toxic load. As such, the body turns off the appetite whenever it's in crisis. Hence, fasting is our natural response to "disease", injury and pain. Feeding the sick is detrimental to recovery.

What is this? What even IS THIS? Where do you think your energy comes from?

It comes from food. The energy your body uses to recover comes from the food you eat. Starving yourself makes you weaker. Fasting isn't a natural response to anything. Fasting while sick will just kill you more quickly.

shuttlt · 26th June 2012, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by ehcks

What is this? What even IS THIS? Where do you think your energy comes from?

It comes from food. The energy your body uses to recover comes from the food you eat. Starving yourself makes you weaker. Fasting isn't a natural response to anything. Fasting while sick will just kill you more quickly.

He can't mean what it looks like he means, otherwise the outlook for people with anything that took more than a week to recover from would be quite bleak.

trusetheeker · 26th June 2012, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Madalch

One could easily culture a specific germ, take two healthy volunteers, inject one person with the germ culture and inject the other with a placebo of similar composition. See who gets the disease.

Besides the 100s of lab rats that would have to suffer first before we get to the human testing stage, the only other problem I see with that is correctly comparing the health state of the human volunteers. However, with enough volunteers from both the hygienic lifestyle and a more conventional lifestyle, you might be able to get a fair idea of the effectiveness of Natural Hygiene at dealing with the invasion of toxic material, living or dead.

To my understanding, you would need four test groups: Conventional lifestyle 1) experiment and 2) control, and Hygienic lifestyle 3) experiment and 4) control.

You wouldn't get a solid proof of germ theory vs enervation-toxemia theory through this test. We would know, after the fact, that the experiment group had the germ present whether or not they exhibited symptoms. None of this touches the other half of the argument against germ theory which is where an individual presents the symptoms of the disease but does not have the germ present. We know that germ theory allows for a number of infected people to never show any symptoms but it doesn't allow for people showing the symptoms without having the germs. How can someone have the disease but not have the germs?

Thinking about the results of the test above, I would expect to see a difference in symptoms between the germ culture and the placebo, very much depending on what is used as the placebo. More importantly, I would expect to see a big difference in the duration and intensity of symptoms between Hygienically healthy subjects and convention lifestyle subjects.

Additioal information

shuttlt · 26th June 2012, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

We know that germ theory allows for a number of infected people to never show any symptoms but it doesn't allow for people showing the symptoms without having the germs. How can someone have the disease but not have the germs?

Generally I don't believe the symptoms are thought to have a 1-1 mapping with a specific germ in conventional medicine. You have more in common with homeopathy here, I think.

shuttlt · 26th June 2012, 10:10 AM

One thing about your recent link. It was written in 1928. He says this:

Quote:

It is folly to attempt to escape disease by attempting to destroy or escape germs. Once they are in the body the physician has no means of destroying them that will not, at the same time, destroy the patient. We cannot avoid germs.

It seems ironic that, according to Wikipedia at least, that was the year that penicillin was discovered.

trusetheeker · 26th June 2012, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by MuDPhuD

Are you serious?
Read this short list of disease conditions (viral and bacterial) and their attendant causal agents:
http://www.virology.net/big_virology/bvdiseaselist.html

You are seriously contending that all of these human conditions are caused by improper diet and "toxins", and that all the associated organisms are harmless?? Really?

What I am seriously contending is that the germ theory of disease is wrong. I am not contending that these associated organisms are harmless but that those which we have a symbiotic relationship with are part of us and without them we would perish. It is my understanding that many other organisms exist incuding malaria parasites that we have excellent defenses against as long as we're healthy. I'm also contending that most of the diseases that modern and ancient medicine has developed vaccinations for are not germ-caused diseases at all but self-initiated efforts to eliminate abnormal build-ups of toxins within the body.

Quote:

Is your disbelief in germ theory so strong you will let a qualified virologist innoculate your genitals with a pure fraction of Herpes Viral particles? how about just a few Treponema pallidum? (O yes, the unethical control studies were carried out in this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskege...lis_experiment)

How about Rabies virus, as was suggested above?

I would have no objection to closely working with someone (or some animal) suffering from any of these conditions although I would hope not to get bitten by any of them because I'm not fond of being bitten by anything.

I would not let a qualified virologist innoculate me with anything, dead stop.

trusetheeker · 26th June 2012, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Wildy

He could come to Australia then. No rabies here.

What he'd do if he was stung/bitten by one of the many venomous things here is another question.

Wildy apparently doesn't understand germ theory or the difference between venom and germs. But thanks for the invite.

Bram Kaandorp · 26th June 2012, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

I would not let a qualified virologist innoculate me with anything, dead stop.

The question didn't relate to inoculation with a vaccine, but to injection with the unadulterated, live virus. (No, that's not the same thing as inoculating with a vaccine)

In fact, what if the virologist gave you the time and resources so that you could put the virus in a syringe, and then inject yourself, without the virologist's interference with what goes into it?

Would you do that? If not, what are you afraid of?

Assuming you are completely healthy, no virus could harm you, right?

trusetheeker · 26th June 2012, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Ah. Yes, that helps. So it's a little bit like the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you're following proper Natural Hygiene procedure you won't get sick, if you do get sick, you must just have been doing it wrong. Circular logic.

No problem with logic in germ theory: if you have the symptoms and you have the germs then you have the disease but if you have the symptoms and not the germs, you don't have the disease but then again, if you have the germs but not the symptoms then you either don't count or you're a carrier. Oh and if you've been vaccinated but still get the disease, then you have a different disease.

All bases covered and you're never wrong.

Bram Kaandorp · 26th June 2012, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

No problem with logic in germ theory: if you have the symptoms and you have the germs then you have the disease but if you have the symptoms and not the germs, you don't have the disease but then again, if you have the germs but not the symptoms then you either don't count or you're a carrier. Oh and if you've been vaccinated but still get the disease, then you have a different disease.

All bases covered and you're never wrong.

If you're completely healthy, you can't get the disease.

If you get the disease, you weren't completely healthy.

Spot the fallacy.

shuttlt · 26th June 2012, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

Oh and if you've been vaccinated but still get the disease, then you have a different disease.

Are you just being glib, or are you not aware that this isn't a claim made by "germ theory" or conventional medicine generally.

shuttlt · 26th June 2012, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

No problem with logic in germ theory: if you have the symptoms and you have the germs then you have the disease but if you have the symptoms and not the germs, you don't have the disease but then again, if you have the germs but not the symptoms then you either don't count or you're a carrier. Oh and if you've been vaccinated but still get the disease, then you have a different disease.

All bases covered and you're never wrong.

My general criticism of this would be that you seem to be complaining that the general day to day practice of medicine is not to treat every patient as an opportunity to test whether the ideas that lie behind the past century of medical development are wrong. Is this a correct interpretation? Wouldn't this be massively costly, time consuming and distracting for doctors? Is this really what you think should happen?

Jack by the hedge · 26th June 2012, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

No problem with logic in germ theory: if you have the symptoms and you have the germs then you have the disease but if you have the symptoms and not the germs, you don't have the disease but then again, if you have the germs but not the symptoms then you either don't count or you're a carrier. Oh and if you've been vaccinated but still get the disease, then you have a different disease.

All bases covered and you're never wrong.

I see you didn't bother trying to defend the illogic of Natural Hygiene, but went down the 'well, you're just as bad' line instead.

Got it a bit wrong, though. Nobody 'doesn't count'. The only people who could be accused of failing to count are those who propose a treatment but fail to quantitatively test its efficacy. If you've been vaccinated and still get the disease, then the vaccination didn't work. There's no mystery about this. Vaccines are only effective for a certain percentage of recipients. The rest of us have to rely on herd immunity to protect us. It works. It works exactly as well as the maths allows you to predict it would.

shuttlt · 26th June 2012, 03:28 PM

And finally, that link you posted recently (additional information)

About three quarters of the way down are two triangles showing the causes of disease in Natural Hygiene and the causes of disease in conventional medicine. The conventional one is wrong, or at least incomplete. It shows the causes of disease as being germs, bacteria and viruses. First, I'm not sure that those are well chosen terms as bacteria and viruses are surely germs? Anyway, the real criticism here is that nobody claims that "germs" are a total explanation for disease. Does conventional medicine claim that all diseases are caused by "germs" or that the state of a persons general health, diet, fitness etc. has nothing to do with who gets sick. The article makes it appear that that is what is being claimed.

I'm curious to find out what your thoughts are on this?

Jack by the hedge · 26th June 2012, 03:38 PM

It's curious that Natural Hygiene declares cancer is caused by 'irritation' (whatever that means) plus something else (unspecified). Seems like NH's rejection of conventional medicine goes rather beyond germ theory.

I suppose people or animals with an inherited propensity for various cancers must have an irritation gene. If only we knew what that meant, we might be able to do something about it.

shuttlt · 26th June 2012, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

It's curious that Natural Hygiene declares cancer is caused by 'irritation' (whatever that means) plus something else (unspecified). Seems like NH's rejection of conventional medicine goes rather beyond germ theory.

I think the 'irritation' thing is the Natural Hygiene view of what conventional medical opinion was in 1928. The claim is that conventional medicine said that 'irritation' was the sole cause, but Shelton is saying that it is only a cause.

trusetheeker · 26th June 2012, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by Estellea

Again, false. Non-profits purchase vaccines directly from the manufacturer so the taxpayer is left out. There is no profit with most vaccines and in fact are administered at a loss by clinics and physicians and certainly for the polio initiative. There are only a few 'blockbuster' vaccines which are actually profitable.

No doubt you have proof to back up these statements.

Quote:

Pardon me but aren't you rather firmly entrenched in your position? A position which more resembles religious zealotry than that of vaccinology. Furthermore, you seemed to have convinced yourself that because you denounce organised religion, you have credibility but yet your screeds are entirely fact-free or abuse ancient literature. Anyone who likens science and medicine to religion is very suspect and obviously doesn't understand the scientific method versus faith in mystical beings and events.

Entrenched? IMO, I am convinced of my position but always open to being proved wrong.

Quote:

The data speak for themselves. Vaccine campaigns have caused reductions in their respective disease incidences. Surely you have seen measles, mumps, rubella, polio and Hib graphs for example. Perhaps you would like to explain how many vaccine-preventable diseases and deaths have been virtually eliminated from developed countries.

Yes the data do speak for themselves but who speaks for the data collectors? I won't bother repeating myself on this as I've already addressed this point at least once in this thread.

Quote:

PS: Never ask a question unless you know what the answer is. The answer to the question above is "because you completely ignore all the evidence that indicates the atrocities visited on human beings by vaccines"

Please provide the data that support this statement.

The "data" that supports this statement was provided by the member whose post I was replying to. Their repeated sidestepping of the evidence I was preventing to him on the subject whilst simultaneously accusing me of ignoring evidence that didn't support my viewpoint had become understandably tedious by then. I was also fairly fed up with the constant demands for evidence to back up my statements by members who were making plenty of unsupported statements themselves (a bit like the way you started your post!) Feel free to relive the whole experience for yourself.

Quote:

What faerie land do you reside in? How do you propose providing all of this to say, African countries? How do you feed the world's population with "organically-grown" foods with no profit?

I don't propose providing anything to African countries other than a good example of how they too can look after themselves. If they need help due to drought or natural disaster, then by all means we should offer support as needed.

We currently exist in a world of abundance where whole communities starve because they cannot afford to buy food. If we take profit out of the food equation, then growing food becomes just as easy as building a huge military complex where, allegedly, there is no profit motive. Americans (and many European countries) appear to be quite happy to spend $trillions annually on soldiers, aircraft, naval vessels, tanks, missiles, etc without a single paying customer to return a profit for these services. Why would we begrudge paying a fraction of that amount to ensure that every man, woman and child in the USA had a healthy diet, clean water and a home to live in. The savings off the health bills would probably completely offset this expenditure anyway. If we did it, many other countries would follow suit and globally, the haves could pitch in together and square the circle by propping up the have-nots until they could get back on their feet.

Without a profit motive, unhealthy "foods" as provided by the fast food industry, soda and alcoholic drink manufacturers, and other processed food industries would disappear overnight leaving people with fewer unhealthy choices and more reasons to go ahead and eat for health.

Without a profit motive, industrial farms might disappear but either way, the incentive to produce the biggest yields in the least expensive manner regardless of the impact on our health and the environment would also die away. Farmers would return to growing quality food using sustainable methods the way they use to. The term "organic" would become redundant again when discussing farming.

It may sound too much like socialism but who really cares. Water should not be a for-profit industry. Clean air should not be a for-profit industry. IMO, neither should food.

Quote:

Do you really believe that there would be no disease in your magical world? Can you explain how my father who was raised in a semi-rural village with "clean air", plenty of exercise and sunshine and an organic diet acquired tetanus and nearly died?

Este

I believe fully in the Natural Hygiene tenet that says "Health is the normal state of all living organisms." My body proves this to me every time I damage it; every time that I improve my feeding and general care of it. The only people who will suffer disease will be those who fail to maintain their health or in the case of the young and disabled, those that are not cared for properly.

I cannot explain why your father nearly died of "tetanus." It's great that he was living a healthy life with clean air, exercise, sunshine and an organic diet but he could do all of that without leading a truly healthy lifestyle as Natural Hygiene teaches us to do. You've said nothing about what he eats and how he eats it, whether he consumes coffee/tea/alchohol/tobacco/medicines/processed sugars, suffers addictions/job stress/emotional problems/overworking. Is this a man who enjoys a good fry up daily, combines protein and starch in the same meal, has oil and vinegar on his salad and salts his food before even tasting it? Is he often exposed to solvents/pesticides/radiation/poorly ventilated rooms, cooking and heating exhausts?

Without a good idea of his actual lifestyle, I could not venture a guess as to his state of health at the time of this near-death event. Without sufficient detail concerning the progression of events leading up to and following his acquisition of what was diagnosed as tetanus, I also cannot really comment on the event itself.

Acleron · 26th June 2012, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

No problem with logic in germ theory: if you have the symptoms and you have the germs then you have the disease but if you have the symptoms and not the germs, you don't have the disease but then again, if you have the germs but not the symptoms then you either don't count or you're a carrier. Oh and if you've been vaccinated but still get the disease, then you have a different disease.

All bases covered and you're never wrong.

Yes, I think we know the mindset by now.

But the reality is quite different. For instance the vaccine failures are very interesting and are investigated vigorously and as the mechanism of the failure becomes known there is a possibility of creating even more effective vaccines.

Measles vaccine fails in a small percentage of cases. The failure can be related to lack of response of the immune system and low antibody titres. part of the problem appears to be maternal antibodies that are still circulating and delaying vaccination is a reasonable course.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/909009

But genetic reasons have also been implicated and may lead to even more effective vaccines.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...055.x/abstract

Scientists are quite unlike the woo-meister, they don't just make up another story, or ignore the evidence. They go out and actively explore, they match their findings with known science and evidence, they test their own hypotheses and only accept those hypotheses that pass those tests. That is why science works.

And this is for a disease that not only struck down healthy individuals but has been shown to be carried by people with no symptoms and who transmitted that disease, yet another demonstration of germ theory.

Safe-Keeper · 26th June 2012, 06:37 PM

There's a student at my university college who was adopted from India... she is confined to a wheelchair due to a case of childhood polio.

There's a point to be made here. Polio and all these other "forgotten illnesses" exist. People die or have their lives changed forever by them all the time, even though it happens in countries far away and we thus don't think much about it.

Conspiracy theories about the moon landing or 9/11... those I don't mind too much. They're for the most part just obnoxious. I say "for the most part", because occassionally even this kind of conspiracy theories spawn horrid atrocities like Oklahoma and Utøya. The anti-vaccination movement, however... completely different deal. It doesn't just spawn the occassional nutter. By its very nature, it kills people directly, just by being successful.

It's like the different kinds of alternative medicine beliefs. Thinking that a certain kind of scam can cure you of a common cold is one thing -- but then there are the people who sell, for example, fake cancer cures, and inevitably end up killing people.

What's the harm, indeed.

Wildy · 26th June 2012, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

Wildy apparently doesn't understand germ theory or the difference between venom and germs. But thanks for the invite.

I understand the difference, my talking about venoms refers to your rants about injecting toxins into your body. But then why should you remember what you have posted in this thread?

shuttlt · 27th June 2012, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

I believe fully in the Natural Hygiene tenet that says "Health is the normal state of all living organisms." My body proves this to me every time I damage it; every time that I improve my feeding and general care of it. The only people who will suffer disease will be those who fail to maintain their health or in the case of the young and disabled, those that are not cared for properly.

I don't see how your experience of your own body contradicts conventional medicine. Could you elaborate please? Most people don't get sick most of the time and, when they do, it is probably more likely to happen when they are run down.

Ausmerican · 27th June 2012, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by Acleron

It's not complicated.

Lets take your figures
You reckon that 21,000 would require more than minimal care. To me, that means it worthwhile to prevent even at the costs you mention. I visited people in iron lungs when I was young, I have no wish for anybody to suffer that when it is so easy to avoid.

But you seem to think that that the only reason we prevent is for financial gain, so :-
The average charges of stay in an US hospital is $11,000 per diem.

That adds up to $4.02 Millions/annum

Say half your figure of 21,000 end up permanently in hospital care. That is $4.2 billions/annum.

But of course, that doesn't include those who are already there and over a period the number in hospital will increase until the death rate causes the numbers to asymptote.

From that, it would appear that health system would make far more money by not vaccinating.

Of course that leaves out the quite awful suffering that you propose.

It's even less complicated than that.

If this was all really about a cash grab and the vaccines were not really doing the job described, why do we only get them once?
If the powers that be can insist that we all need to be vaccinated, why would it not be just as simple for those same PTB to insist that the vaccines need a refresher every decade or so, along the lines of tetanus shots?
That way they could still have everyone as a customer as the conspiracy theory stipulates AND get to charge multiple times like a treatment drug rather than a vaccine.

Seems like the current 'one and done' is a poor business model.

Farsight · 27th June 2012, 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

What I am seriously contending is that the germ theory of disease is wrong. I am not contending that these associated organisms are harmless but that those which we have a symbiotic relationship with are part of us and without them we would perish. It is my understanding that many other organisms exist incuding malaria parasites that we have excellent defenses against as long as we're healthy...

...I would not let a qualified virologist innoculate me with anything, dead stop.

How about if I inject you with malaria parasites then? Give it a few weeks then see if you've changed your tune?

steenkh · 27th June 2012, 01:05 AM

I wonder why nobody gets smallpox any more. The hygiene standards must have been raised enormously even in the poorest countries ...

trusetheeker · 27th June 2012, 01:07 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Either it's falsifiable, or it isn't. Does it predict things that other theories don't? If it does, then terrific, but then surely it's falsifiable? If it doesn't, then that's fine too, but really it's just another way of saying the same thing that is already being said by other theories.

That's what I meant.

Do you think this stuff is falsifiable, or is it just another way of saying the same thing as is already said by conventional medicine? I can't see another alternative, but perhaps there is one? If so, I welcome enlightenment.

I do think that the principles of Natural Hygiene should be falsifiable. I am not aware of any specific scientific testing done to confirm these principles.

trusetheeker · 27th June 2012, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Estellea

You accept a premise with zero clinical trials to establish safety and efficacy but reject the science of vaccines (collective disciplines) that do establish safety and efficacy with decades of data, many of which are independently conducted. That's some serious mental contortion.

Why aren't you sure? You use 'conventional' endpoints to claim efficacy of Natural Hygiene so why wouldn't you be able to test it? You, as has been explained, do not know what a theory is. Your claims are magical-thinking and no better than what homeopaths claim, i.e. their nostrums' biological efficacy somehow transcend or reside outside of the scientific method. Something either works or doesn't.

Este

Why so much difficulty with this. I've read numerous writings by medical professionals and other researchers spanning from Jenner's day to present which document the atrocities resulting from vaccination as well as the reasons to suspect even it's seeming success. It's curious that with the exception of the Cochrane Library, there are no research papers with even a hint of something untoward about vaccination. Personally, I don't believe that the naysayers are just pushing an agenda so I include their testimony in my judgement.

trusetheeker · 27th June 2012, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

trusetheeker,

Incidentally, it seems to me pretty clear that you think that this Hygiene thing is falsifiable. Perhaps I am getting confused between Natural Hygiene and enervation-toxaemia theory which your quote before implied was non-falsifiable.

Would I be right in thinking that Natural Hygiene is enervation-toxaemia theory + a bunch of specific therapies that might either work or not.

All my previous posts about equivalence between germ theory and "Natural Hygiene" should probably be "germ theory and enervation-toxaemia theory".

I was previously saying that one specific Hygienists claimed that the theory was unfalsifiable. I, on the other hand, believe that it should be and am continuously looking for the evidence that it has been done and if not, why not. The jury's still out on this one.

And as to your last point, NH is not just germ theory vs enervation-toxaemia.

trusetheeker · 27th June 2012, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by ehcks

What is this? What even IS THIS? Where do you think your energy comes from?

It comes from food. The energy your body uses to recover comes from the food you eat. Starving yourself makes you weaker. Fasting isn't a natural response to anything. Fasting while sick will just kill you more quickly.

Wrong in a chicken and egg way but thanks for the contribution.

shuttlt · 27th June 2012, 03:48 AM

trusetheeker,

I realize you are getting hit by rather a lot of posts right now, but I wondered what your thoughts were on this one?

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I don't see how your experience of your own body contradicts conventional medicine. Could you elaborate please? Most people don't get sick most of the time and, when they do, it is probably more likely to happen when they are run down.

trusetheeker · 27th June 2012, 03:52 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Generally I don't believe the symptoms are thought to have a 1-1 mapping with a specific germ in conventional medicine. You have more in common with homeopathy here, I think.

I didn't mean that they have a 1-1 mapping but if you can have the disease without having the germ then it makes a mockery of your theory. Secondly, I have nothing in common with homeopathy that would be worth mentioning.

trusetheeker · 27th June 2012, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

One thing about your recent link. It was written in 1928. ... It seems ironic that, according to Wikipedia at least, that was the year that penicillin was discovered.

Even so, it didn't change the truth of the statement.

trusetheeker · 27th June 2012, 03:57 AM

Originally Posted by Bram Kaandorp

The question didn't relate to inoculation with a vaccine, but to injection with the unadulterated, live virus. (No, that's not the same thing as inoculating with a vaccine)

In fact, what if the virologist gave you the time and resources so that you could put the virus in a syringe, and then inject yourself, without the virologist's interference with what goes into it?

Would you do that? If not, what are you afraid of?

Assuming you are completely healthy, no virus could harm you, right?

You're just not getting it, are you. Please reread what I said and meditate on it. If you still cannot understand what I'm saying then just give up,

shuttlt · 27th June 2012, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

I didn't mean that they have a 1-1 mapping but if you can have the disease without having the germ then it makes a mockery of your theory. Secondly, I have nothing in common with homeopathy that would be worth mentioning.

What disease are you thinking of that you can have without the germ? I know that for some things, TB for example, it can be hard to culture it, so one may be unable to definitively say it's TB. In my limited experience of these things they call this "suspected" TB.

Can you give an example of what you mean?

Bram Kaandorp · 27th June 2012, 04:05 AM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

You're just not getting it, are you. Please reread what I said and meditate on it. If you still cannot understand what I'm saying then just give up,

Give it up?

You're the one saying that viruses and bacteria (germs) don't cause diseases.

In fact, you said:

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

Those mean viruses. You forget that I don't believe in the germ theory of disease. That's part of your belief system. I suppose you still believe that we're controlled by our genes as well.

So if you don't think that germs (viruses and bacteria) cause disease (which is the germ theory of disease), then you'd be perfectly okay with the injection of a live virus into your bloodstream to prove us wrong.

shuttlt · 27th June 2012, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by trusetheeker

Even so, it didn't change the truth of the statement.

But the statement is referring to medicine as it was 84 years ago. I think most of the people you are arguing with would regard medicine as it was in 1928 as prehistoric. It certainly isn't the "evidence based medicine" that we hear so much about today. Wouldn't it be better to use quotes from MDs in the past 30 years, say, if only for the sake of your audience.

shuttlt · 27th June 2012, 04:12 AM

Originally Posted by Bram Kaandorp

So if you don't think that germs (viruses and bacteria) cause disease (which is the germ theory of disease), then you'd be perfectly okay with the injection of a live virus into your bloodstream to prove us wrong.

I can't speak for trusetheeker, but many people who think broadly along these lines would say that the disease is, to some extent the bodies reaction to some imbalance. Perhaps you injecting this stuff would cause the body to react in a manner that would look just like the disease that you think the virus causes.

trusetheeker · 27th June 2012, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by Bram Kaandorp

If you're completely healthy, you can't get the disease.

If you get the disease, you weren't completely healthy.

Spot the fallacy.

It could just be a flaw in my ability to explain the principles. There is a third scenario as well. Remembering that a "disease" is not caused by an attack of germs in general much less a specific germ but instead as a self-induced mechanism to eliminate excessive toxins from the body, you have three scenarios:
1) A body that is at homeostasis, i.e. no excess of toxic buildup and even if any specific germ were present, no disease would occur.
2) A body that is not in homeostasis, toxins have built up excessively and disease symptoms exhibit with or without any specific germ being present.
3) A body that is so enervated, having suffered from a high toxic level for an extended period of time with unsuccessful attempts to heal itself that the body no longer has the vitality required to initiate a new healing attempt. In this chronic illness situation, any specific germ may be present without a disease occurring.

Bram Kaandorp · 27th June 2012, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I can't speak for trusetheeker, but many people who think broadly along these lines would say that the disease is, to some extent the bodies reaction to some imbalance. Perhaps you injecting this stuff would cause the body to react in a manner that would look just like the disease that you think the virus causes.

But if the injection of a virus causes an imbalance, then it did cause some form of ill to the body.

That's the thing. Either a virus causes ill, or it doesn't.

How it causes ill is a different matter.

trusetheeker · 27th June 2012, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Are you just being glib, or are you not aware that this isn't a claim made by "germ theory" or conventional medicine generally.

Perhaps I should stick to reading your sources as mine tend to contradict you statement.

26th June 2012, 09:36 AM	#161
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	trusetheeker, Incidentally, it seems to me pretty clear that you think that this Hygiene thing is falsifiable. Perhaps I am getting confused between Natural Hygiene and enervation-toxaemia theory which your quote before implied was non-falsifiable. Would I be right in thinking that Natural Hygiene is enervation-toxaemia theory + a bunch of specific therapies that might either work or not. All my previous posts about equivalence between germ theory and "Natural Hygiene" should probably be "germ theory and enervation-toxaemia theory".
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

26th June 2012, 09:44 AM	#162
ehcks Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,690	Originally Posted by trusetheeker A toxic or injured body is not capable of digesting food as all expendable energy will be diverted to restoring homeostasis. Any food ingested will just sit in the system and putrefy/ferment adding to the toxic load. As such, the body turns off the appetite whenever it's in crisis. Hence, fasting is our natural response to "disease", injury and pain. Feeding the sick is detrimental to recovery. What is this? What even IS THIS? Where do you think your energy comes from? It comes from food. The energy your body uses to recover comes from the food you eat. Starving yourself makes you weaker. Fasting isn't a natural response to anything. Fasting while sick will just kill you more quickly.
ehcks Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,690	__________________ Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

26th June 2012, 09:55 AM	#163
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	Originally Posted by ehcks What is this? What even IS THIS? Where do you think your energy comes from? It comes from food. The energy your body uses to recover comes from the food you eat. Starving yourself makes you weaker. Fasting isn't a natural response to anything. Fasting while sick will just kill you more quickly. He can't mean what it looks like he means, otherwise the outlook for people with anything that took more than a week to recover from would be quite bleak.
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

26th June 2012, 09:56 AM	#164
trusetheeker Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 255	Originally Posted by Madalch One could easily culture a specific germ, take two healthy volunteers, inject one person with the germ culture and inject the other with a placebo of similar composition. See who gets the disease. Besides the 100s of lab rats that would have to suffer first before we get to the human testing stage, the only other problem I see with that is correctly comparing the health state of the human volunteers. However, with enough volunteers from both the hygienic lifestyle and a more conventional lifestyle, you might be able to get a fair idea of the effectiveness of Natural Hygiene at dealing with the invasion of toxic material, living or dead. To my understanding, you would need four test groups: Conventional lifestyle 1) experiment and 2) control, and Hygienic lifestyle 3) experiment and 4) control. You wouldn't get a solid proof of germ theory vs enervation-toxemia theory through this test. We would know, after the fact, that the experiment group had the germ present whether or not they exhibited symptoms. None of this touches the other half of the argument against germ theory which is where an individual presents the symptoms of the disease but does not have the germ present. We know that germ theory allows for a number of infected people to never show any symptoms but it doesn't allow for people showing the symptoms without having the germs. How can someone have the disease but not have the germs? Thinking about the results of the test above, I would expect to see a difference in symptoms between the germ culture and the placebo, very much depending on what is used as the placebo. More importantly, I would expect to see a big difference in the duration and intensity of symptoms between Hygienically healthy subjects and convention lifestyle subjects. Additioal information
	Last edited by trusetheeker; 26th June 2012 at 09:57 AM. Reason: Add additional info

26th June 2012, 10:01 AM	#165
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	Originally Posted by trusetheeker We know that germ theory allows for a number of infected people to never show any symptoms but it doesn't allow for people showing the symptoms without having the germs. How can someone have the disease but not have the germs? Generally I don't believe the symptoms are thought to have a 1-1 mapping with a specific germ in conventional medicine. You have more in common with homeopathy here, I think.
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

26th June 2012, 10:10 AM	#166
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	One thing about your recent link. It was written in 1928. He says this: Quote: It is folly to attempt to escape disease by attempting to destroy or escape germs. Once they are in the body the physician has no means of destroying them that will not, at the same time, destroy the patient. We cannot avoid germs. It seems ironic that, according to Wikipedia at least, that was the year that penicillin was discovered.
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

26th June 2012, 02:18 PM	#167
trusetheeker Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 255	Originally Posted by MuDPhuD Are you serious? Read this short list of disease conditions (viral and bacterial) and their attendant causal agents: http://www.virology.net/big_virology/bvdiseaselist.html You are seriously contending that all of these human conditions are caused by improper diet and "toxins", and that all the associated organisms are harmless?? Really? What I am seriously contending is that the germ theory of disease is wrong. I am not contending that these associated organisms are harmless but that those which we have a symbiotic relationship with are part of us and without them we would perish. It is my understanding that many other organisms exist incuding malaria parasites that we have excellent defenses against as long as we're healthy. I'm also contending that most of the diseases that modern and ancient medicine has developed vaccinations for are not germ-caused diseases at all but self-initiated efforts to eliminate abnormal build-ups of toxins within the body. Quote: Is your disbelief in germ theory so strong you will let a qualified virologist innoculate your genitals with a pure fraction of Herpes Viral particles? how about just a few Treponema pallidum? (O yes, the unethical control studies were carried out in this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskege...lis_experiment) How about Rabies virus, as was suggested above? I would have no objection to closely working with someone (or some animal) suffering from any of these conditions although I would hope not to get bitten by any of them because I'm not fond of being bitten by anything. I would not let a qualified virologist innoculate me with anything, dead stop.

26th June 2012, 02:22 PM	#168
trusetheeker Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 255	Originally Posted by Wildy He could come to Australia then. No rabies here. What he'd do if he was stung/bitten by one of the many venomous things here is another question. Wildy apparently doesn't understand germ theory or the difference between venom and germs. But thanks for the invite.

26th June 2012, 02:27 PM	#169
Bram Kaandorp Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Netherlands Posts: 2,240	Originally Posted by trusetheeker I would not let a qualified virologist innoculate me with anything, dead stop. The question didn't relate to inoculation with a vaccine, but to injection with the unadulterated, live virus. (No, that's not the same thing as inoculating with a vaccine) In fact, what if the virologist gave you the time and resources so that you could put the virus in a syringe, and then inject yourself, without the virologist's interference with what goes into it? Would you do that? If not, what are you afraid of? Assuming you are completely healthy, no virus could harm you, right?
	__________________ If autism is a "living death", does that make me a zombie? If so, that'd be great. Just don't get your brain in my general vicinity.

26th June 2012, 02:27 PM	#170
trusetheeker Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 255	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge Ah. Yes, that helps. So it's a little bit like the No True Scotsman fallacy. If you're following proper Natural Hygiene procedure you won't get sick, if you do get sick, you must just have been doing it wrong. Circular logic. No problem with logic in germ theory: if you have the symptoms and you have the germs then you have the disease but if you have the symptoms and not the germs, you don't have the disease but then again, if you have the germs but not the symptoms then you either don't count or you're a carrier. Oh and if you've been vaccinated but still get the disease, then you have a different disease. All bases covered and you're never wrong.

26th June 2012, 02:30 PM	#171
Bram Kaandorp Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Netherlands Posts: 2,240	Originally Posted by trusetheeker No problem with logic in germ theory: if you have the symptoms and you have the germs then you have the disease but if you have the symptoms and not the germs, you don't have the disease but then again, if you have the germs but not the symptoms then you either don't count or you're a carrier. Oh and if you've been vaccinated but still get the disease, then you have a different disease. All bases covered and you're never wrong. If you're completely healthy, you can't get the disease. If you get the disease, you weren't completely healthy. Spot the fallacy.
	__________________ If autism is a "living death", does that make me a zombie? If so, that'd be great. Just don't get your brain in my general vicinity.

26th June 2012, 03:11 PM	#172
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	Originally Posted by trusetheeker Oh and if you've been vaccinated but still get the disease, then you have a different disease. Are you just being glib, or are you not aware that this isn't a claim made by "germ theory" or conventional medicine generally.
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

26th June 2012, 03:19 PM	#173
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	Originally Posted by trusetheeker No problem with logic in germ theory: if you have the symptoms and you have the germs then you have the disease but if you have the symptoms and not the germs, you don't have the disease but then again, if you have the germs but not the symptoms then you either don't count or you're a carrier. Oh and if you've been vaccinated but still get the disease, then you have a different disease. All bases covered and you're never wrong. My general criticism of this would be that you seem to be complaining that the general day to day practice of medicine is not to treat every patient as an opportunity to test whether the ideas that lie behind the past century of medical development are wrong. Is this a correct interpretation? Wouldn't this be massively costly, time consuming and distracting for doctors? Is this really what you think should happen?
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

26th June 2012, 03:22 PM	#174
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,410	Originally Posted by trusetheeker No problem with logic in germ theory: if you have the symptoms and you have the germs then you have the disease but if you have the symptoms and not the germs, you don't have the disease but then again, if you have the germs but not the symptoms then you either don't count or you're a carrier. Oh and if you've been vaccinated but still get the disease, then you have a different disease. All bases covered and you're never wrong. I see you didn't bother trying to defend the illogic of Natural Hygiene, but went down the 'well, you're just as bad' line instead. Got it a bit wrong, though. Nobody 'doesn't count'. The only people who could be accused of failing to count are those who propose a treatment but fail to quantitatively test its efficacy. If you've been vaccinated and still get the disease, then the vaccination didn't work. There's no mystery about this. Vaccines are only effective for a certain percentage of recipients. The rest of us have to rely on herd immunity to protect us. It works. It works exactly as well as the maths allows you to predict it would.

26th June 2012, 03:28 PM	#175
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	And finally, that link you posted recently (additional information) About three quarters of the way down are two triangles showing the causes of disease in Natural Hygiene and the causes of disease in conventional medicine. The conventional one is wrong, or at least incomplete. It shows the causes of disease as being germs, bacteria and viruses. First, I'm not sure that those are well chosen terms as bacteria and viruses are surely germs? Anyway, the real criticism here is that nobody claims that "germs" are a total explanation for disease. Does conventional medicine claim that all diseases are caused by "germs" or that the state of a persons general health, diet, fitness etc. has nothing to do with who gets sick. The article makes it appear that that is what is being claimed. I'm curious to find out what your thoughts are on this?
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

26th June 2012, 03:38 PM	#176
Jack by the hedge Safely Ignored Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,410	It's curious that Natural Hygiene declares cancer is caused by 'irritation' (whatever that means) plus something else (unspecified). Seems like NH's rejection of conventional medicine goes rather beyond germ theory. I suppose people or animals with an inherited propensity for various cancers must have an irritation gene. If only we knew what that meant, we might be able to do something about it.

26th June 2012, 03:47 PM	#177
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge It's curious that Natural Hygiene declares cancer is caused by 'irritation' (whatever that means) plus something else (unspecified). Seems like NH's rejection of conventional medicine goes rather beyond germ theory. I think the 'irritation' thing is the Natural Hygiene view of what conventional medical opinion was in 1928. The claim is that conventional medicine said that 'irritation' was the sole cause, but Shelton is saying that it is only a cause.
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

26th June 2012, 04:02 PM	#178
trusetheeker Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 255	Originally Posted by Estellea Again, false. Non-profits purchase vaccines directly from the manufacturer so the taxpayer is left out. There is no profit with most vaccines and in fact are administered at a loss by clinics and physicians and certainly for the polio initiative. There are only a few 'blockbuster' vaccines which are actually profitable. No doubt you have proof to back up these statements. Quote: Pardon me but aren't you rather firmly entrenched in your position? A position which more resembles religious zealotry than that of vaccinology. Furthermore, you seemed to have convinced yourself that because you denounce organised religion, you have credibility but yet your screeds are entirely fact-free or abuse ancient literature. Anyone who likens science and medicine to religion is very suspect and obviously doesn't understand the scientific method versus faith in mystical beings and events. Entrenched? IMO, I am convinced of my position but always open to being proved wrong. Quote: The data speak for themselves. Vaccine campaigns have caused reductions in their respective disease incidences. Surely you have seen measles, mumps, rubella, polio and Hib graphs for example. Perhaps you would like to explain how many vaccine-preventable diseases and deaths have been virtually eliminated from developed countries. Yes the data do speak for themselves but who speaks for the data collectors? I won't bother repeating myself on this as I've already addressed this point at least once in this thread. Quote: Quote: PS: Never ask a question unless you know what the answer is. The answer to the question above is "because you completely ignore all the evidence that indicates the atrocities visited on human beings by vaccines" Please provide the data that support this statement. The "data" that supports this statement was provided by the member whose post I was replying to. Their repeated sidestepping of the evidence I was preventing to him on the subject whilst simultaneously accusing me of ignoring evidence that didn't support my viewpoint had become understandably tedious by then. I was also fairly fed up with the constant demands for evidence to back up my statements by members who were making plenty of unsupported statements themselves (a bit like the way you started your post!) Feel free to relive the whole experience for yourself. Quote: What faerie land do you reside in? How do you propose providing all of this to say, African countries? How do you feed the world's population with "organically-grown" foods with no profit? I don't propose providing anything to African countries other than a good example of how they too can look after themselves. If they need help due to drought or natural disaster, then by all means we should offer support as needed. We currently exist in a world of abundance where whole communities starve because they cannot afford to buy food. If we take profit out of the food equation, then growing food becomes just as easy as building a huge military complex where, allegedly, there is no profit motive. Americans (and many European countries) appear to be quite happy to spend $trillions annually on soldiers, aircraft, naval vessels, tanks, missiles, etc without a single paying customer to return a profit for these services. Why would we begrudge paying a fraction of that amount to ensure that every man, woman and child in the USA had a healthy diet, clean water and a home to live in. The savings off the health bills would probably completely offset this expenditure anyway. If we did it, many other countries would follow suit and globally, the haves could pitch in together and square the circle by propping up the have-nots until they could get back on their feet. Without a profit motive, unhealthy "foods" as provided by the fast food industry, soda and alcoholic drink manufacturers, and other processed food industries would disappear overnight leaving people with fewer unhealthy choices and more reasons to go ahead and eat for health. Without a profit motive, industrial farms might disappear but either way, the incentive to produce the biggest yields in the least expensive manner regardless of the impact on our health and the environment would also die away. Farmers would return to growing quality food using sustainable methods the way they use to. The term "organic" would become redundant again when discussing farming. It may sound too much like socialism but who really cares. Water should not be a for-profit industry. Clean air should not be a for-profit industry. IMO, neither should food. Quote: Do you really believe that there would be no disease in your magical world? Can you explain how my father who was raised in a semi-rural village with "clean air", plenty of exercise and sunshine and an organic diet acquired tetanus and nearly died? Este I believe fully in the Natural Hygiene tenet that says "Health is the normal state of all living organisms." My body proves this to me every time I damage it; every time that I improve my feeding and general care of it. The only people who will suffer disease will be those who fail to maintain their health or in the case of the young and disabled, those that are not cared for properly. I cannot explain why your father nearly died of "tetanus." It's great that he was living a healthy life with clean air, exercise, sunshine and an organic diet but he could do all of that without leading a truly healthy lifestyle as Natural Hygiene teaches us to do. You've said nothing about what he eats and how he eats it, whether he consumes coffee/tea/alchohol/tobacco/medicines/processed sugars, suffers addictions/job stress/emotional problems/overworking. Is this a man who enjoys a good fry up daily, combines protein and starch in the same meal, has oil and vinegar on his salad and salts his food before even tasting it? Is he often exposed to solvents/pesticides/radiation/poorly ventilated rooms, cooking and heating exhausts? Without a good idea of his actual lifestyle, I could not venture a guess as to his state of health at the time of this near-death event. Without sufficient detail concerning the progression of events leading up to and following his acquisition of what was diagnosed as tetanus, I also cannot really comment on the event itself.

26th June 2012, 04:24 PM	#179
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,928	Originally Posted by trusetheeker No problem with logic in germ theory: if you have the symptoms and you have the germs then you have the disease but if you have the symptoms and not the germs, you don't have the disease but then again, if you have the germs but not the symptoms then you either don't count or you're a carrier. Oh and if you've been vaccinated but still get the disease, then you have a different disease. All bases covered and you're never wrong. Yes, I think we know the mindset by now. But the reality is quite different. For instance the vaccine failures are very interesting and are investigated vigorously and as the mechanism of the failure becomes known there is a possibility of creating even more effective vaccines. Measles vaccine fails in a small percentage of cases. The failure can be related to lack of response of the immune system and low antibody titres. part of the problem appears to be maternal antibodies that are still circulating and delaying vaccination is a reasonable course. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/909009 But genetic reasons have also been implicated and may lead to even more effective vaccines. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...055.x/abstract Scientists are quite unlike the woo-meister, they don't just make up another story, or ignore the evidence. They go out and actively explore, they match their findings with known science and evidence, they test their own hypotheses and only accept those hypotheses that pass those tests. That is why science works. And this is for a disease that not only struck down healthy individuals but has been shown to be carried by people with no symptoms and who transmitted that disease, yet another demonstration of germ theory.

26th June 2012, 06:37 PM	#180
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,123	There's a student at my university college who was adopted from India... she is confined to a wheelchair due to a case of childhood polio. There's a point to be made here. Polio and all these other "forgotten illnesses" exist. People die or have their lives changed forever by them all the time, even though it happens in countries far away and we thus don't think much about it. Conspiracy theories about the moon landing or 9/11... those I don't mind too much. They're for the most part just obnoxious. I say "for the most part", because occassionally even this kind of conspiracy theories spawn horrid atrocities like Oklahoma and Utøya. The anti-vaccination movement, however... completely different deal. It doesn't just spawn the occassional nutter. By its very nature, it kills people directly, just by being successful. It's like the different kinds of alternative medicine beliefs. Thinking that a certain kind of scam can cure you of a common cold is one thing -- but then there are the people who sell, for example, fake cancer cures, and inevitably end up killing people. What's the harm, indeed.

26th June 2012, 10:42 PM	#181
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia, not that you'll read the "location" field. Posts: 9,921	Originally Posted by trusetheeker Wildy apparently doesn't understand germ theory or the difference between venom and germs. But thanks for the invite. I understand the difference, my talking about venoms refers to your rants about injecting toxins into your body. But then why should you remember what you have posted in this thread?
	__________________ Latest Blog Posts:Atheism+ More Atheism+ stuff

27th June 2012, 12:02 AM	#182
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	Originally Posted by trusetheeker I believe fully in the Natural Hygiene tenet that says "Health is the normal state of all living organisms." My body proves this to me every time I damage it; every time that I improve my feeding and general care of it. The only people who will suffer disease will be those who fail to maintain their health or in the case of the young and disabled, those that are not cared for properly. I don't see how your experience of your own body contradicts conventional medicine. Could you elaborate please? Most people don't get sick most of the time and, when they do, it is probably more likely to happen when they are run down.
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

27th June 2012, 12:24 AM	#183
Ausmerican Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,381	Originally Posted by Acleron It's not complicated. Lets take your figures You reckon that 21,000 would require more than minimal care. To me, that means it worthwhile to prevent even at the costs you mention. I visited people in iron lungs when I was young, I have no wish for anybody to suffer that when it is so easy to avoid. But you seem to think that that the only reason we prevent is for financial gain, so :- The average charges of stay in an US hospital is $11,000 per diem. That adds up to $4.02 Millions/annum Say half your figure of 21,000 end up permanently in hospital care. That is $4.2 billions/annum. But of course, that doesn't include those who are already there and over a period the number in hospital will increase until the death rate causes the numbers to asymptote. From that, it would appear that health system would make far more money by not vaccinating. Of course that leaves out the quite awful suffering that you propose. It's even less complicated than that. If this was all really about a cash grab and the vaccines were not really doing the job described, why do we only get them once? If the powers that be can insist that we all need to be vaccinated, why would it not be just as simple for those same PTB to insist that the vaccines need a refresher every decade or so, along the lines of tetanus shots? That way they could still have everyone as a customer as the conspiracy theory stipulates AND get to charge multiple times like a treatment drug rather than a vaccine. Seems like the current 'one and done' is a poor business model.
Ausmerican Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,381	__________________ Everyone must believe in something. I believe I'll go canoeing. Henry David Thoreau Last edited by Ausmerican; 27th June 2012 at 12:25 AM.

27th June 2012, 12:54 AM	#184
Farsight Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 1,934	Originally Posted by trusetheeker What I am seriously contending is that the germ theory of disease is wrong. I am not contending that these associated organisms are harmless but that those which we have a symbiotic relationship with are part of us and without them we would perish. It is my understanding that many other organisms exist incuding malaria parasites that we have excellent defenses against as long as we're healthy... ...I would not let a qualified virologist innoculate me with anything, dead stop. How about if I inject you with malaria parasites then? Give it a few weeks then see if you've changed your tune?

27th June 2012, 01:05 AM	#185
steenkh Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 3,450	I wonder why nobody gets smallpox any more. The hygiene standards must have been raised enormously even in the poorest countries ...
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!

27th June 2012, 01:07 AM	#186
trusetheeker Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 255	Originally Posted by shuttlt Either it's falsifiable, or it isn't. Does it predict things that other theories don't? If it does, then terrific, but then surely it's falsifiable? If it doesn't, then that's fine too, but really it's just another way of saying the same thing that is already being said by other theories. That's what I meant. Do you think this stuff is falsifiable, or is it just another way of saying the same thing as is already said by conventional medicine? I can't see another alternative, but perhaps there is one? If so, I welcome enlightenment. I do think that the principles of Natural Hygiene should be falsifiable. I am not aware of any specific scientific testing done to confirm these principles.

27th June 2012, 01:23 AM	#187
trusetheeker Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 255	Originally Posted by Estellea You accept a premise with zero clinical trials to establish safety and efficacy but reject the science of vaccines (collective disciplines) that do establish safety and efficacy with decades of data, many of which are independently conducted. That's some serious mental contortion. Why aren't you sure? You use 'conventional' endpoints to claim efficacy of Natural Hygiene so why wouldn't you be able to test it? You, as has been explained, do not know what a theory is. Your claims are magical-thinking and no better than what homeopaths claim, i.e. their nostrums' biological efficacy somehow transcend or reside outside of the scientific method. Something either works or doesn't. Este Why so much difficulty with this. I've read numerous writings by medical professionals and other researchers spanning from Jenner's day to present which document the atrocities resulting from vaccination as well as the reasons to suspect even it's seeming success. It's curious that with the exception of the Cochrane Library, there are no research papers with even a hint of something untoward about vaccination. Personally, I don't believe that the naysayers are just pushing an agenda so I include their testimony in my judgement.

27th June 2012, 01:28 AM	#188
trusetheeker Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 255	Originally Posted by shuttlt trusetheeker, Incidentally, it seems to me pretty clear that you think that this Hygiene thing is falsifiable. Perhaps I am getting confused between Natural Hygiene and enervation-toxaemia theory which your quote before implied was non-falsifiable. Would I be right in thinking that Natural Hygiene is enervation-toxaemia theory + a bunch of specific therapies that might either work or not. All my previous posts about equivalence between germ theory and "Natural Hygiene" should probably be "germ theory and enervation-toxaemia theory". I was previously saying that one specific Hygienists claimed that the theory was unfalsifiable. I, on the other hand, believe that it should be and am continuously looking for the evidence that it has been done and if not, why not. The jury's still out on this one. And as to your last point, NH is not just germ theory vs enervation-toxaemia.

27th June 2012, 03:45 AM	#189
trusetheeker Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 255	Originally Posted by ehcks What is this? What even IS THIS? Where do you think your energy comes from? It comes from food. The energy your body uses to recover comes from the food you eat. Starving yourself makes you weaker. Fasting isn't a natural response to anything. Fasting while sick will just kill you more quickly. Wrong in a chicken and egg way but thanks for the contribution.

27th June 2012, 03:48 AM	#190
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	trusetheeker, I realize you are getting hit by rather a lot of posts right now, but I wondered what your thoughts were on this one? Originally Posted by shuttlt I don't see how your experience of your own body contradicts conventional medicine. Could you elaborate please? Most people don't get sick most of the time and, when they do, it is probably more likely to happen when they are run down.
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

27th June 2012, 03:52 AM	#191
trusetheeker Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 255	Originally Posted by shuttlt Generally I don't believe the symptoms are thought to have a 1-1 mapping with a specific germ in conventional medicine. You have more in common with homeopathy here, I think. I didn't mean that they have a 1-1 mapping but if you can have the disease without having the germ then it makes a mockery of your theory. Secondly, I have nothing in common with homeopathy that would be worth mentioning.

27th June 2012, 03:54 AM	#192
trusetheeker Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 255	Originally Posted by shuttlt One thing about your recent link. It was written in 1928. ... It seems ironic that, according to Wikipedia at least, that was the year that penicillin was discovered. Even so, it didn't change the truth of the statement.

27th June 2012, 03:57 AM	#193
trusetheeker Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 255	Originally Posted by Bram Kaandorp The question didn't relate to inoculation with a vaccine, but to injection with the unadulterated, live virus. (No, that's not the same thing as inoculating with a vaccine) In fact, what if the virologist gave you the time and resources so that you could put the virus in a syringe, and then inject yourself, without the virologist's interference with what goes into it? Would you do that? If not, what are you afraid of? Assuming you are completely healthy, no virus could harm you, right? You're just not getting it, are you. Please reread what I said and meditate on it. If you still cannot understand what I'm saying then just give up,

27th June 2012, 04:03 AM	#194
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927	Originally Posted by trusetheeker I didn't mean that they have a 1-1 mapping but if you can have the disease without having the germ then it makes a mockery of your theory. Secondly, I have nothing in common with homeopathy that would be worth mentioning. What disease are you thinking of that you can have without the germ? I know that for some things, TB for example, it can be hard to culture it, so one may be unable to definitively say it's TB. In my limited experience of these things they call this "suspected" TB. Can you give an example of what you mean?
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,927

27th June 2012, 04:05 AM	#195
Bram Kaandorp Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Netherlands Posts: 2,240	Originally Posted by trusetheeker You're just not getting it, are you. Please reread what I said and meditate on it. If you still cannot understand what I'm saying then just give up, Give it up? You're the one saying that viruses and bacteria (germs) don't cause diseases. In fact, you said: Originally Posted by trusetheeker Those mean viruses. You forget that I don't believe in the germ theory of disease. That's part of your belief system. I suppose you still believe that we're controlled by our genes as well. So if you don't think that germs (viruses and bacteria) cause disease (which is the germ theory of disease), then you'd be perfectly okay with the injection of a live virus into your bloodstream to prove us wrong.
	__________________ If autism is a "living death", does that make me a zombie? If so, that'd be great. Just don't get your brain in my general vicinity.