Re: Blinded by the light
I doubt you
could find
anyone who does not credit the use of hygene and santiation for the
reduction
of diseases. After all it was the very same doctors you deride that
were the
driving force behind these measures. These variables don’t change the
fact of
the reduction in disease from vaccinations as stated in this study.
I don’t know
where you are
living. As far back as 1900s my family had indoor plumbing. Regardless,
as long
as the outdoor facility is well constructed it is no more likely to
result in
disease than an indoor facility. The
amount of urbanization from 1957 to 1977 has not even doubled going
from 54 to
91 million acres. In fact by 1910s we crossed the mark in the US, and there were more people living in
urban areas
than in rural areas. Do you have any
documentation supporting your claims?
1843 Dr. Oliver
Wendell
Holmes was already preaching the importance of handwashing as childbed
fever
prevention. It was echoed by Semmelweis in 1947. In
1879 the great Louis Pasteur shouted at a
conference “The thing that kills women with [childbirth fever]...is you
doctors
that carry deadly microbes from sick women to healthy ones."
They do need to
be more
careful about hand washing even now. It’s an ongoing struggle but not
relevant
to a discussion about vaccines.
My
dismissal was
mainly of you and your use of quotes from non-experts and advocates.
Unless your
quotes came from the conclusion section of a research paper then they
are no
value. Believing in something no matter how fervently and honestly
doesn’t make
it a fact. Present some facts that indicate THIS study is wrong.
Veterinarian Don Hamilton also holds
little
credibility in this field, and of course, he is talking about CATS and DOGS! The first
reason is that the EVIDENCE shows
him to be wrong and vaccines do protect animals against their intended
diseases. Culling might be a good thing
for animals and
it happens all the time; but I doubt you would get much support when it
comes
to culling humans. Several decades ago a certain government became
interested
in cleansing and strengthening the population. Things did not turn out
so well
for them. The second reason is a personal one; morally, I just object
to
culling humans… I guess it’s my thing.
Are you from Mars? Just
which doctors are you seeing that are
directing you away from a healthy lifestyle. Come on! That is just an
outrageous lie! Find me a doctor that is telling you to become obese,
eat trans-fats,
watch more TV and not to exercise. Just where is this doctor of yours
that is
recommending bacon cheeseburgers, Twinkies, smoking, alcohol
consumption and a
less active lifestyle? If people actually followed the dietary and
activity
recommendations put out by the doctors, within a few short years we
could be a much
healthier nation. Sloth and gluttony are the culprits, not doctors.
BTW. Do you also have a dentist
that tells you to eat sticky sugary foods and never to brush or floss?
:)
I
haven’t read
the book that you mention, so I can’t comment on it.
I
made no
admission, what I did was point out how foolish your argument was. To
take a
similar position on other things which we do not fully understand would
result
in us doing nothing, including eating something as simple as eating an
apple or
taking a walk. Do you claim to FULLY understand what happens when you
take your
oleander concoction? Is there anything in this world that you think you
FULLY
UNDERSTAND? Not only is your argument naïve, your position is
ignorant because,
as I pointed out, we can never be sure we understand something fully.
The goal
of science isn’t to fully understand something, just to study it and
described
it more accurately. And the role of eosinophils was always a hotly
debated
issue, the book hadn’t been closed on this. For you to suggest that
science ‘had
it wrong’ is dishonest.
Ultimately all
your (ie naysayers
not just you) comments about the study being wrong, flawed or cooked up
don’t
add up to anything without the evidence to back it up. So for now any
such
opinion is to be filed along with the WMDs dossier.