A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What is in those Vaccinations?????



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #211  
Old June 8th 06, 07:17 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is in those Vaccinations?????


"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
john wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message so, polio
epidemics were due to improved sanitation? Is that the story.


Nope. You really need to pay attention more, we've covered this before.


I thought sanitation was sorted out in the 19 century in western
countries?


Far from it. Even today many poor people in the western nations live with
poor sanitation. And not too surprisingly, it is these people who also
suffer from the highest rates of infectious disease...

Bryan


so why did we have polio epidemics in the west when we had sanitation long
ago?


  #212  
Old June 8th 06, 10:31 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is in those Vaccinations?????

john wrote:
"Mike McWilliams" wrote in message
...

Or maybe you should explain for everyone exactly what some cure diluted
30C is going to do, and how we can measure it's effectiveness, or even the
difference from another dose of pure water.



"Not one case receiving homeopathic care died, while the "old school"
doctors lost twenty percent of their (smallpox) cases.....I gave about three
hundred internal vaccinations, five to adults acting as practical nurses; to
the man who installed the telephone and lights in the pest-house; to mothers
who slept with their children while they had smallpox in its severest form.
All of these people, exposed daily, were immune."--W. L. Bonnell, MD


That leaves you to explain how it works. How can something diluted
billions of times have any effect.

I propose that fluid replacement was a better cure at the time than
conventional medicine.

Of course, that has nothing to do with homeopathy except that homeopaths
regularly feed people straight water as a cure.
  #213  
Old June 8th 06, 10:46 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is in those Vaccinations?????

Bryan Heit wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
Leave it to John to tell only half the yarn.


I'm surprised he even got half the truth right. John seems to have a
predilection for making things up, and it's becoming more and more
difficult to tell his lies apart form his half-truths...


True. Are you aware that his website was mentioned in a study of
Internet sites with mis and dys information? It was called the largest
suppository of bull****.
  #214  
Old June 9th 06, 02:08 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is in those Vaccinations?????

In article , john wrote:

"Mike McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Or maybe you should explain for everyone exactly what some cure diluted
30C is going to do, and how we can measure it's effectiveness, or even the
difference from another dose of pure water.


"Not one case receiving homeopathic care died, while the "old school"
doctors lost twenty percent of their (smallpox) cases.....I gave about three
hundred internal vaccinations, five to adults acting as practical nurses; to
the man who installed the telephone and lights in the pest-house; to mothers
who slept with their children while they had smallpox in its severest form.
All of these people, exposed daily, were immune."--W. L. Bonnell, MD


So *he* says. Like there's any supporting evidence.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth



  #215  
Old June 10th 06, 11:22 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is in those Vaccinations?????


"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...

1) During those years many people still did not have access to proper
sanitation. Most polio epidemics in the 1900's were in poor and rural
areas - areas which even today don't necessarily have proper sanitation.


Why did they have smallpox and smallpox epidemics in cities, yet rural areas
hardly experienced smallpox at all?


2) Population density (more people = easier transfer of disease & more
people to be infected).


Yet less people in rural areas?



  #216  
Old June 13th 06, 06:57 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is in those Vaccinations?????


"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...

Firstly, there was quite a bit of smallpox in rural areas. It was just
noticed more in cities as the population is larger, and the population
densities meaned that a larger portion of the population became infected.


Many rural areas went for decades without smallpox, while towns suffered
epidemics.

If sanitation had nothing to do with smallpox how come Leicester just about
eliminated smallpox purely through sanitary methods? For decades
http://www.whale.to/a/biggsext.html

And Leicester was the second biggest town in the UK, so your theory of many
people spreading infection etc doesn't hold water.

Not only that they completely took apart vaccination by comparison, and
showed that poor sanitation and poverty was the cause of smallpox and its
spread

"The town of Leicester rejected vaccination in favour of sanitation. Her
experience during the past fifty years makes nonsense of the claims of the
pro-vaccinists. When her population was thoroughly vaccinated she suffered
severely from smallpox. As vaccination declined to one per cent of the
infants born, smallpox disappeared altogether."---- Lilly Loat [Book 1951]
The Truth About Vaccination and Immunization





  #217  
Old June 13th 06, 07:25 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is in those Vaccinations?????


Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
Rich wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
john wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...



I have put some DDT pics for you here http://www.whale.to/v/polio2.htm

and you are asking us to believe all that spraying had no effect at all?

now, that is unbelievable
Trying to change the topic? Apparently I've beaten you so badly with the
whole polio thing that your only hope is to change the topic to something
completely unrelated. Firstly - please provide proof (i.e. a link to
google groups for example), demonstrating where I stated that DDT was
non-toxic. You can't, because I've never made that claim. Not that we
should be surprised you are lying about what I said - you and the truth
rarely meet.

In fact, the medical literature is extremely clear about the toxicological
eeffects of DDT. Including potential cancer risks, endocrine disorders,
low birth weight, and so forth. Some reviews:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum

Of course, it isn't as simple as we'd like it to be. Although DDT has
some medical effects, as well as ecological effects, DDT represents one of
the most potent malarial control substances known to human kind. Since the
banning of DDT malaria has spread over a much larger portion of the globe,
with disastrous effects on human health. Global warming may be driving
the spread of malaria even further. Today, the big question many
scientists are asking is if it is possible to use DDT for malarial
control, but use it in such a way as to minimize the ecological and human
health effects. And answer? We do know - yet.
I'm on the side of "Yes!" The reason DDT is an effective antimalarial is
that the few species of mosquito that transmit malaria, immediately after
engorgement with blood, find a nearby vertical surface, alight head-down,
and rest for a long period before flying off. If the interior walls of
houses in areas where malaria is indigenous are sprayed with DDT, many, or
most of the disease-carrying mosquitos are killed before they have the
opportunity to infect more victims. DDT on interior surfaces is not exposed
to weather, and is thus not spreading the chemical into the environment
where it poses a threat to birds, mostly raptors at the top of the food
chain. DDT on house walls poses very little threat to human residents,
certainly less threat than the rapid spread of malaria, and even less than
malaria-prevention medications.
Having had malaria in my 20's and a recurrence in my 50's, I can attest
that it really sucks, even if you are healthy.

Cue Jan to post something about personal experiences/anecdotes.
No one can compete with your record, Markey. You've experienced
everything but crucifixion. Or did I speak too soon? Barring that,
your cousin knew Jesus.
Aha...Petey...once again you prove that when I think you cannot display
your stupidity any more cogently than you have done, you exceed
yourself. It must be really and truly difficult for you to do so, and I
do admire, in a paradoxical sort of way, your efforts.

I have mentioned my having Malaria since at least 1999.
Which means nothing unless your claims can be medically examined by
readers of mha.
Your implication was that I made it up as a convenience in this thread.
Not so, SupplementBreath.
Implied? Not at all. You're a liar, plain and simple.
Thanks, Petey, for the directness. At least I know I have been correct
all along when I considered you to be an asshole.
There are many kinds of people in this world, Markey. You just happen
to be most of them.
Petey, I understand that you developed the sure fire way of preventing
identify theft:

Have an identity that no one would consider worth stealing.


That's just the malaria talking. Or is it the pharmosa blogosa?


Nope. It is the dead on description of your dark, narrow life.


Try to think happy thoughts, ok?

  #218  
Old June 13th 06, 08:35 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is in those Vaccinations?????

PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
Rich wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
john wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...



I have put some DDT pics for you here http://www.whale.to/v/polio2.htm

and you are asking us to believe all that spraying had no effect at all?

now, that is unbelievable
Trying to change the topic? Apparently I've beaten you so badly with the
whole polio thing that your only hope is to change the topic to something
completely unrelated. Firstly - please provide proof (i.e. a link to
google groups for example), demonstrating where I stated that DDT was
non-toxic. You can't, because I've never made that claim. Not that we
should be surprised you are lying about what I said - you and the truth
rarely meet.

In fact, the medical literature is extremely clear about the toxicological
eeffects of DDT. Including potential cancer risks, endocrine disorders,
low birth weight, and so forth. Some reviews:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum

Of course, it isn't as simple as we'd like it to be. Although DDT has
some medical effects, as well as ecological effects, DDT represents one of
the most potent malarial control substances known to human kind. Since the
banning of DDT malaria has spread over a much larger portion of the globe,
with disastrous effects on human health. Global warming may be driving
the spread of malaria even further. Today, the big question many
scientists are asking is if it is possible to use DDT for malarial
control, but use it in such a way as to minimize the ecological and human
health effects. And answer? We do know - yet.
I'm on the side of "Yes!" The reason DDT is an effective antimalarial is
that the few species of mosquito that transmit malaria, immediately after
engorgement with blood, find a nearby vertical surface, alight head-down,
and rest for a long period before flying off. If the interior walls of
houses in areas where malaria is indigenous are sprayed with DDT, many, or
most of the disease-carrying mosquitos are killed before they have the
opportunity to infect more victims. DDT on interior surfaces is not exposed
to weather, and is thus not spreading the chemical into the environment
where it poses a threat to birds, mostly raptors at the top of the food
chain. DDT on house walls poses very little threat to human residents,
certainly less threat than the rapid spread of malaria, and even less than
malaria-prevention medications.
Having had malaria in my 20's and a recurrence in my 50's, I can attest
that it really sucks, even if you are healthy.

Cue Jan to post something about personal experiences/anecdotes.
No one can compete with your record, Markey. You've experienced
everything but crucifixion. Or did I speak too soon? Barring that,
your cousin knew Jesus.
Aha...Petey...once again you prove that when I think you cannot display
your stupidity any more cogently than you have done, you exceed
yourself. It must be really and truly difficult for you to do so, and I
do admire, in a paradoxical sort of way, your efforts.

I have mentioned my having Malaria since at least 1999.
Which means nothing unless your claims can be medically examined by
readers of mha.
Your implication was that I made it up as a convenience in this thread.
Not so, SupplementBreath.
Implied? Not at all. You're a liar, plain and simple.
Thanks, Petey, for the directness. At least I know I have been correct
all along when I considered you to be an asshole.
There are many kinds of people in this world, Markey. You just happen
to be most of them.
Petey, I understand that you developed the sure fire way of preventing
identify theft:

Have an identity that no one would consider worth stealing.
That's just the malaria talking. Or is it the pharmosa blogosa?

Nope. It is the dead on description of your dark, narrow life.


Try to think happy thoughts, ok?


I am happy that you are so transparent.
  #219  
Old June 13th 06, 09:11 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is in those Vaccinations?????

john wrote:

Firstly, there was quite a bit of smallpox in rural areas. It was just
noticed more in cities as the population is larger, and the population
densities meaned that a larger portion of the population became infected.



Many rural areas went for decades without smallpox, while towns suffered
epidemics.


And many towns/cities also went decades without smallpox epidemics. Not
that we're surprised that you only told 1/2 of the story. That's the
nature of epidemics - they flare up, subside, and then flare up again
sometime in the future. There are thousands of rural and urban
epidemics which have been recorded:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

Here's one from my home, where roving bands of doctors treated all sorts
of diseases, including smallpox, in the provinces highly isolated and
small rural communities:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum



If sanitation had nothing to do with smallpox how come Leicester just about
eliminated smallpox purely through sanitary methods? For decades
http://www.whale.to/a/biggsext.html


He didn't, as I mentioned in another post there is no link between
sanitation and smallpox. In fact, that opinion was largely driven by
racist ideologies and class distinctions. A topic well understood and
discussed by scientists and sociologists alike:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum


Not only that they completely took apart vaccination by comparison, and
showed that poor sanitation and poverty was the cause of smallpox and its
spread


Then how was smallpox eliminated in countries with very poor sanitation
- India for example.

Bryan
  #220  
Old June 14th 06, 08:38 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med.immunology
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default What is in those Vaccinations?????


"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...


Then how was smallpox eliminated in countries with very poor sanitation -
India for example.

Bryan


It wasn't by vaccination as it disappeared when only 10% of tghe world had
been vaccinated, some countries not al all

and vaccination was proven useless by statstics, over 90% of the victims
being vaccinated

as scientist Wallace proved http://www.whale.to/vaccine/smallpox3.html

so what was it then?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 4/4 [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 February 18th 06 06:25 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 [email protected] Info and FAQ's 3 December 29th 04 06:26 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 [email protected] Info and FAQ's 3 September 29th 04 05:17 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 1/4 [email protected] Info and FAQ's 3 August 29th 04 05:28 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Childhood Vaccinations, Part 4/4 [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 December 15th 03 10:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.