Shingles is one thing not many may think about but I know a man who is now legally blind (can only see shadows) due to shingles.
My grandmother had it, too. Nasty business.Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
Well, the HPV (40 types of HPV are sexually transmitted infections (STI), also referred to as sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and venereal diseases (VD) vaccine came up in discussion when we briefly mentioned profit motive. It was not relative to the op but it came up. So I expanded on the topic since it was mentioned as a cure for the leading cause of cervical cancer. Now that one has been passed into law if I'm not mistaken. Or it was in the works to pass it into law as a mandatory consumption of the product. I maintain that it is not a cure for the larger cause. Which is modern lifestyle. Why should my daughter be forced to consume a product by law as a consequence of the repercussions of the popularized indulgences of others? What if I raise my daughter to make good choices instead of trying to be popular and do those popular things? She should be forced to consume the product for the greater good? Even though I don't view it is a greater or common good at all. Seems like it's only going to lead to more bad decisions and promote the trend if people think they can just go see Dr. Everything Gonna Be Alright and get a shot to make the consequences of their personal choices go away. The primary cause, itself, will still be viral. And it'll get worse. We'll likely see more powerful diseases evolve as a result of vaccines that only treat the present repercussions. Of course, by then, we'll hear the old tried and true spew about "oh don't you remember, we already passed that one law to force people to consume a product so it's surely okay if we have to consume this new and improved product at the barrel of a government gun because...you know....we did it the last time." And that's not even considering this new idea of a fedralized "adherence policy" where the pharmaceutical company writes the policy, hands it off to the government who enforces the idea that pharmacies can police and ensure consumption of prescriptions. That oughtta align just lovely with nationalized healthcare or Obamacare or whatever name it has these days once it's all digitized nice and good and portable to remit upon "request" because, you know, it's not like we're back in the 1800's.
Anyway, when the morality of the country changes, it will reflect on the laws. Arbitrary/coercive laws like mandatory consumption of someone's commercial products aren't going to fix the more fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is society. Why should my daughter be forced to consume someones product at the barrel of a government gun because of the consequences of the popularized indulgences of the collective? What if I taught my daughter that she's an Individual and doesn't and shouldn't have to conform to the popular anti-moral trends and indulgences that are promoted by modern society? What if I taught her the consequences of poor choices and popularized physical indulgences and dpoing it just because everyone else is doing it? If she's been taught the consequences and lives a moral lifestyle where she isn't consumed by sexually transmitted diseases, why should she be subjected to forced consumption because of the consequences of the indulgences of others? I maintain that how an Individual makes judgement on how to best enjoy his or her benefits of the right to life and the pursuit of happiness is a personal matter for each Individual. That means free in mind, free in spirit, and free in body. Additionally, how The Individual makes that judgment should be consistent with respecting the rights of other Individuals, aside from any coercion by government or other Individuals. This is a responsibility. Too often friends tend to throw out the term liberty. But Liberty must always be discussed in context with responsibility. We have a duty to Individual Liberty. Liberty, of course, has a primary foundation for moral code along with fundamental principles. And they must be accepted or rejected as an Indivisible whole. It's the only way The Individual may make any legitimate claim of right to Individual Liberty fully. Not piece-meal. Individuals can't toss out the foundation for moral code and try to run with the principles alone. Libertine is not libertarian. Nope. Won't work. Higher Law has a place. A necessary place. After all, it is the defining place. Regardless of whether it's 1800, 1984, or 2016.
What I'm talking about with regard to the HPV vaccine is something entirely different than the nature of the thread. I'm talking about The Individual whose moral duty is to adhere to a Higher Law as opposed to the arbitrary legalities of society. I just shared some brief thoughts on it since it came up.
Now all of that dialogue removed, my question is simple. Which I base on the idea that nobody is entitled to have their personal fears addressed by others. And especially by the government. Which should be limited for Liberty. That said, why should any Individual relinquish his or her Individual Liberty in the name of placating frightened people? That's what cultural Marxists do.
If it's any consolation, I blame most of it on pop culture. Youth are trained to make poor choices early in life. It's "cool" and stuff. Over 2 million views this movie has. In 1 month. Proly be a box office hit making millions of dollars, too.Of course, it's everywhere in modern culture. Movies, music, whatever. I just pulled thisone out my ass. It was the first one I found on You Tube.
No You Tube in 1800, though.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-27-2016 at 11:44 AM.
Yes it could be said of people who think against vaccines. I believed vaccines were good (at some point of my life) then I started researching the ingredients they put in these vaccines and started to watch the recommended vaccines double and triple for children. Also the recommendations for pregnant women to get certain vaccines. I started to make the connection to peanut allergies, chronic illnesses and even death of children who were recently vaccinated.The same could be said of people who think vaccines ruined everything. What's weird is that earlier you admitted you were fine with the vaccines themselves, just not the additives and poisons contained therein and the mandating of so many damned vaccines at such a young age (and, by extension, I'd imagine the easiest objection to cure would be to allow for opt-out of innocuous diseases that are now being vaccinated against for no good reason).
* * *
There's some truth in just about everything being said that isn't about personal insults or demonizing an entire swath of the country.
Autism likely did exist before vaccines. It's fruitless to try to figure out precisely which cases of people acting certain ways were really autism, or would at least be categorized as such today. The diagnoses they were saddled with at the time are all we have to go on. It would be a hundred times more futile to argue that autism rates were anywhere near what they are today --- even accounting for a broadening of the spectrum and a much higher frequency of pediatrician visits where the physician is on the lookout for autism in youngsters. Something, or many somethings, obviously changed and contributed to a climb.
Studies of "unvaccinated children" are usually not great. Even though I'm not going to whisper about conspiracies here, the main reason is that unvaccinated children are rare and could easily be categorized as endangered. Would you want your unvaccinated child to participate in an official study?
Are we too far away from this? It would fall under the umbrella of "child endangerment" and the very first thing that would be done to your kids while you are trying to muster a defense is that they would be vaccinated, possibly with more of them occurring at the same time than they would have experienced had they been vaccinated on the generally accepted "schedule." It's a real fear. Moreover, some people are anti-too-many-vaccinations, and get what they feel are the "biggies," but that disqualifies them from being in the category of entirely unvaccinated. Even the studies and surveys cited throughout this gem of a thread concede there are just not a lot of kids to study.
What about the conclusions? Again, with the studies being pretty garbage, it's not enough to simply point and decide that correlation equals causation in this case. Which group spent more time outdoors and around animals, for instance? In the US, mandatory vaccinations go hand in hand with public schools and there are very few unvaccinated kids in the visible, study-able segment of the big city population. These are the kids least likely to be eating well, getting fresh air, and able to afford a family pet. It just so happens those things contribute to whether you're likely to develop many of the conditions mentioned earlier. Is there a genetic component (not a cause, but a gene that makes a body more likely to react poorly to a certain chemical combination)? The allergy correlation has always been interesting to me. Is it the vaccines that have led to an increase in allergies, or is it something else that has led to overly sensitive body chemistry, making more people allergic to previously harmless and common things... and also allergic to multiple ingredients in the vaccines or the means they are provided? It's hard to pinpoint any of that with such a tiny and reluctant population left. All you're left with is a mountain of historical data that provides too few details about the members involved.
I'm not even going to get into the HPV discussion. The people that mentioned it obviously are of the opinion two people must go into a marriage as complete (as opposed to "technical") virgins to avoid the scourges of this God-sent cancer-causing plague. I have my own reasons for thinking the vaccine is a bad idea, but I didn't realize we were back in the 1800's.
Also, I'm not sure who's turning their backs on Acute Flaccid Paralysis as it relates to polio. I understand the premise that diagnostic changes could be the reason there are fewer polio cases out there (along with the vaccine); you have a twofold cause leading to the dramatic result usually paraded about by the CDC and WHO if that's the case. There hasn't been a huge increase in AFP diagnoses, though, so that's not the smoking gun one would think it would be. Even if it deflates the CDC/WHO numbers a bit (50k-100k), it would still leave a huge drop in the number of global polio cases. Applause, take a bow, everyone's happy except the people making child-sized leg braces and the like.
But chicken pox? Exposing children to all kinds of nastiness to avoid chicken pox?
I don't think this is a good thing. Even if I don't mind most vaccination protocols, I think the line has been crossed and people are now vaccinating just because they can. It's not all profit; it's also the same reason people sanitize the hell out of their kids' hands (despite studies showing that eating dirt as a kid is a really, really good thing). People are overprotecting, and this is a big symptom of it. The consequences won't be fully known for too long to be acceptable. Look at chicken pox vaccinations versus the rise in shingles... but don't worry, there's a vaccine for that, too
So the bottom line comes down to common sense. You can attempt to adjust a child's nutrition to a more whole, nutritious, sustainable kind of diet from an early enough age that they'll grow up self-sufficient and much less addicted to nasty processed junk. At worst, this has zero effect on their chances of getting scoliosis, but it seems like a smart idea regardless of whether or not it can replace vaccines.
The idea of the vaccines was a good idea on the face of it. However, if the person is living in unsanitary conditions and malnourished, their immune system will be compromised and not be able to fight much. One of the major reasons we saw a decline in many diseases is because people were eating better, had clean water to drink and had better living standards.
References:
https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/
http://www.army.gov.au/~/media/Files...ion%201934.pdf
Scurvy, scarlet fever, whooping cough and TB are making a huge comeback. Could this be due to vitamin and mineral deficiencies? It is certainly worth looking into.
References:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/129/4/783.full
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/al...amins-minerals
https://authoritynutrition.com/7-com...-deficiencies/
Another set of great articles to read and reference:
http://www.vaclib.org/basic/gk/Polio...ie%20Hard.html
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
Holy overreaction.
I didn't say anything about forcing someone to vaccinate (actually, I said the exact opposite, but whatever). What I said was that you and another poster surprised me with this dangerous and outdated view on STDs. You can teach your daughter to be moral, and never sleep with anyone but her one true love who will also be a complete and total virgin, and I guess she will also not come into contact with any contaminated blood or objects, and you're fine with her being at the mercy of some guy's honesty with regards to his past sexual history... sure, nothing can go wrong in any of those steps. I'm sure your family comes from a long history of virgins-only-at-marriage-getting-together-and-never-splitting-up. Please don't bring up protection, either; HPV can be transmitted by incidental contact that occurs during putting a condom on, etc.. It gets transmitted to the hand, and then that hand touches other things. Heck, it can be transmitted to babies by their mother during birth. Then there's always the curious matter of where the first cases could have come from, but for some reason people don't give that enough thought. I won't go too far into the prevalence of sexual assault, but suffice to say you can do everything "right" and wind up on the losing end of that. Hopefully I won't hear a "I'll teach her not to get into those morally repugnant situations where sexual assault can happen," because that's pretty much in this same category where someone getting HPV only did so because they were immoral and hedonistic.
You can teach someone to drive really well, but you still have to worry about the other drivers on the road.
/end rant.
Genuine, willful, aggressive ignorance is the one sure way to tick me off. I wish I could say you were trolling. I know better, and it's just sad.
Scurvy (still rare) is due to diet. The others are usually people without those vaccinations.Scurvy, scarlet fever, whooping cough and TB are making a huge comeback. Could this be due to vitamin and mineral deficiencies? It is certainly worth looking into.
Where did you go? Just realized today I hadn't seen you post in a while, and sure enough, this was your last post on 9/25/16.
An odd place/thread to say goodbye.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us