Engineering disease

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Re: Engineering disease

Postby Flabbergasted on Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:44 pm

patrix wrote:Flabbergasted - You have what it takes to be a top nutritional researcher! "In this study we excluded what the fishermen ate outside their boat since we didn't regard that as a part of their diet..."

If you had paid closer attention to what I wrote, you wouldn´t have to sidetrack with silliness like that.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Engineering disease

Postby patrix on Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:42 am

Flabbergasted » December 3rd, 2018, 11:44 pm wrote:
patrix wrote:Flabbergasted - You have what it takes to be a top nutritional researcher! "In this study we excluded what the fishermen ate outside their boat since we didn't regard that as a part of their diet..."

If you had paid closer attention to what I wrote, you wouldn´t have to sidetrack with silliness like that.


Yeah well what did I miss? You have observed some fishermen bringing flour and sugar with them on fishing trips and you find that this is support for your thesis that man has evolved to live on mainly sugar and starch? And you find this is so interesting and important that you make a nice post out of it to share with the Cluesforum readers?

Forgive for being a bit sarcastic but when it comes to medicine and nutrition I many times find the debate and argumentation frustratingly dumbed down..

Nothing personal but I think we need to be wary of the flawed reasoning the Nutwork promotes. A striking example I found the other day was someone writing in a discussion that if you drink the ingredients that's in a vaccine you would die. A very valid and concerning argument I would say. Then someone replies well if you grind up broccoli and inject it into your bloodstream you would also die (and gets plenty of upvotes). I hope you/we see a problem with this line of "reasoning" or else abandon all hope :)

Edit: Another "good one": No speices drink the milk of other species. Well it seems that if my cat had the brains to breed and milk cows he would enjoy the end product. And either of these arguments say anything about the health effects of milk. "No other species inject toxins into their offsprings bloodstream", I find more valid since it's true that vaccines contain poison. But the first argument is seriously used to promote against milk. Brave new world...
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Engineering disease

Postby pov603 on Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:48 am

Dear people can we not “descend” into something other than what the topic is about?
The information you are all providing is of benefit to others (such as myself) who were less aware of the alternatives but are now being “educated” on this issue by you all.
Let others decide what works for them based upon the facts you are happy to provide.
Otherwise, if you were religious or a football fan you may as well say “my team / religion is better than yours...” and see how many are convinced by that tone...
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby Peter on Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:51 am

Patrix I've seen all of the videos you posted before and many many more with the same idea. I posted here last year that I was trying to work out logically what must cause cancer and I had excess sugar as a culprit because its consumption had raised at the same time - ie the last 140 years - as the modern diseases have taken off. (Although its consumption has actually fallen in the last 20 years).

I bought and read Grain Brain, Wheat Belly, The Case against Sugar, Pure White and Deadly, Protein Power and many more. I subscribed to all of the low carb / anti-sugar people on youtube and watched all their speeches and conferences. It was all very convincing. I was convinced enough to email my family and friends advising them to cut out sugar. I started a ketogenic diet (very low carb, moderate protein) but it was so dreadful I only lasted a week. I was still convinced that carbs were inflamatory though.

I then came across a lot of real science. I linked to one such scientist - RayPeat.com - because he has a great writing style and has dozens of research papers at the end of most of his articles that back up what he says, so you are getting the information from hundreds of scientists. I checked out if the research he quotes backs up what he says and it always does. You can do the same. I thought of searching for his articles on sugar - there are many - and linking them here but really if anybody is really interested it will take them just a few minutes to do that from his site.

Fortunately my above ignorance and membership of the anti-sugar cult was a phase of just a few months. Don't become too evangelical in your anti-sugar stance and keep an open mind. Otherwise you will later be embarrassed and annoyed at time wasted as I now am.

Fruit, tubers (eg potatoes, carrots, onions), cereals, rice are all jam packed with sugars. Milk has some too and all vegetables contain a small amount. Do you really deep down think all these things are bad for us?
Peter
Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby Peter on Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:05 am

If a vegan ever brings up the no other species drinks the milk... argument:

Cows are a hybrid species bred to be docile. If allowed to, many other animals will drink cows milk from the teat and farmers have to be careful with their cows. There are many cases of dogs, pigs, sheep and goats drinking milk from the teats of unprotected cows. In a kill of lactating ruminants the big cats will first lap up all the milk (then they go for the organs).

Milk is the original superfood as it is what we start consuming and it is all that we consume at first. At what point does it suddenly become bad for us?

We eat the whole cow so why should the milk by philosophically different for us. The same silly reasoning would say why should a species eat an entirely different species like bananas?

BTW Milk contains "toxic" sugars. More carbs than fat even. So if you're anti-sugar milk is another food for you to fear.
Peter
Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby Peter on Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:37 am

Patrix in my original post on page 29 I posted links to sites which contain 100s (literally 100s) of links to scientific studies that show that sugar is healthy and that PUFAs are the problem. It seems your belief framework is too ossified to consider real science. This thread is a waste of time.
Peter
Member
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby patrix on Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:37 am

Peter » December 4th, 2018, 8:05 am wrote:BTW Milk contains "toxic" sugars. More carbs than fat even. So if you're anti-sugar milk is another food for you to fear.

I do not "fear" sugar and Low Carbers are not "anti sugar" per se. That is also a typical strawman misunderstanding and polarization. Again, it's the dosage that makes the poison. Yes, processed low fat milk is not very nutritious and high in sugar. The best milk is the unhomogenised and low temperature pasteurized kind. If you want milk the best option is to find a local farm and buy directly from them.

Patrix in my original post on page 29 I posted links to sites which contain 100s (literally 100s) of links to scientific studies that show that sugar is healthy and that PUFAs are the problem.


Ok, I'll take a look at it, but I can say right away that I find your reasoning flawed. It's not possible to "rule out" sugar. PUFAs seems very problematic as well but they were introduced along with the low fat dogma that lead to a higher sugar intake. And again, it's the dosage and overall load that matters. People seem to overlook that all carbohydrates converts into sugar and thus increases the overall sugar load. High intake of soda leads to fatty liver disease. This has been shown in studies, so high intake of sugar is certainly not harmless.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Engineering disease

Postby pov603 on Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:20 am

@patrix, taking on board what Peter has said [and without trying to speak for him] he has not [as far as I'm aware] advocated drinking sodas yet you have seemingly connected the two.
The sugars that Peter has expressed are "good" come from natural abundant unprocessed foods whereas the sodas are highly processed.
Issues would therefore stem from highly processed foodstuff which has only been apparent in the last 50 years [or so].
Should we not at least begin to try and identify foods which [in varying degrees] we have agreement with?
For example, you are not against advocating for unhomogenised milk and Peter does not seem to think it is bad for us, therefore, can we possibly reach a consensus on this [and others]?

...Milk
For: patrix, Peter, Flabbergasted [?],...?
Against:...?

...Cane Sugar
For: Flabbergasted, ...?
Against: ???

...Fish
For:...?
Against:...?

[Apologies for simple formatting above].
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby Flabbergasted on Tue Dec 04, 2018 11:49 am

patrix wrote:...your thesis that man has evolved to live on mainly sugar and starch...

I expressed no such thesis, or any other thesis. I haven´t even stated my personal opinion on whether sugar is healthy or harmful.

patrix wrote:And you find this is so interesting and important that you make a nice post out of it to share with the Cluesforum readers?

As a matter of fact, I do.

I suspect many CF members live in highly artificial urban environments (even if not of their own making and choosing) and spend a lot of time in front of a computer screen, hypothesizing, whereas their grandparents would have been busy chasing dogs and goats out of a chilly milking barn at five in the morning. This may be one reason that on this forum there are so many calls for carrying out real-life experiments. However, life being what it is, one useful line of inquiry is to look at how "common people" in past centuries dealt with things we have turned into hypotheses, back when solutions were more directly conditioned by climate, availability and tradition (which should not be dismissed as arbitrary), back when the notion of survival had not yet been eradicated from individual and communal life.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Engineering disease

Postby patrix on Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:16 pm

Flabbergasted » December 4th, 2018, 12:49 pm wrote:I suspect many CF members live in highly artificial urban environments (even if not of their own making and choosing) and spend a lot of time in front of a computer screen, hypothesizing, whereas their grandparents would have been busy chasing dogs and goats out of a chilly milking barn at five in the morning. This may be one reason that on this forum there are so many calls for carrying out real-life experiments. However, life being what it is, one useful line of inquiry is to look at how "common people" in past centuries dealt with things we have turned into hypotheses, back when solutions were more directly conditioned by climate, availability and tradition (which should not be dismissed as arbitrary), back when the notion of survival had not yet been eradicated from individual and communal life.

Fair enough and a good point Flabbergasted. I have however seen many claims that certain groups adhere to some particular diet that proves/support this and that. But on further scrutiny it turns out to be quite false.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Engineering disease

Postby Flabbergasted on Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:43 pm

pov603 » December 4th, 2018, 8:20 am wrote:...can we possibly reach a consensus on this...?

It may seem like an attractive idea, but I don´t think the forum will gain from building Observeresque consensus maps like that. Checking boxes for or against things like glucose, milk, fruit, chemtrails, CGI and multiculturalism would oversimplify complex topics, and important perspectives and layers of meaning would be lost. In fact, when all circumstances and factors of a topic are taken into account, disagreement tends to diminish.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Engineering disease

Postby ICfreely on Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:24 am

Greetings dear CF contributors,

Long time no see. After recently re-reading the entirety of this thread I was compelled to immediately respond to a handful of posts that are, IMHO, right on the money and others that are misguided at best. But I decided not to do so because, frankly, I currently don’t have the time to formulate well thought out, informative posts. Anything less would be a huge disservice to this topic in particular and CF in general. That being said, I’d like to take this opportunity to reply to one outstanding post.


Discussions on the basis of bias can be visceral triggers for people of the conflicting biases (which, given the diversity of belief systems, will greatly outnumber any given bias). Many things like that apply on our site. We are a confluence of very different ideas and we waver between trying to be diplomatic with each other and condemning any biases that we are stupid or brave enough to reveal to each other. It's actually amazing that given our "diversity" of thought (though to be honest it seems we are barely able to question our own culture) we've been able to bully each other in to any unifying notion at all — save for the notion that trying to agree on anything in general (except identifying a bias) is a pretty challenging exercise.
..
However, sometimes I must give up on the possibility of agreeing on things on this site. We are just filled with so many cantankerous egos (including my over-present one) that certain people must find the site truly intolerable. Given our low and decreasing numbers, it should be clear to us that very few people have the patience or tolerance for the methods of our discussion of these topics and we can't keep blaming it on the idea that we are smart/brave/sensitive/etc., while others are not. It's more like we are in a noisy classroom where the arrogant teacher has left and each student is now trying to call "bullshit" as fast as possible on so many things that in person we wouldn't (or even shouldn't) say to those who have ears unless we want to traumatize, trigger or upset one another.


Thank you, Hoi, for that erudite analysis. I have to admit that I’m as (if not most) guilty of contributing to the negative atmosphere on this and other threads as anyone else. I regret & sincerely apologize to you & anyone else I’ve insulted with my ill-tempered, ornery, splenetic and surly attitude. Looking back, I was wrong & have no excuses. Although my intentions were good my approach could/should have been much better. Going forward, if/when I do decide to post something I will make a concerted effort to be as clear, concise & diplomatic as possible.

As for this nutrition debate, I’m of the opinion that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Nobody has it all figured out. Nobody ever will. The point is to figure out what works for you. To be skeptical yet teachable. I’d caution readers that rigidly clinging onto the viewpoint of any “anti-establishment guru” can be as misguided and detrimental to your health as blindly placing faith in the medical establishment itself.

Case in point:

The Barletta Declaration

Making Natural Preventive Health a Human Right

Nutritional and Cellular Health – The Scientific Basis of a Preventive Health Care

First, we need to identify and understand the biological processes at the smallest unit within our body where health and disease is determined – the level of the billions of cells that make up our body.

Second, we need to identify micronutrient deficiency as the most common cause of cellular malfunction. Vitamins, minerals and other plant-derived micronutrients are bioactive compounds that provide essential bioenergy to each cell of our body and function as the catalysts of thousands of metabolic reactions. An optimum daily intake of these micronutrients is essential to prevent cellular malfunctioning and, thereby, to stop the development of disease. This is the foundation of Cellular Medicine.

Third, we need to identify where we can find these essential micronutrients in nature. The great majority of them are contained in fruits, vegetables and the plants that grow in our gardens and fields.

This simple, logical rationale paves the way towards the natural control of today’s most common diseases.

https://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/the-barletta-declaration/



I honestly don’t know where to begin with this asinine “health” manifesto.

First of all, why should “we” arbitrarily declare “micronutrient deficiency as the most common cause of cellular malfunction”?

Wouldn’t making such a bold predetermination place the cart before the horse, thereby ignoring all other possible causes of “cellular malfunction”? Do we (or can we ever) have a firm understanding of cellular function/malfunction?

Second, why do “we” “need to identify and understand the biological processes at the smallest unit within our body…”?

Isn’t this what pharmaceutical researchers have been doing for over a century?

Third, why do “we” “need to identify where we can find these essential micronutrients in nature.”?

Again, isn’t this what pharmaceutical researchers have been doing for over a century?

It’s as plain as day to me that “we” (Doctors Rath, Niedzwiecki, Taylor, et al.) are controlled opposition. Why can’t we just consume fruits, vegetables and plants (in their natural state) and cut out these middle men and their “optimum daily intake of micronutrients” nonsense?

Just some food for though.

Anyhow, I’ll leave you all with an excerpt of an article I recently came across that piqued my interest. And, no, I don’t necessarily “endorse” the author of this article.

Scientism - One of the Earth’s Civil Religions?

Scientism is so widespread globally that it has also spawned some corollary religions, which include nutritionsim and doctorism – all based upon the implicit belief that ‘Science knows best’. While there has been a reaction to this notion, the reaction has the seeds of its parent. In Biblical terminology Science begat Technology, which begat popular Scientism, which begat Nutritionism – all of which benefit from their association with their Logos-based Father.
http://donlehmanjr.com/BD/Sci%20Manifesto/Scientism%20Civil%20Religion.html
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby ICfreely on Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:19 am

Re: Einstein and other gods of science
by aa5 on Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:21 am

The vaccine believers said that its not ethical to do placebo controlled studies, and besides the duration of the studies & the number of participants would be too large to be feasible. To which I said, that may be so, but without such trials there is no way of knowing if the vaccine is better than sawdust.

Comparator studies are totally pointless if the comparator is another treatment that has never been rigorously tested against placebo.

I agree on the increased nutrition. Its little known, but in the 1700's there were big breakthroughs in biology. One thing that was figured out was the components of food and specifically protein content. With that knowledge, agricultural scientists increased the protein content of grain by 3 times during that century. This made protein much more widely available. For example it became a lot cheaper to raise cattle, have chickens laying eggs, and getting milk. Along with the bread itself having a lot higher content of protein.

Imo children who are getting surplus amounts of protein are very unlikely to be overwhelmed by infectious disease. Once we moved 99% of children into surplus protein intake, the infectious diseases were reduced to minor sicknesses that go around from time to time. Before the 1700's poor and working class children in the cities were sitting ducks with protein malnourishment.

The only thing I'm not sure of is damage from vaccines. It would be really hard to prove the damage done from them. Yet that is one of the reasons why medicines need to have placebo controlled studies.

https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=2027&p=2406515&hilit=placebo#p2406516


With all due respect, aa5, I strongly disagree with you vis-à-vis the purported rigors of placebo controlled studies. They’re not as concrete as most people think, I’m afraid. But reasonable people can agree to disagree. I offer you the following excerpt from Sheldrake’s book as food for thought. Make of it what you will.

The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry – Rupert Sheldrake

Chapter 10 - Is Mechanistic Medicine the Only Kind that Really Works?

Placebo responses and the power of hope

How much of the success of more drugs is really due to the drugs themselves, and how much depends on people’s beliefs and expectations? In scientific and medical research, as in everyday life, our beliefs, desires and expectations can influence, often subconsciously, how we observe and interpret things.18 There is overwhelming experimental evidence that scientists’ attitudes and expectations can influence the outcome of experiments.19 In experimental psychology and clinical research, these principles are widely recognised, which is why experiments in these subjects are often carried out under ‘blind’ conditions. In medicine, patients’ expectations also influence the results, and double-blind procedures are used to guard against the expectations of both subjects and the investigators. For example, in a typical double-blind clinical trial of a drug, some patients, selected at random, are given tablets of the drug being tested and others are given similar-looking placebo tablets, pharmacologically inert. The purpose of these trials is to find out if the new drug works better than the placebo. Only if it does so can it be licensed and marketed as an effective treatment. Neither clinicians nor patients know who gets which. In such experiments, the placebo often works in a similar way to the drug being tested, although usually to a lesser extent. The largest placebo responses tend to occur in trials in which both patients and physicians believe a powerful new treatment is being tested. The blank pills work because the patients who take them and the doctors who administer them think that they might contain the new wonder drug.20 If the trial is not blind, and the patients and doctors know who has been given the real drug and who has the placebo, the placebo response is greatly reduced. Neither the patients nor the doctors expect the placebo to have much effect, and it doesn’t.21 This can be a serious problem even in double-blind trials. If the real drug has noticeable side effects, both the patients and the doctors can find out who is receiving the placebo and the real drug, and as a result the placebo is less effective, which makes the real drug more effective relative to the placebo.22 This may seem like a tiresome technical detail, but it has huge economic consequences.

For example, in several clinical trials, the antidepressant drug Prozac had slightly more effect than the placebo, and was licensed for use, resulting in annual revenues to the manufacturers of more than $2 billion. But was it really better than a placebo? Perhaps not. Although the trials were doubleblind, Prozac has some well-known side effects, such as nausea and insomnia. Both patients and clinicians might have realised who had received the Prozac and who the placebo by noticing these side effects, or their absence. This is called ‘breaking the blind’. Once some people realised they were receiving the real drug and others realised they were getting the placebo, the placebo would have become less effective, and hence Prozac would have seemed more effective by comparison. In a study in which doctors and patients were asked to say whether they had received the real drug or the placebo, 80 per cent of the patients and 87 per cent of the doctors were right, as opposed to the 50 per cent that would be expected by random guessing.23 However, in several other clinical trials, Prozac was no better than the placebo. One reason that in these trials the patients had less experience with antidepressants and were less able to recognise the side effects. However, the drug company, Eli Lilly, did not publish the results of unsuccessful trials, which were revealed only because an independently minded researcher, Irving Kirsch, managed to obtain the data using the US Freedom of Information Act. He found that when all the data were taken into account, not just the positive results published by the manufacturers, Prozac and several other antidepressants turned out to be no more effective than placebos, or than a herbal remedy, St John’s wort, which is far cheaper.24 Ironically, the suppression of the data showing that Prozac was no better than a placebo probably helped to increase its effectiveness as a prescription drug, because doctors and patients had more belief in it, thus enhancing the placebo response. Blind assessment first began in the late eighteenth century as a tool for detecting fraud. Mainstream scientists and physicians invented blind methods in order to challenge the suspected charlatanism of unconventional medicine.25 Some of the first experiments of this kind were carried out to evaluate mesmerism, and were literally conducted with blindfolds. They took place in France at the house of Benjamin Franklin, the American representative in Paris, who was head of a commission of enquiry appointed by King Louis XVI. Homeopaths adopted blind assessment in the mid-nineteenth century, and psychologists and psychical researchers took up blind methodologies before 1900 to prevent the subject’s beliefs and expectations influencing their responses. But in regular medicine, blind methods were rarely used until the 1930s. It was only after the Second World War that double-blind trials to compare drugs and placebos became a standard technique for medical researchers. Although the word ‘placebo’ usually conjures up the image of an inert sugar pill, any treatment that patients believe will make them better can evoke a placebo response, even fake surgery. In the 1950s, many surgeons carried out an operation to relieve angina, a severe chest pain caused by lack of blood in the heart muscle. They tied off some of the arteries that carried blood to the chest. In a placebo controlled study, some patients received only sham surgery, in which their chests were cut open and stitched up again. Much to their surprise, the doctors found that the dummy operation did almost as much good as the real one. The mere belief that they had received a proper operation relieved the patients’ chest pain.26 In a similar way, injecting people with saline solution often brings about cures, even though no drug is used. Placebo injections are especially effective when people have a strong belief that injections are magically powerful, as in rural Africa and Latin America.27 Placebo injections also give bigger placebo responses than placebo pills in the United States, but in Europe they do not.

Placebo responses depend on the meanings that people attribute to diseases and cures,28 and these vary from culture to culture, as the research of medical anthropologists has shown. For example, in a comparison of clinical trials in a wide range of countries, Germans had the highest placebo healing rate for ulcers and the lowest for high blood pressure.29 One possible reason for the lower placebo response of Germans in blood-pressure trials is that Germans are unusually concerned with the heart and its workings. Although the rate of heart disease is the same in Germany, France and England, Germans take about six times as much heart medication as their neighbours, and German physicians are almost alone in prescribing medication for low blood pressure. Worries by German patients about their blood pressure getting too low may have reduced the placebo response in trials of drugs to lower blood pressure compared with patients in other countries without this concern.30 For many years, most medical researchers regarded placebo responses as an annoying complication in clinical trials. They got in the way of finding out about real cures. But attitudes are changing. The placebo response shows that patients’ beliefs and hopes play an important part in the healing process. At first, the defenders of mechanistic medicine dismissed the effects of complementary and alternative therapies as ‘mere’ placebo effects. But placebo responses play an important part in conventional medicine too. As Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst observed,

[T]he impact of a proven treatment is always enhanced by the placebo effect. Not only will the treatment deliver a standard benefit, but it should also deliver an added benefit because the patient has an expectation that the treatment will be effective . . . The best doctors fully exploit the placebo impact, while the worst ones add only a minimal placebo enhancement to their treatments.31

In 2009, placebo responses turned out to be increasing – especially in the United States. In clinical trials, fewer and fewer new drugs beat the placebos. In other words, more and more drugs failed in clinical trials, causing big problems for drug companies. Why have placebo responses increased in the Unasesing big pited States, but not elsewhere? The answer may be that drug companies are victims of their own success. In 1997, direct-to-consumer advertising for drugs was made legal in the United States, and as a result US citizens have been deluged with advertisements for prescription medicines. Many of these commercials evoke uplifting associations between pills and peace of mind. The pharmaceutical industry’s advertising has been all too successful in raising expectations about new drugs, increasing the placebo response in clinical trials, and hence reducing the difference between the placebo and the drug being tested.32 If materialism were an adequate foundation for medicine, placebo responses ought not to occur. The fact that they do occur shows that people’s beliefs and hopes can have positive effects on their health and healing. Conversely, despair and hopelessness can have negative effects. There is even a field of research devoted to this subject: psychoneuroimmunology. Stress, anxiety and depression suppress the activity of the immune system, and make it less able to resist diseases and inhibit the growth of cancerous cells.33 Hence people who are anxious or depressed are more likely to fall ill or get cancer. Placebo responses show that health and sickness are not just a matter of physics and chemistry. They also depend on hopes, meanings and beliefs. Placebo responses are an integral part of healing.

https://eduardolbm.files.wordpress.com/ ... ldrake.pdf


BTW, I have many points of contention with Sheldrake as well. It’s next to impossible to find two people to see eye-to-eye on every single topic, I suppose. With regards to Prozac and other psychotropic medications, they're all based on the "chemical imbalance" myth/marketing ploy. And I don't use those terms lightly.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Engineering disease

Postby patrix on Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:17 pm

The only thing I'm not sure of is damage from vaccines. It would be really hard to prove the damage done from them. Yet that is one of the reasons why medicines need to have placebo controlled studies.


With all due respect, aa5, I strongly disagree with you vis-à-vis the purported rigors of placebo controlled studies. They’re not as concrete as most people think, I’m afraid. But reasonable people can agree to disagree. I offer you the following excerpt from Sheldrake’s book as food for thought. Make of it what you will.

Allow me to say something here. When it comes to placebo studies I agree it's hard to sift out positive effects from placebo, but in the case of vaccines let me remind you that controlled studies with placebo have never been carried out, and they are absolutely essential to find negative side effects. Vaccines are suspected to cause autism, allergy etc etc, but this has never been tested in such a study and until that day we will never know if vaccines are harmful or even if they are effective against the diseases they claim to be. Vaccines are always tested against other vaccines, and if the old vaccine is as bad or slightly worse than the new one, then it's proclaimed the new one is "safe and effective".

Let me do an analogy. If medicine was convinced smoking prevents lung cancer and made sure our children smoke. Then of course only some and not all children would get asthma or lung cancer. If then a new brand of cigarette is introduced, would it make sense to compare children who smoked the new brand with those who smoked the old one, and from the data proclaim that the new brand is "safe and effective" if there were less cases of asthma or lung cancer observed in the new group compared to the old one?

This may sound like and idiotic comparison, but the truth is that this is exactly how vaccine studies are carried out and reasoned around. Vaccines are "safe and effective" because they're no worse than the existing ones. And a recognized study has never been performed comparing a vaccine with placebo. I wonder why... https://thesocialservice1.bandcamp.com/track/call-me
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Engineering disease

Postby ICfreely on Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:12 am

Allow me to say something here. When it comes to placebo studies I agree it's hard to sift out positive effects from placebo, but in the case of vaccines let me remind you that controlled studies with placebo have never been carried out, and they are absolutely essential to find negative side effects.


So you have reservations about the merits of placebo controlled studies yet you believe it’s absolutely essential they be conducted in order to determine the negative “side” effects of vaccines? I’m sorry but I don’t follow the logic.

Vaccines are always tested against other vaccines, and if the old vaccine is as bad or slightly worse than the new one, then it's proclaimed the new one is "safe and effective".


Even if a newer vaccine is less toxic than an older vaccine it’s still toxic. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the only good vaccine is the one you avoid. I’ve already posted on Edward Jenner - the father of vaccination (smallpox/cowpox) and Jonas Salk (polio vaccine) in the ebola or DNA threads. I’ve also posted here regarding my skepticism of the very existence of “viruses” in the first place. Vaccination, from its inception has been a crime against humanity. But that’s just my opinion.

Vaccines are suspected to cause autism, allergy etc etc, but this has never been tested in such a study and until that day we will never know if vaccines are harmful or even if they are effective against the diseases they claim to be.


I’m well aware of most of the theories/debates over the cause & effect of vaccines & illnesess. For instance, the assertions that pesticides (DDT), heavy metals (lead paint), preservatives (canned foods) and not viruses caused polio and other polio-like illnesses. Seeing as the existence of the latter is in question and the former are indeed toxic I’m more inclined to believe those assertions. Will I ever definitively know? No. But I do know that around the same time Salk’s “miracle” vaccine was introduced the World Health Organization changed the diagnosis and diagnostic methods for polio. The same signs and symptoms that (pre-Salk vaccine) would have been diagnosed as polio were diagnosed as other newly fabricated diseases (post-Salk vaccine). So polio was "eradicated" on paper only. Regardless of whether or not viruses exist, the adjuvants (i.e. mercury, formaldehyde, etc.) in vaccines are toxic. I’m of the opinion that the more toxins you avoid the better chance you’ll have of staying healthy/not getting sick.

Even if placebo controlled studies could definitively prove (which I don’t believe they can) that vaccines are good/bad I still wouldn’t get vaccinated. I mean, would you drink formaldehyde? If no, then why would you shoot it into your bloodstream? I know that many people are absolutely convinced that vaccines are good. More power to them. I wouldn't try to ban them from getting vaccinated. I just have a serious problem with them using the fallacious “herd immunity” argument to force people who don’t want to be vaccinated to get vaccinated.

Furthermore, I’m not holding my breath for Officialdom (FDA, CDC, AMA, WHO, Big Pharma etc.) to “educate” me on health matters. Let’s just say they have credibility issues.

I don’t know what to tell you, patrix. You may consider crossing the pond, getting lawyer-ed up (if SCS & fbenario are inclined to do a little pro bono work) and taking the vaccine manufacturers to court. You know, speak truth to power & demand they come clean once and for all.

Vaccine court

The Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, popularly known as "vaccine court", administers a no-fault system for litigating vaccine injury claims. These claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, sitting without a jury.

The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP or NVICP) was established by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), passed by the United States Congress in response to a threat to the vaccine supply due to a 1980s scare over the DPT vaccine. Despite the belief of most public health officials that claims of side effects were unfounded, large jury awards had been given to some plaintiffs, most DPT vaccine makers had ceased production, and officials feared the loss of herd immunity.[1]

No evidence has been found to support a link between autism spectrum disorders and vaccines,[2] and the scientific consensus is that routine childhood vaccines have no link to the development of autism. Despite this, some parents of children with autism spectrum disorders have attributed the disorders' onset to vaccines, and more than 5,300 parents have filed petitions at the vaccine court. The vaccine court dismissed the suits and ruled that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court


Sacred Cow Slayer vs. Herd Immunity :P

Seeing as you won’t be afforded the opportunity to plea your case in front of a jury of your peers, perhaps a plethora of peer-reviewed studies published in prestigious scientific journals might convince you of the health benefits and safety of vaccination.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: patrix and 0 guests