Your health is under attack!

Now, maybe I am stating the obvious to others. But this has been a dawning realization to me.

Ellen White has written in various places statements such as this found in Counsels on Diet and Foods, "Health Reform and the Third Angel's Message", pg. 75:
We understand that the Sabbath is involved in the third angel's message and is / will be under attack at the last days. If the health reform is closely related with the third angel's message, would it follow that it will be / has been under attack?

When you look at the members of the Adventist church and you hear comments such as, "I'm not ready to give up ....", it causes one to wonder if Satan has been more successful with attacking health than the Sabbath. Could it be once he has sickened us physically and mentally, it will be a push over regarding moral things?

Then, with this blatant attack on health with the flu vaccinations, I don't believe it is some type of "test run" against the Sabbath, but the real deal. The health reform bill before congress is going to lead the lambs to the slaughter. I had heard from someone, (don't know about its validity) that the bill includes items such as if The Powers determine you need to be vaccinated, you will be. No choice. Easy to construe it as a "matter of national security". I believe it was Maryland I heard on the news is making it a patriotic duty and mandatory to be vaccinated. My wife works at a hospital where they are going to require masks if she doesn't take the flu vaccine. I wonder if a yellow star of David would suffice?

Take a look at your churches. In our church, there is only a half a dozen out of about a 100 that even attempt to follow the health message. And with the majority, you don't need to do a survey to determine that. Observing the potlucks would be more convincing. If you should listen to their comments regarding health, any remaining doubt is removed.

Take look at our hospitals. In what way are they following the instruction given them?

If we are still eating meat (after 100 years following, "soon need to give it up"), eating refined sugar, refined foods, fast foods, junk, making our bodies plugged up, suffering in mind and body, how are we going to stand for the truth? If we are living no differently than the world, how are we going to come out of Babylon, uphold the Sabbath, if we are in the hospitals, taking the poisonous drugs which we have been told never cures disease, if we are so dependent mentally and physically on the government to take care of us?

The masses are being scared into taking this swine flu vaccination and willingly subject to it without questioning. Why hasn't there been a light into this world that vaccinations do not work, that disease isn't cured by magic lotions and potions but by eight natural remedies? Is it because we have not been following our instruction on health reform given over 100 years ago which would have given ample evidence of real cure and have people flocking to us to find out how to be healed? And we pat ourselves on the backs for a pitiful 5-7 years longer life. And that isn't saying what kind of quality those years are and even leading up to them.

Sorry, but had to unload. It just appears to me that satan has planted his flag on the hill of health reform declaring a success and is ready for the next hill to conquer.

Bless your heart, kland. What you say is so true. I'm so concerned for our people (SDAs) who seem for the most part to have abandoned the health message and are suffering the consequences.

Let us not be discouraged, though, but pray that the Lord will awaken us to the need to implement this message. Indeed, the "world" in many instances has been proclaiming the very message God gave us so many years ago. Indeed, He is raising up others to do what we should have been doing. Let us not be left behind as we meet the great challenge of implementing and proclaiming this wonderful message.

Suzanne

Why would a hospital worry about getting a flue infection spread among staff and patients? It could of course be that they want to restrict it out of some sort of control craving, but it might also be that they want to restrict any outbreak of flue to give the patients out of whom most already are weak by one disease or other a better chance to recover. A mask would prevent the one carrying it from spreading flue through his or her exhaust breath.

Why have the masses failed to realise that vaccinations do not work? Could it possibly have something to do with the amazing correlation where increases in smallpox vaccination invariably has lead to a sharp decrease in death by the disease? Further, could the publics shocking ignorance of the inefficiancy of vaccin have anything to do with the disappearance of smallpox, the near disapearance of polio and the greatly diminished occurance of measles since vaccination of each of these diseases began?
When was the last time you meet someone paralysed by polio? When did you last meet someone in grief over a lost loved one to measles? A disease which killed 200 milion people within the 150 years that the adventist church has existed? When did you last know someone who died of smallpox, which used to be the leading cause of death in for instance europe?
Although, you are probably right. Someone must educate people not to pay attention to examples such as these and be encouraged to stand up for their right to die out of preventable diseases. How else would we be able to keep our hospital staff busy?

Has there been known to have occurred in the past a spread in massive outbreaks of flu from workers to patients? Has there been studies done to show those workers with the flu, but wearing masks, and those with the flu without wearing masks and show what percentage of patients became infected?

Have masks been shown to stop spread of disease from those wearing them? Especially, how often would they need to be changed. Currently, nothing about that has been said. Nor anything about how tight fitting.

I'll let you start with those. It might save further questions.

Are there examples of such flu outbreaks? Quite possibly, but I am not sitting with a pile of such examples in front of me. Have the experiment you suggest been carried out? I strongly doubt it. No responcible government would allow workers infected with flu to go to work for experimental reasons. However, since it is established that flu spreads through dropplets of liquid coming out of the mouth and nose of infected people it would seem logical that covering these would prevent or strongly reduce further spread. Why this relates to hospital workers at work is that the flu can be contageous before giving its first symtoms.

I dont have the mask research here either, nor do I have time to find it for you. You may go on beliving whatever suits your fancy about it.

Don't get too busy with masks...., brethren!

Smallpox and polio are severe - I've known of measles as a mild disease, but that may depend on personal immune system strength. After all, it should first occur when one is a child of around 10, and the body develops immune reactions to it, useful for the rest of life: no, I've known no-one who has died of measles. The scare over measles is best handled by boosting natural immunity...

The real issue over measles is the triple MMR, measles, mumps and rubella vaccine: it's untested as a triple vaccine...! But, it gets the same publicity as this new, suspiciously untested swine flu vaccine....

"New diseases" and their vaccines are the problem, not major outbreaks of the past like polio. Natural immunity is under attack - we shouldn't bother to sustain natural defences..., as is well known.

västergötland, before we continue, I have a couple of questions I believe are relevant.

Do you eat meat?

What do you make of the following quotes?

Vaccination ceased the major outbreaks of the past, that is the point. If you have a child of about 10 years of age and you arrange for this child to get measles through for instance playing with an sick child, then this is a form of crude vaccination. Crude because they are playing with the real thing rather than with a weak form of it. Vaccination is simply to help the body create immune reactions against a particular disease under more controlled forms.

Not sure why this is relevant for anything we have been discussing here, but the answer is: sometimes. Never is a very strong word to use. Perhaps this was true in Ellens day, maybe, but I do not think you could be both honest and informed and accept this as true today.
If your child has a fever, do you give him/her an aspirin or do you stick to principle and refrain? If he/she is biten by a rattlesnake, do you take him/her to hospital to get an antivenom or do you stick to principle and do nothing while the poison does its work? If your child gets a blood poisoning, do you take him/her to hospital where they will get an antibiotic or do you stick to principle and keep your child at home? If your child has a appendicitis, do you take him/her to hospital where different drugs will surely be part of the treatment or do you keep him/her at home waiting for come whatever may?

How strong are your principles?

Kland,
In order to be consistent, you should have included genetically modified vegetables which are in the food chain. Any reason you left those out?
It would have made for a much more sincere "Sounding of the trumpet" instead of your comment to västergötland:


It is worth your while to research this. You may be surprised to know the last papaya you ate may have been part fish.

God Bless,
-Will

I'm not sure why you would think genetically modified vegetables would not be included? If you think there should be an inclusive list, aren't there quite a few additional things you could have listed? I was trying to say that our health was being attacked from any and all angles as much as the Sabbath has been and will be. I'm sorry that wasn't clear. Thanks for pointing it out.

In fact, the genetically modified vegetables is very much related to the CDC experiments with attempting to create the swine flu and others as from my recombinomics reference, if you think through it.

Why?

Maybe that's why.
You have decided Ellen White is irrelevant for today.

No.
Use of water works wonders. Aspirin masks the symptoms.
Though, I may consider giving him willow bark.

No.
Rattlesnakes rarely give a lethal dose. Usually they give what's called "dry bites". Injecting horse serum or what not only opens them up for much worse problems. A recombinomics reference seems fresh in my mind.
Charcoal works wonders.


If it was a virus, antibiotics would do no good. Depending upon the circumstances, I may to help relieve the symptoms realizing it would not cure the problem. Of course, why did it occur in the first place? Maybe there is a bigger problem which should not have happened.


What do you recommend - remove a "useless" body organ? I wouldn't. Again, why the situation, and charcoal, hot and cold water treatments, various other natural treatments would work wonders.


Sounds like stronger than some. But all of what I've said sounds rather off the wall and foreign to you, doesn't it? You have discounted Ellen White and called her irrelevant for today. We are approaching things from two completely different perspectives. If you live like the Egyptians, you will suffer the diseases of the Egyptians. You can justify it all you want, and you can blame God for the results of the choices.

But, that doesn't change the cause and effect.

Obviously, what I say won't change your mind.

Best thing I can suggest is for you to do your own research. Find a scientific study (not to be confused with correlations) which determines the effectiveness of vaccinations. Not a news media piece, but one with materials, methods, procedure, results. Or, if you can't find one, consider how one would go about setting up such an experiment.

Your future health depends upon it.

Because finding both good and vegetarian food at restaurants may be quite a hassle. Now you are generalizing again. I only said that Ellens advice on this particular question is likely outdated. I said nothing about her work on other topics here. And why would you give him willow bark? The active substance is the same. Is there something about the methods of extracting it from the bark that makes it unacceptable to you? If it is merely a question of drugs, willow bark should be out of question aswell, if you are a purist in your antidrug principle.What about other kinds of snakes, who dont bite for scare?
How would you apply charcoal? Poison injected through a snakebite would be expected to go into the bloodstream, while charcoal would stay on the skin or in the stumach. So I am interested in how it would work wonders for this particular malady?One way of attracting blood poisoning is by getting deep wounds from rusty iron. For instance by stepping on a rusty spike. The organ isn't useless, unless of course it bursts through the infection and kills you with intestinal fauna. Dead people have no use of organs. Would you take the risk? Why would I blame God?You make it sound like your choises above are supported by published scientific articles. But you have yet to refer to any such material. Why?

Again?
Whether you are now generalizing or I am, I was referring to the topic you were. But, how do you decide which topic she is "right" on and which one she isn't?

When did her advice become outdated? When they shipped her off to Australia?


If I am hearing you correctly, you are saying I cannot support my choice of the null hypothesis through published scientific articles?

Or are you merely saying that my choice to believe Ellen White is wrong?

Because your premise is based largely on meat eating, junk food is thrown in there and refined sugars, but how many SDA's are aware of GMO found in cereals, baking materials, vegetables, beverages etc.
Its like trying to lead someone into an ambush. I agree about the ills of vaccination, and fortunately youc an choose to do what you want.
The reason you don't hear many SDA's talking about GMO foods is cause there is no one educating on the ills of it. Of course you see soy laden foods at potluck, and plastic storage containers which are hormone disruptor's i.e. leaks estrogen into the male body.

It comes off as not being honest the way you presented your topic.
God Bless,
-Will

When the world which she was commenting on is no longer comparable with the one we live in now. Drugs used 200 years ago share little resemblence with the ones used today. For instance, today we require that they do not cause the things which she spoke against. I am merely asking why you have not done so already? Considering your claim to be able to do it.

Am interested in reading support for this claim aswell.

Here are a couple:
Plastic

BPA

God Bless,
Will

Hmm... http://www.rps.psu.edu/probing/bpa.html

Sorry, I must not have been clear. My premise was that our health was under attack. In any and all directions. I don't see how you can say, "based largely on meat eating" with other items thrown in. I only mentioned meat once. I did mention vaccines many times. If you had said, based largely against vaccinations, I would agree.

Do you eat meat?

I had thought GMOs were well known. But then, maybe you could say that is my premise, that if we are still doing the things we have been told not to do for over 100 years, how can we be aware of current things that are causing problems? I noticed you did not mention microwaving food. Especially with plastic. Would that give me a right to call you dishonest?

If you understand the null hypothesis, the burden of support is with those who disagree with it.

I have mentioned the recombinomics reference twice and you can find the link on the SWINE FLU thread if you are asking for support for the creation of the swine flu and others.

If you are looking for support that vaccines don't work, I looked up some new ones and added several to my collection. It has convinced me to be stronger in my principles than ever before. Thanks for the encouragement. Here's one you can read online:

"Resurgence of Disease in a Highly Immunized Population of Children"
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/331/1/16

I'd be most interested in hearing your response to it. Especially in regards to the following:

• "Eighty-five percent of the children 6 to 12 years old who had pertussis had received four or more doses of the DPT vaccine."
• "We cannot claim that one vaccine is less efficacious than the other, since a properly designed efficacy study has not been performed."

What I find amusing is that even though the older children were the ones coming down with pertussis, and these "who had been appropriately immunized", their conclusion is to recommend an "accelerated schedule of DPT vaccination". Huh? These children were timely vaccinated appropriate for their age, and yet more got the disease not only "correlated" with doses received, but at an older age. So we need to step up the vaccination schedule?

I have no reason to believe these researchers were being dishonest. They were only trying to make sense of the observations. Stepping up the immunizations is the only thing they could see because, "it's all we've got". They just don't know.

What I find interesting is comments they made about the outbreak occurring in the "suburban white middle class, who had private insurance and excellent access to medical care". They suggested it may be biased due to reporting. The culture shouldn't even be considered since they were vaccinated, if vaccinations work. May I suggest it might have to do with what the white middle class may be eating or doing?

I'd like to hear your comments on the article and now it's your turn to present an article supporting your point of view on vaccinations.

1) I never recommend aspirin/tylenol for reducing fever. I never use them myself, even for a headache. Fever is the body's method of fighting the illness. By reducing the fever, you are reducing the body's natural defense, and working against the immune system. Reducing the fever may be more comfortable, temporarily, but the body will take more time to recover from the illness.

2) I know a doctor who tried to clear a "dead" rattlesnake off the hot summer road. It had been run over, and appeared dead. It wasn't. It bit his hand. Mature rattlesnakes are considered less poisonous than the very young ones, because the latter have not learned to meter their poison and inject most all of what they have. However, an injured rattler gives more too. The hospital administered two doses of the antivenin. The antivenin is just as poisonous as the venom, something like sodium and chloride both being toxins when separate. So the hospitals do not want to overdo the antivenin. In addition, the antivenin is precious (both in terms of cost and supply).

The doctor's arm swelled magnificently and turned purple, to say nothing of the pain. Rattlesnake venom destroys muscle tissue, among other things. After a night's stay in hospital, and deciding not to request more antivenin, the doctor returned to his own office where he experimentally self-treated his arm with an I.V. of high-dosage Vitamin C. The antivenin had seemingly had only a mild effect on the swelling and pain, but the Vitamin C worked much more quickly on it, almost immediately reducing both. The doctor repeated this again the next day, and another time or two after that. A week or two later his arm was back to normal, with no apparent lasting damage.

Of course, Vitamin C is not a drug any more than a lemonade is a drug. After this experience, the doctor knows what he will recommend to patients who come in with rattlesnake bites.

3) Antibiotics may not have been included in Mrs. White's definition of "drugs." Not every pill, serum, cream and elixir is a "drug." There are substances which are not considered drugs, but rather "medicines." Even these should only be used if absolutely necessary.


Here in Taiwan, the culture is of such a nature that doctors always prescribe plenty of drugs. If you go to the hospital seeking help for a painful sore on your skin, or perhaps you need stitches for a deep gash, they will likely load you up with a list of drugs to take home: an antibiotic, an anti-viral medication, a pill to reduce swelling, one or two for pain, and possibly an antiseptic cream to boot. They will tell you to take each of these pills at least three or four times a day, and you are to pick them up at the dispensary on the way out of the hospital. If the doctor does NOT prescribe a lot of medicine, the people here are led to believe that it was not a good doctor!

As for me, I have several times accepted the in-hospital treatment, and then thrown the drugs away (or am simply very selective in which of the prescriptions I use--and I never use one that I do not know what it is, which is most everything since I don't read Chinese).

Well...those are my principles. It is my firm conviction that each of us should act as "doctor" over our own health. The doctor may recommend some things, and I respect the doctor's recommendations, but I have the final say. After all, I am the one who must live with the results and who knows my body's condition and needs best.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Double Hmm.. I have a 3 month old son, and steer clear away from plastics, and use glass bottles, and silicone (for nipple).
After doing the research which I spent a week on prior to making an informed purchasing decision I went with bottles, and do not use plastics in the home or at work.
Here is another study:
BPA2

God Bless,
WIll

Kland,
Case in point.. You just asked me if I eat meat, that makes it three times, and flying under the guise of our Health Message is being attacked.
Where is exercise in what you are proposing? This is what I am talking about, you say our health message is being attacked, but fall back to meat eating.
This is soooo boring, and cliche, and just outright tired that it loses its meaning and appears more of broken record, or hobby horse.. Been there done that, bought the T-Shirt.
Come up with something more meaningful for today. something that makes one wonder what is really going on, what should we do, and how can we be healthy.. I personally do not associate veganism with being equal to having my name written in the Book of The Lamb, and if you plan on going down that road you will be sorely disappointed.
THe church I use to attend, had alot of vegetarians, but all these health issues, only a handful really made a difference cause they incorporated so many different aspects, such as exercise, knowing what was healthy to purchase in the vegetable aisle, knowing how to clean their fruits and veggies from the toxins sprayed on them, and they bought eggs from the farmers.. Yes Eggs, not EggPlant.
Thats what I'm talking about, not tired information.. We live in a brave new world my friend, its time to use what we have and make the most out of it.. Its called Wisdom.
God Bless,
Will

GreenCOchoa,
Is there a point when reducing a fever might be a good idea in the form of cold water or an ice bath?
A cousin of mine is a physician and she mentioned years ago about the dangers of the body temperature going to high that can cause convulsions, and in order to prevent that you need to put the person in an ice bath, or cold water immediately.

When do we know the threshold of such a case? I forgot the context in which she mentioned this, and it was years and years ago.

God Bless,
Will

Will, I hope your wife nursed at least the first week so the child got the colostrum that helps with immunity! "This liquid contains a lot of immunological factors, which are passed to the neonate and provides the first protection against pathogens. The passive immunity from mother gets transferred to the newborn."

They don't use the "Barefoot Doctors Manuel" in Taiwan!

Hi Crater,
Oh yes our son got colostrum even when I had to feed him myself
I bought the glass bottles just in case for some reason I had to bottle feed him.
There is a list at the maternity ward with a side by side comparison of the nutrients in Colostrum & Formula. The chart is around 5 feet in height with Colostrum going all the way down, and the formula only filled about 1/8th of the chart if that..

I learned a lot and am still learning lots.
God Bless,
Will

Thats great! Is this your first?

Yes, Will, there is a point at which it is appropriate to bring the fever down. Cold water is a harmless way of doing so, but putting a feverish child into ice water will seem like cruel treatment to the child.

The point at which a fever is "too high" is about 105 degress Fahrenheit or above. A fever of up to 104 is generally considered safe. I have had fever as high as 104 more than once in my life. I vaguely remember once as a child going closer to 106...though I would have to ask my parents if they remember how much it was. At that point, I did become delirious, and I think they were putting cold water on me.

As far as I understand, it is the head which should not get too hot. There's little damage to the rest of the body that can happen, but the brain should not get overheated. No matter how high the fever, a cold wet cloth on the forehead or around the neck can be very comfortable (and I like to soak my hair in cold water).

However, it is rare that a fever ever goes too high. Almost all fevers will be well within reasonable limits. Of course, it is always good to monitor the fever, to know where it's at, just in case. If you need to see a physician, the fever temperature data will be helpful in the process of diagnosing the illness.

Many doctors, parents, and school nurses, etc. will advocate using Tylenol or Aspirin to reduce any fever above 101 degrees, but this is simply not necessary. Above 104, I would use cold water. If cold water would not bring it down, I might consider using the drugs. At that point, you weigh the risks of the side-effects of the drugs against the risk of the loss of brain cells from the temperature. But ice water should be adequate if used properly.

NOTE: I am not a doctor, only well-versed on health issues due to experience and background. Any comments here do not substitute for professional medical advice. In an emergency, seek a physician.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I am finding that "others" are taking over in the respect of a health message, and it appears to me that SDA's are being left behind.

There are young people that want to have good physical and spiritual health and are going raw vegan for "health, mental clarity, and spirituality,". What that " spirituality" is I'm not sure, but doesn't seem to be the "christianity" that I know. It seems to be mixed with mysiticism not sure what to call it? Here is just one example from a blog, Vegan Spirituality:

kland,

Regarding the issue of vaccinations, I also am against them. The pharmaceutical companies (i.e. "big pharma") stand to make a lot of money by lobbying lawmakers to enforce the use of vaccines. Their interest is plainly in their pockets, not in the public health. Thimerosol, a mercury-laced preservative in the vaccines, is pure poison. It is a true "drug" by Ellen White's definition. In her day, mercury was put into medicines which were administered orally (like calomel). Today, we just pump it straight into the bloodstream!

Here are some quotes from Mrs. White regarding the use of mercury--to which our own Adventist hospitals and medical schools seem oblivious.


Note that today's "calomel" no longer contains mercury, but in her day, it did. Any good dictionary will likely reveal this. However, here it is in plain English from Webster's 1828 dictionary:

With that definition in mind, let's look at some more statements:


And here is my personal favorite on this topic. I will highlight the more potent statements here, because they are of such a nature that our own medical schools stand condemned by them. How can we advocate vaccines when they contain so much mercury? How can we advocate amalgam tooth fillings, when they are more mercury than silver?



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Will, you might find these books interesting, since you have a young child.
Confessions of a Medical Heretic How to Raise a Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor. by M.D. Robert S. Mendelsohn

Hi Crater,
Yes this is my first, and even though I would like to have more I don't think that will happen, well I am pretty sure it won't but who knows
When my son came into the world I was thinking he will be seeing Jesus Christ coming in the clouds of Glory. We are at the very end here.
God Bless,
Will

Hi GreenCochoa,
Now that you mentioned it, the brain was the key body part that had to be kept from overheating, and when it overheats thats where the convulsions come in.
I don't think I would use aspirin to reduce a fever if its above 101, and water\ice seem to be much more appropriate and effective.
Thanks for the info.
God Bless,
Will

I will be placing an order for these two books Crater, I love reading about this stuff, Thanks!! I will also be preparing the baby food when he can eat, just using a blender really. There is a book on making baby food at home which is really interesting.
God Bless,
Will

Ugh. I just saw our Dr. Handysides? on Hope Channel spouting big pharma's party line of "better get your flu shots each year," and he had the gall to advocate these more especially for those with asthma.

As King Solomon said...."the simple pass on and are punished."

Asthma is related to the body's toxic burden, including the mercury in those shots. Anyone who suffers from allergies and asthma would be far better off without those shots.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

EDIT: It may have been Dr. Landless. I'm only able to get the "dialup" quality of internet video stream which means I cannot make out the facial features well.

As to ice water, I'm not a doctor, but I'll repeat what I heard. Take it with a grain of salt.
The water should be at first just a little cooler than the normal body temperature, and you can cool it further gradually. It seems that if the water is too cold to begin with, the initial reaction of the body is to raise its temperature in order to counter the external cold. Anyway, the contrast will be too great and this may cause a shock and be cruel. In the case of one of my friends, her child had a convulsion when placed in cold water. It may have been just a coincidence, but I think it's safer to cool the water gradually. I used to do this with my own son when he was a little child. And after the bath or shower, when the temperature had already dropped, I would use a cold wet towel around his abdomen with dry cloths or a woolen fabric over it to prevent the temperature from rising too much again.

I would agree with that, Rosangela. I didn't make it clear in my earlier post, but I probably wouldn't think of using ice unless the cold water had failed to bring the fever to a safe level, and the fever were going above 106. Hospitals might also be using ice by this point, in addition to drugs. However, it appears that the conventional wisdom may be shifting on this. I just read some very nice points regarding fever, apparently posts by medical folk, here:

http://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/packing-child-ice-285582.html

On another note, for those who suffer with asthma, I have learned that when a child is suffering enough from an asthma attack as to be breathing retractively (quick, shallow breaths more like gasps, which are getting insufficient air), a sudden, "cruel" dip in cold/ice water can clear up the asthma and, at least for a time, open up the airways. The child, of course, will cry to be treated this way, but it's a good thing to keep in mind in the absence of more "comfortable" treatments (e.g. inhalers). The drugs in the inhalers have some distinct side effects which few people bother to focus on because, of course, the alternative to using them during a severe attack can be much worse.

Off-topic, but interesting: Here in Taiwan, they say that 90% of asthmatic children are allergic to dust mites. Stores here will sell things like mite-free pillowcases and bedding, etc. to help reduce the mite problem. I never remember hearing much about dust mites before coming to Taiwan. In America, we usually think of pollen and peanuts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Reading one of the articles indicated in that page, I saw you don't call it convulsions, but seizures.

Dust mites is the main asthma trigger here in Brazil. We never think of pollen here.

Oh, it's just called seizures for politically correct scientific reasons: seizure is generally more accurate while convulsion or fit is not, depending on the condition...so, also - that I've heard - it's epileptic seizure not a fit, in today's wording...!

I'm not at all acquainted with the ups and downs of asthma...

They are also the main triggers of rhinitis and bronchitis, Colin. If you are not acquainted with these either (in yourself or in a near relative), you are a lucky guy! There are no allergic persons in your family.

Will,

Could you explain how my response to someone's comments is to be considered my main premise?

Yes, I had read those quotes not long ago. Vaccines don't have so much mercury as in the past due to public complaining. Last I knew, one of the childhood and most flu vaccines still do, though. However, have you looked at the alternative poisons they put in to kill things? Some of those don't look so good. I do take some comfort in that if I should be forced injected, the other compounds may be able to be broken down while mercury can't. Interesting that Ellen White says it is ever retained.

Yes, but the alternative is not much better. Composite resins use Bisphenol A. This leaves us with few options.

Hi kland,
It was the first thing you asked immediately. This is how I figured that is your main premise.
What is the big picture in all this, and how do we make it work in todays climate?
Personally, the first thought for me was to get out of the city, and after much prayer and life changing circumstances, I am out of the big city, its more like a spread out population here, but still small town. I love it.. Thats the first part of getting healthy -> Lifestyle change, roll that in with adjustments to diet, education, God given Wisdom, and patience.
God Bless,
-Will

Yes, kland. Mrs. White's words here were prescient, because we now know much more about mercury than folks knew in her day. It just so happens that nearly all metals/minerals are water soluble, and can be dissipated or emptied from the body through the body excretions. However, not so with mercury. It is fat-soluble, and so it immediately seeks the fatty tissues, including the nerve tissues. It is extremely difficult to shed the mercury from the body once it has been absorbed. Some people say the "half-life" of mercury in the body is ~ 40 years.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Since the discussion has drifted to mercury, here is something that I have just learned!
CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury

by Elizabeth Shogren
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198

See my post in the Swine Flu forum for links to more info on the swine flu vacine, in video featuring, Dr. Russell Blaylock, board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. This is a MUST see!

Crater,

Indeed, that is true. Just to clarify your discovery, ALL fluorescent bulbs have mercury. The article must be comparing the new compact ones against ordinary incandescent bulbs.



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well I didn't know that either, but not many people have the tubes in their home.

My husband has the tubes in his shop though. He probably knows there is mercury in them though.

Not many are willing to do that. We have tried to encourage people to leave the city or at least to move to the outskirts. Some comments made are, it's scary, what about the lack of convenience, it's not close, we are in the city for our kids' benefit.

Sad really. Glad to hear you made the move. Things will be better for you as the world winds down. If you haven't already, start learning how to garden. People will raid anyone with food supplies, but something tells me that those who are into chips and donuts, most likely won't raid someone's beets and cauliflower.

Those quotes really irritate me. The whole idea of CFLs is to reduce the supposed greenhouse gas. If we are to be moving to less carbon emitting things, then what relation of coal-fired plants have to do with justifying intentionally spreading toxic substances throughout the whole nation? For how can it be justified if coal-fired plants no longer exist?

Makes one wonder if there's a conspiracy for those with a problem of disposal of mercury to inject it in our bodies, put it in our homes. Otherwise, why a contorted logic statement such as that?

And, I hear the mercury is not enough to worry about, but you should still always go to extra effort and use energy to transport it to a special facility. Something doesn't make sense here.

They never speak about how much is actually saved in comparison to other things. For instance, one idea comes to mind is using an old-fashioned land line versus a cellphone with it's manufacture, batteries, charger, and its recharging. Then there's setting your thermostat a degree (or more) different. Or how about eliminating your TV. There's a whole list of things that would save much more energy than light bulbs.

The european union has passed a law making new production and import of the old lightbulbs illegal. The Swedish energy department says the difference is expected to be 2 TWh, or 10 percent of the total household energy consumtion. If each lamp is changed after it burns out, no aditional energy will be spent for obtaining a new one outside of what would have been the case either way. And as for energy useage for getting to the recykling station, you go there regularely with that waste which falls outside of daily consumer goods waste, right?

And if you don't like CFL lamps, try LED instead. Then youll save even more on your electricity bill aswell.

Just one observation here...

If you use mercury-containing light bulbs to reduce the amount of electricity you use--surprise! It comes out about even on the mercury pollution. That's assuming that the bulbs will end up in a landfill, broken, and spilling their contents into the environment (which is what happens most of the time). Relatively few people around the world actually recycle fluorescent bulbs to the proper hazardous waste facilities.

Burning coal emits tons of mercury into the atmosphere.


Ahem...that's 100,000 pounds of Hg (mercury) released into the United States alone each year from coal-burning power plants. This does not count other coal-burning countries. According to the EPA, this was as much as a quarter of all mercury pollution.

So, using a mercury-containing bulb to reduce electric consumption may not be a bad idea after all--just don't break the bulb!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Gold and ceramics?

If the child cries, he breathes, which means mission accomplished?

It is interesting if the causes of asthma are specific to region. It would suggest that there is more to it than only a bad reaction to the reagent.

But what happens when all the coal plants are no longer?

Wonderful! Then maybe we can go back to living a more agrarian lifestyle.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

huh?

My point was all the mercury still in all the lightbulbs spread around.

Are you sure you think it is a good idea? It would involve a noticeable step down in living conditions.

Ah...sorry, I didn't catch that. Without the coal plants we wouldn't have much electricity...that's what I was thinking about.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is a novel use of null hypothesis. Usually it is the researcher who makes a hypothesis and then tries to disprove it. Failing to disprove the null hypothesis he concludes that it stands a little stronger than before and then proceeds to try and falsify it again. That he would require someone else to disprove it is not what would happen in the scientific community. Id wish the page would have told the purpose of the experiment. Was it to study how recombinomics work in nature or was it something else?I dont know that I have many comments to the article. It was reportive in nature and observations are observations.

I suggest this article , although I have not read more than the abstract due to the costs involved in reading the proper thing.

The idea behind the trash-the-lightbulb movement is to reduce carbon emissions. Coal plants are targeted. That doesn't mean there won't be electricity produced. They want wind or solar. Which isn't feasible at the current times -- unless you there isn't much electricity. Or nuclear is another option. The idea is coal plants will be done away with. Therefore, any comparison of mercury in the CFLs to that from coal plant generation is not-relevant.

What do you say is the null hypothesis in my statement that vaccines do not work?

Because, what you just said, I cannot understand.



I thought the page stated it clear enough, but being one familiar with the site, maybe it is found elsewhere. They are not an anti-vaccine site. In fact, they are promoting vaccines. As I understand it, they are going about it where if they can show how they can cause viruses to recombine and form new ones, then that gives reason to develop vaccines, and predict which ones are needed. If the bird and pig flu virsuses can be made to recombine, then there is need for a vaccine. Seems sinister to me. They justify it by saying we need to know it.


You realize that it could be said that your link could be just as easily dismissed with a "reportive in nature and observations are observations". Without seeing the text, it sounds very similar to mine, especially their conclusions.

I await an article that you can present the full text of so we can discuss it.

Hi Will,

I recommend the numerous good SDA books from Agatha Thrash relating to health:

Natural Health Care for Your Child, Nutrition for Vegetarians, Home Remedies, Natural Remedies, Rx:Charcoal, The Animal Connection, etc.

And there are resources by Dr. Michael Klaper on raising vegan children, though I've not read these.

But here's one article I just found: http://www.vegansa.com/veganism-vegan-children.php
____________

Id assume your null hypothesis is that vaccination does not work. Then you present data which is a bit ambiguous but never the less leans towards vaccination having an effect, even though perhaps not such a strong effect as you had thought. Now, using the normal definition of a null hypothesis, also supported by the link I give below the following happens. The null hypothesis that vaccinations do not work is rejected by the data which show that vaccination reduce disease and further that those who are vaccinated and still get the particular disease have much milder symptoms than what would have been expected. What I would expect is that you would have posted the results of your research together with the conclusion given. What happened was that you posted the results but claimed that the conclusions where the exact opposite of what they really where. Here is the same thing in other peoples words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Hope you can understand this better.I would think it only becomes sinister if they plan on releasing the new virus into the human population. If they either destroy the virus or use it to produce vaccine without spreading either vaccine or virus in anticipation of the day when the same virus occurs naturally, then I fail to see the big problem.
That a document is "reportive in nature" does not in my view dismiss it. It simply means that it is a different kind of document from one where an experiment has been made. Of course you could not do experiments with virus on humans so there is not really any choice as to whether such a paper is reportive or not. Besides, since the articles are basically the same as you say above and the conclusions presented here say that it seems that your position is in some want of support in our discussion.

I can read the entire article from my previous post through the local university library. Maybe you can try that aswell.

You are very confusing in your writing. I am not aware of saying what it appears you are saying I said.


And that's what I'd like to see. I await your presentation of an article we can view and discuss.

I agree that the earliest-made vaccinations were of great general benefit to world health. I am thinking specifically of the following:

Rabies (the very first vaccination ever made, by Louis Pasteur)
Polio (by Jonas Saulk)
Tetanus
Small-pox

And there may be one or two more with similar gold-medal track records. However, the modern vaccines are seemingly made for different purposes entirely, and they are much less humanitarian in nature. Consider:

Hepatitis B vaccine -- to prevent an STD, but given to newborns as if they will be sexually active right away!
Flu shots -- must be administered every year to keep those cash registers ticking!
HPV vaccine (cervical cancer vaccine) -- there are at least two of these, administered to girls 9 - 26 years of age. No side effects, of course....hah! (See below.)


Add to these vaccines for measles, mumps, chicken pox, diphtheria, typhoid, swine flu (H1N1), etc. (The list is nearly endless, and each one means more mercury injected into the body.)

As a child, I experienced the actual diseases of chicken pox, German measles, etc. and thus received my "vaccine" the natural way--the God-given immune system. I survived, with no damage done. I have experienced many illnesses, and survived them. (And because I have antibodies to so many things, and have traveled widely, the Red Cross will not accept blood donations from me.)

All of which points to one question: Are these modern vaccines really necessary and beneficial?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm of the position that the purpose has not changed. It's just becoming more clear to ascertain it.

You list those diseases of the past with "gold-medal track records". I agree, it is commonly accepted, generally recognized as vaccines having been beneficial in curing them. All I'm asking for is scientific evidence using the scientific method. It was commonly accepted that the universe revolved around the earth. Commonly held beliefs do not make a thing true. Nor do coincidental correlations, nor confounded ones.

Besides me not having seen anyone having presented such scientific experiments, you may want to search for the phrase, "Louis Pasteur" "Antoine Bechamp", and see if perhaps the past purpose of vaccines remain the same as the current purpose.

kland,

Louis Pasteur, from what I understand, did not develop the rabies vaccine from a desire for commercial gain. Nor do I understand Jonas Salk to have such an intent.

I have witnessed the effects of polio. The science behind that vaccine is rather clear. The disease is virtually non-existent in the modern world. The success of the vaccine was almost complete. The motives behind it?


To me, the modern manner of "selling" the patented vaccines by lobbying the lawmakers to enforce their use represents a clear shift in motives. Do you not think so as well? In addition, they seem much less successful, and with increasing degrees of side effects, autism included.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The one who created nuclear chain reactions did not have a desire nor an intent for an atomic bomb. I don't know about Salk, but I've heard some not so forthright things about Pasteur.


Do you think there may be a possibility of confounding correlations? Just because two things happen doesn't mean it is science.


Yeah, I'd like to know more about these "field tests".

I see the difference is as it is blatant, now.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn about Jonas Salk and Polio. It was an eye-opener, but not surprising. Kind of fits in with Pasteur. Don't know their personal motivation, but Eli Lily entered the picture even then.

Here are some highlights I found at http://www.whale.to/a/krasner1.html
Now, it may be a website that is not true. And I need you to help me think critically of it. However, some of the things listed should be decidedly found out if true or not.

Interesting that you said "The success of the vaccine was almost complete. "

Historically, public health officials have routinely increased disease
surveillance in areas of low vaccination acceptance as a retaliatory
response (a) against people who reject Modern Medicine's vaunted public
health tool, and (b) to justify predictions that outbreaks will occur
because of said rejection.

Sometimes the increased disease surveillance is accompanied by a
relaxation of the case defini tion of the disease, and lowered criteria
required for its diagnosis. Subclinical and borderline cases are suddenly
classified as "severe". Suspected cases are permitted to be clinically
diagnosed without laboratory confirmation.

Is it possible there could be some confounding factors here - some human-induced ones?
Polio was already declining in the U.S. and Europe during the 40's and
50's, as well as in England, where polio mortalities was at its height in
1950, but had declined 82 percent by 1956, before the Salk vaccinations
began there.

So, what gives here? If it was already declining before the vaccine, did the vaccine play a role?
Paralysis started to rise only after the Salk vaccine had begun in April
1955. It proved to be so hazardous that by November 1955, all European
countries, with the exception of Denmark, had cancelled or discontinued
their Salk vaccine programs. Canada postponed its Salk vaccine program
July 29th of that year. In the U.S., Newark, N.J. stopped inoculations in
June, 1955, while Idaho and Utah took similar action in July, followed
shortly by Massachusetts [Morris Beale's American Capsule News, Oct.
15th, 1955]. By January 1, 1957, 17 states had rejected their supplies of
Salk polio vaccine.

Now, it could be that within one year the vaccination program was so successful that several countries and states declared it a success and therefore unnecessary to continue.
But, continuing on....
During that year, the NY Times reported that very
nearly half the paralytic cases, and three-quarters of the non-paralytic
cases in children between the ages of 5 and 14 years occurred in
vaccinated children. After two years of Salk vaccinations, paralytic
polio increased nationally about 50% from 1957 to 1958, and about 80%
from 1958 to 1959.

Guess for some reason maybe they DID consider it hazardous.

Was there a reduction in the reporting of polio?
There were only 589 cases of non-paralytic
polio from 1961 to 1982. Not a single case has been reported since.
Non-paralytic polio may have "disappeared". But thousands of children
still experience the same symptoms as non-paralytic polio every year.
Except now, it goes by another name.

North Carolina:
It wasn't until 1956 "that polio vaccinations assumed 'inspiring' proportions." The 61
percent drop in polio cases in 1954 was credited to the Salk vaccine when
it wasn't even in the state! By 1957 polio was on the increase.

Learned a new thing to be aware of from reading this. I should have known from MMs use of such things. That is, there is a high importance to certain words such as, reporting.

Non-paralytic polio diagnosis was
based on subjective clinical observation, not laboratory confirmation.
Doctors diagnosed 70,083 cases of non-paralytic polio between 1951 and
1960. They simply called it "polio" for the popular press. And during
this time, not one case of "aseptic meningitis" was reported. After 1960,
"aseptic meningitis" began to displace "non-paralytic polio".
Non-paralytic polio became so rare that the MMWR stopped reporting it in
1983.

According to one of the 1997 issues of the MMWR,
there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis per year in the
United States alone. That's where all those 30,000-50,000 cases of polio
disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination.

So yeah, change the names of the disease, separate and divide, and wallah, it's gone. Success! The reporting of the disease is non-existence. But, if one wants to put stock into confounding correlations, it appears that the same time they started vaccinating, Aseptic Meningitis skyrocketed.

Prior to 1954,
the diagnosis of spinal paralytic poliomyelitis followed the World Health
Organization definition: "Signs and symptoms of nonparalytic polio, with
the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle
groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." But
beginning in 1955 following the introduction of the Salk vaccine, the
criteria changed to conform more closely to the definition used in the
(fraudulent) 1954 Salk field trials: "Unless there is residual
involvement (paralysis) at least 60 days after onset, a case of
poliomyelitis is not considered paralytic."
As a result of these
changes in both diagnosis and diagnostic methods, the rates of polio
plummeted from the early 1950's to a low in 1957." (a decrease of 23,500
cases from 1955 to 57.)

The old, classical, definition:
a disease with residual paralysis which resolves within 60 days has been
changed to a disease with residual paralysis which persists for more than
60 days. Knowing the reality of polio disease, this nifty but dishonest
administrative move excluded more than 90% of polio cases from the
definition of polio.

90% gone! Just another good way to make a disease go, poof! Change the whole definition of determining what it's symptoms are.

But, let's change what an epidemic is, and then further declare success:
Finally, the PHS also redefined a "polio epidemic": Before the
introduction of the Salk vaccine, only 20 cases per 100,000 population
was an "epidemic". Afterwards, it required 35 per 100,000 per year.


Are vaccines effective? Not in a good way:
However, after 2 years of widespread uptake of the Salk vaccine,
paralysis increased about 50% from 1957 to 1958, and about 80% from 1958
to 1959.

Another feature of the
tragedy was that the numbers developing polio were far greater than would
have been expected had no inoculations been given...in 9 out of 10 cases the paralysis occurred in the arms
in which the vaccine had been injected.

The Chicago Daily News, May 28, 1959, printed the following UPI dispatch
from Duluth, MN-"One of the developers of the new oral (polio) vaccine
said Wednesday the recent use of Salk vaccine in Israel had 'little if
any effect.'

Polio cases rose about 300 to 400% in these 5 places that made the Salk
vaccine compulsory by law.

By 1960, the Salk vaccine had proven to be so hazardous and ineffective,
that the Journal of the American Medical Association (February 25, 1961)
carried an article admitting that, "It is now generally recognized that
much of the Salk vaccine used in the U.S. has been worthless."

In 1952, when a government subsidized study of polio
vaccine began, the rate soared to an all-time high of well over 55,000
cases. After the study, the number of cases dropped again and continued
to decline as they had in the previous epidemics. "This time, however,
the vaccine took the credit instead of nature."

Returning to the congressional hearings referred to earlier (HR 10541),
we read that in 1958 Israel had a major "type I" polio epidemic after
mass vaccinations. There was no difference in protection between the
vaccinated and the unvaccinated. In 1961, Massachusetts had a "type III"
polio outbreak and "there were more paralytic cases in the triple
vaccinates than in the unvaccinated."

This from http://www.whale.to/vaccine/bayly.html :
In fact, in the state of Idaho. according to a statement by Dr. Curl Eklund, one of the Government’s chief virus authorities, polio struck only vaccinated children in areas where there had been no cases since the preceding autumn: in 9 out of 10 cases the paralysis occurred in the arms in which the vaccine had been injected. (News Chronicle. May 6, 1955).


Here's some other things confounding in a different way:
While there are
currently "only" a couple of hundred thousand tonsillectomies performed
annually, the operation had peaked to 2 million during the 1930s and
40s-the same years that paralytic polio began to develop in significant
numbers.

And this is most interesting regarding the main premise of this thread:
The rise of polio (known as the
"summertime disease") and its symptomatic twins can be traced to the
widespread introduction of refrigeration and the increased consumption of
ice cream and other concentrated protein foods.

A campaign to restrict ice cream and sugar consumption-instituted in 1948
by Dr. Benjamin P. Sandler, a medical doctor and nutrition expert at the
Oteen Veteran's Hospital, N.C-had lead to drastic declines in the
incidence of polio. In just one year the number of polio cases dropped
90%.

This non-viral mechanism seems to confirm the epidemiology of this
disease-one which generally affected affluent societies during the summer
months.


Follow the money?
"One of the things the AMA was not told was that the USPHS had an
advisory group made up almost entirely of scientists who were receiving
money from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, which body
was exerting pressure to go ahead with the program, even after Salk
vaccine was found to be dangerous."

Instead, the USPHS
scientist said he was not permitted to disclose what had happened because
it would jeopardize the investment of the pharmaceutical firms in the
vaccine program."


What about doctor's kids?
Word of this leaked out when Robert S. Allen, Washington
correspondent, reported in the New York Post, June 8, 1955, that "Doctors
and others on the staff of the National Institute of Health are not
inoculating their own children with the Salk Vaccine." "Nevertheless,"
says Mr. Bealle, "on orders from higher-ups in the U.S. Public Health
Service, they kept quiet and let hundreds of unfortunate children be
killed and thousands maimed for life."


From http://www.whale.to/vaccine/bayly.html
An article in Time (May 30. 1955 commented: ‘In retrospect, a good deal of the blame for the vaccine snafu also went to the National Foundation, which, with years of publicity, had built up the danger of polio out of all proportion to its actual incidence. and had rushed into vaccinations this year with patently insufficient preparation."

They encountered another paradox. "namely, the occurrence of several instances of non-inoculated persons, having no circulating antitoxin. harbouring virulent organisms, and yet remaining perfectly well, of nurses with little or no circulating antitoxin regularly employed in diphtheria wards and remaining free front diphtheria; of persons. previously inoculated or not, with little or no circulating antitoxin living in intimate contact with diphtheria in their homes and yet remaining perfectly well. It was confidently expected that cases of diphtheria would arise, either among the nurses or among the near relations of patients and thus provide the material for this part of the inquiry, hut this expectation did not materialise."

It looks to me that there is are great monetary incentives to subscribe to the "germ theory", and little to be gained from living healthy lives. This is a pattern that keeps repeating itself. No reason to say it hasn't happened with polio nor isn't happening today. People are exploited as much as they don't think for themselves.

But do we need to go through minutely uncovering the lies that have been deceptively propagated upon us or should we listen to advice given to us 100 years ago

kland,

I am well acquainted with polio. I've seen what it can do. I've never heard of "aseptic meningitis" doing anything similar. Are you telling me you think they are the same disease masquerading under different names?

If this is what you are telling me, please go back and research what polio is and does. I am well acquainted with two Adventist sufferers of polio. Polio is a permanent (i.e. lifetime) debilitating disease. One of those Adventists is a doctor and the other is a physical therapist. One is wheelchair bound much of the time (he can walk) on the theory that the nerves weaken with use, and thereafter so does the muscle tissue. The other walks around without complaint, but frequently stumbles and falls an account of the polio having shortened one leg and permanently paralyzed the quadriceps muscles in it. He manages to swing the leg forward from the hip in order to walk, and must step on tiptoe on that leg.

Both of these were fortunate that the polio did not paralyze their breathing muscles. I've heard of people living their lives in a lung machine.

If you can tell me that "aseptic meningitis" is the same disease as polio, after you've done some more research, then I will be happy to pass your findings along to the doctor I mentioned, and see what he thinks.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

kland,

Ellen White did not define all "medicines" as "drugs." When she referenced drugs "curing" disease, she was not speaking to the topic of vaccines, which are not administered to "cure" a disease, but rather to "prevent."

Rabies vaccines, invented by Pasteur, prevent the disease. They do not cure it. If you were bitten by a rabid animal, would you get the vaccine?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I have know 3 post polio suffers. 2 were LPN's that I worked with. They are of the baby boomer gen. and their polio came from the live vaccine that was given to them as children. At the time that I worked with them they were both 30 something. They appeard to be symptom free.



The third person was a resident of a retirement community where I was a clinic nurse. She had some problems with one of her legs. I don't quite recall, one may have been a little shorter. She did suffer from post-polio syndrome. I knew her for over 10 years and she lived to be over 100.




Here is a blog where someone gives some interesting information; Are Vaccines "Dangerous" and "Ineffectibe"?

Here is an interesting article Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Another name for Polio

It is my impression that you did not read the link nor much of what I posted. Is that true?

You realize being acquainted with polio, seeing the effects, or even having it yourself does in no way give any credence to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the vaccine. As crater gave an example, you could emotionally promote either direction. I'm not sure why you are attempting to enter emotion into it. Which gives indication you did not read the second link which commented on Roosevelt.

I believe you were asking me to inform myself. If you did not read the links, is there a reason?

Why do you say this?
If drugs never cure, how do you suppose they prevent?
Especially when she says we should study natural ways in prevention of disease, how by violating the laws of health will result in disease.




Need I quote more?

Maybe you could define drug and list the components of polio vaccine and tell what is wholesome or not wholesome.

Maybe you prefer pictures instead:
http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html

kland,

Yes I read most of the material on the link you had posted earlier, and, finding it to be rather sensational in nature, went online for some additional research. It appears you prefer the exaggerative article you originally posted. I found medical definitions online, however, which indicate that "aseptic meningitis" is simply an inflammation which can be caused by a number of things; viruses and bacteria included. People generally experience full recovery within one or two weeks. Polio, on the other hand, is not caused by bacteria, and not by just any virus either. It is a specific virus, with specific symptoms...and the effects can last a lifetime.

Let us suppose for a moment, however, that you are right and I am wrong. The polio vaccine has still managed to wipe out the paralytic form of polio, has it not? The paralytic form was extremely disabling to people, including causing death from the paralysis. And let's say you are correct to call vaccines drugs. Do you suppose that Mrs. White would have advocated death in place of the life-saving "drug" which would extend one's life (with ample quality I might add) for decades?

If you contract either rabies or tetanus, there is only one prognosis: death. If you are bitten by a rabid animal, you still have time, if you go immediately to the doctor, to receive the vaccine. Without it, the prognosis is grim. Can you honestly tell me that if you are bitten by a rabid raccoon while out camping next summer you would refuse the vaccine?

Please note, kland, that you and I are largely on the same side. I refuse the flu shots. I believe most of the modern vaccines are to be avoided like the plague, including those for cholera, typhoid, diphtheria, measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis, cervical cancer, HIV, chicken pox, swine flu, etc.

The only ones I would recommend to people are the polio (which does not need to be a shot, but can be taken on a sugar cube), tetanus, and rabies if and only if you are bit by a rabid animal. And I recommend that these be the expensive, mercury-free, single-dose vial vaccines.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Kland & Crater: Thanks for the good info & helpful links.
_____

The following shows Mrs. White's stance on vaccines. My apologies for the all-caps quote. The quote is not my own, and all-caps is the convention on the EGW CD to indicate editorial comments and not Mrs. White's own words.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

There is an interesting article in this months "Scientific American" relating to vaccines. Im sure your local library carries the magazine.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=boosting-vaccine-power

As usual Ellen proved to be more pragmatic than some of her followers..

How so? Is Time and the other references not reliable? I asked for help in critical thinking on the matter. What do you see wrong with what they have listed?

I'm still not sure you understood the article. Ignoring that, would you suggest according to the direct correlations that the polio vaccine caused "aseptic meningitis"?

No, it has not. Guess I must have read something different at the link.

Yes, it was bad. There was a higher rate of paralysis in those taking the vaccine.

That is what is under discussion. There is no life-saving "drug" which would extend one's life. Not in polio vaccine nor according to Ellen White, anything else.

You call the link sensational, but sensational or not, is there something you wish to dispute in it. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you still think the vaccine helped anyone.

And the flu-mongers are pressing forth their magic potions. Even "our" Adventist hospitals are pressuring / coercing / threatening their employees with dismissal if they don't drink the cool-aid. It's hard to believe health is what our hospitals are promoting. Take a look at the following snake-oil selling:

Adventist Health / Central Valley Network
Our program offers a wide array of vaccinations for workers in all sorts of occupational fields.
...
Our program can take cash or check from individuals, bill the company directly or bill an assortment of insurance providers that have agreed to pay for flu shots for their covered members.
http://www.adventisthealthcv.com/services_jobcareVaccinations.html

Glendale Adventist Medical Center
Our professional medical staff will come to your worksite and administer flu vaccinations to your employees and provide educational information on flu prevention.
http://www.glendaleadventist.com/flu-vaccinations

Adventist HealthCare
Annual flu vaccines are the best defense against the flu for children and adults.
http://www.adventisthealthcare.com/health/programs/flu/

Parker Adventist Hospital
Parker Adventist Hospital will provide low-cost flu vaccinations on Nov. 6 and 13 from 4-6 p.m. in the hospital’s main lobby. The cost is $25 but is covered by Medicare Part B (as primary insurance), UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage (formerly Secure Horizons), Aetna, Humana Gold, and Rocky Mountain Health Plan. You must show a valid insurance card. FluMist®, the nasal spray vaccine, is available for $30 for people ages 2-49 while supplies last.
http://www.parkerhospital.org/tab-2