wave-
doses/
So, please explain to me how you can reliably state that autism isn't on the rise, but was only called idiosyncratic behaviour before autism became 'fashionable', if there is no reliable registration of those cases of 'idiosyncratic' behaviour?
joe
Yep I agree 100%, I am paid by mother nature with the hope of improving the quality of life with fresh air and good food, the nice thing about that is it pays dividends too as it is a holistic all encompassing master, rather than Bill's corporate masters who themselves are just ignorant humans like himself! :D
cheers, Jamie
e .
y of > > minimising this. Vaccination has it's own dangers,
hTwaddle. A virus can't replicate itself, so it hijacks the replication mach inery in a host cell to replicate itself, destroying the host cell in the p rocess.
The microbiome of bacteria in the body can be helpful - some them synthesis e B-group vitamins that it's difficult for us to get any other way. In gene ral, our microbiome has an interest in keeping us alive, so that we can kee p on shovelling food into our gut, but they've got a bigger interest in kee ping themselves alive.
rRubbish. The virus has only one interest - replicating itself. It's always gong to kill a host cell when it does that, so it's in its interest not to be too enthusiastic about it, so that the host organism doesn't actually di e. HIV has pretty much perfected the kill-the-host-slowly routine, keeping the host alive long enough to give it every chance to infect other hosts.
The body ideally should be virus-free - germs are rather different.
Since you are too dim to appreciate the fundamental difference between a vi rus and a bacterium - the first can't replicate itself and the second can - your own thought processes are merely ill-informed.
You haven't learned enough to appreciate the fundamental difference between a virus and a bacterium, so your advice on what other people ought to lear n is based on singularly inadequate information.
ing) > experiment and primarily a money making endeavor with lots of unfort unate
Vaccination does have some - occasional - unfortunate side-effects, but it has been spectacularly effective in such tricks as eliminating small pox, a nd is well on the way to eliminating polio (despite counter-propaganda from religious nuts who share some of your more demented misconceptions). As an experiment it's been spectacularly successful, from Pasteur onwards.
People do make money out of making an selling vaccines, as farmers do from growing and selling food, but that scarcely makes either activity suspect o r immoral.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Hi,
Ironically "idiosyncratic behaviour" can probably give you the explanation you are looking for, since Bill's belief's about his logical explanations correctness usually only apply in his narrow reductionist idiosyncratic viewpoint! Trying to find an answer that makes sense from Bill repeatedly could be seen as an idiosyncratic behaviour in itself I have come to learn :/
cheers, Jamie
destroying the host cell in the process.
Hi,
I guess your reductionist viewpoint is more limited than I thought, but the microbiome exists with viruses that infect bacteria that are inside the human body.
any other way. In general, our microbiome has an interest in keeping us alive, so that we can keep on shovelling food into our gut, but they've got a bigger interest in keeping themselves alive.
Yep, but there are different types of bacteria and different amounts of bacterial diversity, so even if the self interest of all types of bacteria is to keep themselves alive first, they will still have varying effects on the host human body. The relationship between the microbiome and the human cells is far more complex than B-group vitamins, it is a holistic system wide interaction.
its interest not to be too enthusiastic about it, so that the host organism doesn't actually die. HIV has pretty much perfected the kill-the-host-slowly routine, keeping the host alive long enough to give it every chance to infect other hosts.
See above, most of the viruses in the human body are not a threat to human cells, and in fact there are beneficial viruses in the human body.
Wrong, you used to think bacteria were all bad too though right?
and the second can - your own thought processes are merely ill-informed.
Of course a virus can replicate itself, nothing can replicate itself without using something external, a virus has a much different process of replication than a cell, but both require something external in order to grow and replicate. The DNA or RNA released from a virus that is infecting a cell is analogous to the seeds of a plant or eggs of a mammal used for reproduction.
people ought to learn is based on singularly inadequate information.
small pox, and is well on the way to eliminating polio (despite counter-propaganda from religious nuts who share some of your more demented
misconceptions). As an experiment it's been spectacularly successful, from Pasteur onwards.
suspect or immoral.
Give that argument to the animals in the most profitable factory farms.
cheers, Jamie
Jamie's ignorance is of a higher order. He doesn't realise quite how little he knows, or quite how much of what he "knows" is flat-out wrong.
It takes an outstandingly ignorant person to confuse the benefit of having bacteria in the gut (who can manage their own reproduction) with the activities of a virus in the body - which can't reproduce itself, and has to take over one of the host's cells and hijack the replication machinery to reproduce itself, killing the host cell in the process.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
The chance of "having one's life destroyed" by a reaction to vaccination is slight. The chance of having one's life destroyed by - say - a measles infection is appreciable, less so if enough other people have been immunised to create "herd immunity" so that there's not a lot measles going around to infect the un-immunised.
It's a cost-balance calculation, and - since herd immunity benefits other people - some of the costs are carried by the community as a whole.
It's a whole lot more acceptable than conscripting people into the army, with a rather larger chance of destroying their life in consequence.
Once it is recognised that paying taxes does cause damage, it should thus be allowed for everybody to opt out based on this philosophical reasoning?
Pull the other leg.
James Arthur's hero Bastiat did make that claim, but it turns out that he - like every other right-wing nitwit - was perfectly happy to pay taxes that supported the army and the police to protect him from less well-regulated "tax" collectors.
Your problem - like Jamie's - is that you are too dim to realise that there are benefits as well as costs.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Narrow reductionist evidence-based - which is to say useful - idiosyncratic viewpoint
It would help if you learned a few basic facts - like the difference between a bacterium and a virus - before you tried to find your answers.
As it is, your "answers" are just restatements of your ill-informed delusions.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Twaddle too. One dead cell, so what?
Stupid evolutionist blabbedeblah. Virus have no 'interest', nor 'enthusiasm'. It's all an iterative process of mutation, dying off, another mutation, dying off slowly, and another mutation leading to longer survival overall. Nothing emotional about a virus. It's just a thing.
Another of your general statements that is clearly not as 'evidence- based' as you proclaim your arguments are. That stupid little theory that a body should be virus-free can be falsified with one simple counter-example, and I believe there are more. The Seneca Valley Virus (number 001 iirc) is highly effective in killing cancer cells. Virii have been used to treat cancer since 1940.
And where did he state that they are the same, oh confused mind that you are?
You put him words in his mouth that he didn't utter at all, and then you try to attack him based on the words that you read in his text but which weren't there. How's that for 'delusional'?
There you go again. Man, it seems that most of your posts consist for 80% of misreads, presumptions, wrong assumptions and biased reading. Do you really want us to take you serious??
Yeah, vaccination has only 'some', and then still 'occasional' and 'unfortunate' side effects. And there is 1 infection against which even I perhaps would be willing to vaccinate myself against: polio. Although..., the famous but very effectively stonewalled (geeh, I wonder, why would anyone stonewall a doctor who has treated *and* cured 60 polio patients with something cheap as vitamin C albeit in megadoses) was so successful that I even would consider maybe not to get that jab.
So, there is only 1 or 2 very serious infectious diseases left that
*require* a vaccination. Then why oh why does the CDC 'advice' an ever higher amount of vaccination every year? And keep (documented) reports about autism and other very serious side effects regularly caused by vaccines under the table, if not publish them with falsified and/or manipulated data? Revolving door any?And the pharmaceutical industry makes so much money that they have been able to corrupt congress and buy absolute immunity (pun intended) against lawsuits.
It's up to you man. Give up the fight. Resistance is futile.
Pay the farmer, or else pay the doctor. (For your own good.)
joe
They won't do the bacteria any good either.
Which is you way of saying that you haven't got a clue what they do, but th at you are sure that it must be something good. Often it is, but faecal tra nsplants work because sometimes it isn't.
et or
ays > > going to kill a host cell when it does that, so it's in
eName one, and tell us how it is beneficial.
Not since about the age ten or thereabouts, in the early 1950s. My aunt in Adelaide got dosed with enough antibiotics to kill her gut bacteria, and go t sick with B-vitamin deficiency. Her husband - who eventually got a D.Sc. in animal nutrition - recognised what was going on from his veterinary expe rience and dosed her up with B-vitamin supplements. The rest of the family got to hear about it in detail, me included.
ty
a .You miss the point. A cell takes in food to drive it's internal replication machinery. A virus hasn't got any internal replication machinery and has t o take over the replication machinery of a cell to replicate itself, necess arily killing the cell in the process.
I knew you were remarkably ignorant, but I hadn't realised that you were qu ite that mind-bendingly under-informed.
ween > > a virus and a bacterium, so your advice on what other
of
diet.
it > > has been spectacularly effective in such tricks as eliminating
nted
rom > > growing and selling food, but that scarcely makes either activity
It would probably work as well as preaching to you. If the animals in facto ry farms could appreciate the argument, they could probably work out how to make the factory farms less profitable.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
: M t
Where's the advantage to the host? One dead cell and more virus particles i s all loss.
t eBut a virus that happens to behave in one particular way gets to survive, s o that's the way almost all of them behave.
But about a third of deaths are still due to cancer. One particular virus k ills more of some cancer cells than healthy cells. In a few documented case s, the preference is so strong that cancer is completely cured, and the pat ient doesn't lose enough healthy cells to die of the viral infection. This is rare, and not well enough understood to be much use as a cancer therapy.
n a
He lumped them together a potentially beneficial - implying that they were equally beneficial - and has subsequently made it perfectly clear that he d oesn't appreciate the significance of the difference in their means of repr oduction.
He confirmed my "delusion" in a subsequent post. Your problem is that you a re too dim to appreciate the obvious implication of his choice of words.
You couldn't see an obvious implication, which Jamie kindly went to the tro uble of confirming. It's you who misreads.
Sure you would consider experimental therapy that has been claimed to have worked in a single trial on 60 cases, in preference to a vaccination system that has almost entirely eliminated polio. But you can't think straight, a s you keep on reminding us.
I've listed two - polio and small-pox. I've been innoculated against TB, te tanus, and cholera that I can recall. I got measles before I could innocula ted against it, so I'm now immune - and would strongly recommend the jab ov er the disease, which made me very sick. German measles is a mild disease, but females should be innoculated against it before they are old enough to get pregnant, since it can damage a fetus quite badly. Human papilloma viru s
is well worth vaccinating against. Genital warts aren't much of problem, bu t it's also associated with a bunch of cancers, which can be.
This isn't an exhaustive list, but quite enough to indicate that you don't know what you are talking about.
Austism doesn't seem to be a side effect of vaccination. It does seem to be one of a bunch of development disorders which tie up with first generation genetic defects. Humans - and higher primate generally - are prone to gene tic translocations where 300 base-pair lumps of genetic code move around wi thin a gene or between genes
Most such translocations are neutral, and most of the rest are deleterious. The occasional successes are probably most of what makes us what we are to day, but it's an expensive way of improving the genome.
In the USA, where the legislature is set up so that the people who own the country can run the country. Look at industry-specific tax loop-holes for o ther examples of the same sort of behaviour. The US has one of the higher r ates of corporation tax around the world, but collects a rather smaller pro portion of corporate profits than most other advanced industrial countries.
Pharmaceuticals are big business, but they are big business because most of their products work. I probably wouldn't be alive today if they didn't.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
That's basically what I said, yes.
Hey! Did it finally get to you? And do you like that? And didn't you know that holistic treatment has a high success rate in curing cancer? And don't you like that? Then why not shut up a bit and give Jamie a bit of credit for his holistic viewpoints? Clearly _your_ viewpoints are not a way out of this cancer generating hell called 'modern lifestyle'.
Doesn't matter. Your thesis that virus is always bad is now falsified, and apparently you admit it.
No, 'both' beneficial doesn't mean 'equally' beneficial. You keep putting words in other people's mouths.
Very vague, 'implications of choice of words'. Go get a life, I'd say.
There you go again. Not even worth to go further into this.
The thesis that it is the vaccinations, not the hygienic circumstances that is eradicating polio is not proven at all.
Females should have been allowed to get measles as a child. Inocculating a woman against measles may prevent her from getting it develop anti-bodies against it. Then when she gets a baby her breast milk doesn't have the anti-bodies and the baby can get the measles before his immune system is developed enough to fight it--or to respond to the vaccin. Insanity to the max, if you ask me. And that is 'science'? No, it's commerce and collusion.
'A bunch of cancers'. HPV 'protects' only against 3 or 4 (depending on the manufacturer) of the more than 11 variations of the virus.
Blaming your opponent of not knowing what he's talking about is very convenient when you're out of valid arguments.
Genetic defects. Where are the autistic parents with the same genetic defects? And why is it so on the rise, after the MMR was introduced? Why hasn't it been stabilised after so many years of evolution? Your argument is terribly invalid.
Blah again and nothing to do with it.
What the hell are you talking about! The owners run the country but the state collects relatively little taxes. Why do you think anyone wants to know? It's about those owners, you dipdop. They collect the insane profits from the vaccines and monopolistically sold medicines. Vaccines make up a big part of those profits.
Pharmaceuticals are big business because their owners also own the newspapers and television channels. They tell you and other people that you _need_ to buy those medicines, and not to trust on natural ways of healing. Ironically most of those medicines are derived from nature.
Furthermore they tell you to buy GMO corn, eat aspartame, sugar and high fructose corn syrup and modified wheat which makes so many people sick and the result is cancer, heart disease and diabetes. What's new.
joe
You got it all wrong (again). faecal transplants are sometimes needed because the gut's microbial balance has been disrupted by high intake of sugar and antibiotics.
Are you going there again?
Good for her. Mind you that is purely anecdotical...
But more healthy.
joe
The chance of a further healthy, well fed person with access to reasonably good health care is very slight.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with this. Dying in a war is the soldier's own choice, albeit a stupid one. Dying from a vaccin is betrayal, because that's exactly the opposite of what was supposed to happen.
You don't know about the Nueremberg trial and the internationally accepted declaration that was a result of it? Your fake tax analogy has nothing to do with this.
And you are a lemming. herd immunity...
joe
As if you are not repeating yourself...
joe
Polio was a real threat in the early 1950's - when I was growing up - and stopped being a threat after the Salk vaccine got introduced.
Hygienic circumstances in the advanced industrial countries didn't chance at all from the 1950s to the 1960s, but polio incidence went way down.
Even German measles isn't all that mild.
The insanity is all yours. Vaccination produces the same antibodies as the natural infection - it wouldn't stop new infections if it didn't.
Nobody in their right mind would ask your opinion.You ideas are reliably silly.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
t e f t
That's two ways the bacterial population of the gut can go wrong. There are others.
When will it register on your feeble approximation to a mind that your clai ms are not evidence of anything other than your deluded mind-set. Provide a link to some source with at least some credibility, or stop wasting bandwi dth by making unsupported claims.
g , tYou made a claim about how I used to think. I told you when I started think ing differently and why. That's necessarily anecdotal.
y t e o .Read George Orwell's "Animal Farm".
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
r w n
I got measles when I was well fed and healthy. It made me quite sick. Infec tious diseases work like that. Read up on the Spanish flu sometime. I was p retty fit and healthy when I got Asian flu - but stuck in a boarding school where about a third of the boarders came down with it within a couple of d ays
,Not if they've been conscripted and ordered to take part in some half-witte d attack.
It's not a betrayal. It's a risk you are exposed to in the pursuit of bette r health for yourself - it reduces your risk of getting the real disease - and your neighbours (since if you don't get the real disease you won't infe ct your neighbours). You take a risk every time you cross the road, and if you do get run down by a truck it isn't any kind of betrayal.
Of course I know about the Nuremberg trials - it's one of those German town s whose name is spelled differently in English than in German (like Vienna or Wien in Austria). Nobody got tried for vaccination avoidance - it is a c rime against humanity, but not one that many people get as excited about as they should.
You are too stupid to realise that the situations are exactly parallel.
Your enthusiasm for allowing every half-wit to opt out of vaccination is le mming-like. You flee a small risk to embrace a much larger risk, having con vinced yourself that the larger risk is somehow unreal.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 08:21:33 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman Gave us:
Damn! Even Sloman finally got one right. Hey joe is an idiot, and doesn't even need a gun in his hand.
He doesn't want to shoot his old lady or his kid, and in effect (takes a chance on) kills them with utter stupidity instead!
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.