[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 12/11/11 11:51, James Kilty wrote: > > Alas, the way the science is > done cannot deal with individualization - as you imply - the herd - and > gross measures. Obviously science can deal with individualisation. You seem to be arguing the term herd implies it can't. I can change the term, herd immunity is a poor term anyway, but it is the one that has stuck. > Is not polio a disease of iodine deficiency? Prevent with > KI (I think). No Polio is a viral disease. We isolated Poliovirus 102 years ago, we sequenced Poliovirus 30 years ago. Their has been a paradigm shift in our understanding of the virus, but the best preventative is still to vaccinate. Polio is a good example of how the world has change, it was rife in my father's youth, my dad had school friends who ended up in Iron lungs, but vaccination has all but eradicated it. These people had proper diets (arguably betters than modern diets), and proper sewers, yet they still got Polio and many are still suffering ill effects from those Polio infections. http://www.heritage-britishpolio.org.uk/polio-memories Iodine deficiency results in a decrease in thyroid hormone, which diminishes the bodies ability to cope with anything, but I don't think there is any specific connection. Indeed Polio was noted as occurring in the affluent as well as the poor. > All diseases treated by vaccinations were on the decline by the time the > vaccine was produced. This is simply false. Many of the worst outcomes had declined through improvements in general health and medicine. However infectious diseases like Measles are still rife, and return immediately to areas where vaccination rates drop sufficiently to permit it. Vaccines are typically used on diseases that haven't responded so well to things like improved sanitation and diet. For example typhoid vaccines exist, but we typically deal with typhoid by cleaning up water supplies and improving sewage, not by vaccinating (except under specific circumstances where the other options aren't available or will take too long - e.g. disaster relief). There are some claims that the world's poor need better nutrition, and hygiene, and this will eradicate the infectious diseases. They may well need these things, but it won't eradicate the infectious diseases. Just as Polio persisted in the UK after we got good food, and proper sewers. In contrast we've already demonstrated with Smallpox and Polio, that you can eradicate some types of infectious disease with vaccination even in people with poor diets and poor sanitation. > There is a strong claim by homoeopaths Sorry homoeopaths are kooks living is a world of science from before the law of Mass Action, this undermines their credibility as a source of any claims in the scientific arena. > that vaccination undermines the body's natural defences, ultimately > leading to more potent diseases such as cancer. Where is the evidence for the claim? Typically vaccines work by provoking a similar response in the immune system that the infection would cause, but without the death and damage that infection usually brings. We know non-specific inflammation from infectious diseases causes cancer. We have introduced a vaccine recently in the UK specifically targeted at reducing a viral infection known to cause cancer. We know that vaccination against Hepatitis B reduces the incidence of liver cancer. These are well documented and substantiated aspects of our knowledge of cancer (which is a pretty broad collection of disorders). I presume you have similarly well documented evidence for vaccinations causing cancers? > We can beg to differ in our views and still remain friends for the > purposes of the LUG. It is fine to disagree, some of my best friends use homoeopathy, believe in god or gods, visit chiropractors etc. I try to avoid it getting in the way as long as it doesn't endanger others. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq