« First « Previous Comments 229 - 235 of 235 Search these comments
Those are all good questions Zlxr and a thorough answer would require many links. In brief though, nobody has yet found an upper limit on the number of vaccines a body can tolerate and maintain, and if such a limit exists it is probably very high. The immune system works partly by recognizing disease and destroying it, so the faster it can do that the more likely you are to have immunity or at least recover. For example, the 1918 swine flu pandemic killed 50 million people, with the most likely to die being ages 20-40. Unlike most flu, older people were more likely to be immune or to recover; one likely explanation is they had previously been infected by a similar flu decades before, which left them with some immunity to the 1918 flu. Survivors of the 1918 flu showed immune response to similar virus into their 90s. Over a lifetime, the average person's immune system learns to recognize probably hundreds of different infections, maybe thousands. Like eyesight, the immune system peaks in early childhood, but with experience it learns to recognize much more quickly things it has already seen. This is how immunity has evolved, and Bob is correct when he says around 10% of the human genome consists of leftover viral DNA that infected our ancestors, so infection and immunity are central to evolution and our DNA. BTW 10% is a lot, in fact it's more than the difference between us and monkeys. Vaccines stimulate the immune system, and Bob is correct in describing a basic mechanism. That can confer immunity lasting many years, in some cases (e.g. Hepatitis B) a lifetime. An issue with immunity is, the immune system goes into terminal decline as people age, and diet and some drugs (especially chemotherapy) can weaken it even further, so YMMV. Regarding shingles specifically, a good brief article is available on the Mayo Clinic website.
Regarding Lyme and other disease spread by ticks, you might want to read this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41973641/ns/health-infectious_diseases/
and (if you haven't already seen it) you might want to watch this:
One issue with bacterial infections like Lyme is the bacteria can produce neurotoxins that can cause lasting consequences even after the bacteria are gone. Another issue is, the people who get infected once, tend to get infected again (e.g. if their dogs brought ticks into the house last year, they'll probably do the same again this year and next year), so they can develop a series of re-infections adding up to almost a chronic disease.
Some people report improvement with long term use of antibiotics, instead of the short term use that insurance pays for. That might be due to the issue of re-infection, or the anti-inflammatory effects of certain antibiotics (e.g. doxycycline), or other factors. Unfortunately American law prohibits you from buying antibiotics without an Rx, and insurance increases the price dramatically. Many go to Mexico or order online, but Obamacare is increasing enforcement to stop that. Under Our Skin reports evidence that, in the case of Lyme at least, the purpose is to maintain a captive market for treatment modalities that pay more powerful lobbyists.
Much remains unknown, new bacteria and viruses evolve and often don't even get identified until someone recognizes a disease. Instead of a public health system, or a national defense system that includes health, we have a politically driven medical system that maximizes revenues and too often victimizes patients. A coalition of the bribed in the capitol presume to decide what's best for everyone's health, and it seems always to be what's most lucrative for their own patronage networks.
It Causes Tumors in Rats and Is in Your Food
http://www.hivehealthmedia.com/it-causes-tumors-in-rats-and-is-in-your-food/
One of the hottest debates today among nutrition experts is about the increasing introduction of genetically modified crop foods to modern agricultural practices.
There are some who believe that these modified foods are just as safe as natural foods. On the other side of the debate are those who believe that genetically modified (GM) foods are harmful to human health and dangerous to the environment.
It may take a while before scientists and nutritionists reach a conclusion because long-term studies on the effects of these modified food crops are few. However, the first results of such long-term studies are coming in and the case against GM foods is getting stronger.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine strongly believes that GM foods pose serious health risks. This professional health organization support their argument against modified foods with the results of animal studies that show the dangers of GM foods.
Animal studies have demonstrated that GM foods can:
Accelerate aging
Cause infertility
Disrupt the immune system
Affect the regulation of insulin
Cause organ failure
Increase the risks of malignant tumors
Unfortunately American law prohibits you from buying antibiotics without an Rx,
eBay is your friend here.
Unfortunately American law prohibits you from buying antibiotics without an Rx,
eBay is your friend here.
As long as you are buying them for fish.
I just don't think that all these new vaccines are necessarily the way to go if our immune systems are already under attack.
This reminds me of homeboy's misunderstanding, which was what caused me to comment in this thread. The point of vaccines is that they strengthen the immune system. The issues affecting immune systems (including diet) make vaccines more valuable, not less.
Otherwise most of the current revenue-driven system is about "sick care," keeping people dependent on pills, which is the most lucrative. A huge advantage of vaccines is they free people from dependence on pills, but that is a disadvantage from the perspective of PhRMA (who sponsored enactment of Obamacare to make more $$$).
I agree people need to learn about their own needs, because there is a lot of quackery and opportunism out there. Often your health interest is the exact opposite of somebody else's financial interest, so be careful.
Individual anecdotal experience doesn't always provide broader lessons, because there can be so many other explanations for a specific case. If somebody is getting re-infected or has recurring inflammation, then certain antibiotics with anti-inflammatory properties may address both issues while on them. It doesn't tell you whether the problem is (a) re-infection, (b) inflammation, or (c) something else entirely. Individual cases can disprove a blanket statement, e.g. the rabies and smallpox vaccines disprove homeboy's blanket falsehood above, but one person's subjective experience simply cannot prove what is causing what. There can be other factors entirely, for example many people don't drink enough water, but if they take a pill with a glass of water then the water itself might help them; that's why double-blind placebo trials are considered the gold standard.
« First « Previous Comments 229 - 235 of 235 Search these comments
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/21/genetically_modified_salmon_white_house_had_blocked_fda_but_now_approval.html
White House Relents and Allows the FDA To Proceed with Genetically Modified Salmon
The Food and Drug Administration today released an electronic version of its environmental assessment for a genetically modified salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies—effectively giving its preliminary seal of approval on the first transgenic animal to be considered for federal approval.
#environment