patrick.net

Zlxr says

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.