Michael, I have already been through this with Rob and Tom, but I am happy to go through it again. The bacteria have a role to play in the healing but not in the causation. To borrow someone else’s phrase to say that germs cause disease is like saying that flies cause garbage. As for the diganoses of the disease being referred to is by blood test the problem with that is that it assumes that a) that doctors test everybody with the same symptoms and don’t exclude many (all?) of the people who have been vaccinated; and b) that the blood tests have any meaning whatsoever – ie that there has been an actual isolation of said bacteria/virus in vitro proving its pathogenicity. This has never been done for any ‘germ’. Don’t get me wrong I am not saying antibody tests are meaningless. If your body has been poisoned I am sure there is some sort of immune response, elevating various measures of ‘things’ that doctors can measure with their machines that go ‘bing’. But it doesn’t for a second mean what doctors think it means. Here is a confounding fact for you. With most diseases we are told that if we have the antibodies we are ‘protected’. But with HIV/AIDS, the presence of antibodies are used to show that we are sick. Of course doctors have a concentric circle to explain this but, as usual, they have no actual evidence. They have no more understanding of the way HIV works than they did 20 years ago (when it was predicted that we would all become infected tout de suite). (If you want to understand what I mean by having no predictive power read the thread on “True Colours” with Rob Webb.
And you are right, I am sure that Meryl doesn’t agree with me on many things. Unlike you guys we tend to believe in debate and ideas rather than groupthink. But, you see, we are not putting the positive case. You guys are the ones that need to demonstrate your beliefs that we should inject poisons into our babies. There is no need for us to be in agreement about the exact nature of disease and what vaccinations may or may not do. Suffice to say that we all agree that the benefits of vaccination are often outweighed by the costs and each person should therefore make their own decision. That is what we agree on. We don’t need to be in any more solidarity than that. You guys on the other hand have the harder job. You have to demonstrate that a) germs cause disease; b) the immune system can ‘remember’ how to fight off disease; c) vaccinations are an adequate means to ‘teach’ the immune system such a thing; and d) that vaccinations are not unreasonably dangerous. In addition, because many (most?) of you like to shove your views down ours and everybody else’s throats you have to be able to: e) prove conclusively that vaccinating, in all cases, pose less danger to the individual than not vaccinating. You are a million miles away from demonstrating a); b) and c) are essentially impossible; and as for the last two points, well good luck with that!
You may think this unfair, that you guys need to be consistent but we don’t, but that is how it is when you are demonstrating a negative. You have the rhetorical advantage. If we want we can assume a whole bunch of things that you guys assume in order to show that your theory is incoherent. That is a perfectly acceptable rhetorical technique. On the other hand we can call into question any of your assumptions if they are not self-evident. That is our right. You guys are making the positive case that we should inject poisons into people. Your assumptions have to be irrefutable and your theory has to be completely consistent. The primary assumption that you guys make is that vaccinated people don’t get certain diseases. But this assumption rests on another assumption – ie that doctors don’t predicate their diagnoses, at least partly, on the vaccination status of the patient. But doctors absolutely DO use vaccination status to form their diagnoses, so your primary assumption falls apart.
Punter's latest crap:
ReplyDelete"Michael, as I have already explained many times on this board, I agree that injecting people with proteins/bacteria is dangerous and should be avoided. That is kind of why the issue of vaccinations are so dear to my heart. If I thought they were just useless but completely harmless then I wouldn’t lose too much sleep over them. However, they are extremely dangerous. But the problem is that your experiment wouldn’t prove that infectious, pathogenic bacteria exist merely that you can poison the human body by the injection of various foreign substances. And, again as I have already said, this is obvious because if I got a sufficient amount of proteins or bacteria and injected them into your spinal cord – I would get paralysis, if I took the same proteins/bacteria and injected them into your brain – neural dysfunction. The injection of foreign substances into the human body is generally extremely dangerous. But whilst this would suggest that things like vaccination are a bad idea, it certainly doesn’t show that there is such a thing as pathogenic germs. In order for this to be demonstrated you need to take said germs in vitro and inject them into human/animal tissue and observe the expected pathogenesis. For example, take a (relatively small number of) HI virus particles, inject them into a test tube of T-cells and watch mass T-cell necrosis occur. You can do it with any germ you like of course. But it has never, ever been done. I understand you won’t believe that – virtually nobody I tell this to ever does. Nonetheless it hasn’t."
My reply:
ReplyDelete"Punter,
“In order for this to be demonstrated you need to take said germs in vitro and inject them into human/animal tissue and observe the expected pathogenesis.” It’s been done thousands, if not millions of times. Bacteria can cause disease. Virus’ as well. There just isn’t any question of it. We know their genes, we know the enzymes they release, we know how they bind to tissue and how they cause disease. To propose that bacteria don’t cause disease is the stuff of a science fiction novel.
In vivo we see it all the time. The same bacteria cause the same disease. For example, infected joints are almost always caused by staph aureus. We can see it in the fluid, grow it in the lab, and study how they destroy cartilage. They are NOT there in healthy joints, but there in septic joints. Are you honestly trying to say that they are just there, but not actually responsible for the pathology observed? Have you ever heard of Koch’s postulates?
Your simple “study” of HIV is pathetic. It HAS been done. Many many times. you’re living in a dream land, in a fiction novel, in a fantasy land. Get over it. Get with the programme.
Michael."