Oh, and I think you are ignoring the differences that exist between diseases - cholera for instance, was mostly prevented in the West by improvements in public sanitation, but polio and smallpox required vaccines to be invented before significant progress could be made in reducing their effects on mortality and morbidity.
-
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Do you think appropriate vaccines could prevent ME/CFS/SEID
- Thread starter redaxe
- Start date
sscobalt93
Senior Member
- Messages
- 125
This all comes down to matter of opinion. There are risks with getting vaccinated as well as there are risks not getting vaccinated. You have to decide what you want to do. Vaccines in the beginning may have not caused too many issues, because there weren't toxic fillers( I do not have proof on this I am just speculating) but in today's society I do not trust what the FDA at all. The closest thing I can trust on the FDA is a USDA organic label, and even that's sketchy sometimes. Truth of the matter is the government doesn't really want to help you live a long and healthy life. The medical system is a business in America.
It think instead of vaccines there should be research done to cure these diseases naturally. Systemic enzymes are widely prescribed around the world for viral issues with great success. These are all natural enzymes that science has learned to use to our benefit. It's not going to be used here in America because you cannot patent enzymes and have big pharma create enzymes.
We are exposed to these viruses at a small age because we live too close to people. Spend WAY too much time indoors. Also think about how dirty a hospital is regardless of how 'sanitized' they make it. No wonder why infants get sick. Their immune system is so delicate as soon as they are born and they live their first week or more in a hospital.
If you are for vaccines get them, but I sure as hell wont.
It think instead of vaccines there should be research done to cure these diseases naturally. Systemic enzymes are widely prescribed around the world for viral issues with great success. These are all natural enzymes that science has learned to use to our benefit. It's not going to be used here in America because you cannot patent enzymes and have big pharma create enzymes.
We are exposed to these viruses at a small age because we live too close to people. Spend WAY too much time indoors. Also think about how dirty a hospital is regardless of how 'sanitized' they make it. No wonder why infants get sick. Their immune system is so delicate as soon as they are born and they live their first week or more in a hospital.
If you are for vaccines get them, but I sure as hell wont.
SOC
Senior Member
- Messages
- 7,849
Are you confusing the life span of an individual organism with statistical life span of the species? There is little question that by eliminating early deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the average life span of humans has increased dramatically.
Whether one individual getting a measles vaccine increases their own life span is another matter. In that case it's more a yes/no switch. If you avoided measles by getting the vaccine and lived to 75yo your life span was increased ten times over the life span you would have had if you'd not been vaccinated and died of measles at age 7. Chances are good that you will live longer than you would have if no one had been vaccinated because the likelihood of you dying from measles, smallpox, diphtheria, polio, etc, etc would be much higher. Not a certainty, just much higher. It's all about reducing the odds of dying young, not adding 6 months to your life span.
SOC
Senior Member
- Messages
- 7,849
Viruses are not natural? Getting a very mild case of a virus and thereby obtaining immunity is not natural? That is the way our immune systems have worked in nature for thousands and thousands of years. Systemic enzymes produced in a lab by people making lots of money off it is somehow more natural? Since when do healthy babies spend their first week or more in the hospital? More than 20 years ago, my daughter was in the hospital less than 24 hours, and she had some mild complications. The other babies born that day went home even sooner.
A little science would go a long way here. Opinion, belief, and some random 'French model' on the internet do not make for facts.
Snow Leopard
Hibernating
- Messages
- 5,902
- Location
- South Australia
It would not prevent them, but an EBV vaccine would surely cut down the number of EBV cases.
Maintenance of herd immunity against pathogens which we have not yet wiped out is generally needed.
On the other hand, it would increase the number of ME cases, however rare (such as myself) which were caused by vaccines...
Statistically, we cannot rule out vaccines causing autoimmune disorders at rates any less than about 1/20,000 (due to lack of statistical power of human studies - we do however know that vaccines are likely to induce autoimmune illnesses, since vaccines and key adjuvants are used to induce autoimmunity in experimental murine models). Indeed a recent study of the HPV vaccine in Scandinavia, which had the largest sample size to date, found three autoimmune disorders had statistically significantly higher numbers due to the vaccine. (eg. rates at more than 1/25,000)
If we had better treatments then the argument would always skew in favor of vaccines...
The argument is not clear cut either way.
Maintenance of herd immunity against pathogens which we have not yet wiped out is generally needed.
On the other hand, it would increase the number of ME cases, however rare (such as myself) which were caused by vaccines...
Statistically, we cannot rule out vaccines causing autoimmune disorders at rates any less than about 1/20,000 (due to lack of statistical power of human studies - we do however know that vaccines are likely to induce autoimmune illnesses, since vaccines and key adjuvants are used to induce autoimmunity in experimental murine models). Indeed a recent study of the HPV vaccine in Scandinavia, which had the largest sample size to date, found three autoimmune disorders had statistically significantly higher numbers due to the vaccine. (eg. rates at more than 1/25,000)
If we had better treatments then the argument would always skew in favor of vaccines...
The argument is not clear cut either way.
sscobalt93
Senior Member
- Messages
- 125
I was in the hospital for a week as was my sister. My sister had twins and they were in the hopsital for a week. Her next baby was in there for a week and so was her most recent one.
Since when do healthy babies spend their first week or more in the hospital? More than 20 years ago, my daughter was in the hospital less than 24 hours, and she had some mild complications. The other babies born that day went home even sooner.
A little science would go a long way here. Opinion, belief, and some random 'French model' on the internet do not make for facts.
Systemic enzymes are forsure more natural than taking a virus and killing it. Or modifying it in a way to make in less harmful for sure. Do you take digestive enzymes with you food? It's the same enzymes you can take systemically.
SOC
Senior Member
- Messages
- 7,849
So you don't believe the World Health Organization, which is not financially tied to the pharmaceutical industry and has as much invested in sanitation and improved diet as it does in medication?
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/2/07-040089/en/
sscobalt93
Senior Member
- Messages
- 125
Not really. I dont think vaccines are the answer.
SOC
Senior Member
- Messages
- 7,849
Geez, where do you live? No one I know had their babies in the hospital that long, except for the preemies and those born with serious medical problems. The expense alone would be shocking.
"For sure" based on what facts? Science rather than belief or opinion, please.
And no, I don't take digestive enzymes. I digest my food naturally with no "lab-produced chemicals"
to alter the natural progress of my digestion. Or are you saying the digestive enzymes you take were not produced in a lab and factory from chemicals (like say, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen).Are you suggesting that the same digestive enzymes people take with their food are also preventing all viral illnesses, cancer, MS, and everything else that systemic enzymes claim to cure or prevent? So people taking digestive enzymes don't get viral illnesses or cancer? That's news. Got any scientific evidence to back up that claim? If it's true, there's a Nobel Prize in there for someone. The world should know that we can cure or prevent all human illness with digestive enzymes available at our local Walmart.
lansbergen
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,512
Of course it is.
lansbergen
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,512
i looked up measles in the Netherlands. Death rates were already very low before the vacniation program started.
SOC
Senior Member
- Messages
- 7,849
Sorry, I must be confused. You believe vaccines are effective, but that they don't increase the average human life span by reducing mortality in the young?
I don't understand the logic. If millions of people die young from disease, then statistically the average life span of humans is lower. If those deaths are prevented by vaccines, then the average human life span has to increase.
In what way am I not following your argument?
chipmunk1
Senior Member
- Messages
- 765
no i meant that if we look beyond infant mortality, they don't add that much years to an adult life. I think the reason why we see many people in their eighties today is mostly not due to vaccines but due to changes in our society.
If we were to return to a rather brutish life in the wild we would often die young even when fully vaccinated. Very few would make it to the age of 80.
In the third world many people are still dying young from diseases and causes for which no vaccine exists. Why aren't we?
Last edited:
SOC
Senior Member
- Messages
- 7,849
Okay, I think I see your point, but I can't agree that we should ignore child deaths when calculating human life span. But yes, there are many other things in addition to currently preventable diseases, that affect the average human life span. We are dying from diseases for which no vaccine exists, but certainly not in the same numbers as die in countries with poorer sanitation and supportive medical care. Better sanitation reduces the spread of disease, as does herd immunity. These are all critical parts of a complex system of reducing deaths from disease. We need them all.
Ian
Senior Member
- Messages
- 283
That is two countries, the US and the Netherlands. If you had figures for the whole world, they would be of more interest - it may be that the same thing is happening that happened with Cholera, where it was mostly defeated in the West before vaccines were widely introduced, whereas in the 3rd world this is still an important part of prevention.
Oh, for those who would never be vaccinated again, what would you have done Ebola had hit the West hard, and the only weapon we had against it was a vaccine (as would most likely have been the case, since Z Mapp is much harder to produce in vast quantities). Would you still stick to your principles then? And before you say it's not the same, because the diseases we are talking about aren't as deadly, where is the cut off point? Smallpox? Measles? Polio?
Oh, for those who would never be vaccinated again, what would you have done Ebola had hit the West hard, and the only weapon we had against it was a vaccine (as would most likely have been the case, since Z Mapp is much harder to produce in vast quantities). Would you still stick to your principles then? And before you say it's not the same, because the diseases we are talking about aren't as deadly, where is the cut off point? Smallpox? Measles? Polio?
http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2014/06/pre-vaccine-declines-in-measles.html does a pretty good job of explaining what was happening, and cites to research.
Basically many of the deaths initially were due to secondary opportunistic infections. Hence the mortality rate decreased as antibiotics and other interventions became available. Additionally, rates of infection did not decrease, even while mortality decreased.
And of course even when measles does not kill outright it can still result in serious permanent disability, such as hearing loss and brain damage, or even subacute sclerosing panencephalitis which can still kill the patient after they survive the actual infection.
Basically many of the deaths initially were due to secondary opportunistic infections. Hence the mortality rate decreased as antibiotics and other interventions became available. Additionally, rates of infection did not decrease, even while mortality decreased.
And of course even when measles does not kill outright it can still result in serious permanent disability, such as hearing loss and brain damage, or even subacute sclerosing panencephalitis which can still kill the patient after they survive the actual infection.
Last edited: