@Fat Viking , I never heard of vaccine injury before, so I looked it up. According to the wiki page, it seems like it's an extremely rare occurrence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Has anyone here with Vaccine Injury tried Homeopathic medicine? *Please tag fellow users of users of Homeopathy*
- Thread starter Fat Viking
- Start date
I was thinking about that yesterday, and what struck me was that those are the conditions under which the placebo effect would be most effective. The more involved the process is, the more likely the patient will believe that they'll feel better after completing it. Furthermore, that sounds expensive (hours of professional time), so rational people won't bother trying it, so it biases the patient group to true believers, who distrust science and trust mysticism. So yes, the homeopaths can claim a large percentage of success with patients, because they mainly get patients that are open to the placebo effect. That same science-distrusting patient group is probably also highly biased in favour of having psychosomatic disorders, because they'll readily believe wild claims of non-science and ignore any scientific counter-evidence.
Hmmm, an interesting study might be to check for correlations between patients who claim have been successfully treated by homeopathy (and those reporting failure) and their level of belief in astrology, ghosts, and other scientifically baseless beliefs.
Hmmm, an interesting study might be to check for correlations between patients who claim have been successfully treated by homeopathy (and those reporting failure) and their level of belief in astrology, ghosts, and other scientifically baseless beliefs.
I have never tried homeopathy for vaccine injury. Some members of another health group I belong to have recommended Rita Kara Robinson (In UK) who practices homeopathy. She has worked at length with vaccine injury.
- Messages
- 153
- Likes
- 122
Vaccine Injury is very much REAL that's why there's a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in USA and Vaccine Damage Payment in the UK.
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread has been re-opened. Please try to respect each other and our forum rules (which can be read here) as you continue this discussion.
Our forum rules state, in part, that:
Our forum rules state, in part, that:
Last edited:
- Messages
- 153
- Likes
- 122
Nice.
The existence of that program doesn't prove that vaccine injury is real; it only proves that the legal system isn't perfect. Legal claims may be decided by a jury: randomly selected people who most likely aren't properly capable of judging the scientific evidence of a claim, so a judgement in favour isn't really proof of anything.
From the wiki page: 'The burden is on the defendant, the Department of Health and Human Services, to disprove the claim. It is extraordinarily difficult for HHS to do this. Therefore, table injury claims are generally resolved through settlement fairly quickly.' In other words, it's cheaper to pay a settlement than take it through the courts.
This isn't proof that vaccine injuries aren't real or common; it's just that the existence of the program isn't proof that they are real.
From the wiki page: 'The burden is on the defendant, the Department of Health and Human Services, to disprove the claim. It is extraordinarily difficult for HHS to do this. Therefore, table injury claims are generally resolved through settlement fairly quickly.' In other words, it's cheaper to pay a settlement than take it through the courts.
This isn't proof that vaccine injuries aren't real or common; it's just that the existence of the program isn't proof that they are real.
Can't homeopathic treatments be trademarked, patented, or otherwise protected? For example, say that a company did a clinical trial that proved that "Dr. Trustworthy's homeopathic treatment for Alzheimer's Disease is Clinically Proven to be 57% effective at reducing the symptoms". Wouldn't the market for that be in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year? Since there's no way to measure what's in the bottle, it's only that particular product (secret recipe) that can be marketed as 'clinically proven', which is even better protection than patents or trademarks. So, I don't see how you can say that there's no money in it.
Given that there is potential for large profits, the potential investment available isn't limited to what the small companies can scrape together; it's the entire global investment funds. Financiers look for opportunities and compare the potential payoff with the probability of it paying off. To me, the logical explanation for the lack of investment in clinical trials is that while the potential payoff is high, the experts have judged that the probability of a successful result is too low to be worth the risk.
There's a whole field of study for how effective markets (and gambling) can be for predicting outcomes. Set up a betting pool for election results, and (if properly done) the results are likely to be more accurate than the professional election predictors. The same should apply to predicting outcomes for clinical trials. The financiers study all the available evidence, and should judge the risk fairly accurately.
Given that there is potential for large profits, the potential investment available isn't limited to what the small companies can scrape together; it's the entire global investment funds. Financiers look for opportunities and compare the potential payoff with the probability of it paying off. To me, the logical explanation for the lack of investment in clinical trials is that while the potential payoff is high, the experts have judged that the probability of a successful result is too low to be worth the risk.
There's a whole field of study for how effective markets (and gambling) can be for predicting outcomes. Set up a betting pool for election results, and (if properly done) the results are likely to be more accurate than the professional election predictors. The same should apply to predicting outcomes for clinical trials. The financiers study all the available evidence, and should judge the risk fairly accurately.
I have had acquiantances try homeopathy for different sort of things. Some of them claim they have received benefits, which as I've stated I'm skeptical about. What I have never heard is someone recovering from moderate/severe ME/CFS or any severe condition in general, Alzheimer's or Parkinson's would be good examples. So if you have a condition that is mild, whatever the effect homeopathy works with, maybe it's more likely you'll see benefits.
If you are looking to homeopathy for vaccine injury, you may want to focus on toxicity from the chemicals added to the mixture used in vaccines--they are usually using mercury as a preservative (frequently referred to as Thimerosal). There is also use of aluminum and formaldehyde for other purposes in the mix. See https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm. Your body may have reacted to any of these other substances, viewed them as a threat, and gone into a tail-spin.
Can you provide evidence for that?
You get more mercury and aluminum into your bloodstream from your diet than you do from a vaccine. So the simple notion of toxins causing vaccine adverse events does not hold.
More sophisticated ideas suggest that the insoluble particle nature of the aluminum adjuvant may cause issues; these particles do not dissolve in water, and thus remain intact within tissues and in cells. See the research on macrophagic myofasciitis and its link to aluminum adjuvant particles made of insoluble aluminum hydroxide.
You get more mercury and aluminum into your bloodstream from your diet than you do from a vaccine. So the simple notion of toxins causing vaccine adverse events does not hold.
More sophisticated ideas suggest that the insoluble particle nature of the aluminum adjuvant may cause issues; these particles do not dissolve in water, and thus remain intact within tissues and in cells. See the research on macrophagic myofasciitis and its link to aluminum adjuvant particles made of insoluble aluminum hydroxide.
Which apparently may result in a "Cell Danger Response".
ME/CFS Rarely Adrenal Fatigue - It's Far More Likely a "Cell Danger Response" by Mitochondria
ME/CFS Rarely Adrenal Fatigue - It's Far More Likely a "Cell Danger Response" by Mitochondria
I did not provide any references to support my statement about the degree of dietary absorption of mercury and aluminum from food compared to vaccines. So how do you know that my statement was based on a bunch of assumptions, if you did not see its basis?
If you would like to examine my calculations behind my statement, then they are as follows:
Aluminum in vaccines compared to diet:
Mercury in vaccines compared to diet:
If you find any technical flaws in those calculations, please let me know. Otherwise I think you will agree that diet provides more mercury and aluminum than vaccines.
You made a general statement of homeopathy being "very effective for minor ailments". If you had said "I tried some homeopathic remedy and afterwards my symptom improved", that's one thing. But if you make a general statement, then that should be based on scientific evidence.
If you would like to examine my calculations behind my statement, then they are as follows:
Aluminum in vaccines compared to diet:
Mercury in vaccines compared to diet:
If you find any technical flaws in those calculations, please let me know. Otherwise I think you will agree that diet provides more mercury and aluminum than vaccines.
You made a general statement of homeopathy being "very effective for minor ailments". If you had said "I tried some homeopathic remedy and afterwards my symptom improved", that's one thing. But if you make a general statement, then that should be based on scientific evidence.
You are going off on an unrelated tangent. Let's stick to the subject: we are talking about dietary absorption of mercury and aluminum, in relation to the dose of these metals found in a vaccine.
My calculations regarding dietary absorption are simply explained above. If you think there is something wrong with those calculations, then please point out any faults you find.
Specifically, what information of mine is outdated or incomplete? In relation to the dietary absorption of mercury and aluminum.
My calculations regarding dietary absorption are simply explained above. If you think there is something wrong with those calculations, then please point out any faults you find.
Specifically, what information of mine is outdated or incomplete? In relation to the dietary absorption of mercury and aluminum.
Your assumptions about dose-response (see further comment below). Also, the leads I gave you above are directly on point.
Hormone disruptors such as heavy metals have a u-shaped dose-response curve. These substances can be quite toxic at very trace levels and are actually less toxic at moderate levels. This is because at trace amounts, the body sees these substances as potential messengers in systems such as the endocrine (hormone) system. There is a lot of literature about this topic, which has evolved over the last 40 years or so. Google Scholar is a good way to access this and other scientific literature related to toxic substances and chronic illness.
Hormone disruptors such as heavy metals have a u-shaped dose-response curve. These substances can be quite toxic at very trace levels and are actually less toxic at moderate levels. This is because at trace amounts, the body sees these substances as potential messengers in systems such as the endocrine (hormone) system. There is a lot of literature about this topic, which has evolved over the last 40 years or so. Google Scholar is a good way to access this and other scientific literature related to toxic substances and chronic illness.
Last edited: