Classic Western Medicine

[trucetheeker]

Ways of knowing: Observation, experience, learning and reasoning.

Please observe these parental comments:

State of health of unvaccinated children - survey results

“Quotes from parents about the state of health of their children

Lot of parents gave some additional information of their children. Here are some typical quotes:

I am one of 10 children from the same mother and father. None of us were vaccinated. Our ages are 38-59. We were all allowed to have childhood diseases to boost our immune systems. Most of our children were not vaccinated either. Most of all none of the non-vaccinated children in our family have major illness.”


“I will put the health of my three unvaccinated children up against the health of a vaccinated child any day of the week and twice on Sunday.”


“My 3 year old child is in a 5 year old class, and is even advanced for that grade. She has not been near as sick as a lot of her friends. She is considered very advanced for her age. Her two oldest siblings had both been injured by vaccinations and have been recovering for the last 6.5 years.”


“My two boys are both uncircumcised, unvaccinated, including no vitamin K shot at birth, and no PKU newborn blood screening, and no painful procedure of any kind. I gave birth drug-free and naturally in an upright kneeling position, after walking throughout my entire labor and transition. Both boys are extremely healthy, intelligent, kind, and beautiful. I breastfed my older son until he turned 4 years, and I'm currently breastfeeding my 2 year old.”


“My 3 vaccinated children were sick often during their first 2 years, suffered from ear infections repeatedly for which the doctor was constantly prescribing antibiotics, which would never work on the 1st round. They'd go through 3 separate rounds of antibiotics before the infection would be gone, meanwhile they'd develop diarrhea and candida diaper rash. They got every "bug" that was going around and strep and tonsilitis on several occasions. They all have skin conditions which the doctor has diagnosed as keratosis pylaris. My unvaccinated child has never been sick beyond a slight, short-lived cold. Never had an ear infection and has no skin issues either.”


“We chose not to vaccinate for various reasons, and have never tried to create an antiseptic environment for the children. We live on a small mid-western farm and the children seldom wear shoes in the warmer months (warmer than freezing)so that is most of the time. They are subject to occasional cuts from various metals, glass, etc. and have not had any infections to speak of. Not only that, but they get bitten by various animals, cats, mice,(they're always catching mice)garden snakes, and the like, insects of all kinds, with no adverse affects. All but the first were home-birth, all were breast fed, and none of the last 8 have ever seen a doctor, (or MacDonalds).”


“I fully vaccinated his sister. She died at age 5 mos 14 days after suffering many symptoms of mercury poisoning including eczema, milk allergy and hypotonic-hyporesponsive episodes as well as dilated pupils. Her death was labeled "SIDS". I know it was vaccine induced. I also suffered a severe reaction to smallpox vaccine and have other family history of severe vaccine reactions. My unvaxed son has never needed an antibiotic, never had an ear infection, and has not seen a doctor since he was 2 and that was for an eye issue that resolved itself.”


“He has never had an ear infection or serious illness that required medication and he turned 2 in Dec 2010. Vaccinated kids I know, including my 8 year old, were always sick. Croup, eczema, RSV, Scarlet fever, strep, roseola, thrush, ashthma, food allergies, other allergies, and most of all ear infection after ear infection. Comparing my daughter's health records she was on antibiotics over 14 times her first 2 years of life. She was SOOO sick all the time...doc said it was normal and compared to friends kids it was. Everyone had sick kids ALL the time. It is considered normal in kids under 3. She was not in daycare...so that argument of picking it up at daycare does not work. I could not take her anywhere of she was sick. Even pneumonia!


"Amazed at the overall health compared to all the kids her age, she gets the same cold/flu and has extremely mild symptoms compared to the other kids who are experiencing severe infections resulting in urgent care visits and prescriptions. All of the milestones were met early is able to read words before 2 1/2 years of age."


"My father is a MD and when time came for my daughter vaccination he asked me for the schedule and after reading it recommended to me not to do it.I myself when kid, was asthmatic and my dad was worried about the effects of the vaccines on her. She is a super healthy teen, never has been on antibiotic, resists all flu season without a problem and her immune system is super strong. Her brother is just the same"

Given these types of anecdotes, how would you assess their validity. I suppose, if you were the authority for vaccine efficacy and safety, you'd convene in-depth studies. For some reason, all of the studies that get done (at least the ones which I've read) seem to admit that there is room for concern but in the end recommend that vaccination continue as before.

It's like, there may be people on the tracks ahead but we'll keep the train running full speed anyway!

 

[billvon]

Nice trick - interchanging the words "medicine" and "science" as though they were one and the same.

They're not. Science is the basis for evidence based medicine but it is not the same as medicine.

To me, the meaning was quite clear. If it's not contained in the approved database, then it's an alternative form of knowledge. Not necessarily to be confused with alternative medicine.

You have just stated a tautology. Yes, if it is not approved, it is outside the approved forms of medicine.

It all sounds good but what I hear from you and others on this forum is that knowledge is secondary to doing battle for entrenched positions. You ignore the intent of a post and jump on terms such as "opinion" and "fascism" and go to great lengths to completely avoid the actual subject other than to write me off as an iconoclast.

You posted the paper that called modern medicine "fascist." Why did you do so?

 

[trucetheeker]

You posted the paper that called modern medicine "fascist." Why did you do so?

I was digging up other references on this subject when I stumbled across this paper and decided to post it as the first bit of evidence.

Perhaps you'd appreciate this quote from Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D.'s The Devil’s Priests:

Fraud in scientific research is commonplace enough to keep it off the front pages. The Food and Drug Administration has uncovered such niceties as overdosing and underdosing of patients, fabrication of records, and drug dumping when they investigate experimental drug trials. Of course, in these instances, doctors working for drug companies have as their goal producing results that will convince the FDA to approve the drug. Sometimes, with competition for grant money getting more and more fierce, doctors simply want to produce results that will keep the funding lines open. Since all the “good ol’ boy” researchers are in the same boat, there seems to be a great tolerance for sloppy experiments, unconfirmable results, and carelessness in interpreting results.

You'll notice the key words/phrases:

• "fraud",
• "scientific research",
• "fabrication of records",
• "experimental drug trials",
• "producing results that will convince the FDA to approve the drug",
• "competition for grant money"

and last but not least

• "great tolerance for sloppy experiments, unconfirmable results, and carelessness in interpreting results"

Hopefully you can see how this would fly in the face of "evidence based medicine" unless you add the word "flawed" before "evidence."

Dr (medical doctor) Mendelsohn is an outspoken critic of his colleagues and the medical profession so, of course, his opinion will have to be discounted. Certainly, he's just a disgruntled wannabe who didn't get picked for the team!

In the same reference, Mendelsohn quotes Dr. Richard W. Roberts, director of the National Bureau of Standards as saying: “half or more of the numerical data published by scientists in their journal articles is unusable because there is no evidence that the researcher accurately measured what he thought he was measuring or no evidence that possible sources of error [were] eliminated or accounted for.”

I could quote Mendelsohn all day but won't. I'll come back with other evidence contradicting the "evidence based medicine" myth later.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I was digging up other references on this subject when I stumbled across this paper and decided to post it as the first bit of evidence.

Just because people violate the scientific method does not mean that the scientific method is flawed. Duh?

By now everyone knows that in the current American business/political climate, corporations hire more scientists than universities. (And many university laboratories are funded by "magnanimous" corporations and staffed by students who hope to get jobs working for those corporations.) The goal of science is to find evidence that uncovers the truth, whereas the goal of a corporation is to find only evidence that makes their own product look good, and, in extreme cases, to suppress evidence that makes it look bad. This is not science, and to equate it with science is just as fraudulent as the work of the so-called "corporate scientists" themselves.

Your arguments continue to be disingenuous--the worst possible violation of the rule against trolling on a website that is supposed to be dedicated to science and scholarship. I can't speak for anyone else here but I'm getting really tired of your nonsense.

 

[trucetheeker]

Just because people violate the scientific method does not mean that the scientific method is flawed. Duh?

By now everyone knows that in the current American business/political climate, corporations hire more scientists than universities. (And many university laboratories are funded by "magnanimous" corporations and staffed by students who hope to get jobs working for those corporations.) The goal of science is to find evidence that uncovers the truth, whereas the goal of a corporation is to find only evidence that makes their own product look good, and, in extreme cases, to suppress evidence that makes it look bad. This is not science, and to equate it with science is just as fraudulent as the work of the so-called "corporate scientists" themselves.

Your arguments continue to be disingenuous--the worst possible violation of the rule against trolling on a website that is supposed to be dedicated to science and scholarship. I can't speak for anyone else here but I'm getting really tired of your nonsense.

1. Nowhere in my posts have I attacked the scientific method. I have been specifically attacking the myth of "evidence based medicine." I'm a fairly patient person but I'm having difficulty understanding your inability to focus.

2. All of my posts in this thread stem from spidergoat's assertion -

Western medicine is actually just science-based medicine...

which to the best of my knowledge is complete BS. As far as I'm concerned, it's legitimate to argue the case against this "nonsense" even though the crowd is hostile to the idea. You're inference that I'm trolling is out of order but also of no consequence to me.

3. The level of discourse on this website refutes your claim that the website is dedicated to science and scholarship. It's more like a boys/girls science club and others can play as long as they agree with you.

Take your first words to me:

""Allopathic"??? Thanks for using a red-flag word that immediately identifies you as a crackpot! It will save a lot of people the trouble of having to slog through a couple of your posts in order to discover that they're wasting their time on woo-woo."

Obviously if I had attended the same brainwashing institution that you did, I wouldn't consider raising such unacceptable "nonsense." That's why a university education is so damned important - it stops you from thinking outside the box. A really good education stops you from even realising that there is a box!

4. As you keep mentioning it, let me point out that IMO the scientific method is only a tool and, as is true of all tools, it is only as good as the person using it. The two are inseparable. Hence, the flaw in the scientific method is the human element.

Thank you for your perseverance.

 

[leopold]

4. As you keep mentioning it, let me point out that IMO the scientific method is only a tool and, as is true of all tools, it is only as good as the person using it. The two are inseparable. Hence, the flaw in the scientific method is the human element.

i find it funny you would say something like this after posting the link in post 81.

from that link:

Although we did not perform a bloodtest, around 10% stated that their children had an allergy.

what was that you were just saying about the scientific method and the people that use it?

clicking on the "about" tab on the mentioned link the author states he is a "homeopath".
what is a homeopath?

edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

why does "eye of newt" keep running through my mind?

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

clicking on the "about" tab on the mentioned link the author states he is a "homeopath".

The shorthand, easily remembered definition of a "homeopath" is: a person who believes that the best way to relieve an ailment is to find out what caused it and then give the patient more of that.

They refer to modern scientific (and wildly successful) medicine, using contrasting Greek terminology, as "allopathy." They sneer at the idea that giving the patient something other than what caused the ailment in the first place could possibly do him any good.

In their defense, this idea probably arose when the technology of vaccination was first invented. They saw doctors giving people minute doses of pathogens to trigger their immune system into building specific antibodies for them, so that when and if they attacked in force, the body would be ready.

Obviously they were neither paying close attention nor thinking very carefully. No one gives a vaccine to a patient who already has a major infection of the pathogen. That would be, at least, stupid and, at worst, dangerous.

 

[Asguard]

FR strictly speaking your last statement is dead wrong, both the tetnis vacine and the rabies vacine are given AFTER infection. i belive what you ment to say is it would be stupid to give a live vacine once infection has occured to which i would say maybe because i dont know if they are live, dead or antibodies

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

FR strictly speaking your last statement is dead wrong, both the tetnis vacine and the rabies vacine are given AFTER infection. i belive what you ment to say is it would be stupid to give a live vacine once infection has occured to which i would say maybe because i dont know if they are live, dead or antibodies

Yes, sorry. I should have been more specific and limited that to live vaccine.

In addition, it's my understanding that some infections progress very slowly. If you start treatment immediately you may still have a chance at training the immune system to recognize them and do battle with them before they become rampant.

 

[leopold]

The shorthand, easily remembered definition of a "homeopath" is: a person who believes that the best way to relieve an ailment is to find out what caused it and then give the patient more of that.

isn't that how vaccines work?
i can see how homeopathy is successful
vaccinations do not have any "sick patients" data, it's being prevented by the vaccinations.
homeopathy has this data and since it's basically the same process as vaccinations they can count "a cure".

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

isn't that how vaccines work?

No. You apparently didn't read the last two posts in which Asgard and I clarified this. Vaccines are administered before the infection, or at least before the infection spreads to the point that it's dire. In addition, many vaccines are not live organisms, and in other cases they're not even exactly the same organism. Sometimes the immune system can generate the correct antibody without taking the risk of introducing the illness you want to prevent.

Once the patient is truly ill from an infection, the last thing you would ever do is put more of the same organisms that made him ill in his body.

The comparison with homeopathy is not valid. As I noted earlier, it's likely that the early advocates of homeopathy didn't understand this distinction, and simply saw doctors injecting cells of pathogen XYZ in order to prevent an infection of the XYZ microbes. Nowadays schools explain how vaccination works to schoolchildren, so there's no excuse for anyone behaving this stupidly.

i can see how homeopathy is successful.

Sure. There are two mechanisms. One is called "coincidence" and the other is called "placebo." Both are powerful, well-documented forces.

 

[trucetheeker]

FR strictly speaking your last statement is dead wrong, both the tetnis vacine and the rabies vacine are given AFTER infection. i belive what you ment to say is it would be stupid to give a live vacine once infection has occured to which i would say maybe because i dont know if they are live, dead or antibodies

Interesting that you should mention tetanus and rabies vaccines (at least that seems to be what you were trying to spell!) Here's a few points on the subject from Hans Ruesch (Slaughter of the Innocent):

(para 4) In his best-selling Microbe Hunters,, (Harcourt, Brace, 1926/1953) Paul de Kruif gave a highly fanciful account of 19 Russian peasants who, bitten by an allegedly rabid wolf, traveled to Paris in order to receive the newly announced Pasteur treatment from the old master himself. According to de Kruif, 16 of these Russian patients were "saved" by Pasteur’s shots and "only three" died. Pasteur became an international hero after that exploit and contributed substantially to the glamorization of "modern" laboratory Science. Three deaths out of 19 makes over 15 percent casualties. But knowing, as we know today, that not one in a hundred people bitten by a rabid dog is likely to catch the infection, we must infer that at least some and probably all three of those Russian peasants died because of Pasteur’s vaccine, as did uncounted people later on.
Besides, at the time there were no facilities in Russia to find out whether a wolf had rabies. Hungry wolves attacking villagers in winter were a common occurrence; and even today many people, in Italy for instance, believe that any dog that bites them must be affected with rabies, otherwise it wouldn’t have bitten them.

So no real proof that the Russians had rabies or that the vaccine did anything other than kill 3 of them.

(para 5) Some informed doctors believe that rabies, as a separate and distinguishable disease, exists only in animals and not in man, and that what is diagnosed as rabies is often tetanus (lockjaw), which has similar symptoms. Contamination of any kind of wound can cause tetanus, and it is interesting to note that today in Germany those who get bitten by a dog are regularly given just an anti-tetanus shot. According to Germany’s most authoritative weekly, exactly 5 Germans are supposed to have died of rabies in 20 years (Der Spiegel, 18/1972, p. 175). But how can anyone be sure that they died of rabies? Hundreds die of tetanus.

Those bloody Germans. They've obviously been given the wrong song sheet to sing from. Thinking they can prevent/cure rabies with an anti-tetanus shot? How lucky that only 5 allegedly died of rabies in 20 years!!!

(para 6 and 7) Among the many doctors I have questioned in the U.S. and Europe, I have not yet found one who can guarantee that he has seen a case of rabies in man. The number of cases reported by the U.S. Public Health Service in its Morbidity and Mortality Annual Supplement for all of 1970 was exactly two—among 205,000,000 people. Provided the diagnosis was correct. This compares with 148 cases of tetanus reported, 22,096 of salmonellosis, 56,797 of infectious hepatitis, 433,405 of streptococcal infections and scarlet fever.

Doctors who are faced for the first time with a case of suspected rabies complain that they have no precedents to go by. The main difficulty Pasteur met with in perfecting his alleged vaccine, which often caused paralysis, consisted in finding rabid dogs; finally he had to get healthy dogs, open their cranium and infect them with the brain substance of the only rabid dog he had been able to get hold of.

Yes, I know! This was the dark ages (1970's) and you wouldn't expect such primitive people to be able to identify rabies properly and no doubt incorrectly diagnosed them as tetanus.

(para 10) Currently, rabies is presumed to be established in autopsies by the presence of "Negri corpuscles," so named after an Italian physician who in 1903 announced to have discovered them in the plasma of the nerve cells and the spinal nerves of rabid dogs. However, Dr. John A. McLaughlin, a prominent American veterinarian who in the sixties was called to investigate a widespread outbreak of alleged rabies in the State of Rhode Island and performed numerous autopsies on dogs during the height of the scare, found animals with "rabies" symptoms that had no Negri corpuscles whatever, whereas dogs that died of unrelated diseases had them in abundance. A veterinarian from Naples, where there is a fixation of fear of rabies, showed me in a textbook the image of a Negri corpuscle—the only one he had ever seen—that looked undistinguishable from the Lentz-Sinigallia corpuscles that occur in dogs who have distemper. Nobody knows how many dogs affected by mere distemper have been killed by order of sanitary authorities whose zeal overshadowed their knowledge.

When is rabies not rabies? Apparently no-one can really tell.

(para 12 and 13) Every real expert is aware that nothing is known for sure except what Hippocrates already knew: that the best protection also against this infection is cleanliness. The No. 523 of the World Health Organization Technical Report Series, entitled WHO Expert Committee on Rabies, Sixth Report, 1973 (meaning that there have been no less than five previous WHO reports on the same subject) announces that evidence is accumulating that parenteral injection of antirabies vaccine causes human deaths "under certain conditions" (p. 20), and states (p. 17): "The Committee recommends that production of Fermi-type vaccines, since they contain residual living virus, should be discontinued."

"Residual living virus" is a pretty serious charge to bring from high quarters against a vaccine, but nobody seems to pay much attention to all this, or to understand what it means. It simply means that probably the very rare cases of humans who died of what has been diagnosed as rabies, have not died from something received from a dog but from a doctor.

WHO evidence indicating that the doctor did it with the syringe in the treatment room!

(para 14) But the climax of that WHO report is on page 27: "The Committee emphasized that the most valuable procedure in post-exposure treatment is the local treatment of wounds. This should be done by thorough washing with soap and water. . ." And on the next page the point is repeated: "Immediate first-aid procedures recommended are the flushing and washing of the wound with soap and water." So it took no less than 6 reports by WHO "experts" to reach the conclusion that Hippocrates had been advocating.

So soap and water is the best treatment but wait, you can't sell soap and water treatments at $2000 - $7000 per series. That will never do.

(para 15) In fact whoever reads carefully this and other WHO reports, notices that serious students of medicine can rely on very little except Hippocratic hygiene and common sense. But WHO can’t admit it, otherwise the public might ask: "What is the use of WHO?" [WHO] is housed in one of the biggest, costliest buildings of modern times, with large, empty halls, libraries lined with every medical publication issued throughout the world, with numerous executives who draw fat salaries to do nothing, and a regiment of smart secretaries to help them. This huge real-estate complex, surrounded by the silence of well-groomed lawns and flower gardens in one of the most beautiful Alpine settings outside Geneva, represents the counterpart of the millions of laboratory animals wasting away under scientific torture the world over.

Would WHO deliberately mislead the public if the truth threatened their livelihood? You be the judge because I'm washing my hands of this mess.

Hans Ruesch - Wikipedia

 

[trucetheeker]

Having located a copy of the WHO Expert Committee on Rabies, Sixth Report, 1973 as mentioned in my previous post, I found it to be typically lacking in important detail while untypically hinting at failings in the vaccination program.

These two paragraphs struck me as salient: the recommendation that Fermi-type vaccines be discontinued and the mention of "paralytic factors".

(WHO Report, Para 6.1.1)
No vaccine that contains living virus should be employed in man; the absence of such virus should be determined by the most sensitive test available (see section 6.3). The Committee recommends that production of Fermi-type vaccines, since they contain residual living virus, should be discontinued.
Claims for absence of paralytic factors in nervous-tissue vaccines should be substantiated by laboratory tests (see laboratory techniques in rabies, 3rd ed.).

I went searching to see how the world reacted to the recommendation on Fermi-type vaccines and immediately came up with this study,Immunogenicity and efficacy of Fermi-type nerve... [Ethiop Med J. 2001] - PubMed - NCBI and a related document Situation of Rabies in Ethiopia: A retrospective
study 1990-2000. What we find is that, far from discontinuing the Fermi-type vaccines, they've continued to be in use and now there's at least one study proving that WHO were wrong to worry about them.

Yet if we go back to the WHO document, para 6.3, there's obviously been a history of fatalities:

(WHO Report, para 6.3)
It was believed until recently that so-called "street viruses" were more pathogenic for man than laboratory "fixed " strains of rabies virus, which were considered to be apathogenic by extraneural inoculation. However, evidence is accumulating that fixed virus can be pathogenic for humans and animals under certain conditions. Human deaths have been reported after parenteral injection of antirabies vaccine inadequately inactivated, and after inhalation of aerosols created during homogenization of infected animal brains.

I point this out only because it's a rare occurence for the medical fraternity to admit that a vaccine might actually be dangerous in itself!

Turning to the report Situation of Rabies in Ethiopia: A retrospective study 1990-2000, the authors made much of the 2172 animals that were killed, brain tested and declared positive for rabies in that decade as well as the 322 fatal human rabies cases during the same period. However, nowhere in the report do they actually match up a positive-tested animal with a fatal (or even non-fatal) human case. My inquiring mind thinks that this information is important.

Another important detail missing from this report is whether or not the fatal human cases had been inoculated prior to the animal attack. Certainly it's important to know how effective the vaccine is (or isn't) as well as highlighting any trends emerging (such as higher or lower fatality rates in the previously-vaccinated population.) The WHO report above includes the "previous rabies vaccination/serum treatment" question in their suggested case record form in Annex 4 so they must agree that this information is worthwhile knowing.

And finally, in the WHO report, they go into great detail discussing measurement of titre levels to confirm adequate protection as well as proving the potency of the vaccine/serum. As long as the desired titre level is seen post inoculation, the vaccination is deemed successful. However, without testing prior to the inoculation, they have no real proof that the vaccine made any change.

IMO, it's all very unscientific.

 

[Asguard]

isn't that how vaccines work?
i can see how homeopathy is successful
vaccinations do not have any "sick patients" data, it's being prevented by the vaccinations.
homeopathy has this data and since it's basically the same process as vaccinations they can count "a cure".

You may think vaccines work this way but they actually dont, what you are effectivily doing is giving the immune system a trigger so that rather than waiting till the second infection it already knows the invading infection.

If you want to understand this look an anaphalaxis pts, its not the first exposure which kills (except in very specific cirumstances relating to asprin and ibphrophin), but the first causes the B cells to turn into memory B cells (i may be wrong on the exact cells involved, im trying to a) rember a lecture from 2 years ago and b) resurch as i go) sensitive to penuts. When your exposed the second time the run away reaction (degranulation of mast cells relacing histime which causes other mast cells to degranulate until your whole immune system is fighting an inhert substance which it CANT kill because its not alive).

Now maybe you concider vacination to be "homopathic", personally i think of it as a guy standing on a street courner yelling at all the cops "HEY, JACK THE RIPPER RAN THAT WAY" but that doesnt prove homopathics work in all cases.

For instance a pt suffering hypoxia, if i follow homopathic principles i wouldnt provide O2 and bag the pt, i would put a plastic bag over there head to "produce hypoxia" and i would be charged with murder.

A pt with a anaphalaxis, insted of giving them adrenilin which stabilises that run away mast cell responce, causes there pereferial vessals to constrict to where they are surposed to be and stops the constriction of of the small airways and the production of mucus which is blocking them. Insted I would either a) give them more penuts (and be charged with murder) or b) give them GTN to cause even MORE vasodilation which would drop Blood Pressure, while intra cranial pressure remained constant there by reducing prefusion to the brain, which would cause brain hypoxia leading to nero cell death, which would cause intercranial pressure to rise, causing a further drop in neroprefusion which would cause FURTHER hypoxia and so on and so on until either the pt was a vegitible or they were dead.

If any homeopathy fans wish to vollenteer to try this go ahead, all you need is a prepaid funeral plan, a penut allergy and your dad (or mum's) angina medication, of course dying by your brain being squeased through your spinal collum doesnt sound to pleasent does it?

We could also look at respitory failure, now there are 2 types but lets look at narc induced respitory failure. This is where the pts drive to breath in is supressed so rather than not being able to move air (like in asthma), they just wont breath at all. Standed treatment is manual ventilation (Bag mask ventilation) so your breathing for the pt, increasing there pain level a bit (if they have been overdosed slightly for pain relief) to counter act the narcotic (pain and narcotics are direct antaginsts for eachother, as pain increases so does narcotic tollerance) or if a narc overdose (for instance a herion OD) a drug called narloxone which blocks the opiate pathways in the brain and there for reverses inhabition on the drive to breath.

If homeopathy is correct what i should really be doing is giving them another shot of a narcotic. What will this really do, well ask any drug adict who has had an OD (if they are still alive), oviously its going to further inhibit the pts desire to breath and further sedate the pt leading to full respitory failure, hypoxia of the brain and death by coning , which is what i discribed above where the brain becomes so hypoxic and so swollen that it forces itself down through the spinal collum (which is the only place it can go)

 

[leopold]

No. You apparently didn't read the last two posts in which Asgard and I clarified this. Vaccines are administered before the infection, or at least before the infection spreads to the point that it's dire.

that's the point i was trying to make.
homeopathy does that, waits until the patient is sick then administers "the cure". since "the cure" in this case is essentially "cowpox" or some other illness the patient usually gets better and homeopathy scores "a cure".
vaccinations on the other hand prevent the disease in the first place therefor there is no way to know how many were "cured".

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

. . . . today in Germany those who get bitten by a dog are regularly given just an anti-tetanus shot.

In the USA our doctors try diligently to make sure we're all up to date on our tetanus shots, which we only need about once every ten years. Of course some people manage to avoid them and ERs may just give one to everybody who comes in with a puncture wound to be on the safe side. (Read: to avoid malpractice suits in a country with way too many predatory lawyers.) If you're bitten by a cat it shortens your immunity by several years, and if you're bitten by a human you will need a booster shot fairly soon.

If you're bitten by a dog in the USA they simply check the dog's vaccination records. If he's not current they will kill him and test for rabies. Even though they could just take a blood titer and test for the presence of the vaccine itself, which almost always lasts far longer than the official three-year booster schedule.

My dog has seizures which have not yet been diagnosed, and we try to avoid giving him vaccinations. But if he bit someone, I've been assured that the chances are about 90% that the authorities will not accept a titer report from a laboratory proving that his last vaccination is still effective. So he has to get his shot every three years. Fortunately that has never yet induced a seizure.

 

[Asguard]

FR ever notice that when homopaths are challanged on the logic of there answers they ignore them?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

To keep it short: I now found myself an alternative, Eastern orientated, doctor that focusses not only on my lungs but on my total body. His theory is, that I have to sweat out all the allergenes I have in me to cure. A bit like a flue treatment.
Sounds logical to me...What do you think? Any suggestions?

If your asthma is mostly psychological then the alternative medicine doctor's treatment will provide improvement (it will not provide a cure).

If your asthma is mostly physical then the alternative doctor's treatment won't work (his theory is really stupid consequently).

If your asthma is due to allergies (as you implied) then there is presently no cure for it. You can manage the symptoms quite well and if you are worried about the long term effects of drugs in your system then that is a valid concern. There is a treatment for airborn allergens in the United States that is called desensitization. The idea is that a doctor regularly injects you with a liquid coctail of the allergens that affect you and over time your body becomes desensitized to the allergens and has a drastically reduced (or no) reaction to them. It works on about 80% of the people who try it and the only drugs in the injection are simply preservatives. Be warned though, this treatment is very "western" and comes with the risk of anaphylactic shock after each treatment (you will no doubt be carrying around an epi pen on treatment days).

 

[chimpkin]

It works on about 80% of the people who try it and the only drugs in the injection are simply preservatives. Be warned though, this treatment is very "western" and comes with the risk of anaphylactic shock after each treatment (you will no doubt be carrying around an epi pen on treatment days).

I unfortunately ran out of money while doing this...and no they did not issue me an epi-pen, although I don't quite have anaphylaxis...so that may be why.
In fact I may try again as I have word of a clinic that lets you shoot up serum at home.

Probably best to keep a bottle of children's benadryl handy.

If I had a really bad reaction, I could keep chugging shots.

 

[Asguard]

phenergan, best anti histimine on the market, first generation so yes it causes drowsness but compared to death its brillant