Premier Rock Forum

Something else interesting on smallpox -

"One of the medical profession's greatest boasts is that it eradicated
smallpox through the use of the smallpox vaccine. I myself believed this
claim for many years. But it simply isn't true. One of the worst smallpox
epidemics of all time took place in England between 1870 and 1872 - nearly
two decades after compulsory vaccination was introduced. After this evidence
that smallpox vaccination didn't work the people of Leicester in the English
midlands refused to have the vaccine any more. When the next smallpox
epidemic struck in the early 1890s the people of Leicester relied upon good
sanitation and a system of quarantine. There was only one death from
smallpox in Leicester during that epidemic. In contrast the citizens of
other towns (who had been vaccinated) died in vast numbers. ......Doctors
and drug companies may not like it but the truth is that surveillance,
quarantine and better living conditions got rid of smallpox - not the
smallpox vaccine......It is worth pointing out that Edward Jenner, widely
feted as the inventor of the smallpox vaccine, tried out the first smallpox
vaccination on his own 10 month old son. His son remained mentally retarded
until his death at the age of 21. Jenner refused to have his second child
vaccinated. "---- Dr Vernon Coleman MB
http://www.vernoncoleman.com/vaccines.htm

I can't say definitively why smallpox dissapeared. The vaccine could have played a role but I think it is impossible to say just how much.

Why is it it impossible to say how much of a role the vaccine played? How do you know it didn't play a significant role? Do we have to rely on blind guessing for this, or is there a reliable way to understand it?

It could be attributed to the natural decline of the disease as more and more people developed natural immunity. Do you think this is possible?

I'm no expert on this, but I'm very skeptical that smallpox disappeared as a result of a natural decline. However, I think this was all documented very well, so perhaps others who know the history and science of this better can chime in.

eta: A BBC history of smallpox.

eta2: Scarlettrose, in your opinion, what's the best way to determine if a health treatment truly works or not? You're skeptical that smallpox was eradicated via vaccine. I'm a skeptical person too. Are there remedies or treatments that you believe to work effectively? If so, how do you know, and again, how should anyone judge the efficacy of any treatment?

Hi Newberry,

I am not taking an either/or position. I am just wondering if the vaccine has taken more credit than it deserves.

Especially as I live in Australia, and we, like everyone else have been schooled in "vaccination rid us of polio and smallpox". But when I look at the graphs, it seems pretty clear the decline started well before the vaccine. Its possible the vaccine wiped out the last vestiges, however.

Do you think there is a reliable way to tease apart the vaccine effectiveness from the other causes of disease decline? I wonder why so many of the contemporaries were critical of the vaccine and it seems more favoured in retrospect? Perhaps because it improved over time; and perhaps the claims are exaggerated to aid the push for current immunisation. At this point I don't know.

I am still looking into this and probably will for awhile in between work and parenting. It has got me interested.

RE proving health treatments - of course scientfically a double-blind placebo study is the gold standard. Drugs and alternative treatments should be subjected to this testing if it is conducted without bias. But then is this truely possible?
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915

Dr. Archie Kalokerinos worked in the Australian outback with aborignal children. This region had a ridiculously high child mortality rate (could have been one in every two infants?). He started administering Vitamin C to these babies before their vaccinations and the death rate plummetted dramatically.

Not only that, he later went on to work in children's hospitals and saw his fair share of infectious disease. He found that when these kids were given IV Vit C they recovered rapidly - even from meningitis. Not only did he become convinced of the dangers of vaccines; he also thought them unneccessary when there was a safe and effective treatment available for infectious disease.

Do you think the medical establishment were interested? Not at all. He was completely baffled as his collegues almost pretended it wasn't happening. Why this sort of denial? Why haven't more studies been done on the method used? Granted, there have been some studies done but why doesn't my family doctor know about them?

I think there is a certain amount of censure for anyone that thinks outside the square. I am sure this happened to Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes who advocated washing hands before delivering babies - he was regarded with hostility.

I think alot of people DO like anecdotal reccomendations - me included. Most people dismiss homeopathy; and logically I can't fathom how it could possibly work. But I have heard numerous compelling stories from friends and relatives that it works for them, as well as their babies and animals. So this is interesting to me and why should I knock it? If its only placebo effect then its obviously their belief that is healing them, and they are not having any nasty side effects from drugs. I have friends who believe Jesus is their saviour and I don't argue with it - why would I?

By the same token, I believe intellect shouldn't be valued as superior to gut instinct. But that's just me.

I see this folly alot with mothers in the Western world. They don't trust themselves to develop an instinctive relationship with their babies and so look up to the health care workers for the sort of advice that can set them up for huge problems. Some examples include uncessary C-sections; timed feedings (and sometimes the consequent failure of breastfeeding); Controlled crying (this was widely advised 5 years ago but because of new research this trend is changing). Of course the "experts" didn't always reign supreme. My point is not that these experts are always wrong; but that no advice fits every unique situation, and if something feels wrong to a parent if often is. My doctor even admitted as much! None of this can be proven in a laboratory, of course, but does that make it any less real? I can't scientifically prove the existance of love; but am I in any doubt of my love for my children? Of course not


I always try to heed my gut feelings because when I ignore them the outcome is usually not so good.

Also how about *common sense*? If I am going into a restaurant and see 4 people run outside vomitting; I can't scientifically PROVE they have food poisoning but I would make this logical assumption.

scarlettrose wrote:Dr. Archie Kalokerinos worked in the Australian outback with aborignal children. This region had a ridiculously high child mortality rate (could have been one in every two infants?). He started administering Vitamin C to these babies before their vaccinations and the death rate plummetted dramatically.

Not only that, he later went on to work in children's hospitals and saw his fair share of infectious disease. He found that when these kids were given IV Vit C they recovered rapidly - even from meningitis. Not only did he become convinced of the dangers of vaccines; he also thought them unneccessary when there was a safe and effective treatment available for infectious disease.

Do you think the medical establishment were interested? Not at all. He was completely baffled as his collegues almost pretended it wasn't happening. Why this sort of denial? Why haven't more studies been done on the method used? Granted, there have been some studies done but why doesn't my family doctor know about them?

I think it's probably because Vitamin C is not patentable and therefore not profitable.

You might want to check out this thread, scarlett, about DCA and cancer:
another unprofitable cancer treatment ignored by big phram

Also, if you don't know about this book, you would probably really enjoy it:

The Truth about Drug Companies, by Marcia Angell, M.D.

You can read a long excerpt here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244

Hi Bob,

Thanks, I will have a read over that.

Speaking of cancer, when I googled "intravenous vitamin C" I noticed there is some promising stuff coming out on this as a treatment for cancer.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyO ... ma/tb/1733

Yes, considering it is not patentable it has probably not gotten much interest. What a sad "health industry" it is. You would think it would get some interest from someone because it would be considerably cheaper than current drug treatments.

Also, I recently found out that you guys have TV ADVERTISEMENTS for antidepressants!!? Is this true? I can't begin to say how distasteful I find that notion - its appalling. We don't in Australia, thank the lord. They are still handed out like candy though. I certainly think they have their place in soceity, but the idea of advertising them is incredible to me.

scarlettrose wrote:Speaking of cancer, when I googled "intravenous vitamin C" I noticed there is some promising stuff coming out on this as a treatment for cancer.

Yes, that's covered in this book.

Lots of people get nuts when they see books like these, because all they can see is "Oh, you're giving these people false hope!". I really hate that attitude. It presumes that adults think like children. People should, using their smart adult minds, explore alternative medicine regarding cancer. There's definitely a problem with too much false hope invested in chemo and radiation also, but you don't hear people who promote them exclusively called snake oil salesmen very much.

People have known for sixty years that the blood of cancer patients has major nutrient deficiencies.

Is mainstream medical science ignoring an inexpensive, painless, readily available cure for cancer?

Mark Levine mulls this loaded question.

The government nutrition researcher has published new evidence that suggests vitamin C can work like chemotherapy - only better. But so far, he hasn't been able to interest cancer experts in conducting the kind of conclusive studies that, one way or the other, would advance treatment.

"If vitamin C is useful in cancer treatment, that's wonderful. If it's not, or if it's harmful, that's fine, too," said Levine, a Harvard-educated physician at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "The goal is: Find what's true. Either way, the public wins, clinicians win, and patients win."

"Big Pharma [the industry in general] is engaged in the deliberate seduction of the medical profession, country by country, world-wide. It is spending a fortune on influencing, hiring and purchasing academic judgement to a point where, in a few years' time, if Big Pharma continues unchecked on its present happy path, unbought medical opinion will be hard to find." (The Nation, New York, Interview with John Le Carre, 9th April 2001)

scarlettrose wrote:Also, I recently found out that you guys have TV ADVERTISEMENTS for antidepressants!!? Is this true?

We're flooded by them. The ads on the major network newscasts, because they have a viewer demographic that is middle aged and older, are half pharmaceutical ads, and while many are for prostate and brittle bones or HBP and so on, there are ads for prozac and the others. What really sucks is how many of these drug ads are on shows that are watched by teens and young adults- the pharm industry pounds in the message that, if you're down or sluggish, pop a pill, you can't be a shiny happy person without your pill, just like the beer companies make it look like you can't have fun at a party or a ball game without a buzz on.

Television drug ads engage in such blatant deceptions and exaggerations that even the medical journals are starting to condemn the practice. This week, the Annals of Family Medicine published an analysis of popular drug advertisements that concluded the ads essentially lie to the public about the benefits of pharmaceuticals while utterly ignoring alternative health strategies like dietary or lifestyle changes.

The advertising practices of drug companies are so outrageous that even David Kessler, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, penned an editorial condemning them. In fact, Kessler says television ads never should have been allowed by the FDA in the first place (the FDA legalized drug ads in late 1997, after Kessler left his position there). Today, the United States is the only industrialized nation in the world to allow drug ads on television.

So how do drug ads lie to viewers? Essentially, they show healthy-looking actors roleplaying a fairy tale. At the beginning of the ad, the actors' lives appear to be in total disarray while they're suffering from some symptom (such as migraine headaches, restless legs, high cholesterol or whatever). Then, after getting on the drug, the actor's life is magically transformed into a state of perfection: They're happy, everything is cheery, life is glorious, all their personal relationships are suddenly successful, and so on.

Of course, the narration never directly says these drugs will transform your life and make you a happy, youthful, organized and successful person. Rather, it is implied by association through a carefully-construction formula of television influence that exerts its power through the messages that are not directly stated.

Well, I don't know one person who has had chemo and survived for very long. So, cancer patients obviously need some other answers. Maybe this will have promise for some?

And I am reeling about the drug advertising. I really am! I think when advertising comes into it its very hard for people to disengage and think rationally. I have a close family member who has had the most horrendous time getting off SSSRI's. The depression that ensued was FAR worse than the original depression, which was more like a low-key fatigue and apathy.

scarlettrose wrote:Well, I don't know one person who has had chemo and survived for very long.

I know about three dozen.

clocker bob wrote:

scarlettrose wrote:Speaking of cancer, when I googled "intravenous vitamin C" I noticed there is some promising stuff coming out on this as a treatment for cancer.

Yes, that's covered in this book.

Lots of people get nuts when they see books like these, because all they can see is "Oh, you're giving these people false hope!". I really hate that attitude. It presumes that adults think like children. People should, using their smart adult minds, explore alternative medicine regarding cancer. There's definitely a problem with too much false hope invested in chemo and radiation also, but you don't hear people who promote them exclusively called snake oil salesmen very much.

People have known for sixty years that the blood of cancer patients has major nutrient deficiencies.

Is mainstream medical science ignoring an inexpensive, painless, readily available cure for cancer?

Mark Levine mulls this loaded question.

The government nutrition researcher has published new evidence that suggests vitamin C can work like chemotherapy - only better. But so far, he hasn't been able to interest cancer experts in conducting the kind of conclusive studies that, one way or the other, would advance treatment.

"If vitamin C is useful in cancer treatment, that's wonderful. If it's not, or if it's harmful, that's fine, too," said Levine, a Harvard-educated physician at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "The goal is: Find what's true. Either way, the public wins, clinicians win, and patients win."

"Big Pharma [the industry in general] is engaged in the deliberate seduction of the medical profession, country by country, world-wide. It is spending a fortune on influencing, hiring and purchasing academic judgement to a point where, in a few years' time, if Big Pharma continues unchecked on its present happy path, unbought medical opinion will be hard to find." (The Nation, New York, Interview with John Le Carre, 9th April 2001)

Bob, doesn't cancer deplete the body and bloodstream of nutrients, since cancer cells divide and grow at a much faster rate than normal cells? Isn't it more of an effect than a cause? I know, from what I've read, that cancer cells actually encourage the grow of capillaries around them to facilitate this. One of the newer treatments I've read about are drugs that restrict the growth of these new capillaries, in an effort to essentially starve the cancer cells of nutrients.I do not know if any of these treatments are out of the testing stage and are in general use as one weapon in the cancer treatment arsenal.

I deliberately used the words weapons and arsenal here to emphasize that most cancer treatments involving drugs tread a fine line between killing the cancer and causing damage to normal cells.

I think virtually all cancer treatments, at least those involving drugs, utilize toxic chemicals, and these work because of cancer cells hyper growth, causing them to absorb more of the toxins than normal cells.

If vitamin C has the potential to treat cancer, then obviously it should be investigated, but I am a little sceptical it would work, because you are esentially providing more nutrition the cancer cells could suck up. I don't really know much about the effects of vitamin C on the human body and the immune system though, so I could be missing or unaware of some of it's functions, since I'm not a doctor or any kind of medical practitioner. I'm just a fairly well read person who finds these things interesting.

One point I would like to make though: I understand your mistrust of big pharma,(which I share) and I understand your reasoning about their vested interests in keeping patent control on potential cancer treatments, but wouldn't a low cost, reasonably safe treatment like the use of Vitamin C be encouraged by health insurance companies (which, by the way, I have no love for either) as a way to keep their costs down?

burun wrote:

scarlettrose wrote:Well, I don't know one person who has had chemo and survived for very long.

I know about three dozen.

I know quite a few also.