blue eyed snake

you really think we need more fuel?

why do you think it does? they are two different substances thalidomide was give orally,( as an over the counterdrug forgossake... ) molecule formula's are totally different, look at wiki for info at that

thanks, now I understand your remark about AP reporting. That was the reason I've been asking for sources, a good source is sometimes hard to find. When you have a good one, often you find more through following links. And indeed, thalidomide has nothing to do with the subject of vaccinating, that was the reason I posted it.

Thank you, didn't realize that softenon is an unknown word. What is AP reporting? ( whatever I learn here, it's good for my english..)

http://www.vaccinatieraad.nl/wp-content/uploads/tetanus-grafiek.jpg http://nrvs.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/tetanus_cases_and_vaccination_rates.png a bit more i think

Last year i read an article which told that due to the growth of 'elderlysickness' ( don't know a better word, english is not that easy for me, diabetes, for example) in young people it is deemed probable that on average my generation will survive our kids...

softenon, around 1960

The time before the mass-vaccinations, yeah, that's between 1950 and 1960. Incidentally the same time that people started to eat refined foods, too much sugar, i think fluoridating was around that time, cars were on the rise, more people living in city's, more people with less then healthy daily movement and fresh air, etcetera ad infinitum. All factors that have an adverse effect on our health. I do not say that vaccinations don't have adverse affects, but I do say that you ( or your family) confuse causality with correlation here... I agree totally, but my answer would be to try get those families a better life first, before we'd contemplate stopping vaccinating against life-threatening diseases.... And you do seem to hate them too

The video you linked is not only non-information, it's manipulative by getting words out of context I would like some sources that give real information on this. Until now you're clearly stating your opinion but not giving any (substantial and reliable) source. As opposed to vK who did give interesting and trustworthy sources. I am interested, else I wouldn't read and react but: please prove this, in my country polio is very small in proportion due to the vaccination scheme. Before the vaccination scheme people died and became handicapped for life. What renamed disease do you think we have now? Please with a source that's nonsense, in my small country alone there where 30 to 50 deaths as result from tetanus each year, until they started vaccinating. sources? what did you want to accomplish?

Title of this thread is: is faith an illusion of the mind, well, it might be. I've always thought so. I've always regarded faith as an obsolete, christian concept. Brought up an atheist the way I've always perceived it comes close to what MH writes. A warm and fuzzy feeling, for me implicating something like: feeling snug in the arms of your religion. I just didn't get it. But now I find myself changed. Sometimes I experience things, see things, know things, that are not ordinarily seen or known. I can't control that, it just happens, just like I sometimes just happen to do something, without intending to. I find I have a slowly growing faith that these things are alright, as eh...kind of development of the 'who I am'. The other side of the coin is doubt, when I doubt, nothing is going to happen, therefore that would block my development maybe that's something like what Steve wrote, but I find it very hard to find words for these concepts. But in this new meaning ( for me) Faith might well be an illusion of the mind too, but needed to overcome doubts. As crutches to learn to walk on a path towards further development.

just popped up

I like snakes

steve, on 03 Mar 2015 - 13:45, said: I suspect that most Atheists have as much faith in science as Religionists have in God (maybe more). Marblehead, on 04 Mar 2015 - 00:07, said: It is a fact, just like evolution. yeah, but even though I don't count myself as an atheist, the theory of evolution is much better corroborated than the theory of religion, your's faithfully BES

The mouth works for naught, so we better be silent, then wisdom arrives

Nice image, better than a bunch of words, helpful! Danke, jetzt ist es mir klar.

what is the myofascial layer? can you explain that in simple english?

and I want to thank Von Krankenhaus for several websites he posted, interesting stuff

I've never agonized about this decision, not to vaccinate against childhood diseases was clear from the start. That's the decision of the parents, simple. When the baby had prolonged fever from the first DKTPshot I first talked it over with his father. He brought up this statement: can you explain to him which choices you made to him when he's grown up. I found and still find this a good point of view making choices for a child. When I asked these nurses how long the second shot could be postponed they said it couldn't because it was together with the childhood-disease-shot. I told them my boy wouldn't get that shot. Then they told me that my baby probably would die if I denied him the shots. So I shut the door on them, I don't take that kind of bullshit The nurses from the childrens-health-department were indeed dreadful, but to me, they're just repeating what is taught to them. They didn't know any better themselves, and that is, indeed, a bad thing. I was already fed up with them because of their continuing critics of the way I fed and reared my child. So I told them that the vaccinating program would further be in the hands of my familydoctor. No fuss, no guilt nor shame or agonizing. I've been talking to our familydoctor about it and he simply offered information, on chances to get a disease, of dying or getting invalidated by it. Those chances were smaller than I thought but imo still too large. I live close to people who don't vaccinate at all. He let me choose between no vaccination, vaccination without wooping cough, or vaccination with a reduced amount of fluid. Both of the last with a longer periods inbetween. After talking it through we ( dad and I) made our choice and i still feel that is the right choice. Would do exactly the same today. And i do accept that children get ill from these vaccinations, it's no more than logical that the body reacts on getting dead virus, that's the intent, getting the immune-system to work. And the other compounds are not healthy, no, that's true. But it it's still my choice, i prefer these smaller risks to the bigger risk involved in getting polio, or diftery.

Life's mosquito nets, can't protect me from tigers, still, I will go on

beautiful, and a little skewed, in proportion and colour

hmm, I think I've seen this discussion before. Being one of the mums who was confronted with an 'overreacting' child I did some research and have made choices. Leading in that choice was the following question: If my child gets the illness that I didn't have him vaccinated for, would I be able to look him squarely in the eye when he's grown up. at the time I did my digging children were vaccinated against Diftery/ Polio/Tetanus/ whooping cough ( in one shot) andlater for mumps/rubella/measles ( in one shot) In my country the percentage of vaccination is about 95%, It's not compulsory but you get a whole lot of pressure when you won't let your child be vaccinated. A small minority of devout christians, all living in the same towns, attending the same schools etc, decline all vaccinations. Makes an interesting natural controlgroup. Large families with strict rules, every child in line washes hands before eating, i'm quite sure of that several questions arise, 1) is vaccination effective in the sense that it prevents epidemic episodes of an illness. This question should be taken apart in about which vaccins we're talking about. This is about group-effects. 2)what are the side-effects, are these effects caused by the vaccin itself or by other components, this splits up in both group and individual effect. 3)what should be the main reason for vaccinating. 4)What are the reasons for vaccinating about everybody in a country. Are they medical or economical. 5)Are vaccinating schemes set up for the health of the individual or for the needs of the group. 6) vaccination and autism ----- 1) is vaccination effective in the sense that it prevents epidemic episodes of an illness. This question should be taken apart in about which vaccins we're talking about. This is about group-effects. 1) What I've observed: vaccinating against polio and measles is effective. In both diagrams what is measured is the total of registered patients in a given year. registering is compulsary for these illnesses, doctors take care of that. Polio http://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=rivmp:259393&versionid=&disposition=inline Vaccination-program started in 1957, the small outbursts later where all in the christian region beforementioned, the later ones I do remember. Measles, some 15/20 (i think) years ago there was a publication that added up to an increased risk for autism due to measlesvaccin. I remember that both in holland but especially in the UK the vaccination-percentage dropped measurable and the occurance of measles rised accordingly. http://www.rivm.nl/dsresource?objectid=rivmp:259464&versionid=&disposition=inline This diagram starts with the year vaccinating started. Before that time virtually everybody got measles as a child. The 2013 peak was, again, this small christian group. The other ones i'm not sure of but mostly when small epidemics occur it is either this christian group or antroposophic schools that are at the center. For me this is conclusive. I'm less conclusive about the flu though, ----- 2)what are the side-effects, are these effects caused by the vaccin itself or by other components, this splits up in both group and individual effect. Vaccins should be prepared with utmost care, for me it's clear that is not so. Inclusion of something as thimerosal is exemplary. Even if no sideeffects are measured it's always better to be very careful. More examples are mentioned in other posts. The sideefects of the vaccinating itself, up to 5 % of the babies produce overreaction on DKTP. In the worst cases leading to death, brain-damage, convulsions. most of these five percent produce prolonged high fever (for weeks to months). Doktors say that this is due to the wooping cough part, but as far as I know there is no scientific evidence for this statement. All children get sick, most are more or less better after 24/48 hours the vaccination against childhood diseases produces less horrible results as far as i know. But what are the side-effects on the longterm for this vaccination? After the introduction of this vaccin new viruses sprouted. called the fifth and the sixt illness. Fever and red spots, what ( if any) is won by vaccinating against childhood diseases when new ones come up? There are doktors who say that our immunesystem needs childhooddiseases to get strong and healthy. I've read that people who have had illnesses with high fever are less prone to get cancer. I don't know but I ask myself, is it worth it? ---- 3)what should be the main reason for vaccinating. well, in my opinion, reason for vaccinating ( as a group thing) is preventing large groups of people to die or become lifelong handicapped. Polio, diftery tetanus and wooping cough conform to this. ( especially babies have a strong risk of dying of wooping cough) --- 4)What are the reasons for vaccinating about everybody in a country. Are they medical or economical. childhood diseases? when I was about 12 I got vaccinated against rubella, getting rubella when you're pregnant has severe consequence for the unborn child, is a good reason for vaccinating to me. But why boys? and why when you're a toddler? rubella is not something life-threatening, you're just sick for a week or so, so what. same for mumps and boys. measles. yeah, you get real sick, i remember, is part of life and you better get it young . I 'm not in for conspiracies but in my opinion these childhood diseases are handled in this way because of economical reasons. Mum and dad can go to their jobs instead of caring for a sick child. ( I remember my mum, we were six children and had the measles one after another. My mum was a working mum, rare in those days. After my first sister was better she told my dad: the next who gets it is your turn ) But it would be a good idea to vaccinate girls for rubella ( and humane paplilomavirus) and boys for mumps when the're say about 11 and didn't have it before. --- 5)Are vaccinating schemes set up for the health of the individual or for the needs of the group. well, in my country the schemes are set up for easy group-handling. As much as possible is done before the fourth birthday, together with regular checkups on growth and development. this is not done by familydoctors but by a special department solely having this function. A lot of young mothers still believe that having your child vaccinated is compulsory ( even though in the last ten years things have changed) The later shots were given at school, but they have changed that now to getting all the kids of a regio to a sport-hall or some such, horrible for my child I decided to go through with DKTP, but on a carefully stretched out scheme that my family-doctor cooked up. He didn't get the childhood-disease-shot. Doctor and me planned to give him a shot for mumps when he was 11. But at that time single shots for mumps ( or anything) weren't available anymore. And I've been pestered by 'officials' telling me I ' had to do it their way'...But, those women ( mostly) sincerely believed what they were telling me, and that goes high up in the medical department. I do not believe that it's a conspiracy, just stupidity.... ----- 6) vaccination and autism yeah, it was bound to come up...and it's my department.... The first research that stirred things up was faulty, but looking back I'm very happy with it. because it has woken up a lot of people to think about what vaccinations are, what they are for, etc.. and we have internet now, making it easier for people to find out things. I've read several of the later publications on this topic, carefully, not only the abstract and the discussion-section, all of it. They must still be somewhere in my study. I didn't find the results conclusive --- well, that's my take, somewhere in-between...always looking for balance edit: some faulty wording, no change in content

thanks! I've seen some of these publications and lost them... this time I will take good care not to loose them again

At the time i was at university I enjoyed it, It fixed some muddy thinking in me. I learned to read scientific papers and understand them. It still gives me the change to point out faulty reasoning in my colleagues . I'm not getting talked into a corner easily. And have had a good living of it for some years, when I'm healthy again I hope to pick that up again. So I never regretted it, but it's not the degree perse, but the things I've learned and the ability it has given me to learn more on my own.

White tiger, I offer you my respect, most people have no idea how that feels and act accordingly, thereby adding to your burden. Mistakenly thinking they know what you feel in body and mind. They do not, kind regards BES

eh, the rush I understand, sometimes it feels like that. but a bump??