This is a great article showing how real the whole issue of viruses is and how baseless the issue of vaccines for so-called viral illnesses are.

This will blow your mind!

More on this issue when we talk about AIDS vaccines being worked on toward the end. This article also deals with other so-called viruses that we are studying now.

Sheri

BIO for author Peter Duesberg at the end..........(On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the virus-AIDS hypothesis)

http://www.mercola.com/2000/dec/31/slow_virus.htm

Dr. Joseph Mercola

Slow Viruses: The Original Sin Against the Laws of Virology

By Peter H. Duesberg and Bryan J. Ellison
from "INVENTING THE AIDS VIRUS", Regnery publishing, 1996

Reprinted from Health, Education, AIDS Liaison (HEAL), Toronto

From the discovery of tobacco mosaic virus through the polio epidemic, scientists have found and legitimately blamed many viruses for a variety of diseases, each having passed the acid test of Koch's postulates. But for every truly dangerous virus, many more perfectly harmless passenger viruses can be found in humans and animals.

NIH-sponsored polio research during the late 1950s proved the point. Researchers trying to isolate new strains of poliovirus accidentally found numerous closely related passenger viruses -- such as Coxsackie and echoviruses - that, like polio, infected the digestive system. Scientists classified some of these viruses as "orphans" - viruses without corresponding diseases.

The virus hunters could not bring themselves to believe microbes could exist without being harmful and expected even these "orphan" viruses would someday find appropriate sicknesses.


When trying to blame a passenger virus for a disease, how-ever, one nagging problem haunts the virus hunter: The laws of virology dictate that the illness will strike the victim soon after infection. When microbes infect a new host, they cause sickness within days or weeks at most. In order to cause disease, viruses need to grow into sufficient numbers to take over the body; otherwise, the host's immune defenses will neutralize the invader and prevent disease altogether.

The rate-determining step of such fast, exponential growth is the generation time of the virus. Since the generation time of all human viruses is between eight and forty-eight hours, and since the infected cell produces one hundred to one thousand viruses per day, viruses multiply exponentially, increasing in numbers hundred- to thousand-fold per day. Within a week or two, one hundred trillion (1014) cells can be produced-one for each of the one hundred trillion cells in the human body.


Therefore, if scientists wish to convict an innocent virus, they must invent a new property for it that allows the virus to violate the laws of virology.

For example, they can hypothesize a "latent period" of months or years between the time the virus invades the body and the appearance of symptoms - hence, a "slow" virus.

However, the slow virus concept has never been reconciled with the short generation time of viruses and the immune system. Once the virus lies totally dormant, an intact immune system will never allow any virus to be reactivated to multiply into numbers that would threaten the host.

For a virus to be reactivated, the immune system first must be destroyed by something else - the real cause of a disease. A reactivated virus would just contribute an opportunistic infection. Thus, there are no slow viruses, only slow virologists.

A conventional virus could, however, be slow acting in a defective immune system.

MORE at website about the lies about Hepatitis Viruses

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheri This is a great article showing how real the whole issue of viruses is and how baseless the issue of vaccines for so-called viral illnesses are.

Well, if this is true, I will no longer believe anything Hahnemann has to say about anything!!

Regards

Luise

Oh Luise...

If a person is wrong about *anything*, then they must be wrong about *everything*?

You set a high standard!
:-)

Hello Luise,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luise Well, if this is true, I will no longer believe anything Hahnemann has to say about anything!!

??? Why ???

Regards,
Paul

If he was so gullible as to believe in vaccination against smallpox during the historical time that the dsease was still very much around AND wrote emphatically in its favour in the Organon - well he cannot have had the sharp intelligence he is credited with.


If that statement in the Organon is ballyhoo - why should I believe any of the others?


Regards

Luise

Remember that Jenner and Hahnemann lived at the same time, and the cowpox/smallpox vaccination was almost homeopathic:

- a similar disease (cowpox) to preventing another disease (smallpox)

- same way of acquisition: through cuts in the hands of milkers for the cowpox, through a scratch in the skin for the vaccine

The big difference was that the cowpox was pure and not attenuated. That is probably why H was enthusiastic about it. Only his students, years later, started seeing the bad effects.

Today's vaccines use the same germ and not a similar one on top of the toxicity of the solution; that is a different game.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.

Hi JROZ,

Doesn't that rather strengthen my point: i.e. that it would be reasonable to
1) improve on the purity of the vaccine
2) reconsider what to use for the effective part (e.g., if small-pox vaccine would again come into use, to return to the cowpox virus)

also:

to consider which vaccination may be absolutely nonsensical - e.g. hepatitis for children and for people who do not need transfusions, are not in danger of being infected by contaminated needles or by coition.

To find out facts about the dangers of vaccination for e.g. measles, chicken-pox, mumps as compared to the risks of those diseases. AND present them fairly - from both sides - to the public.

To evaluate the effectiveness of such vaccinations as e.g. pertussis vac.

To forget vacc. against e.g. diphtheria unless there is an outbreak somewhere

..........

Instead of claiming

that vaccinations are not effective,
that epidemics do not occur,
that pathogens are imagination,
that the non-occurring epidemics are not dangerous or can, as a matter of course, be made harmless by homeopaths, of which there would not be enough to go around - - .

That there is no longer danger of epidemics because of the improved sanitation etc.--

and more of the claims made by the anti-vaccination movement

??

Regards

Luise

Quote:

To find out facts about the dangers of vaccination for e.g. measles, chicken-pox, mumps as compared to the risks of those diseases. AND present them fairly - from both sides - to the public.

I have always thought this would be a good idea. So many people are deathly afraid of these diseases, but they don't realize that they would not be that harmful anymore. People have told me, "The side effect of not vaccinating for measles is getting measles" like it is a horrible thing or something. To which I usually respond that getting measles is really not that big a deal with modern medical care.

It's like the monkey pox "scare" in the U.S. a couple of years ago. I couldn't understand why everyone went bananas. Sure, maybe it kills people in Africa where there is poor sanitation and medical care, but in the U.S. everyone recovered.

When I got sick this year with what might have been the flu, I had people telling me that I should have received the flu shot. I told them I would rather get my immunity from the actual disease than the shot. Sure, it was inconvenient, but it's not like it would kill me.

Tracy

Now that's straight thinking! I wish more people had your attitude.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Tracy - While I don't wish to lump all things together - getting measles or chicken pox as an adult is no simple matter - even with 'modern medical care'. Who says these diseases are not harmful anymore? I have relatives who lost hearing to measles (in communties with excellent 'medical' care). I had chicken pox as an adult - it hit at an unfortunate temporary low in my normally good immunity - and was very severe, eventually going to pneumonia in a cascade effect. It was months of illness and recouperation that were VERY severe (yes it could have been fatal) -and it was in the US with excellent 'medical' care. While I usually advise against the immunization 'frenzy', I would argue that it really needs to be considered on an individual basis. Carefully, and with knowledge, evaluating the risk factors. One important consideration is that we need to build our immunity as children. Some exposure in youth, when (if) our immune system is at a high point, can produce wonderful results. Exposure later in life, when (if) our immune system is challenged is not always so simple.

I heartily agree that the fear is out of proportion, and helped along by the current medical/pharmaceutical 'establishment'. But I do think it should be carefully evaluated on an individual basis. If we go charging around dismissing disease as 'no longer harmful anymore', and dismissing individualized care based on the consideration of the individual situation, then we are no different from those practicing allopathic medicine.