Edward Jenner was a fraud

[DarwinX]

Why do people believe in vaccination? Why did they ever believe in the King’s touch?

Jenner’s idea was based solely upon a dairymaid’s superstition. He sought to give it a scientific air by calling cowpox (a disease which bears no analogy to smallpox) variolae vaccinae—i.e., smallpox of the cow. The Latin name was not without its effect, and anything that promised less harmful results than the prevailing practice of the direct inoculation of smallpox matter (which had been killing people by hundreds, and afterwards had to be forbidden by Act of Parliament) was acceptable at the time to the frightened and gullible population. The rest was an affair of influence. When once an error is accepted by a profession corporately and endowed by Government, to uproot it becomes a herculean task, beside which the entrance of a rich man into the Kingdom of heaven is easy.

The Compulsory Vaccination Act was passed in 1853; a still more stringent one followed in 1867. And between the years 1871 and 1880 there were 57,016 smallpox deaths. Compare this with the small number in the present day, when considerably more than half the population is unvaccinated, and when awful warnings are periodically uttered about the decimating scourge always "bound to come," which never arrives! Between 1911 and 1920 the deaths numbered only 110.

Let us look at the most recent Annual report of the Registrar-General—the eighty-third. He states that during the last 15 years 53 vaccinated persons have died of smallpox. In addition, there were 92 other deaths of the "doubtful" class mentioned above; that is, those declared by patients or friends to have been vaccinated, but which have been entered by medical officials as "doubtful" rather than take the slight trouble of searching the registers for verification. We may conclude, therefore, that there were 145 cases of smallpox deaths in vaccinated persons in this country during the last 15 years. And yet there were only 78 unvaccinated deaths during the same period. Thus, the rate of vaccinated to unvaccinated deaths is nearly two to one. This is the more remarkable seeing that during this same 15 years England has been largely unvaccinated, probably to the extent of about 75 per cent.

Despite Jenner's lack of education - He didn't attend school or university, he was granted a MD for his study of the Cuckoo Bird. I wonder if thats where the term Cuckoo came from - meaning crazy?

[Scott]

Why do people believe in vaccination? Why did they ever believe in the King’s touch?

I'm sure different people believe it for different reasons. A better question might be, would a hypothetical reasonable, rational person with the knowledge and access to knowledge (e.g. ability to use internet) of the typical person believe in vaccination and why or why not? I think the answer is clearly, yes, because the science is in and such a person would give much credence to the scientific method.

The science clearly shows that infectious disease is most effectively prevented by vaccination. Sources:

• http://www.cdc.gov/oid/docs/ID-Framework.pdf
• http://www.immunizationinfo.org/es/pres ... erspective
• http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/vpd-mev/index-eng.php
• http://www.virtualbiosecuritycenter.org ... hogens.pdf

Jenner’s idea was based solely upon a dairymaid’s superstition. He sought to give it a scientific air by calling cowpox (a disease which bears no analogy to smallpox) variolae vaccinae—i.e., smallpox of the cow. The Latin name was not without its effect, and anything that promised less harmful results than the prevailing practice of the direct inoculation of smallpox matter (which had been killing people by hundreds, and afterwards had to be forbidden by Act of Parliament) was acceptable at the time to the frightened and gullible population.

What is your source for this historical account? Anyone can unconvincingly claim things happened. I could say, "George Washington had a pet goat named Steve who he milked and then used the milk to paint his house," but what value is that unless we either agree on it by happenstance or if I provide some kind of evidence or argument that it is actually the truth.

We may conclude, therefore, that there were 145 cases of smallpox deaths in vaccinated persons in this country during the last 15 years. And yet there were only 78 unvaccinated deaths during the same period.

Firstly, even if we accepted these numbers, your implied conclusion is a fallacy. Perhaps 200 of those people were breastfed as a baby. Maybe 4/5ths of all people die of smallpox were breastfed as a baby. Anyone can throw around statistics implying it means something that it doesn't. But when we pull away the passionate rhetoric and inflammatory overreactions and actually look at the boring numbers and unfancy logic, such statistics do not support your conclusions.

Moreover, Janet Parker was the last person to die of smallpox and she died in 1978. If you disagree, then name a few people who died of smallpox over the past few years.

Edward Jenner might be uneducated. But thankfully vaccinations work and now we don't have to worry about dying from smallpox because the vaccination was so effective at preventing people from getting the infection and so effective at preventing outbreaks from continuing to spread.

[DarwinX]

I'm sure different people believe it for different reasons. A better question might be, would a hypothetical reasonable, rational person with the knowledge and access to knowledge (e.g. ability to use internet) of the typical person believe in vaccination and why or why not? I think the answer is clearly, yes, because the science is in and such a person would give much credence to the scientific method.

The science clearly shows that infectious disease is most effectively prevented by vaccination. Sources:

• http://www.cdc.gov/oid/docs/ID-Framework.pdf

Your reply " the science is in." This is a typical global warming type of response which really means that a small number of bureaucrats have stamped of few important looking papers and are thus satisfied that the science is approved by all authorities.

I will first address the above reference - in relation to evidence of recent outbreaks of infectious disease.

Note - that 90 % of these references are about 3rd world countries where sanitation, hygiene, nutrition and clean drinking water are not available. The other 10 % is about modern countries which deals mostly with e coli type infections which are food related problems. The Netherlands and Sweden have respiratory type problems due to the cold climate and diets which are high in dairy.

Thus, all these so called diseases can be explained via other means other than disease. Thus, hygiene, sanitation, nutrition and drinking water quality can be considered the main factors when finding causes of disease. In all cases when these factors are improved the so called diseases also disappear, at the same time, and without fail.

Note - Mosquito based diseases are different, in that, malaria is a small parasite and shouldn't be classed as a disease. But again, it is a poor diet which is lacking in iron and iodine which allows this parasite to thrive.


That's all I have time for today, I will address the many other points later.

References - http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyg ... azine.html

http://www.vaclib.org/news/smallpoxalert.htm

[Scott]

Your reply " the science is in." This is a typical global warming type of response

Fallacy of association.

Note - that 90 % of these references are about 3rd world countries where sanitation, hygiene, nutrition and clean drinking water are not available. The other 10 % is about modern countries which deals mostly with e coli type infections which are food related problems. The Netherlands and Sweden have respiratory type problems due to the cold climate and diets which are high in dairy.

Thus, all these so called diseases can be explained via other means other than disease.

Non-sequitur. 90% of "these references" could be about countries where most of the people are above 6ft tall. That isn't evidence that tallness is the cause of these diseases as opposed to the named infection/virus. Moreover, you are just throwing around statistics without specific sources, which is utterly unconvincing. Anyone can say the population of China is 508 people, but without looking it up and providing a direct source for such a basic statistical claim if it is to be a premise in an argument renders the whole argument unconvincing.

Thus, hygiene, sanitation, nutrition and drinking water quality can be considered the main factors when finding causes of disease.

Non-sequitur again. Putting the word 'thus' in front of a sentence doesn't make it follow from the sentences before it. You have provided no reason to believe infections/viruses like smallpox, HIV, orthomyxoviruses (flu), etc. are caused by poor nutrition whereas I posted much evidence (and there is a lot more) that has been gathered using the scientific method from credible sources that those diseases are caused by infections/viruses and many of which can be prevented via vaccination. Realizing how many diseases are caused by the spreading of viruses and bacterial infections brings up the importance of hygiene and sanitation. Indeed, for example, one will be less likely to catch even just the common cold by washing one's hands particularly with antibacterial soap before touching one's mouth or eyes and/or by just avoiding touching one's eyes and mouth with a hand that may be contaminated with viruses or bacteria particularly those are known to cause a certain illness humans such as the flu.

In all cases when these factors are improved the so called diseases also disappear, at the same time, and without fail.

What is your source for this claim?

***

You didn't answer my previous question. You claim hundreds of smallpox deaths over past years. Can you name even a few people who have died over the last few years from smallpox?

[DarwinX]

Non-sequitur again. Putting the word 'thus' in front of a sentence doesn't make it follow from the sentences before it. You have provided no reason to believe infections/viruses like smallpox, HIV, orthomyxoviruses (flu), etc. are caused by poor nutrition whereas I posted much evidence (and there is a lot more) that has been gathered using the scientific method from credible sources that those diseases are caused by infections/viruses and many of which can be prevented via vaccination. Realizing how many diseases are caused by the spreading of viruses and bacterial infections brings up the importance of hygiene and sanitation. Indeed, for example, one will be less likely to catch even just the common cold by washing one's hands particularly with antibacterial soap before touching one's mouth or eyes and/or by just avoiding touching one's eyes and mouth with a hand that may be contaminated with viruses or bacteria particularly those are known to cause a certain illness humans such as the flu.

Sorry, but I am short of time today. Just do this experiment for me - go one week without eating any vegetables and fruit and wash your hands regularly and see what happens. I bet you end up feeling sick and get a runny nose despite your cleanliness. Note - No vitamin supplements either - thats cheating. You can add as many unhealthy foods as you like, this will speed up the process. Suggested junk foods - McDonalds, sugar, white flour, coke, dairy, ice cream and yogurt. Drink lots of alcohol too - this will shut down your liver and speed up the process of body dysfunction and toxic waste build up even faster.

If you want to simulate a 3rd world country - Turn your frig off and eat your food after it has been sitting at room temperature for a few days.


*

[Scott]

Sorry, but I am short of time today. Just do this experiment for me - go one week without eating any vegetables and fruit and wash your hands regularly and see what happens. I bet you end up feeling sick and get a runny nose despite your cleanliness. Note - No vitamin supplements either - thats cheating. You can add as many unhealthy foods as you like, this will speed up the process. Suggested junk foods - McDonalds, sugar, white flour, coke, dairy, ice cream and yogurt. Drink lots of alcohol too - this will shut down your liver and speed up the process of body dysfunction and toxic waste build up even faster.

This is a denying the antecedent fallacy. Eating poorly can cause (certain types of) illnesses. But using that to conclude that all or even just most illnesses are caused by poor nutrition is clearly fallacious.

If you want to simulate a 3rd world country - Turn your frig off and eat your food after it has been sitting at room temperature for a few days.

Or I could just not eat to stimulate the tens of thousands of people, mostly children, who die from starvation every day. These points don't support your conclusions. Nobody here is arguing that some diseases/illness such as diabetes and heart attacks are caused mainly if not almost entirely by poor nutrition and NOT by viruses/bacteria. In fact, surely most people would agree that poor nutrition makes one's immune system weaker and the makes one more susceptible to virus/bacteria-induced illness and that poor nutrition would exacerbate the symptoms of such ailments. All of those points you can make, but they are all strawmen and red herring arguments. None of those points support the claim that many diseases like smallpox, HIV, orthomyxoviruses (flu) are caused by viruses/bacteria and that vaccines are the most effective way to prevent the spread of diseases. You have not provided any evidence or valid argument for those claims in this topic.

[DarwinX]

Or I could just not eat to stimulate the tens of thousands of people, mostly children, who die from starvation every day. These points don't support your conclusions. Nobody here is arguing that some diseases/illness such as diabetes and heart attacks are caused mainly if not almost entirely by poor nutrition and NOT by viruses/bacteria. In fact, surely most people would agree that poor nutrition makes one's immune system weaker and the makes one more susceptible to virus/bacteria-induced illness and that poor nutrition would exacerbate the symptoms of such ailments. All of those points you can make, but they are all strawmen and red herring arguments. None of those points support the claim that many diseases like smallpox, HIV, orthomyxoviruses (flu) are caused by viruses/bacteria and that vaccines are the most effective way to prevent the spread of diseases. You have not provided any evidence or valid argument for those claims in this topic.

1. You have admitted here that nutrition plays a role in whether a person gets sick or not. Poor nutrition results in the immune system not working, only then, does disease take over. Therefore, by using your own logic, it can be said that it is poor nutrition that is the cause of the disease.

2. You obviously haven't read my reference articles which contain many examples of where vaccination has failed. Take the Gloucester City epidemic which was documented in great detail by Dr Walter Hadwen in 1895-6. The city had a leaking sewerage problem in the southern half of the city while the northern half of the town was problem free. A 'small pox' epidemic hit the southern half of the town as a result, 27 vaccinated children died during the epidemic. The problem was only solved when the rains came which washed away the leaking sewerage and later the council fixed the leaking pipes which was the cause of the epidemic.

3. Scarlet fever has never been vaccinated against, yet, it has completely disappeared. Please explain how this could have occurred?

4. History shows that disease only occurs when sanitation, nutrition and hygiene are compromised. Note - All wars are accompanied by epidemic disease outbreaks.

http://www.defence.gov.au/health/infoce ... 010_15.pdf

http://www.naturalnews.com/043932_Big_P ... _scam.html

http://entomology.montana.edu/historybu ... _table.htm

[Isosceles]

DarwinX, You seem to be dismissing the scientific method. How do you decide what to believe if not hypothesis testing?

[DarwinX]

DarwinX, You seem to be dismissing the scientific method. How do you decide what to believe if not hypothesis testing?

No, I am dismissing scientific fraud, not scientific method. […]

[Geordie Ross]

Darwin, are you saying that a person with a healthy diet and lifestyle are immune to all infectious and noninfectious diseases?

[DarwinX]

Darwin, are you saying that a person with a healthy diet and lifestyle are immune to all infectious and noninfectious diseases?

Can you answer the questions that Scott is reluctant to answer?

[Scott]

Or I could just not eat to stimulate the tens of thousands of people, mostly children, who die from starvation every day. These points don't support your conclusions. Nobody here is arguing that some diseases/illness such as diabetes and heart attacks are caused mainly if not almost entirely by poor nutrition and NOT by viruses/bacteria. In fact, surely most people would agree that poor nutrition makes one's immune system weaker and the makes one more susceptible to virus/bacteria-induced illness and that poor nutrition would exacerbate the symptoms of such ailments. All of those points you can make, but they are all strawmen and red herring arguments. None of those points support the claim that many diseases like smallpox, HIV, orthomyxoviruses (flu) are caused by viruses/bacteria and that vaccines are the most effective way to prevent the spread of diseases. You have not provided any evidence or valid argument for those claims in this topic.

1. You have admitted here that nutrition plays a role in whether a person gets sick or not.

Yes of course it does. And whether or not one is shot by a gun plays a role in whether or not a person bleeds to death.

Poor nutrition results in the immune system not working, only then, does disease take over.

No, you have provided no evidence that disease ONLY occurs as the result of poor nutrition. For an example of the fallacy your argument is committing, getting shot can kill someone and being shot greatly increases one's chance of shortly dying afterwards, but that does NOT support the conclusion that dying ONLY occurs as a result of being shot.

Therefore, by using your own logic, it can be said that it is poor nutrition that is the cause of the disease.

No that conclusion is an utter fallacy when derived from the premises on which we have agreed, which is not my logic.

Using the premises agreed upon, my logic leads to: Poor nutrition causes some disease. Viruses and bacteria cause some diseases. A person with incredibly good nutrition can still get sick from viruses and bacteria (or other causes other than nutrition or viruses or bacteria, such as genetic defect or radiation-caused cancer) but having poor nutrition also makes one more susceptible to virus and bacterial infections and can exacerbate their symptoms. Practicing good hygiene and sanitation such as by regularly washing hands with antibacterial soap, disinfecting counters and cooking germ-ridden foods to sufficient temperatures to kill the germs greatly protects one from getting sick.

I will address the rest of your post, but it seems most of it is not arguments or evidence against what I have written above, but are red herrings and strawman that argue against absurd extremes that almost nobody if anybody would maintain, such as silly ideas like all diseases are caused only by viruses or bacteria and nutrition plays no role in getting sick or that all vaccines work completely such that nobody vaccinated would get sick ever. Arguing against random silly ideas does nothing to support other extremes (via false dichotomies) or to oppose the statements made by me in the bolded paragraph above.

2. You obviously haven't read my reference articles [...]

Please don't tell me what I have read or not read, as the discussion isn't about me. I might be a literally retarded literal monkey randomly pressing keys on a board that by random luck has made the intelligent arguments being posted, but pointing to my retarded monkeyness would be ad hominem.

If you can cite a specific fact to a specific page in a book or paragraph in article, then please do. If you can actually include a quote of the sentence from which you derive a statistic that is perhaps preferable.

which contain many examples of where vaccination has failed

Who would argue that vaccines are infallible? This seems to be another red herring.

Back to demonstrating fallacy by example: having a doctor pull out a bullet and stitch up the bleeding hole doesn't ALWAYS save someone's life.

Take the Gloucester City epidemic which was documented in great detail by Dr Walter Hadwen in 1895-6. The city had a leaking sewerage problem in the southern half of the city while the northern half of the town was problem free. A 'small pox' epidemic hit the southern half of the town as a result, 27 vaccinated children died during the epidemic. The problem was only solved when the rains came which washed away the leaking sewerage and later the council fixed the leaking pipes which was the cause of the epidemic.

Assuming that is a true account of events, so what?

It wouldn't prove that vaccines are completely ineffective. It wouldn't prove that viruses and bacterial infections, like those easily contracted from sewage which is riddled with germs, are not the cause of much disease. Thus it seems to be another red herring.

In any case, are you sure you don't mean to talk about Yellow Fever as opposed to Small Pox?

3. Scarlet fever has never been vaccinated against, yet, it has completely disappeared. Please explain how this could have occurred?

This question seems to falsely imply that if I (or some other random person? or scientists/historians as a group?) couldn't happen to explain how a particular disease went extinct or that if the explanations was something other than vaccines that that would somehow support the conclusion that vaccines for any disease don't work at all and/or that viruses/bacteria aren't the cause of some diseases. That is an utter fallacy.

Again it seems to be a red herring, strawman argument.

4. History shows that disease only occurs when sanitation, nutrition and hygiene are compromised. Note - All wars are accompanied by epidemic disease outbreaks.

Please provide specific source for those specific statistical claims. Please do not just provide a mere list of links. Rather, along with each and every link, provide either the specific verbatim short quote from the source from which you are citing that specific statistic or name the exact paragraph from which your paraphrasing is derived.

Anyone could come up with some random doubtful claim--"Everybody named Steve has blue eyes"--and then when asked for a source say something like, "The library is my reference. Go to the library and read every book they have and then you will see I am right." No, that is not how citations work. One goes to the library oneself and makes one argument oneself such as finding the specific page where a specific expert makes the statistical claim being made (e.g. On page 104 of the 'Fictional Book on Populations' accredited census reporter Bob Fiction says and I quote, 'the population of China is 10 million' just like I have been saying").

-- Updated 03 Mar 2014 03:49 pm to add the following --

Darwin, are you saying that a person with a healthy diet and lifestyle are immune to all infectious and noninfectious diseases?

I am also interested in DarwinX's answer to this question.

However, it seems he may even be making a more extreme claim than that. This is because the concept of healthy diet and healthy lifestyle are modified by whether or not one accepts that viruses and bacteria can cause disease. For instance, most of us would think it an unhealthy lifestyle to have unprotected sex with people known to be infected with HIV. Someone believing DarwinX's claims would not think it unhealthy presumably doesn't even believe in HIV since he wouldn't seem to believe in V. Quarantines and less extremely avoiding contact with people suspected of infection, like sending home a cook or waiter with the common cold, might also not be considered healthy or a means of preventing illness. Sanitation as commonly understood would become useless. Using antibacterial soap, especially when dealing with something known to be infected like shaking hands with a sick person who just coughed into their hands or after handling raw chicken would be pointless. I could be wrong, but it seems DarwinX might be arguing that someone with especially good nutrition and non-antibacterial good hygiene (basic washing that does not involve viral/bacterial sanitation or avoidance) would be completely immune to disease even if that person does things like handle raw chicken without sanitizing their utensils/hands in an antibacterial way and then putting those in their mouth, and the same with handling contaminated objects contaminated with a sick person's coughs or hands. Thankfully, most health departments would shut down a restaurant run with such practices and would instead only allow restaurants that sanitize against viruses and bacteria.

[DarwinX]

No that conclusion is an utter fallacy when derived from the premises on which we have agreed, which is not my logic.

Using the premises agreed upon, my logic leads to: Poor nutrition causes some disease. Viruses and bacteria cause some diseases. A person with incredibly good nutrition can still get sick from viruses and bacteria (or other causes other than nutrition or viruses or bacteria, such as genetic defect or radiation-caused cancer) but having poor nutrition also makes one more susceptible to virus and bacterial infections and can exacerbate their symptoms. Practicing good hygiene and sanitation such as by regularly washing hands with antibacterial soap, disinfecting counters and cooking germ-ridden foods to sufficient temperatures to kill the germs greatly protects one from getting sick.

Have you completed the test that I prescribed previously which will answer all your questions at once.

Test - Go one week without eating any vegetables and fruit. Eat lots of junk food, sugar, white flour, carbonated water, alcohol and preservatives. Wash your hands regularly before each meal. I guarantee that you will get a flu virus before the week is out. This simple test will show that vitamins prevent disease. Thus, viruses and disease do not attack those persons who are healthy. This may not apply to people of very advanced age and those with genetic abnormalities.

This simple test proves that vitamin deficiency precedes disease. Thus, disease is a secondary condition which is caused initially by a vitamin deficiency. The body is literally starving to death, despite the fact that it is being fed a large amount of food which is vitamin deficient.

Note - Humans cells can change their cell forms from healthy cells to bacteria and virus cells when deprived of adequate vitamins. Iodine is the hormone carrier which stimulates the immune system T4 and T3. Lack of iodine and iron can cause virus attacks which are only internal maintenance system problems and are not caused by external viruses. Thus, the flu is an internal hygiene problem and is not caused by external virus attack. Refer to Rethinking Pasteur's Germ Theory by Nancy Appleton

If you can cite a specific fact to a specific page in a book or paragraph in article, then please do. If you can actually include a quote of the sentence from which you derive a statistic that is perhaps preferable.

The Vaccine Liberation website has hundreds of historical graphs which clearly demonstrate that vaccination has never worked. Simply saying that something is a red herring doesn't constitute a logical response, you have to back it up with a feasible argument.

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpres ... istics.pdf


" Professor George Dick, speaking at an environmental conference in Brussels in 1973, admitted that in recent decades, 75% of British people who contracted smallpox had been vaccinated. This, combined with the fact that only 40% of children (and a maximum of 10% of adults) had been vaccinated, clearly shows that vaccinated people have a much higher tendency to contract the disease. "

Take the Gloucester City epidemic which was documented in great detail by Dr Walter Hadwen in 1895-6. The city had a leaking sewerage problem in the southern half of the city while the northern half of the town was problem free. A 'small pox' epidemic hit the southern half of the town as a result, 27 vaccinated children died during the epidemic. The problem was only solved when the rains came which washed away the leaking sewerage and later the council fixed the leaking pipes which was the cause of the epidemic.

Assuming that is a true account of events, so what?

It wouldn't prove that vaccines are completely ineffective. It wouldn't prove that viruses and bacterial infections, like those easily contracted from sewage which is riddled with germs, are not the cause of much disease. Thus it seems to be another red herring.

In any case, are you sure you don't mean to talk about Yellow Fever as opposed to Small Pox?

I don't don't know where you got yellow fever from? Is this a red herring? I am not sure what you are trying to say here? Can you clarify your statements a little.Quote -"are not the cause of much disease" Well, that's a bit wishy washy.

This question seems to falsely imply that if I (or some other random person? or scientists/historians as a group?) couldn't happen to explain how a particular disease went extinct or that if the explanations was something other than vaccines that that would somehow support the conclusion that vaccines for any disease don't work at all and/or that viruses/bacteria aren't the cause of some diseases. That is an utter fallacy.

Again it seems to be a red herring, strawman argument.

[/quote]

It looks like pretty solid evidence to me. If the scientific community has no explanation of why several diseases suddenly disappeared, then, this is pretty solid evidence that they haven't got a clue as to what disease really is.

Why is it a strawman argument? Note - Using terms like strawman and red herring constantly, constitutes a disguised form of personal attack (ad hominem) of the posters integrity.

Please provide specific source for those specific statistical claims. Please do not just provide a mere list of links. Rather, along with each and every link, provide either the specific verbatim short quote from the source from which you are citing that specific statistic or name the exact paragraph from which your paraphrasing is derived.

This reference from the Health Ranger website shows that pesticides can cause some diseases. This is because they contain halogens, which include - chlorine, fluorine and bromine. These halogens are bad for humans because they replace natural iodine. http://www.naturalnews.com/044150_Round ... rance.html

Regarding disease and wars occurring at the same time Reference -

http://www.defence.gov.au/health/infoce ... 010_15.pdf

[Scott]

No that conclusion is an utter fallacy when derived from the premises on which we have agreed, which is not my logic.

Using the premises agreed upon, my logic leads to: Poor nutrition causes some disease. Viruses and bacteria cause some diseases. A person with incredibly good nutrition can still get sick from viruses and bacteria (or other causes other than nutrition or viruses or bacteria, such as genetic defect or radiation-caused cancer) but having poor nutrition also makes one more susceptible to virus and bacterial infections and can exacerbate their symptoms. Practicing good hygiene and sanitation such as by regularly washing hands with antibacterial soap, disinfecting counters and cooking germ-ridden foods to sufficient temperatures to kill the germs greatly protects one from getting sick.

Have you completed the test that I prescribed previously which will answer all your questions at once.

What questions?

Test - Go one week without eating any vegetables and fruit. Eat lots of junk food, sugar, white flour, carbonated water, alcohol and preservatives. Wash your hands regularly before each meal. I guarantee that you will get a flu virus before the week is out. This simple test will show that vitamins prevent disease. Thus, viruses and disease do not attack those persons who are healthy.

You are already posted that in post #5. An in post #6 I told you it was a denying the antecedent fallacy.

The conclusion "Thus, viruses and disease do not attack those persons who are healthy" does not follow from the premises.

I can demonstrate the way that such an argument structure is a fallacy if so needed. For instance:

• Go one week leaving your car unlocked with the keys in it and a sign saying so. Make sure to park it in a crime-ridden innercity. I bet it will be stolen by the end of the week. Thus, as long as your car is locked without the keys in it and not parked in an innercity, it won't be stolen.

Fallacy! Just because A causes B doesn't mean B implies A, or in other words that B causes A. There is a difference between a sufficient condition and a necessary condition.

This simple test proves that vitamin deficiency precedes disease. Thus, disease is a secondary condition which is caused initially by a vitamin deficiency.

Utter fallacy as demonstrated above. What would actually be a correct conclusion is: This simple test proves that vitamin deficiency precedes some diseases. Thus, some diseases are a secondary condition which is caused initially by a vitamin deficiency.

Note - Humans cells can change their cell forms from healthy cells to bacteria and virus cells when deprived of adequate vitamins.

Direct source please.

Iodine is the hormone carrier which stimulates the immune system T4 and T3. Lack of iodine and iron can cause virus attacks which are only internal maintenance system problems and are not caused by external viruses. Thus, the flu is an internal hygiene problem and is not caused by external virus attack.

Even if we agree with the first few sentences as premises, the last one doesn't follow from the earlier ones. You have provided reason to believe what we all already believe which is that poor nutrition can make one sick, but you have provided NO reason to believe that those diagnosed with the flu can get it without being exposed to the virus and could get it despite have very good nutrition.

If you can cite a specific fact to a specific page in a book or paragraph in article, then please do. If you can actually include a quote of the sentence from which you derive a statistic that is perhaps preferable.

The Vaccine Liberation website has hundreds of historical graphs which clearly demonstrate that vaccination has never worked. Simply saying that something is a red herring doesn't constitute a logical response, you have to back it up with a feasible argument.

So says you. The library has hundreds of book. Maybe some of the paragraphs in some of those books prove I am right. Do your own research and form an argument with proper citations of specific facts or don't.

More importantly, any ignorant nut could make a graph and post it on the internet. Graphs are only useful as illustrations of what data is being reported by a credible source, which is only as valuable as the source is credible. If this "Vaccine Liberation" website is yet another blog or the graphs are the design of some anonymous web surfer, then they are little in the way of evidence for anything.

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpres ... istics.pdf

That is a wordpress blog. Wordpress blogs are not a source. Anyone can make them and they are anonymous. I could put one up on the same site (Wordpress.com) in 10 seconds that says 2 + 2 = 5. I could even claim on that blog that I am Einstein or Barack Obama. It's the same as citing a MySpace page or an anonymous facebook comment.

Take the Gloucester City epidemic which was documented in great detail by Dr Walter Hadwen in 1895-6. The city had a leaking sewerage problem in the southern half of the city while the northern half of the town was problem free. A 'small pox' epidemic hit the southern half of the town as a result, 27 vaccinated children died during the epidemic. The problem was only solved when the rains came which washed away the leaking sewerage and later the council fixed the leaking pipes which was the cause of the epidemic.

Assuming that is a true account of events, so what?

It wouldn't prove that vaccines are completely ineffective. It wouldn't prove that viruses and bacterial infections, like those easily contracted from sewage which is riddled with germs, are not the cause of much disease. Thus it seems to be another red herring.

In any case, are you sure you don't mean to talk about Yellow Fever as opposed to Small Pox?

I don't don't know where you got yellow fever from? Is this a red herring? I am not sure what you are trying to say here? Can you clarify your statements a little.Quote -"are not the cause of much disease" Well, that's a bit wishy washy.

You can call it wishy washy when we get what we get after we drop the ridiculous false dichotomies and red herrings and see that some diseases can be caused by poor nutrition and some diseases can be caused by viral/bacterial infections and that each makes one more susceptible to the ill symptoms of the other. It's not a choice between disease only being caused by poor nutrition and viruses not existing or between disease only being caused by viruses/bacteria and poor nutrition or other things not being able to make someone sick even in the absence of disease; making it seem so is a false dichotomy fallacy.

This question seems to falsely imply that if I (or some other random person? or scientists/historians as a group?) couldn't happen to explain how a particular disease went extinct or that if the explanations was something other than vaccines that that would somehow support the conclusion that vaccines for any disease don't work at all and/or that viruses/bacteria aren't the cause of some diseases. That is an utter fallacy.

Again it seems to be a red herring, strawman argument.

It looks like pretty solid evidence to me. If the scientific community has no explanation of why several diseases suddenly disappeared, then, this is pretty solid evidence that they haven't got a clue as to what disease really is.

It is clearly not solid evidence. It is an utter fallacy. And now you are committing another fallacy, a red herring, by tacking on yet another fallacious conclusion that wasn't even the original fallacious conclusion. The new fallacious red herring being "the scientific community... haven't got a clue as to what disease really is" whereas the original fallacious conclusion was "vaccines for any disease don't work at all and/or that viruses/bacteria aren't the cause of some diseases". Neither of those conclusion is evidenced by the lack of explanation for some particular organism/diseases extinction. The claim otherwise is like some kind of argument from ignorance on fallacious steroids.

Indeed, there is a lot that science cannot explain. That is something that is different from science as opposed to religion or conspiracy theories. Science doesn't require explanation for everything and doesn't attempt to explain that for which there isn't evidence to explain. Religion and conspiracy theories jump to conclusions in the absence of evidence.

Why is it a strawman argument? Note - Using terms like strawman and red herring constantly, constitutes a disguised form of personal attack (ad hominem) of the posters integrity.

No, I don't question your integrity. My view that your arguments are invalid is not a personal attack but an attack on the arguments. I say red herring and strawman over and over because each new 'argument' or piece of alleged 'evidence' seems to be for some other claim besides that that I am debated.

For instance, you might post an argument or evidence that eating poorly can make one sick. That would be a complete utter red herring, strawman argument because I have explicitly agreed over and over that eating poorly can make one sick. The issue is your claim that viruses don't cause any diseases and that vaccines don't work.

For another instance, you might pose some long drawn-out argument with plenty of sources that a certain person died after being vaccinated thus attempting to conclude that vaccines don't always work or that someone could still get suck even after having been vaccinated. That would be a complete utter red herring, strawman argument because again the disagreement is not that vaccines always work and always prevent someone from getting sick. The issue is your claim that viruses don't cause any diseases and that vaccines don't work.

I keep saying strawman and red herring because although you keep making claims and posting alleged argument or evidence of various things, it is not evidence or argument of what is actually under debate: The issue is your claim that viruses don't cause any diseases and that thus vaccines don't work.

I don't call your arguments strawman or red herrings as some indirect, figurative attack on you but because I mean to call your arguments strawman and red herrings and thus they do not support the conclusion at debate and if taken to are utter fallacies.

Please provide specific source for those specific statistical claims. Please do not just provide a mere list of links. Rather, along with each and every link, provide either the specific verbatim short quote from the source from which you are citing that specific statistic or name the exact paragraph from which your paraphrasing is derived.

http://www.naturalnews.com/044150_Round ... rance.html

Naturalnews is a known conspiracy theory website that lacks credibility. Despite the word 'news' in the name. It is actually a blog. It is founded and run by the self-described activist Mike Adams who is an AIDS denialist, a 9/11 truther, a birther, a chemtrailist, and endorser of the pseudoscientific film House of Numbers and endorser of conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. He considers Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, and David Icke to be "REAL heroes" and Icke and whael.to to be reliable sources.

Regarding disease and wars occurring at the same time Reference -

http://www.defence.gov.au/health/infoce ... 010_15.pdf

No, you wrote that "History shows that disease only occurs when sanitation, nutrition and hygiene are compromised." Please support that conclusion.

Moreover, the article by Bruce Short seems to only support a link between war and increased disease, not your paraphrasing that ALL wars are accompanied by epidemic disease outbreaks. There is a big difference between a statistical correlation and a strict necessary condition. For instance, smoking increases one's chance of lung cancer, but that hardly means that everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. This demonstrates why we need to be very careful when paraphrasing sources; it may often be better to simply quote verbatim a summarizing sentence or two from the conclusion or abstract of the article, or the relevant part, rather than offer paraphrasing they may not be accurate.

[DarwinX]

I can demonstrate the way that such an argument structure is a fallacy if so needed. For instance:

• Go one week leaving your car unlocked with the keys in it and a sign saying so. Make sure to park it in a crime-ridden innercity. I bet it will be stolen by the end of the week. Thus, as long as your car is locked without the keys in it and not parked in an innercity, it won't be stolen.

Fallacy! Just because A causes B doesn't mean B implies A, or in other words that B causes A. There is a difference between a sufficient condition and a necessary condition.

This example is inappropriate. The human body is far more complex than the structure of a motor vehicle. It has a multiple layer security system which prevents exterior organisms from entry. The human body is like a city of organisms which coexist together. The security system needs to be energized by certain elements and vitamins. Iodine acts like a taxi/courier service which transports hormones around the human body. If the human body is deficient in iodine or iron, then this taxi/courier service wont work properly.

Science has misled us into believing that cells are monomorphic. This is where the basic problem lies. Cells are actually pleomorphic . All animal cells evolved from viruses and bacteria, these are the basic building blocks of all animal life. Thus, human cells are no different. The cells can revert back into a more primitive state if the present environment doesn't support them. They can become viral, bacterial or anaerobic (cancerous) if they do not get enough vitamins or oxygen.

http://www.mouthbodydoctor.com/pleomorp ... -microbes/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

This video reveals what happens to human blood when the human body ingests refined sugar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

.

If you can cite a specific fact to a specific page in a book or paragraph in article, then please do. If you can actually include a quote of the sentence from which you derive a statistic that is perhaps preferable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v

Why is it that doctors don't use dark field microscopes to diagnose disease and poor health? Is it so that they can protect the food manufacturers and governemnts from litigation and liability from sugar and preservative poisoning?

Verdict - Vaccines are illogical. They are made of dead animal cells and need preservatives to keep them from going off. Why do they need preservatives if they are supposed to be a cure for disease? Answer - This is because disease itself is a product of dead or dying animal cells. Conclusion - Vaccination is illogical and stupid and was introduced by an uneducated con artist called Edward Jenner who made a living from converting old wives tales into scientific theories. This bogus theory was later confirmed by another con-artist, Luis Pasteur, who came up with the ludicrous Germ Theory.

Note - Using disease to cure disease was used in prehistoric Russia for thousands of years before Edward Jenner suddenly discovered this new idea.

The human brain is a computer which is subject to computer virus infection. Religion and vaccination are two such viruses which both began as superstitions and slowly grew to be totally consuming obsessions of neurotic behaviour.