Question:

You might also want to look up "endocrine disruptors caused by chemicals in our environement (deliberate and spills)" "chemicals companies who also produce medications" and auto-immune. IMHO Jean – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Over the past few decades there has been a dramatic increase in the incidence of asthma and other autoimmune diseases. One plausible explanation is that the medical industry itself is responsible for the rise. The long-term effects of multiple vaccinations on certain people’s immune systems can be detrimental. Most of the infectious diseases (e.g. measles,mumps,rubella) that infants are vaccinated against are, the vast majority of the time, mild and harmless. Infectious diseases contracted at an appropriate age and allowed to run their course can be beneficial because they serve to prime and mature the child’s immune system. They play a vital role in the development of a strong, healthy immune system. Messing around with an immature, developing immune system by simultaneously vaccinating against multiple diseases denies it the opportunity to learn and grow stronger, as nature intended. It can only strengthen by overcoming challenges, not by avoiding them. In later years this avoidance may result in conditions like asthma, where the immune system starts to act in a totally exaggerated and inappropriate manner. Several studies have shown that vaccinated children have a higher incidence of asthma than unvaccinated children, and that infection with childhood disease can lower the risk of getting asthma later on: http://www.909shot.com/dimedia.htm The myths that vaccines are safe and effective are addressed here: http://www.unc.edu/~aphillip/www/vaccine/dvm1.htm Before you buy.

Response:

I Measles does kill this many, mostly in third world countries, and the reason is because of severe malnutrition. A weakened immune system from malnutrition is not able to fight off what would otherwise be a very mild, harmless disease. The way to wipe out deaths from measles and other infectious diseases is improved nutrition and sanitation, not vaccines. This is a half truth. True the malnurished are more vulnerable but it also strikes healthy children. The reason it is common in third world countries is because they do not vaccinate.

There is no proof that measles is more common in third world countries because of lack of vaccination. In the US and England, between 1915 and 1958, there was a 95% decline in the measles death rate. The measles vaccine didn’t arrive until the 1960s. The decline was due to improved sanitation/nutrition. The measles vaccine isn’t even very good at stopping the spread of the disease. Lots of people who get measles have already been vaccinated against it. The same is true of other vaccines. Again, half true. While no vaccine gives 100% immunity, in recent outbreaks in the US and in Europe unvaccinated people were overwhelmingly more likely to get measles than vaccinated ones.

In 1985 the US government reported that 80% of notified cases of measles had been vaccinated. As the years go by children’s immune systems are getting less and less stimulation because of the increasing number of diseases that they are being vaccinated against. Pure BS. Children are exposed to hundreds if not thousands of viruses every year. There is no evidence that immunizing against the few organisms that we do immunize against (which also stimulates the immune system by the way) makes and significant difference in the number of infections the kids are exposed to.

Maybe the thousands of viruses that they are exposed to are not enough of a challenge to their immune systems, and exposure to some of the mild disease-causing viruses that they are currenly being vaccinated against would pose more of a challenge and result in  stronger immune systems. The body of evidence showing that vaccines work would argue against this. Infections post vaccination tend to be milder and have fewer complications even when they do occur. Besides, there is nothing about these statements that provides any logical arguement against vaccinating.

The body of evidence shows that vaccines don’t work. They haven’t been responsible for disease decline, they can be unsafe, the principles on how they’re supposed to work are unsound, and they may cause long-term damage to the immune system. Apart from that, they’re fine. Before you buy.

Response:

Do a search on medline for asthma and parasite. It doesn’t bring up anyting conclusive but there is some work being done there. — Gordon    W5RED www.couger.com/gcouger "You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take."   – Wayne Gretzky

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some things I think could be contrbuting to asthma: In studying asthma/allergies one thing that comes up now and again are accoditale reports of increased allergies after a population is cure of parasites. Particularly worms. I also notice that singular has a warning that it may reduce the bodies immune reaction to parasites. I have also seen reports of allergies being cured by an infestation of liver flukes. They killed the patient but he died with a clear head:) There are some whip worms that do not produce disease in humans that I have considered trying. Are there solid evidence based references for the above or it this based on people’s hypothesis? I would suspect that the above is based on a misunderstanding of the functioning of the immune system.  Immunoglobulin E (IgE) is an antibody that provides resistance to parasitic infection.  Your body produces the various immunoglobulin as a learned response to an infection (or what the body thinks is an infection).  Getting a case or worms is not going to do anything about the immunoglobulins that are designed specifically to react to an allergen such as a pollen protein. (If your hypothesis were correct then getting my flu shot would also protect me from colds – as most of us can tell, it dosent work that way.) The increase of energy efficient homes, the use of manufactured materials such as particle board and wide spread carpeting have IMO lead to an marked decrease in indoor air quality. Maybe, maybe not.  There is a lot of evidence that these can make existing cases of asthma worse, but not any convincing evidence that it causes asthma. Catalytic converter and gasoline with sulfur in it make sulphonic acid that bothers me a lot. Possible the cleaner exhaust are more damaging to the lungs than the dirty exhaust were. A lot more people are exposed to exhaust fumes every year. Comparative studies in some Siberia might lend some light on this. This hypothesis was tested shortly after the two Germanies reunited. The findings were that although the incidence of asthma was the same for (relatively unpolluted) West germany as it was for (heavily polluted East Germany – there was a direct correlation between the severity of the pollution and the severity of the asthma. I know I do better away from vehicle exhaust, wood smoke, and all the people that wear perfume and the stores that use air freshener. All of these are respiratory irritants.  I have a sign on my office door telling people not to enter if they are wearing perfume or cologne.  And I have asked the general manager to leave because his cologne was irritating me. I don’t have references on any of these. I expect that two or more of them may be contributing to increased asthma. Isolating them is would be a nightmare. FYI, there is a not small subset of epidemiologist who are unconvinced that the actual rate of asthma has risen at all.  They have made some reasonable arguments that the ‘increase’ in asthma may be a result of more accurate screening and fewer missed diagnoses.  (And more than a little bit of over diagnosis.)  Ever notice how when new people with asthma come here one of the frequent recommendations is to go to a specialist to make sure it really is asthma? It’s a terrible responsibility – but somebody has to be the Americans.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Most of the infectious diseases (e.g. measles,mumps,rubella) that infants are vaccinated against are, the vast majority of the time, mild and harmless. Measles kills one million children per year according to Unicef data. Authors since William Osler in the 1890’s have described it as one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among children. Rubella is mild in the child but causes "fetal rubella syndrome" (several birth defects) if pregant mother catch it. Mumps causes a series of perment problems including infertility in men. "Mild and harmless" indeed. Measles does kill this many, mostly in third world countries, and the reason is because of severe malnutrition. A weakened immune system from malnutrition is not able to fight off what would otherwise be a very mild, harmless disease. The way to wipe out deaths from measles and other infectious diseases is improved nutrition and sanitation, not vaccines.

This is a half truth. True the malnurished are more vulnerable but it also strikes healthy children. The reason it is common in third world countries is because they do not vaccinate. The measles vaccine isn’t even very good at stopping the spread of the disease. Lots of people who get measles have already been vaccinated against it. The same is true of other vaccines.

Again, half true. While no vaccine gives 100% immunity, in recent outbreaks in the US and in Europe unvaccinated people were overwhelmingly more likely to get measles than vaccinated ones. If mumps and rubella are mild diseases in childhood, why are their vaccines being given to infants whose immune systems are still immature and developing?

Because that is the only way to get high vaccination rates. People just don’t turn out in large numbers to vaccinate at any age after infancy. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Infectious diseases contracted at an appropriate age and allowed to run their course can be beneficial because they serve to prime and mature the child’s immune system. They play a vital role in the development of a strong, healthy immune system. Again, frequently hypothesized but never proven. This theory suffers from the flaw that it assumes that the few diseases that are immunized against repesent a significan proportion of the different infections a child will face growing up. The immune system gets plent of stimulation without seeing these infections. It also assumes that the immune stimulation is fundamentally different than the stimulation recieved by the vaccine. While they certainly are not the same they are similar and there is not reason to suspect that one is good and needed and the other is harmful. As the years go by children’s immune systems are getting less and less stimulation because of the increasing number of diseases that they are being vaccinated against.

Pure BS. Children are exposed to hundreds if not thousands of viruses every year. There is no evidence that immunizing against the few organisms that we do immunize against (which also stimulates the immune system by the way) makes and significant difference in the number of infections the kids are exposed to. There is a fundamental difference between the immune stimulation received from a vaccine and that received naturally. There’s more to immune stimulation than just antibody production, which is all that vaccines replicate. Natural immunization is a complex process and involves many organs and systems. Naturally acquired immunity  is far more powerful than the "immunity" received from vaccines. Reinfection with a disease is very rare after having had the disease, whereas it can be quite easy to catch it after being vaccinated against it. Epidemics breaking out in fully vaccinated populations are not uncommon.

The body of evidence showing that vaccines work would argue against this. Infections post vaccination tend to be milder and have fewer complications even when they do occur. Besides, there is nothing about these statements that provides any logical arguement against vaccinating. — CBI, M.D. Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before following any advice given.

Response:

Today the spell check no longer works. Oh well….. — CBI

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Surfer – you may also notice that now my spell check works. Yippee. Not a chance!  My spelling is awful – but my spell checker works just fine!  However congratulations on sorting out MS Outlook.  I reckon you deserve a medal, of at the very least some additional kind of qualification. PS the cats are impressed as well.  ;-) <snip — Surfer!

Response:

Measles does kill this many, mostly in third world countries, and the reason is because of severe malnutrition. A weakened immune system from malnutrition is not able to fight off what would otherwise be a very mild, harmless disease. The way to wipe out deaths from measles and other infectious diseases is improved nutrition and sanitation, not vaccines.

So you have a problem with giving them a vaccinate that can save their lives?   The measles vaccine isn’t even very good at stopping the spread of the disease. Lots of people who get measles have already been vaccinated against it. The same is true of other vaccines.

If this is true, then explain the lack of measles epidemics in vaccinated populations.  The fact is that vaccinations work.   If mumps and rubella are mild diseases in childhood, why are their vaccines being given to infants whose immune systems are still immature and developing?

Maybe because we want to protect the children from the disease? As the years go by children’s immune systems are getting less and less stimulation because of the increasing number of diseases that they are being vaccinated against.

Notice the logical flaw here?  The vaccines provide stimulation in that they fool the body into thinking it has the disease, causing it to learn how to defeat it. There is a fundamental difference between the immune stimulation received from a vaccine and that received naturally. There’s more to immune stimulation than just antibody production, which is all that vaccines replicate. Natural immunization is a complex process and involves many organs and systems. Naturally acquired immunity  is far more powerful than the "immunity" received from vaccines. Reinfection with a disease is very rare after having had the disease, whereas it can be quite easy to catch it after being vaccinated against it. Epidemics breaking out in fully vaccinated populations are not uncommon.

Can you provide scientific references to the above?  This sounds mostly like speculation. It’s a terrible responsibility – but somebody has to be the Americans.

Response:

An excellent article that shows the ‘before vaccination’ and ‘after vaccination’ death rates for diseases is at: http://www.cdc.gov/od/nvpo/arttop10a.htm "Measles. Measles vaccine was licensed in the United States in 1963. During 1958-1962, an average of 503,282 measles cases and 432 measles-associated deaths were reported each year (9-11). Measles incidence and deaths began to decline in 1965 and continued a 33-year downward trend. This trend was interrupted by epidemics in 1970-1972, 1976-1978, and 1989-1991. In 1998, measles reached a provisional record low number of 89 cases with no measles-associated deaths (13). All cases in 1998 were either documented to be associated with international importations (69 cases) or believed to be associated with international importations (CDC, unpublished data, 1998). In 1994, every dollar spent to purchase measles-containing vaccine saved $10.30 in direct medical costs and $3.20 in indirect societal costs (7). " It’s a terrible responsibility – but somebody has to be the Americans.

Response:

Most of the infectious diseases (e.g. measles,mumps,rubella) that infants are vaccinated against are, the vast majority of the time, mild and harmless. Measles kills one million children per year according to Unicef data. Authors since William Osler in the 1890’s have described it as one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among children. Rubella is mild in the child but causes "fetal rubella syndrome" (several birth defects) if pregant mother catch it. Mumps causes a series of perment problems including infertility in men. "Mild and harmless" indeed.

Measles does kill this many, mostly in third world countries, and the reason is because of severe malnutrition. A weakened immune system from malnutrition is not able to fight off what would otherwise be a very mild, harmless disease. The way to wipe out deaths from measles and other infectious diseases is improved nutrition and sanitation, not vaccines. The measles vaccine isn’t even very good at stopping the spread of the disease. Lots of people who get measles have already been vaccinated against it. The same is true of other vaccines. If mumps and rubella are mild diseases in childhood, why are their vaccines being given to infants whose immune systems are still immature and developing? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Infectious diseases contracted at an appropriate age and allowed to run their course can be beneficial because they serve to prime and mature the child’s immune system. They play a vital role in the development of a strong, healthy immune system. Again, frequently hypothesized but never proven. This theory suffers from the flaw that it assumes that the few diseases that are immunized against repesent a significan proportion of the different infections a child will face growing up. The immune system gets plent of stimulation without seeing these infections. It also assumes that the immune stimulation is fundamentally different than the stimulation recieved by the vaccine. While they certainly are not the same they are similar and there is not reason to suspect that one is good and needed and the other is harmful.

As the years go by children’s immune systems are getting less and less stimulation because of the increasing number of diseases that they are being vaccinated against. There is a fundamental difference between the immune stimulation received from a vaccine and that received naturally. There’s more to immune stimulation than just antibody production, which is all that vaccines replicate. Natural immunization is a complex process and involves many organs and systems. Naturally acquired immunity  is far more powerful than the "immunity" received from vaccines. Reinfection with a disease is very rare after having had the disease, whereas it can be quite easy to catch it after being vaccinated against it. Epidemics breaking out in fully vaccinated populations are not uncommon. Before you buy.

Response:

In studying asthma/allergies one thing that comes up now and again are accoditale reports of increased allergies after a population is cure of parasites. Particularly worms. I also notice that singular has a warning that it may reduce the bodies immune reaction to parasites. I have also seen reports of allergies being cured by an infestation of liver flukes. They killed the patient but he died with a clear head:) There are some whip worms that do not produce disease in humans that I have considered trying.

I think you will find that many sorts of infections and other inflamation-causing conditions will sometimes result in a reduction in allergies and asthma symptoms.  When there is an inflammation somewhere in the body the body concentrates its efforts there and more generalized inflammations may be reduced.  In other cases, however, the localized inflammation may cause a generalized increase in inflammation-causing hormones and make the allergy or asthma worse. There are other paradoxes.  I can recall as a child discovering that climbing stairs would not only temporarily relieve my nasal congestion but would also (once I caught my breath) reduce my wheezing.  I always figured that it was the increase in blood pressure that did it, though I suppose there are other explanations.

Response:

<snip Catalytic converter and gasoline with sulfur in it make sulphonic acid that bothers me a lot. Possible the cleaner exhaust are more damaging to the lungs than the dirty exhaust were. A lot more people are exposed to exhaust fumes every year. Comparative studies in some Siberia might lend some light on this.

<snip The incidence of asthma in the north-west of Scotland (*very* clean air for those who don’t know it) is as high as anywhere else in the UK. — Surfer!

Response:

Surfer – you may also notice that now my spell check works. Yippee.

Not a chance!  My spelling is awful – but my spell checker works just fine!  However congratulations on sorting out MS Outlook.  I reckon you deserve a medal, of at the very least some additional kind of qualification. PS the cats are impressed as well.  ;-) <snip — Surfer!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – another plausible cause for increasing asthma diagnoses is not only better recognition of the disease process itself, but increasing amounts of airborne pollution’s, exposure to chemical irritants used to "make life easier" ie cleaning agents, glues, plastics, carpets, home building materials, etc. Yep, that’s a plausible explaination.  Yet when kids with asthma/allergies were tested it turns out they were most allergic to cockroaches.  Totally defies logic, since in theory homes have gotten cleaner and more cockroach free.  The expectation was that house dust would be the biggie, but there you are. There’s a hell of a lot that’s not understood at all here.  And clinging to one theory or another does one little good.  The real issue is what works and what doesn’t. That study looked at two groups of kids. In children living in rural areas the principle allergy stimulating asthma was dust mites, as previous studies have shown. In inner city kids it was cockroaches. If you have ever lived in an American inner city this makes sense. It also helps explain part of the differences due to socioeconomic and racial status. Furthermore it lets us know that interventions and environmental modifications should stress different issues between these two groups.

OK, that isn’t quite the way I heard it, but my info was 3rd or 4th hand.

Response:

Some things I think could be contrbuting to asthma: In studying asthma/allergies one thing that comes up now and again are accoditale reports of increased allergies after a population is cure of parasites. Particularly worms. I also notice that singular has a warning that it may reduce the bodies immune reaction to parasites. I have also seen reports of allergies being cured by an infestation of liver flukes. They killed the patient but he died with a clear head:) There are some whip worms that do not produce disease in humans that I have considered trying.

Are there solid evidence based references for the above or it this based on people’s hypothesis? I would suspect that the above is based on a misunderstanding of the functioning of the immune system.  Immunoglobulin E (IgE) is an antibody that provides resistance to parasitic infection.  Your body produces the various immunoglobulin as a learned response to an infection (or what the body thinks is an infection).  Getting a case or worms is not going to do anything about the immunoglobulins that are designed specifically to react to an allergen such as a pollen protein. (If your hypothesis were correct then getting my flu shot would also protect me from colds – as most of us can tell, it dosent work that way.) The increase of energy efficient homes, the use of manufactured materials such as particle board and wide spread carpeting have IMO lead to an marked decrease in indoor air quality.

Maybe, maybe not.  There is a lot of evidence that these can make existing cases of asthma worse, but not any convincing evidence that it causes asthma. Catalytic converter and gasoline with sulfur in it make sulphonic acid that bothers me a lot. Possible the cleaner exhaust are more damaging to the lungs than the dirty exhaust were. A lot more people are exposed to exhaust fumes every year. Comparative studies in some Siberia might lend some light on this.

This hypothesis was tested shortly after the two Germanies reunited. The findings were that although the incidence of asthma was the same for (relatively unpolluted) West germany as it was for (heavily polluted East Germany – there was a direct correlation between the severity of the pollution and the severity of the asthma. I know I do better away from vehicle exhaust, wood smoke, and all the people that wear perfume and the stores that use air freshener.

All of these are respiratory irritants.  I have a sign on my office door telling people not to enter if they are wearing perfume or cologne.  And I have asked the general manager to leave because his cologne was irritating me. I don’t have references on any of these. I expect that two or more of them may be contributing to increased asthma. Isolating them is would be a nightmare.

FYI, there is a not small subset of epidemiologist who are unconvinced that the actual rate of asthma has risen at all.  They have made some reasonable arguments that the ‘increase’ in asthma may be a result of more accurate screening and fewer missed diagnoses.  (And more than a little bit of over diagnosis.)  Ever notice how when new people with asthma come here one of the frequent recommendations is to go to a specialist to make sure it really is asthma? It’s a terrible responsibility – but somebody has to be the Americans.

Response:

The increase of energy efficient homes, the use of manufactured materials such as particle board and wide spread carpeting have IMO lead to an marked decrease in indoor air quality.

you have several good points there, but the picture isn’t all bad. energy-efficient buildings have crappy air because people (at least at first) forgot that buildings need ventilation. put in some energy-efficient air exchange systems and they’re just fine – or, at least, a lot better than without such systems. manufactured materials can’t be done without any longer; remember, that huge group includes steel, glass and concrete. the good part is that materials science is getting ever better, and we’re getting handles on why things like early formaldehyde-fuming particle boards are so dangerous, meaning we can get rid of things like formaldehyde and test for their presence. carpeting i’ll agree with you on without qualifications, though. back home in europe people don’t generally do the wall-to-wall carpeting thing, and since moving to the USA i’ve quickly come to consider the fashion utterly insane. give me a good hardwood or even vinyl floor with throwrugs you can wash any day. Catalytic converter and gasoline with sulfur in it make sulphonic acid that bothers me a lot.

personally, i’m more bothered by the carbon monoxide older cars put out. but then, i’m not asthmatic. my wife, who is asthmatic, is bothered far more by the (uncathalyzed) diesel trucks, and the USA has a leg up here: in europe, ordinary family cars often run on diesel because tax laws make the fuel cheaper. yes, it’s insane to run tiny sedans on engines better suited for 18-wheelers, but that doesn’t stop anybody from doing it. Possible the cleaner exhaust are more damaging to the lungs than the dirty exhaust were.

possibly, but i doubt it. my opinion is that cathalyzers did a great and good thing if they never did anything more than get rid of the tetraethyl lead from the gasoline; i’ve got some simple knowledge of chemistry, and that stuff is _scary_. I know I do better away from vehicle exhaust, wood smoke, and all the people that wear perfume and the stores that use air freshener.

so do i, and i don’t even have asthma. i can’t understand why most people wear perfumes and deodorants that usually make them smell worse than the body odour they’re trying to cover up.

Response:

Here is the post from the other group that I mentioned earlier.   Methods:  Data were used from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey on infants aged 2 months through adolescents aged 16 years.  DTP or tetanus vaccination, lifetime allergy history, and allergy symptoms in the past 12 months were based on parental or guardian recall. Logistic regression modeling was performed to estimate the effects of DTP or tetanus vaccination on each allergy.

This analysis requires that the parents who had their kids vaccinated had equally well diagnosed asthma and allergies and that they understand and recall these diagnoses equally well. While participation in internet groups might suggest to some that most unvaccinated children are because of well thought out choices among intelligent parents with good access to healthcare, this is not the case. Most unvaccinated kids in the US are due to uneducated parents with poor access to healthcare services. I have many uneducated patients that would say they don’t have asthma, but "chronic bronchitis" (for which they regularly seek antibiotics) and who come in every spring insisting that their symptoms of sneezing, itchy eyes, and nasal congestion are from sinus infections and colds (again seeking antibiotics).   Results:  The odds of having a history of asthma was twice as great among vaccinated subjects than among unvaccinated subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 6.74).  The odds of having had any allergy-related respiratory symptom in the past 12 months was 63% greater among vaccinated subjects than unvaccinated subjects (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 2.54).  The associations between vaccination and subsequent allergies and symptoms were greatest among children aged 5 through 10 years.

For asthma they did not reach statistical significance and for allergies they barely did. If you accept a 5% error rate (or 95 confidence intervals) then one in every 11 unrelated variables tested will show a false correlation. When you consider that the authors apparently didn’t even feel they needed to reach a 95% confidence to publish the results the problem is compounded. This is an example of inappropriate data crunching and against the principals of well designed studies.   Conclusions:  DTP or tetanus vaccination appears to increase the risk of allergies and related respiratory symptoms in children and adolescents. Although it is unlikely that these results are entirely because of any sources of bias, the small number of unvaccinated subjects and the study design limit our ability to make firm causal inferences about the true magnitude of effect.   Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H.  Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics.  February 2000; Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 81-90.

A more accurate conclusion would be: "While the results of this study are most  likely spurious correlations from over analysis of data they may truly reflect that underimmunization is a risk factor for failure to receive, understand, and recall correct diagnoses and treatments for common conditions." As I’ve stated there are several fatal errors:     1) The method is flawed and fails to consider socioeconomic and educational factors in the receipt of vaccine, the diagnoses of asthma and allergies, and the recall of them.     2) One of the two outcomes tested didn’t reach statistical significance and so should really be not discussed at all.     3) The entire method of culling over old data looking for correlations without a working hypothesis to be tested is poor science. As amp points out in his post, it leads to publication of implausible correlations (like back pain, depression, asthma, and immunization) and is generally considered poor study design.     4) The study was published in a journal of "manipulative therapeutics" , i.e. chiropractors and other alternative health practitioners. Other than to forward their beliefs that vaccination is bad and to provide references to "scientific literature" for propagandists to cite, it is off topic to the journal. The very fact that an article on vaccination was published in a journal about manipulation should arouse suspicion. — CBI, M.D. Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before following any advice given.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Over the past few decades there has been a dramatic increase in the incidence of asthma and other autoimmune diseases. One plausible explanation is that the medical industry itself is responsible for the rise. The long-term effects of multiple vaccinations on certain people’s immune systems can be detrimental. Most of the infectious diseases (e.g. measles,mumps,rubella) that infants are vaccinated against are, the vast majority of the time, mild and harmless. Infectious diseases contracted at an appropriate age and allowed to run their course can be beneficial because they serve to prime and mature the child’s immune system. They play a vital role in the development of a strong, healthy immune system. Messing around with an immature, developing immune system by simultaneously vaccinating against multiple diseases denies it the opportunity to learn and grow stronger, as nature intended. It can only strengthen by overcoming challenges, not by avoiding them. In later years this avoidance may result in conditions like asthma, where the immune system starts to act in a totally exaggerated and inappropriate manner. Several studies have shown that vaccinated children have a higher incidence of asthma than unvaccinated children, and that infection with childhood disease can lower the risk of getting asthma later on: http://www.909shot.com/dimedia.htm The myths that vaccines are safe and effective are addressed here: http://www.unc.edu/~aphillip/www/vaccine/dvm1.htm Before you buy.

Response:

Over the past few decades there has been a dramatic increase in the incidence of asthma and other autoimmune diseases. One plausible explanation is that the medical industry itself is responsible for the rise. The long-term effects of multiple vaccinations on certain people’s immune systems can be detrimental. This has been studied.  The rate of asthma is identical for vaccinated and unvaccinated children in the US and Great Britain.

Some things I think could be contrbuting to asthma: In studying asthma/allergies one thing that comes up now and again are accoditale reports of increased allergies after a population is cure of parasites. Particularly worms. I also notice that singular has a warning that it may reduce the bodies immune reaction to parasites. I have also seen reports of allergies being cured by an infestation of liver flukes. They killed the patient but he died with a clear head:) There are some whip worms that do not produce disease in humans that I have considered trying. The increase of energy efficient homes, the use of manufactured materials such as particle board and wide spread carpeting have IMO lead to an marked decrease in indoor air quality. Catalytic converter and gasoline with sulfur in it make sulphonic acid that bothers me a lot. Possible the cleaner exhaust are more damaging to the lungs than the dirty exhaust were. A lot more people are exposed to exhaust fumes every year. Comparative studies in some Siberia might lend some light on this. I know I do better away from vehicle exhaust, wood smoke, and all the people that wear perfume and the stores that use air freshener. I don’t have references on any of these. I expect that two or more of them may be contributing to increased asthma. Isolating them is would be a nightmare. — Gordon    W5RED www.couger.com/gcouger "You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take."   – Wayne Gretzky

Response:

Surfer – you may also notice that now my spell check works. Yippee. — CBI, M.D. Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before following any advice given.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Over the past few decades there has been a dramatic increase in the incidence of asthma and other autoimmune diseases. One plausible explanation is that the medical industry itself is responsible for the rise. The long-term effects of multiple vaccinations on certain people’s immune systems can be detrimental. Most of the infectious diseases (e.g. measles,mumps,rubella) that infants are vaccinated against are, the vast majority of the time, mild and harmless. The diseases mentioned above all have significant rates of complication and mortality.  They are not harmless in the way a cold is.  Nor are they pleasant to experience. Infectious diseases contracted at an appropriate age and allowed to run their course can be beneficial because they serve to prime and mature the child’s immune system. They play a vital role in the development of a strong, healthy immune system. How does ‘nature’ ensure a child is of the ‘appropriate age’ when it gets (say) measles?  Once the effects of maternal antibodies wear off unvaccinated children of *all* ages are equally prone to getting measles, mumps and so on. Messing around with an immature, developing immune system by simultaneously vaccinating against multiple diseases denies it the opportunity to learn and grow stronger, as nature intended. It can only strengthen by overcoming challenges, not by avoiding them. Just how do you think a vaccine works if not by challenging the immune system? In later years this avoidance may result in conditions like asthma, where the immune system starts to act in a totally exaggerated and inappropriate manner. Never heard that asthma is an auto-immune disease before. Several studies have shown that vaccinated children have a higher incidence of asthma than unvaccinated children, and that infection with childhood disease can lower the risk of getting asthma later on: http://www.909shot.com/dimedia.htm The myths that vaccines are safe and effective are addressed here: Nothing is 100% safe.  However most people believe that the low (almost 0% depending on the vaccine concerned) incidence of the disease being vaccinated against in vaccinated people is causal.  What do you put it down to? — Surfer!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – another plausible cause for increasing asthma diagnoses is not only better recognition of the disease process itself, but increasing amounts of airborne pollution’s, exposure to chemical irritants used to "make life easier" ie cleaning agents, glues, plastics, carpets, home building materials, etc. Yep, that’s a plausible explaination.  Yet when kids with asthma/allergies were tested it turns out they were most allergic to cockroaches.  Totally defies logic, since in theory homes have gotten cleaner and more cockroach free.  The expectation was that house dust would be the biggie, but there you are. There’s a hell of a lot that’s not understood at all here.  And clinging to one theory or another does one little good.  The real issue is what works and what doesn’t.

That study looked at two groups of kids. In children living in rural areas the principle allergy stimulating asthma was dust mites, as previous studies have shown. In inner city kids it was cockroaches. If you have ever lived in an American inner city this makes sense. It also helps explain part of the differences due to socioeconomic and racial status. Furthermore it lets us know that interventions and environmental modifications should stress different issues between these two groups. — CBI, M.D. Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before following any advice given.

Response:

Over the past few decades there has been a dramatic increase in the incidence of asthma and other autoimmune diseases. One plausible explanation is that the medical industry itself is responsible for the rise. The long-term effects of multiple vaccinations on certain people’s immune systems can be detrimental. Most of the infectious diseases (e.g. measles,mumps,rubella) that infants are vaccinated against are, the vast majority of the time, mild and harmless.

The diseases mentioned above all have significant rates of complication and mortality.  They are not harmless in the way a cold is.  Nor are they pleasant to experience. Infectious diseases contracted at an appropriate age and allowed to run their course can be beneficial because they serve to prime and mature the child’s immune system. They play a vital role in the development of a strong, healthy immune system.

How does ‘nature’ ensure a child is of the ‘appropriate age’ when it gets (say) measles?  Once the effects of maternal antibodies wear off unvaccinated children of *all* ages are equally prone to getting measles, mumps and so on. Messing around with an immature, developing immune system by simultaneously vaccinating against multiple diseases denies it the opportunity to learn and grow stronger, as nature intended. It can only strengthen by overcoming challenges, not by avoiding them.

Just how do you think a vaccine works if not by challenging the immune system? In later years this avoidance may result in conditions like asthma, where the immune system starts to act in a totally exaggerated and inappropriate manner.

Never heard that asthma is an auto-immune disease before. Several studies have shown that vaccinated children have a higher incidence of asthma than unvaccinated children, and that infection with childhood disease can lower the risk of getting asthma later on: http://www.909shot.com/dimedia.htm The myths that vaccines are safe and effective are addressed here:

Nothing is 100% safe.  However most people believe that the low (almost 0% depending on the vaccine concerned) incidence of the disease being vaccinated against in vaccinated people is causal.  What do you put it down to? — Surfer!

Response:

another plausible cause for increasing asthma diagnoses is not only better recognition of the disease process itself, but increasing amounts of airborne pollutions, exposure to chemical irritants used to "make life easier" ie cleaning agents, glues, plastics, carpets, home building materials, etc. Since I doubt we’ll find a cure any time soon I would suggest more attention be given to what we do know, and becoming compliant with treatment plans vs spending time speculating without any ability to make find solutions. Scooby RCP, EMT-P Perinatal-Pediatric Respiratory Specialist This mail is a natural product.  The slight variations in spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.

Response:

another plausible cause for increasing asthma diagnoses is not only better recognition of the disease process itself, but increasing amounts of airborne pollutions, exposure to chemical irritants used to "make life easier" ie cleaning agents, glues, plastics, carpets, home building materials, etc.

Yep, that’s a plausible explaination.  Yet when kids with asthma/allergies were tested it turns out they were most allergic to cockroaches.  Totally defies logic, since in theory homes have gotten cleaner and more cockroach free.  The expectation was that house dust would be the biggie, but there you are. There’s a hell of a lot that’s not understood at all here.  And clinging to one theory or another does one little good.  The real issue is what works and what doesn’t.

Response:

Several studies have shown that vaccinated children have a higher incidence of asthma than unvaccinated children, and that infection with childhood disease can lower the risk of getting asthma later on:

Were this true, it could easily be due to the availability of medical care and hence the likelihood of being diagnosed with asthma.  IMO, a substantial part of the increase in asthma diagnoses is probably due to a simple "widening of the net", diagnosing more and more marginal cases.

Response:

Over the past few decades there has been a dramatic increase in the incidence of asthma and other autoimmune diseases. One plausible explanation is that the medical industry itself is responsible for the rise. The long-term effects of multiple vaccinations on certain people’s immune systems can be detrimental.

This debate has been raging on the alt.kidshealth newsgroup. This statement has been repeatedly made and never substantiated. maybe you would like to take a try. Most of the infectious diseases (e.g. measles,mumps,rubella) that infants are vaccinated against are, the vast majority of the time, mild and harmless.

Measles kills one million children per year according to Unicef data. Authors since William Osler in the 1890’s have described it as one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality among children. Rubella is mild in the child but causes "fetal rubella syndrome" (several birth defects) if pregant mother catch it. Mumps causes a series of perment problems including infertility in men. "Mild and harmless" indeed. Infectious diseases contracted at an appropriate age and allowed to run their course can be beneficial because they serve to prime and mature the child’s immune system. They play a vital role in the development of a strong, healthy immune system.

Again, frequently hypothesized but never proven. This theory suffers from the flaw that it assumes that the few diseases that are immunized against repesent a significan proportion of the different infections a child will face growing up. The immune system gets plent of stimulation without seeing these infections. It also assumes that the immune stimulation is fundamentally different than the stimulation recieved by the vaccine. While they certainly are not the same they are similar and there is not reason to suspect that one is good and needed and the other is harmful. Messing around with an immature, developing immune system by simultaneously vaccinating against multiple diseases denies it the opportunity to learn and grow stronger, as nature intended.

So nature intended the immune sytem to face one infection at a time? Come on, how can that be true? How does vaccination deny the opportunity to learn and grow stronger? This is exactly what the vaccine does with dereased risks to the child. It can only strengthen by overcoming challenges, not by avoiding them. In later years this avoidance may result in conditions like asthma, where the immune system starts to act in a totally exaggerated and inappropriate manner.

This is just purely nonsensical. It may also result in lower infant mortality and more adults. There is no evidence for your assertions. Several studies have shown that vaccinated children have a higher incidence of asthma than unvaccinated children, and that infection with childhood disease can lower the risk of getting asthma later on:

This study has been discussed on the other board. It has several flaws and the authors themselves do not support your interpretation of the data. I’ll try to repost my response here. — CBI, M.D. Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before following any advice given.

Response:

Over the past few decades there has been a dramatic increase in the incidence of asthma and other autoimmune diseases. One plausible explanation is that the medical industry itself is responsible for the rise. The long-term effects of multiple vaccinations on certain people’s immune systems can be detrimental.

This has been studied.  The rate of asthma is identical for vaccinated and unvaccinated children in the US and Great Britain. It’s a terrible responsibility – but somebody has to be the Americans.

Response:

Over the past few decades there has been a dramatic increase in the incidence of asthma and other autoimmune diseases. One plausible explanation is that the medical industry itself is responsible for the rise. The long-term effects of multiple vaccinations on certain people’s immune systems can be detrimental. Most of the infectious diseases (e.g. measles,mumps,rubella) that infants are vaccinated against are, the vast majority of the time, mild and harmless. Infectious diseases contracted at an appropriate age and allowed to run their course can be beneficial because they serve to prime and mature the child’s immune system. They play a vital role in the development of a strong, healthy immune system. Messing around with an immature, developing immune system by simultaneously vaccinating against multiple diseases denies it the opportunity to learn and grow stronger, as nature intended. It can only strengthen by overcoming challenges, not by avoiding them. In later years this avoidance may result in conditions like asthma, where the immune system starts to act in a totally exaggerated and inappropriate manner. Several studies have shown that vaccinated children have a higher incidence of asthma than unvaccinated children, and that infection with childhood disease can lower the risk of getting asthma later on: http://www.909shot.com/dimedia.htm The myths that vaccines are safe and effective are addressed here: http://www.unc.edu/~aphillip/www/vaccine/dvm1.htm Before you buy.

Response:

Related Posts

• Can't breathe
• Running in the cold!
• Something I heard about Ventolin
• scleroderma / implants / paraffin / silicone
• serevent, aerobid, burping
• asthma and pollution??
• Hyperventilation causes asthma !!!!!!!!!!
• inhaled steroids and sore mouth!
• HELP - the E. Cottonwood is causing asthma attacks
• Diabetes epedamic.