New Studies and Research

[Mikal]

Are vaccines responsible for the epidemic of anaphylaxis in young children today?
by Rita Hoffman

In the presentation speech as winner of the 1913 Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work with anaphylaxis, Charles Robert Richet said, "We are so constituted that we can never receive other proteins into the blood than those that have been modified by digestive juices. Every time alien protein penetrates by effraction, the organism suffers and becomes resistant. This resistance lies in increased sensitivity, a sort of revolt against the second parenteral injection which would be fatal. At the first injection, the organism was taken by surprise and did not resist. At the second injection, the organism mans its defences and answers by the anaphylactic shock." In naming "anaphylaxis", Richet described, "Phylaxis, a word seldom used, stands in the Greek for protection. Anaphylaxis will thus stand for the opposite. Anaphylaxis, from its Greek etymological source, therefore means that state of an organism in which it is rendered hypersensitive, instead of being protected." Richet concluded his lecture by saying, "Seen in these terms, anaphylaxis is a universal defense mechanism against the penetration of heterogenous substances in the blood, whence they can not be eliminated." (1)

Vaccine antigens injected subcutaneously or intramuscularly prompt the immune system to create antibodies in the blood against those antigens. Has medicine, which has used vaccinations containing "alien proteins" as its cornerstone to control infectious diseases, been on the wrong track by injecting heterogenous substances [originating in an outside source; especially: derived from another species] (2) into human beings to "control" disease? What would be the general state of health today if 200 years ago medicine had taken the path of discovering the keys to promoting a strong, unadulterated immune system in conjunction with increased nutrition, vitamin and mineral supplementation along with better sanitation? Has medicine produced false protection by injecting alien proteins via vaccination which, as Richet pointed out in his lecture, can render us hypersensitive instead of being protected?

This hypersensitive state called anaphylaxis is now epidemic in young children who live every day of their life under threat of death from everyday, normally harmless substances. The numbers are staggering. According to Health Canada's web site, "It is estimated that 600,000 Canadians (two percent of the population) may be affected by life-threatening allergies, and the numbers are increasing, especially among children." (3) In 2005 Ontario passed a law to protect anaphylactic students at school while The Toronto Star reported an estimated 40,000 children in Ontario with anaphylaxis. (4)

The recent deaths of three Canadian teenagers exposed to minute quantities of allergen have caused a world wide media explosion of anaphylaxis stories. Everyone is asking—why do we have so many kids with peanut allergies? Why have schools banned peanut butter sandwiches? Why are kids dying? Charles Robert Richet knew that foreign proteins penetrating the body could cause anaphylaxis back in 1913. Some doctors, allergists and anaphylaxis organizations blame skin creams containing peanut oil and North America's roasting of peanuts for the epidemic of anaphylaxis. And perhaps weary of saying that increased consumption of peanuts is the cause of the increase in peanut allergy some are mentioning the "hygiene hypothesis" as a cause. A few are even mentioning the "v" word. Dr. Bruce Edwards was quoted in a February 21, 2006 Newsday article regarding the hygiene hypothesis. "The theory is that because U.S. children 'use antibacterial soap, get antibiotics at the first sign of a runny nose and are vaccinated for every potential thing out there,' their immune systems do not spend time producing anti-infectious responses to all the diseases they will never get. Instead, their immune systems may be 'shunting their responses to produce things [anti-infectious responses] which are more allergic in nature.'"



Mikal

[racecar]

Due to my present ongoing study into Immunology, I consider the following statements by David Icke to be absolutely relevant to questioning our health and wellbeing and the rise of cancer and other disease in our society...

The treatment of cancer through chemotherapy drugs is the medical equivalent of Stone Age Man wielding a club. 'I know how to cure a headache, I'll knock the guy senseless'. Another analogy would be attacking a handful of alleged terrorists by pepper-bombing Baghdad and killing tens of thousands of civilians in the process.

How appropriate, then, that the same force is ultimately behind the bombing of Iraq and the insane cancer 'treatment' that people receive in hospitals across the world.

Chemotherapy doesn't just kill cancer cells, it kills cells, period. I mean all kinds of cells including the healthy ones. Here we are nine years into the 21st century and the treatment of cancer is based on a simple and extraordinary question:

Will we kill the cancer cells before we have killed enough healthy cells to kill the patient?

What's more, the human immune system consists of cells and this is why chemotherapy patients all complete the 'treatment' with a devastated immune system that leaves them open to all kinds of other attacks on the body - including more cancer. In truth, modern cancer 'treatment' is often little more than assisted suicide.

Years ago I saw a film showing microscope footage of the immune system killing cancer cells. This is happening all the time and when the immune system is healthy and vibrant cancer is kept in check. But here we have the very treatment of cancer - chemotherapy - destroying that defence network.

The word insanity does not even begin to suffice.

Quote: David Icke


Mikal

The Juiceman had cancer and drank carrot-apple juice, primarily. I'm not under the impression that he used chemo or radiation, but don't quote me on that, and survived.

Vegans and vegetarians get cancer.

If by chance a person lives the perfect life and still gets cancer, would that person try to prolong their life?

Do all treatments work the same on all people?

[racecar]

My cousin was just diagnosed with sarcoidosis. It's what doctors thought I had, before determining I had lymphoma. 60%-70% of sarcoidosis cases heal themselves naturally within 24-36 months. It's not a cancer.

My cousin has an inoperable mass in his brain. Severe headaches, severe confusion may or may not plaugue him for 3years.



http://www.ru.org/health/the-end-of-cancer.html

I found this article pretty interesting. I just think you can't control everything. I mean, how do you find toxic moulds? Have you ever felt like Job? ( I don't even really know the stroy from a biblical perspective ).

Just thoughts, no malice.

[Mikal]

Hi Val...thanks for your thoughts and the contribution of the link.

In 2007, I lost a good friend and co-worker to what I thought was cancer. She was only in her mid-forties and I quite ignorantly thought that it took only one year for the leukemia to take her.
After her service, I sat over coffee with her husband as he enlightened me to the fact that it actually only took Mary five months to defeat the cancer. However, he related how the onslaught of chemo and bone marrow tests had badly damaged her kidneys, liver and destroyed so much of her heart that she was left only with 25% of a working heart to get her through the rest of her life. He made it quite clear to me that chemo and invasive regimented tests had killed her.
Just another chunk of my ignorance dying here....

"Chemotherapy doesn't just kill cancer cells, it kills cells, period." I like this quote because basically we are just millions of living cells....

I don't think this is about living perfectly....I think its about understanding the importance of our immune system to our lives and understanding how it works....if we know how it works it might guide us to adapt those things necessary on the outer to preserve the integrity of the inner....


Mikal

[racecar]

Mikal,

I suppose we all live as perfectly as we can....and perhaps the scale of vibrations is set differently for each person.

My thought was based on the thought that even if we lead quite a healthy lifestyle, some may still succumb to death, seemingly too soon.

I understand the general sense of loss, and am aware of others' personal feelings.

I had chemo, radiation and bone marrow tests, too. Aside from that I survived...maybe because I was relatively healthy and young. However, I tire more easily and my weight has skyrocketed (possible thyroid issues). I am sick less frequently than a lot of people I know. Stress has been a key focus of mine, leading to the sale of our prior business for the sake of health and well-being.

I think my body understands more than my reasoning can.

I am interested in rejuvenation of cells, too.

Thanks Mikal.

[Mikal]

I am very happy for you, your kids and husband that you made it through your personal battle with cancer and all that entails.

I don't think its about living a perfectly healthy lifestyle as much as its about preserving the integrity of the immune system. Its work and objective would be to protect us for that I suppose would be its purpose as a mass of living cells....

I hear you about health complications after chemo and of course through my present study am just now understanding that on a broader horizon.

I think it would all serve us well to understand that our body has immense intelligence and moreso than we have admitted to knowing...

Yes, I remember my friend with great affection. Mary was a vibrant lady, filled with life, song and her laughter ringing in my ears is one of my best memories. Her end result was to end up bedridden in an institution for the remainder of her life....I think she secumbed easily as her ending situation did not seem to be really who she was....

Again thanks for sharing Val....

Mikal

[Mikal]

Hi Val...while sharing I sensed you might be wondering why you survived chemo and Mary did not, so I went into some of my files and got this information because you see we all have a different immune capacity in other words...

Now bear in mind as you read this information that the point of this thread is to discuss those things like toxins in vaccines, invasive chemo and even toxins in our food that are now invading and suppressing our immune system and its capacity to work for us and keep us healthy....studies are revealing that damage to the immune system is rising dramatically. Hope this helps....smiles...



Innate Immunity
Everyone is born with innate (or natural) immunity, a type of general protection that humans have. Many of the germs that affect other species don't harm us. For example, the viruses that cause leukemia in cats or distemper in dogs don't affect humans. Innate immunity works both ways because some viruses that make humans ill — such as the virus that causes HIV/AIDS — don't make cats or dogs sick either.

Innate immunity also includes the external barriers of the body, like the skin and mucous membranes (like those that line the nose, throat, and gastrointestinal tract), which are our first line of defense in preventing diseases from entering the body. If this outer defensive wall is broken (like if you get a cut), the skin attempts to heal the break quickly and special immune cells on the skin attack invading germs.

Adaptive Immunity
We also have a second kind of protection called adaptive (or active) immunity. This type of immunity develops throughout our lives. Adaptive immunity involves the lymphocytes (as in the process described above) and develops as children and adults are exposed to diseases or immunized against diseases through vaccination.

Passive Immunity
Passive immunity is "borrowed" from another source and it lasts for a short time. For example, antibodies in a mother's breast milk provide an infant with temporary immunity to diseases that the mother has been exposed to. This can help protect the infant against infection during the early years of childhood.

Everyone's immune system is different. Some people never seem to get infections, whereas others seem to be sick all the time. As people get older, they usually become immune to more germs as the immune system comes into contact with more and more of them. That's why adults and teens tend to get fewer colds than kids — their bodies have learned to recognize and immediately attack many of the viruses that cause colds.


Mikal

[racecar]

http://www.biology.arizona.edu/immun...ogy/page2.html

then I searched for ways to effectively boost your immune system and found ~

http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/immunebalance.htm

I have questions about #1 and #2...supplements, how effective are they?

http://www.anxiety-and-depression-so...munesystem.php

I'm thinking about starting a blog or diary that keeps track of progress with improving the immune system, me being the test subject.

Thanks Mikal...

P.s. I was kind of wondering a lot, but, what alternatives you thought would work better than chemo/radiation...

[Mikal]

Hi Val....I don't blame you at all for questioning #1 and #2. I take no supplements but try hard to get my vitamins from raw fruit and such. I am as leery of supplements as I am of medical and pharmecuetical drugs because of course that end of the battle is more economic and about who is making the money...lol. I do however, understand the meaning of heavy toxins in the body and it is my understanding that normal human sweating is for a constructive reason as to ridding the body of toxins....studying that too.

Thats an interesting idea to make a journal or diary, try to make improvements and record to see if there is a marked change in health.

As far as better healing alternatives rather than chemo/radiation I am studying the work of a Dr. in Winnipeg. However, I have not yet unravelled all her study or examined enough other studies to make some connections to what I feel would be better healing alternatives. I guess that will come along with time....

Thanks for the links...

Mikal

[Wick]

Improving immune systems may only be part of the battle. Current research has focused largely on how substances interact with an organism to prevent or cause cancer. I think this is a materialistic approach.

The cause of cancer may not be materialistic, but rather electromagnetic.

A number of cancers have recently been linked to an organisms exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. For instance, there is fairly strong evidence that the electromagnetic field associated with cell phones causes brain cancers (especially in children whose brains are in the developmental stages). Exactly why these fields cause cancers remains somewhat of a mystery. Similarly, blood cancers have been linked to electromagnetic fields in people who use electric blankets (although the evidence in this case remains unclear).

When we think of the human organism we often focus on the material parts of the organism and forget that every organism also has an electromagnetic element. This electromagnetic element has gone largely ignored. We have not really looked into how toxic substances alter the natural electromagnetic nature of an organism. Our assumption has been that matter interacts with matter, but matter also intereacts with light. Likewise electromagnetic fields interfer with other electromagnetic fields. Perhaps we are treating the material part of the organism when we should be treating the electromagnetic part of the organism.

Wick