[www.youtube.com]

New wolfe vid, he shares his thoughts early on in the vid and in the comments.

Being someone who is a big fan of herbology and the success ive had, im quite sad to say David's knowledge is this video is very poor.

Coming away with statements such as you have no immune system if your using only food is completely false.

Its almost as if he was looking at food purely as having only macronutrients i.e protein, carbs and fat. What about the micronutrients, phyto-nutrients and various other compounds which have medicinal/health benefits found naturally in food. It seems to be almost a total opposite extreme of the garlic is toxic crowd which is just as bad in my opinion.

What about the anti-viral polyphenols found in foods and so on. The immune system isn't as straight forward as just supplementing some immuno-modulating or immuno-stimulating herbs and our immune system largely relies on the nutrition we gain from food. What about the immune stimulating/modulating polysaccharides which are found in many foods take seaweed for example.

"The food category doesnt have any medicine in it, its just calories" again most of the reason why many who eat healthy don't have health problems is because of the nutrient and phyto-chemical rich food we eat which boosts immunity, what about the numerous anti-cancer compounds in the food we eat and so on.

David talks about tea later on being great, i agree im a big fan of tea. Lets take rooibos for example as thats a non-caffeine containing tea. Its the antioxidant polyphenols in rooibos where most of the benefits are derived from. These polyphenols although not in the amount found in rooibos are found in many other fruits and vegetables.

Like i say i get the point he was trying to make, and he did make some decent ones. But i cant agree with some of the statements made and that's coming from a pro herb fan.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2011 11:40AM by powerlifer.

Wolfe looks bloated.

i agree with powerlifer on something!
that david wolfe knowledge is poor! wow.

but am i to be sued for defamation of david wolfe now?

i don't agree with powerlife for the reasons mentioned however.

1. mr wolfe misstates the 80/10/10 by saying that eating 80% fruit is wrong.
he must not have read the book. the book states that minimally 80% carbohydrate should be eaten.
2.he is clearly bloated
3.tcm is rubbish
4. he seems to imply that the only factor causing proper behavior is diet. false.
5. no such thing as superfood
6. speaks about "getting enough"
does he understand "getting too much"? i guess not.
7. fascist? should wolfe be sued for defamation?
8. there is no medicine
9. so this video proves that he plagiarized natures first law since he refutes everything he said/copied
10. what he stated re: cats and eating a little each day is false. i have done it.
11. supplement pusher charlatan
12.humans require mushrooms?
13.there is no immunity. cause and effect.
14."wind excess" ?
15."extreme fire"?
16. drying out spleen?
17.herbs direct energies?
18. herbs aren't good enough - now we need super herbs!!!
what's next? super duper herbs? turbo herbs?

I didn't say his knowledge was poor, just that it was in this video and that i didnt agree with alot of things.

Fresh:

There is no medicine?, there is no immunity? If you didn't have an immune system you'd be dead, it is an essential part of the human body.

not really a big difference between "knowledge is poor" and "knowledge is poor in this video" but if it's important to you then i will allow the qualification.

regarding immune system i agree with dr graham as follows:

"No new system was discovered in 1980 when the concept of an immune system was introduced to the medical literature. What happened was that a new approach to anatomy was introduced, one whereby anatomical parts could serve in more than one system at the same time. This was an entirely new concept to the science of anatomy.
The word immune essentially means that one does not have to suffer the effects generated by his/her actions or inaction, that one is "not responsible" for his actions. In terms of our personal health, such a concept simply does not and cannot apply."

He made a funny comment about people who talk too fast. Except he doesn't realize how fast he is talking already when he made that comment.

Fresh, I don't agree that "The word immune essentially means that one does not have to suffer the effects generated by his/her actions or inaction..."

Not at all! An accurate definition of the immune system includes all of the ways that the body deals with potential disease. The immune system - like every other body system - relies on proper nutrition.

According to" Microbiology, an Introduction, by Tortora, Funke, and Case, "Immunity, or resistance is the ability to ward off disease caused by microbes or their products and to protect against environmental agents such as pollen, drugs, foods, chemicals, and animal dander".

Note the word "ability". Some people have a greater ability to ward off disease than others, and nutrition plays a huge role.

Our immune system includes both innate (born with) and adaptive mechanisms. Examples of innate protective mechanisms include our skin, the cilia in our lungs, and the flushing mechanisms (peeing and sweating for example). When any of these immune mechanisms don't function properly, we become sick.

I think most people here would agree that proper nutrition is essential for good skin, strong cilia, and healthy flushing!

Other examples of innate mechanisms that we can't see (without a microscope) include phagocytes and macrophages that engulf harmful materials and then break them down into particles that are flushed from the body. Still other mechanisms are capable of secreting substances like perforin that poke holes in invading microbes until they break apart and die.

We're all exposed to harmful microorganisms all the time in our environment. One lab experiment that stuck in my mind this year was when we students washed our hands with soap for 5 minutes, then lightly touched medium in a petri dish. A week later, all our dishes had bacteria growing exactly where we touched the dish.

I'm the only one in the hospital office where I work (as a volunteer) who is never sick. Hospital workers are notoriously exposed to harmful microbes. Hey, it's my raw vegan immune system, baby!

Fresh, did you mean 1908? According to Wikipedia, that is the year that Paul Ehrlich was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on adaptive (humoral) immunity.

Unlike innate immunity, adaptive immunity involves cell memory of diseases that the body has come in contact with in the past.

A general knowledge of adaptive immunity has existed since at least 430 BC when "Thucydides noted that people who had recovered from a previous bout of the disease could nurse the sick without contracting the illness a second time".(Wikipedia)

In 1798, Edward Jenner began to experiment with cowpox injections as a means to create smallpox immunity. Cowpox is a pox strain milder than smallpox, and it became the first official "vaccine".

These days, the immune system is no longer just a "theory". We have microscopes that can actually see the B-cells that create antibodies. We can see the macrophages puffed up like roses in their lovely active form. Even the tiny antibodies are visible by atomic force microscopy. And we have multiple testing procedures that correctly diagnose specific diseases by observing the reaction of the human antibodies specific to the microorganisms they contact.

Definitely, a belief in the existence of the body's immune system should not in any way conflict with a belief in a raw food diet - even 80-10-10!

Dr. Graham is perhaps not necessarily the best source on immune system. Retaining his chiropractor license would have required him to continue his education through his choice of a wide variety of available classes; but Dr. Graham allowed his license to lapse.

Of course, we're all entitled to believe whatever we like.

Great post suncloud and i agree fully. Nutrition probably plays one of the key roles in having a robust immune system but i also think stress/poor mental outlook is up there also for weakening the immune system.

There are also different parts of the immune system such as the lymphatic system and gut flora. The gut flora is thought to be around 70-80% of your immune system.

well done suncloud

my comments below....

>Not at all! An accurate definition of the immune system includes all of the ways that the body deals with potential disease. The immune system - like every other body system - relies on proper nutrition.

there is no system. each part of the body has functions that it performs. there is no need to speak of an immune system. the need for this type of terminology stems from our need to cast ideas in warlike terms.

what is the point of saying that the "immune system" relies on proper nutrition? life relies on proper nutrition. the normal functions of each part of the body rely on proper nutrition. so what? what's that got to do with the comment made by dr graham?


>According to" Microbiology, an Introduction, by Tortora, Funke, and Case, "Immunity, or resistance is the ability to ward off disease caused by microbes or their products and to protect against environmental agents such as pollen, drugs, foods, chemicals, and animal dander".

disease is not caused by microbes. microbes feed on toxemia. toxemia is the cause, not microbes. toxemia is caused by failure to adhere to natural health principles.

protect against foods? what kind of absurd statement is that?

>Note the word "ability". Some people have a greater ability to ward off disease than others, and nutrition plays a huge role.

what is disease? you presume it is caused by those nasty outside vectors.

>Our immune system includes both innate (born with) and adaptive mechanisms. Examples of innate protective mechanisms include our skin, the cilia in our lungs, and the flushing mechanisms (peeing and sweating for example). When any of these immune mechanisms don't function properly, we become sick.

a protective barrier is not an immune system. it is a simple border that defines the outside of the organism. is there anything that is NOT a part of the immune system? name a part of the body that is NOT part of the immune system according to you. if everything is part of the immune system,, then there is NO immune system.

the cell wall of a microorganism is not an immune system. it merely defines organism and outside world.


>Other examples of innate mechanisms that we can't see (without a microscope) include phagocytes and macrophages that engulf harmful materials and then break them down into particles that are flushed from the body.

normal functionality of the circulatory system.


>We're all exposed to harmful microorganisms all the time in our environment. One lab experiment that stuck in my mind this year was when we students washed our hands with soap for 5 minutes, then lightly touched medium in a petri dish. A week later, all our dishes had bacteria growing exactly where we touched the dish.

so what? define "harmful" !
it's all part and parcel of the absurd germ theory that even
pasteur refuted by saying "it is not the microbe, but the terrain."
healthy terrain is normal conditional upon healthy normal practices.
you presume sickness. i presume health.


>Fresh, did you mean 1908? According to Wikipedia, that is the year that Paul Ehrlich was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on adaptive (humoral) immunity.

No.

>Unlike innate immunity, adaptive immunity involves cell memory of diseases that the body has come in contact with in the past.

they are not diseases. they are "other". bodily components act upon "self" and "other", "nutrient" and "unrecognized/altered food particle"

whether there is disease or not is a totally separate issue. disease is merely lack of ease, not some kind of morbid condition with a fancy name.

>A general knowledge of adaptive immunity has existed since at least 430 BC when "Thucydides noted that people who had recovered from a previous bout of the disease could nurse the sick without contracting the illness a second time".(Wikipedia)

circulatory system.

>In 1798, Edward Jenner began to experiment with cowpox injections as a means to create smallpox immunity. Cowpox is a pox strain milder than smallpox, and it became the first official "vaccine".

do some research on the myth of the above.

do you believe that HIV causes AIDS?

have you read peter duesberg?

Actually many diseases have proven microbe causes and many of those patients don't suffer from any kind of toxicity. What toxicity are you referring to here fresh out of interest?

There seems to be a wide thought that everyone who eats SAD diets are toxic, what are these toxins you guys are speaking of. There are many environmental toxins, but finding toxicity levels is not all that common and definitely not the sole cause of every disease.

I don't agree that there is no system and wikipedia can explain it better than a few sentence post from me will - [en.wikipedia.org]

It would be abit like saying hormones exist but there is no reason to mention the glands they are produced from.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 01:33PM by powerlifer.

name one

no comment

if it's in wiki it must be correct, right?

i do not dispute the existence of the endocrine system. your point is moot

Prana Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He made a funny comment about people who talk too
> fast. Except he doesn't realize how fast he is
> talking already when he made that comment.
I noticed that too. He must have just taken some Cacoa,
or Raw Honey. Or maybe he was just excited about delivering
his message.
I like David Wolfe. He has his own idea about Diet (as do we all)...
and I've never heard him put anyone down.....WY

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> name one
>
> no comment
>
> if it's in wiki it must be correct, right?
>
> i do not dispute the existence of the endocrine
> system. your point is moot

That was my point if were going by your ideology that there are no systems then why reference the endocrine system at all, which is just another well documented system in the human body, as much as the immune system.

no actually that is incorrect.

people talk about the immune system and how it stems from functionality of multiple other already named systems.

glands are glands. well defined.
bones are bones
skin is skin
blood vessels are blood vessels

Skin is skin, but glands make up part of what is known as the endocrine system.

"In physiology, the endocrine system is a system of glands"

Your right bones are bones, blood vessels and the skin minus the sweat glands are although all needed for other parts of the body are considered to be on there own. But the immune system, endocrine system and nervous system aren't.

EDIT: Left out the nervous system aswell.

We have to base this on at least some acceptance of basic human physiology or everything just becomes a wreck of self beliefs and like i say basic human biology becomes eradicated for no good reason.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 04:43PM by powerlifer.

I haven't heard Wolfe put anyone down, that's true enough. However, he has sued Harley which if is to intimidate is worse. Harley doesn't seem intimidated in any case. But defamation is serious business. To prevail, David Wolfe would have to show harm to his reputation and monetize it. Not the easiest thing in the world with these kinds of videos.

so because he hasn't named names that means he hasn't put anyone down?
we all know who he was referring to.

I look at David Wolfe as an entertainer, rather than a
Raw Food Guru. I'm sure he follows his beliefs 100%. How many of us
can claim that?.....WY
P.S. The opening video did show him to be heavier than normal (as
someone noted). I'd bet money that he overeats on his own Rich
food, and has not reverted to cooked.

Wolfe doesn't put people down?? Oh yeah?? Didn't you guys read what he said about Doug Graham, Fred P, and the 811 diet in the comments under the video?

BTW I agree with Fresh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 09:50PM by brian1cs.

Wow I have so much to learn. I'm only 6 weeks into this, and feel so much better. Can't wait to see years of benefits!

Anyway, getting back to David Wolfe...his approach is Flamboyant.
Look at the way he dresses. Your appearance is your Thumbprint.
I bet he's been eating late at night to have gained so much weight. Victoria
Boutenko and Paul Nison have admitted to having the same problem. I like Tonya Zavasta's idea of 'the 2pm Curfew'....nothing after 2....not even water. Dedicated Buddhists stop at Noon.....WY
P.S. Harley says that Victoras Kulvinskas is also suing him (in addition to
David Wolfe). Now I ask you....who's to blame?? Harley has harassed these
men time and time again. They make their living from Speaking Engagements...
something Harley couldn't do.

Hi Powerlifer, yes I think you're absolutely correct that stress also plays a huge role in the functioning of the immune system.

And good point about the lymphatic system and gut flora.

Fresh, in response to your responses, definitely, if you'd rather say "circulatory system" than "immune system", that's OK with me. It's just that "immune system" is the term commonly applied. "Circulatory system" doesn't cover all the functions and activities of the "immune system". The "immune system" is a very all-inclusive "system" to be sure, since so many parts of the body contribute to our defense. B-cells for instance are formed in the bone marrow, which is part of the skeletal system. T-cells mature in the thymus, which is part of the endocrine system. To me at least, it's understandable then, that the scientific community gave the "immune system" its own name.

Not sure why you think it's warlike to say "immune system" (?)

Whatever the case, if you disagree with the choice of terms, there's not much I can say about that. I didn't make up the definition. It is what it is.

(More on skin, etc. as components of innate immune system, later below.)

My point in stating that proper nutrition is essential for a healthy immune system was to refute the statement you attributed to Dr. Graham, that "The word immune essentially means one does not have to suffer the effects generated by his/her actions or inaction." Specifically, my point is that proper nutrition, exercise, stress, etc. all contribute to a healthy immune system, and involve the action or inaction of the individual. Therefore, even with the immune system, one does "have to suffer the effects generated by his/her actions or inaction." I'm not aware of any biologist who would disagree. Maybe Graham is confusing the term "immune" with a more colloquial use of the word.

OK. Moving on. Fresh, you made this point: "disease is not caused by microbes. microbes feed on toxemia. toxemia is the cause, not microbes. toxemia is caused by failure to adhere to natural health principles".

Existence of an immune system, as currently and commonly defined, including all the protective mechanisms, supports rather than deflects from the notion that eating wisely can help prevent disease. Definitely, everyone is always exposed to microbes, so the condition of our internal health - including our immune system - conceivably plays a huge role in whether or not we get sick. There are however factors missing from your statement above. For one thing, there is an incredible variety of microbes in existence. Their activity runs the range from beneficial all the way to extremely virulent. In reality, even most of Graham's followers don't adhere 100% to Graham's interpretation of natural health principles. And possibly NO degree of adherence to natural health principles will provide 100% protection against 100% of disease. We have no way to prove otherwise. We can't for instance expose healthy raw food vegans to AIDS just to see if those vegans can avoid the disease, because such testing would be inhumane. And I haven't heard of too many volunteers. Have you? Duesberg isn't volunteering. Neither is Graham.

The point here is that both the virulence of the specific microbe involved and the host condition can be considered contributors to many diseases, at least for most people. Whether or not each specific disease could be avoided with a better diet is debatable in each specific case. Of course, we know that some diseases don't require a microbe. Diabetes and heart disease for instance. But I think it's also logical to note that there's nothing hygenic about ingesting a lot of very virulent microbes. Ingested virulent microbes are not necessarily any less harmful than ingested hamburger, and the problem with microbes is that they can be ingested without our knowledge. Sounds unfair, but lots of things in life are unfair. If it's ingested, it's in there, and it's bad. Some microbes secrete "exotoxins" into the human system, for instance. Others, like viruses, invade cellular DNA to replicate themselves and then break through and kill the cell to get out. (Kind of like that scene in The Alien !)

Better food choices and a less toxic internal environment will certainly provide a less accomodating environment for disease. That's true not just because a microbe will have more available fermenting munchies in a constipated body full of red meat. It's also true because a healthy body will put up a stronger defense.

Back in the day, when Koch ushered in the advent of "germ theory" after isolating the anthrax pathogen (that infected cows), there was a huge debate over what causes disease, especially disease expressed as an epidemic, and especially cholera. You will probably be interested in the work of Max von Pettenkofer. Was it "germs" as suggested by Koch, or was it a combination of factors, including the condition of the host, that results in epidemic, as claimed by Pettenkofer. But even Pettenkofer acknowledged that the presence of a specific pathogen was an essential component of certain diseases, including cholera.

Here's a link to an article about Pettenkofer, considered to be the "founder of the discipline of hygeine in Germany."[ocp.hul.harvard.edu]

OK Fresh, apparently you didn't like the part of the "immune system" definition that included protection against "foods". You said, "protect against foods? what kind of absurd statement is that?"

Well, you'll have to ask the authors, but I like to think the definition is referring to junk food, which many bodies unfortunately have to defend against way too often.

On the role of skin, etc. in the "innate immune system": If you're interested, go to this link and scroll down to D. to find information about the role of the skin and other protective barriers as components of the innate immune system => [student.ccbcmd.edu]

Fresh, can you give me a reference for your Pasteur quote?

In response to your question about the word "harmful", I probably should have mentioned above that when we tested the bacteria that grew on our dishes, it turned out to be staphylococcus aureus, ie "staph", which is commonly considered potentially harmful.

Fresh, do you happen to know what Graham was referring with the statement, "No new system was discovered in 1980 when the concept of an immune system was introduced to the medical literature."?

When/where did Graham say that? It would be nice to know exactly what we're talking about. If it's a quote from 80/10/10, I have the book.

I'm not clear where you disagree about Jenner. Cowpox is considered by many to be the first official vaccine, although Chinese and Europeans were ingesting smallpox matter before that to induce an adaptive immune response. They usually got pretty sick, but didn't die so much; so it was considered by many to be worth the risk. In the 1700s, in Europe, the procedure was called "variolation"; and Jenner himself was exposed to variolation as a child.

The point of bringing up Jenner was simply to show that the concept of immunity has been around long before 1980 - not to defend vaccination. But maybe Graham is talking about something completely different. If so, what?

Whew.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 11:16PM by suncloud.

>Well, you'll have to ask the authors, but I like to think the definition is referring to junk food, which many bodies unfortunately have to defend against way too often.

junk food is not food
is hydrochloric acid food?
if someone ingests it, is it then considered "food"?
failure of definition.

> Fresh, can you give me a reference for your Pasteur quote?

i don't have time to research...
1st thing that came up
[www.susandoreydesigns.com]



> In response to your question about the word "harmful", I probably should have mentioned above that when we tested the bacteria that grew on our dishes, it turned out to be staphylococcus aureus, ie "staph", which is commonly considered potentially harmful.

it is the mileau, not the germ
microbes do not satisfy koch's postulates
ie: often no disease even though microbe present


> When/where did Graham say that? It would be nice to know exactly what we're talking about. If it's a quote from 80/10/10, I have the book.

on the board recently.

> I'm not clear where you disagree about Jenner. Cowpox is considered by many to be the first official vaccine, although Chinese and Europeans were ingesting smallpox matter before that to induce an adaptive immune response. They usually got pretty sick, but didn't die so much; so it was considered by many to be worth the risk. In the 1700s, in Europe, the procedure was called "variolation"; and Jenner himself was exposed to variolation as a child.

again, do a search.

> The point of bringing up Jenner was simply to show that the concept of immunity has been around long before 1980

>if so, what?

IN the textbooks, not the concept itself.


so what part of the body is not part of the immune system
every cell, according to the philosophy that people are stating here has a role in defense of self and body.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 11:34PM by fresh.

Fresh, I agree that junkfood isn't food. The definition is from my microbiology textbook. Maybe they should have said "junkfood".

I guess there's not a whole lot of evidence that your Pasteur quote actually comes from Pasteur. The author of the article says, "Of importance for this narrative, Selye did not cite his source for Pasteur's quote, leaving my desire for an authoritative source unsatisfied."

Whether Pasteur said this or not, it really wouldn't nullify everything that's been learned since Louis Pasteur. He lived a pretty long time ago. I do agree that much more emphasis should be placed on diet and lifestyle in the field of health. But it's pretty difficult to believe that harmful germs don't exist. Is that the point you're making? I mean, just for one example, remember the anthrax threat? People died after being exposed to the white anthrax powder. Pretty impressive coincidence!

Koch was aware that his postulates weren't perfect. Koch's postulates were simply the best tool people could come up with in the 1800s for diagnosing plant and animal diseases. The postulates are still considered a historical breakthrough. But that was over 100 years ago! Today we have more effective diagnostic tools. Diagnostic tests that involve immune system components include: ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay), Western Blotting, Precipitation Reactions, Agglutination Reactions, Neutralization Reactions, Complement-Fixation Reactions, and Fluorescent-Antibody Techniques.

I have no idea what you want me to search for regarding Jenner.

Surely, immunity was written about in the textbooks before 1980. I remember being vaccinated in the 1950s! I remember the shots hurt, and then I got a lollipop. My son was vaccinated in the early 70s (not sure I would have made the same decision today). When were you vaccinated? Did you get a lollipop? C'mon, fess up!

(Surely Doug Graham is referring to something else, or he's just off his rocker. He probably got vaccinated in the 50s too!)

Fresh, for any remaining questions you might have on the immune system, there are some really good books available. Personally I find the subject absolutely fascinating - except of course for all the chemical stuff we humans are currently using to try to kill the microbes. Jeez, looks like our use of penicillin and methicillin (or misuse) has created the monster MRSA (methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus). And now there's even a vancomycin-resisant strain: VRSA. But the factory farms are feeding vancomycin to the stockyard cows.

Wouldn't hurt to read up on it, if you're interested.

suncloud,

thanks for the education and thanks for playing. later


is water harmful?
under some conditions yes
is water virulent?

virulence is power to cause harm ,not rate of replication.

is anthrax harmful?
in some conditions yes

the point is under what conditions?

since it is dependent upon the bodily state of the body being "infected"
harm is conditional.

"Anthrax typically does not cause disease in carnivores and scavengers, even when these animals consume anthrax-infected carcasses."

perhaps my view is that this - if you dump 35 gallons of anything, microbes or whatever into an organism, it can overwhelm the capacity of the body to excrete it. but in a very healthy body, like mine and yours, in the normal course of exposure to various types of high and low "virulence" organisms, the body will not become diseased. the body will handle the load.
so while we say that the microbe and the terrain both play a role, i would say the terrain plays most or all of the role.


"Being exposed to anthrax spores does not necessarily mean that you will develop an infection. Many of the spores are dormant, and pose no threat. In addition, infection will only result if sufficient numbers of the spores germinate and release harmful bacteria in sufficient quantities. Small amounts of the bacteria can be killed off by the body's immune system. It is estimated that 10,000 spores are needed to cause infection. Once anthrax spores have lodged in the lung and caused an infection, nine out of 10 patients die."

now, consider ---- 9.9999999 out of 10 patients are cookers.
so what is the value of statistics like these when we know cookers are highly susceptible to disease in all forms, and caused by endogenous and exogenous vectors.


still waiting for the part of the body that does not play a role in the immune system.

from wiki

This adaptation process is referred to as "adaptive immunity" or "acquired immunity" and creates immunological memory. Immunological memory, created from a primary response to a specific pathogen, provides an enhanced response to secondary encounters with that same, specific pathogen. This process of acquired immunity is the basis of vaccination. Primary response can take 2 days and up to 2 weeks to develop. After the body gains immunity towards a certain pathogen, when infection by that pathogen occurs again, the immune response is called the secondary response.


since this is clearly false to anyone who has researched vaccinations, what else is wrong in the commonly accepted definition of immune system?

Fresh,

Your whole approach to risk and threat of substances is too reductionist and lopsided. So you can drown in water and sometimes anthrax doesn't result in exposure, does that mean we can't view the human response to a toxin or pathogen in terms of an immune system? I don't think so.

If we are all eating as well as we can and we are exposed to ebola virus, we die under just about all conditions or swallowing cyanide. When humans are exposed to stressors and disease vectors, the response of the human body is an immune system. It's that simple. You can keep getting flip and playing semantic games. But low and behold, we have an immune system. And it's a pretty good one. Multi-layered and resilient.

Regarding your wiki post, tell it to all of the polio victims who don't exist from the vaccine or the nonexistent tetanus victim who don't have lockjaw because they were immunized.

You are playing semantic games with commonly accepted and scientifically accurate principles. Doesn't mean that there aren't risks. The reason the general population isn't solicited for small pox vaccination is because of the risk to those with compromised "immune systems". There's an operational definition.

Allergies are another. Tell some poor soul who is sneezing his head off now that there is no such thing as an immune system. What system is making him overreact then? Why get shots.

Play semantic games if you want to, the rest of the world isn't buying it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 08:01PM by Krefcenz.

>If we are all eating as well as we can and we are exposed to ebola virus, we die under just about all conditions or swallowing cyanide.

[www.nytimes.com]


> Regarding your wiki post, tell it to all of the polio victims who don't exist from the vaccine or the nonexistent tetanus victim who don't have lockjaw because they were immunized.

can't figure out what you mean above.

that many perfectly healthy people and some not so healthy benefited from a human intervention for a system - the immune system - that you claim does not exist. For many of these poor souls but for the vaccination they would be victims, not victors.

On Ebola, my point. Over 90 percent die, some of the decedents perfectly healthy. Nothing in your article to suggest superior nutrition was the factor accounting for their survival. It would be an interesting study to be sure. But many raw vegans haven't faired so well in these kind of exams, esp wrt B-12, iodine, homocysteine, etc