Yes, there are cases for pain killers, but I was referring to the majority who misuse them. Sometimes alternation of hot and cold packs will work just as well. Hopefully, taking pain killers for a one time incident won't cause the heart problems. It's the ones who say they always have pain and need them when really it's something else going on.

Going on a mission trip is something to consider carefully. However, to assume one must take mercury I don't think is wise. Most vaccines have alternatives if you demand them. But there are too many who think it doesn't matter and try to convince you to just take it.

But, you state vaccination have removed smallpox threats. Is that based upon the scientific method or is it based upon correlations which may be confounded?

It is the active ingredients in the vaccine that you are interested in, not the Hg. But your critique of vaccines did focus on the Hg aspect.

It might just be a very lucky coincidence that smallpox disappeared at the same time that vaccinations against it became well spread all over the world. Though it does beg the question, if its disappearance is based on different causes than the advance of medicine, why did it happen now rather than at any other previous time in history?

(The scientific method requires a control group. In the case of a vaccine, it would have to be a large majority of the population in the control area. Which population would you want to deny the cure of a deadly disease in the name of science?)

Are you asking why do many things happen at the same time?

It sounds like you admit that the concept of vaccinations has not been scientifically tested, nor will be, nor should be. That we should just accept it as self-evident truth.

I believe you and I agree that there is an absolute reality, that there isn't some sort of dual reality, split reality, nor multiple realities, that there exists some reality that either vaccines work or they don't work or it's somewhere in between. Do you understand what the null hypothesis would be in this case and which viewpoint would need to disprove it? But if you don't do scientific experiments on it, how can it be disproved - with circumstantial, coincidental, confounded occurrences, at a time of which many were happening rapidly at the same time?

But, based upon your posts, are you really questioning whether prescription drugs or otherwise are harmful, worse than the health issue, and are of real concern?

I admit that I am not aware of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of vaccination or the lack thereoff.

I am questioning that the generalisation that *all prescription drugs are always worse than the disease they are ment to cure* is a safe or true one to make.

I am not questioning that there are prescription drugs that are harmful to use,
that there are prescription drugs that are harmful though less harmful than the disease they are designed to cure,
or that missuse of prescription drugs is a very bad idea.

I would not advice anyone to take any kind of drug with less than a serious medical condition to cure involved.
I also could not quietly see someone advicing against taking a lifesaving drug on some anti-drug principle when not taking the drug is a one way ticket to death or serious health degradation.

I agree that there is an absolute reality. This reality includes that the human body is designed to adapt to threats it has previously encountered. Therefore, introducing the body to non-lethal versions/variants of the disease you wish to inoculate yourself against is a clear case of working within the design given to the human immune system.

It does seem that "all" are always worse wouldn't be a true statement. Though, I recall reading from Ellen White where she indicates all are harmful. To what degree, I don't believe she stated.

With supposing it works that way. Do you see a contradiction here? Threats versus non-lethal and versions/variants. Theory is nice, but if it hasn't been proven, it doesn't mean it's true. How did the theory become accepted if it wasn't tested? I've read things, which I don't know if they are true, about little testing being done and that it was a competition between two or more theories with this one winning from the power struggle. I'd be willing to read other stuff, too, if you have something. Odd how it's just accepted. Promotion was the term used. Guess it works. Aren't areas near you banning vaccinations?

Consider the cold virus. They say it can't be vaccinated against because there are new versions. A question to ask is, why is the smallpox version unable to change and cold viruses are? Some people catch the cold many times a year. Others don't catch one at all. Some who used to catch cold, no longer do. If the only thing of prevention is whether one has been vaccinated or not, why is this so? Another thing is why isn't there a cold vaccine that is a variant that has a common portion? Lot's of money to be made.

Of course, this could be disputed if the swine flu is a real threat and vaccines don't work, then lots of people will get sick. The question would be if it's a real threat or like I'm claiming that smallpox isn't a real threat today. Which could also be disputed by lots of people who have been vaccinated catching smallpox if the conditions become like they were before.

Well, I would certainly join you in refusing medication if the doctor prescribed the poisons that were sold during Ellens time.

As I said, I am not aware of what research exists, nor have I time to find out (amid thesis writing and researching postgraduate positions). Considering that vaccinations were introduced and developed already in the 19th century by Louis Pasteur, it is possible that the original research is written in Latin, and if not, then in French.

The common cold virus is a good example on how not all species evolve at the same speed. The HIV virus is another example of a virus which evolve so fast that it is almost impossible to prevent (thus far).
You step into the deep when you state that vaccination would be the "only thing of prevention". I have not heard anyone say a vaccination would be the only preventive. Rather the common cold vaccination is recommended for very young children and very old people for whom a common cold is no longer a week in bed but the first step into the grave.

I happen to think the Swine flu was heavily over-sold.
Smallpox on the other hand, was a serious illness. And while better conditions could explain why it no longer is occurring in America or Western Europe, it is not a sufficient explanation for why the Afghan or Ukrainian farmer no longer suffers from it.

Did I understand you saying there IS a common cold vaccination? Or are you saying IF there were one?

If vaccinations really work, why wouldn't they be a sole preventer? At least for those who are able to withstand the poisons. For instance, talking about the flu, promoters say you should get vaccinated, wash your hands, etc. Why, if it's true vaccinations really do work? Now, if they might, or sometimes, or kind of, then that would be understandable that you try everything in prevention, which indicates they don't "really" work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine
I realise there might be a confusion of terms on my part here.

kland, let me use an analogy here. People who drive cars with airbags who are involved in car crashes sometimes need ER treatment. Does that mean that the airbag did not work and that the car manufacturers should save money by not designing cars with them? Or does it mean that while the airbag did work (ie, the person goes to the ER rather than to the morgue), it isnt the magic bullet for solving all car crash injuries?

Also, some people argue simmilarily about christianity. They say, "if I confess the creed and go to church, then God will automatically remove my alcoholism and [censored] addiction and I will over night become a much better person". Then after a while when the person realises that these things do not get automatic and immediate solutions by becoming christian, the person decides christianity is a fake and discards it.

Claiming more for something than what it is meant to do is one way of making a strawman to shoot down.

The air bag did not work if it's goal was to prevent injury.

Reducing injury is another thing. Applied to vaccinations, that opens a whole new questionable concept. Which could be why some lists ways of preventing the flu: get vaccinated, wash hands... The logic indicating, vaccination will not solely prevent the flu.
Which, if it doesn't solely prevent the flu, is not intended to solely prevent the flu, has not be scientifically tested, does it do anything? Flu or otherwise?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8065407
This seems an interesting research document regarding influenza vaccination of the elderly. They write that in the vaccinated group, fewer experienced hospitalisation or death than in the control group, despite the fact that the control group persons were generally healthier than the vaccinated group.