And some would say that about creationists who carve footprints near dinosaur tracks. Would you then be saying that Creation does not have much of substance?

While reading the full text article, I was thinking that's the kind of analysis which was needed for the Jenner and BeChamp conflict. Or one about why vaccines were thought to work and the evidence found.

The purpose was to demonstrate to you that "prevent" is the goal of "working", not "help" reduce some the disease effects.

But, you should be waiting for me to say, why. Why only 2 and not 3? Shouldn't that be an obvious question to ask?

"Creation Science" certainly lacks substance. God on the other hand is the very definition of substance, wherefore Creation does not lack it. Thus making difference between Creation and theories about creation. I am not familiar with this conflict. But inadvertedly you also showed that preventing 2 causes of Meningitis is different from preventing all causes of it..

Why only 2? That is a good question, one I think requires a deeper understanding of microbiology than mine to answer. All bacteria are not equal, nor do they stay the same and willingly chose exile as soon as we find a weapon against them.

Yeah, you discredited it by saying it was an old book.

I have come across where it is said the interaction between the two in meetings are well documented. Is there any possible way in which I could present it to you so you do not say it is an old book, (Jenner and Pasteur were of long time ago), or that it is from a website which has a purpose for existing?

There are only 280 or so pages to the old book. Also, the book appears to speak on Bechamp while the article speaks on Jenner. So which conflict are you talking about?

I suppose you are talking about this Jenner:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner
And this Bechamp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_B%C3%A9champ

Looking for evidence of this conflict in the article you posted before, I read:

"As mentioned earlier, viruses are cell constituents and if they become pathogenic it is because there is disequilibrium. Hence when an infant has measles we find the virus specific to measles. But if the virus is expressed it is because the organism is enfeebled. "

Does this mean that the measles virus is beneficial to the human body if the body is in equilibrium?

"They maintain biological equilibrium; without them we die, and they become pathogenic only with change in physiological equilibrium or breakdown of the immune system. For example, the intestines are full of colibacilli and many saprophytic bacteria (that live on the organism by feeding on decomposing matter). These bacteria contribute to fermentation of digestive residues and to the synthesis of vitamins. But, in the event of disequilibrium, they precipitate diarrhoea, appendicitis and other problems. That is why it is much more sensible to rebalance and clean the body than to kill the microbe. "

The Escherichia coli bacteria is one of the bacteria species which fit the quote above. But why has no one been able to show what use Mycobacterium tuberculosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacterium_tuberculosis or Mycobacterium leprae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacterium_leprae
is to a human body in equilibrium? Do they aid digestion? Provide care of the human organs through reduction of dead cells?

"Béchamp, founder of enzymology, identified minuscule corpuscles, microzymes, smaller than cells. These are at the origin of life and are found in both man and animal and in plants and micro-organisms. In humans their form varies with the general state of their home terrain and their nutrition. Disease occurs when disequilibrium disturbs their normal functioning. When there is change in the normal state of health, from malnutrition, poisoning, or physical or psychological stress, the microzymes can transform into pathogenic germs or microbes. To Antoine Béchamp the same microbes could take several forms relative to their milieu – the theory of polymorphism, which, had it been widely recognised, would have revolutionised general perceptions of health and disease. The key, say it supporters, is reinforcing health, which enables the germs to recover their original microzyme form and their protective function. Recreate the right milieu and the mcrobes disappear and hence the disease also. "

So it would seem that these "microbes" usually are protecting us, but when we are weak and in the greatest need of having our body protected, they transform themselves into bacteria or viruses. One wonders why they transform themselves into the same bacteria every time there is an epidemic. How come these "defence microbes" always turn into flu viruses in the winter, and into diarreah bacteria for travellers, and into Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Russian jails but not in American jails. Someone definitely needs to look into these questions, find the cause for bad conditions resulting in "defence microbes" becoming tbc in Russia while they chose to become malaria amoebas in Congo and you will be famous (if not getting a Nobel Prize, at least you will be greatly admired in the circles that "The Real Essentials" caters to.

Study reveals top ten violence-inducing prescription drugs

by Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) recently published a study in the journal PLoS One highlighting the worst prescription drug offenders that cause patients to become violent. Among the top-ten most dangerous are the antidepressants Pristiq (desvenlafaxine), Paxil (paroxetine) and Prozac (fluoxetine).

Concerns about the extreme negative side effects of many popular antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs have been on the rise, as these drugs not only cause severe health problems to users, but also pose a significant threat to society. The ISMP report indicates that, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System, many popular drugs are linked even to homicides.

Most of the drugs in the top ten most dangerous are antidepressants, but also included are an insomnia medication, an attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drug, a malaria drug and an anti-smoking medication.

As reported in Time, the top ten list is as follows:

10. Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq) - An antidepressant that affects serotonin and noradrenaline. The drug is 7.9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

9. Venlafaxine (Effexor) - An antidepressant that treats anxiety disorders. The drug is 8.3 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

8. Fluvoxamine (Luvox) - A selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) drug that is 8.4 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

7. Triazolam (Halcion) - A benzodiazepine drug for insomnia that is 8.7 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

6. Atomoxetine (Strattera) - An ADHD drug that is 9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

5. Mefoquine (Lariam) - A malaria drug that is 9.5 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

4. Amphetamines - This general class of ADHD drug is 9.6 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

3. Paroxetine (Paxil) - An SSRI antidepressant drug that is 10.3 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs. It is also linked to severe withdrawal symptoms and birth defects.

2. Fluoxetine (Prozac) - A popular SSRI antidepressant drug that is 10.9 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

1. Varenicline (Chantix) - An anti-smoking drug that is a shocking 18 times more likely to be associated with violence than other drugs.

Sources for this story include:

http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/...

Suzanne

Guess that means there's no possible way for me to present it, that it's something you'll have to look up and/or decide.

Suppose I have a block of wood setting in water in a sterile environment. One would not expect it to decay. However, if it were exposed to any of various fungi or bacteria, it would start to decay. Suppose you exposed it to another block of wood which had a specific fungi. You could say it "caught" that fungi from the contaminated block of wood. You could put a fungicide on it to keep it from catching it. But then, you place a different block of wood contaminated with a different fungi resistant to that fungicide or a bacteria. Soon, it catches the new disease. Maybe a new fungicide or bactericide is in order?

Now suppose that block of wood was part of a healthy growing tree. No matter how many contaminated blocks of wood were placed near it, would you expect the tree to "catch" it? I wouldn't.

(Speaking of contamination, isn't it interesting that the first vaccines only "worked", whatever that entailed, if the batches were contaminated, that the actual vaccine didn't "work"?)

Suzanne listed 10 popular drugs and their side effects. Extreme side effects. Would you expect much less from the drugs in vaccines? Does, not extreme, give you much confidence in taking them?

I think you are mistaken about pleomorphic bacteria and viruses. Also hepatitis B.

Tell me kland, what causes you most resignation over this conversation, that I have more important things to do (like work) than to read 300 pages in a book you mentioned, or that I read a couple of pages in the article you also mentioned and found some interesting questions from doing so.

Lets ignore that bacteria and fungi are not the only things that decay dead wood (as there also is chemical decay, for instance by oxidation).

Suppose the block of wood that is part of a healthy growing tree is next to a fungi-infested log of wood. If the tree is healthy, it will fight the fungi by a process corresponding to immune defence. Suppose further a lumberjack would cut a chunk of bark from the growing tree. The tree would now have lost a main part of its defence and is suddenly susceptible to being colonized by the fungi.

Come on kland, you know as well as I that it is a great difference between a Heliobacter pylori changing between a helix-shaped form and a coccoid form, or the Heliobacter changing into a Hepatitis or even into a virus as the people at "The Real Essentials" seem to argue. That level of plasticity would soon send the bacteria or protobacteria into an amoeboid form on its way to evolve a mammal.

Make that the conflict between Bechamp and Pasteur.

A tree with a chunk of its bark missing is no longer a healthy tree.

Regarding vaccinations, what do you say the null hypothesis is?