Odd that you would accuse health authorities of 'not playing straight' when you have neither attempted to defend Wakefield's research, offer any evidence of an MMR-autism link, or indeed substantiate any allegations regarding deficiencies in genuine, peer-reviewed research. In fact, there is nothing of substance here at all.

MMR: Don't Treat Readers Like Idiots...

Quite frankly all that matters is that parents are given a choice.  I personally am not going to be vaccinating my daughter with MMR for a number of reasons.  Whether people choose to or not is ultimately their choice and adults should not be made to feel guilty for chosing either option.

I don't really understand why you are evidently so upset about hearing information possibly leading to the safeguarding of our children, unless of course you are plugging the drugs and actively involved in the propogation of pharmaceuticals for no end other than to make money.

Andrew you are behind the times. There is plenty of evidence against MMR, much of it in WDDTY literature and much more besides. If you think that the government and the pharmaceutical industry are to be trusted you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

The big problem with Andrew Wakefield's treatment by the authorities is that they attempted to stop his research, and condemn him for alarming people. What they should have done is to accept that there may, or may not, be a link and allow research in that direction to continue until strong evidence shows a case for or against. But by shutting any researcher down who does not toe the current consensus they give the impression that there is suppressed evidence, and the public - quite rightly sceptical of politicians and big business and bureaucracy in general - assume there is no smoke without fire and withdraw their children from vaccination. I think Galileo had a similar problem with his new ideas, and original thinkers have always been damned by the establishment.

Whether or not the MMR link is proven is almost irrelevant - trying to drown out whistleblowers and new ideas will stunt scientific advancement and is undemocratic. May the mavericks continue to have the courage to think differently!

How did they stop his research? I understand it has been very succesfully continued in the US, with many children cured of autism.

I have been trying my utmost to find credible evidence, that vaccinations are widely effective.

  The so called 'proof' I have been given by the relevant health departments/experts doesn't fulfill most peoples idea of such.Can anybody give me reliable, unbiased results of any REAL trials that have been done with a population ....half vaccinated and half not...and then compared the results?

How many contracted the disease who were vaccinated....and how many who weren't....

   A simple experiment within the REAL world...but not one that anyone seems to have carried out...unless you know differently?

The efficacy information available is the drug company's own statistics and they are not from simple, 'real world' trials...only  supposition of efficacy based on technical 'immune cell' responses within the body.Their own advice is against vaccinating anyone with any kind of compromised immune system as it could be detrimental.

   As you can imagine, this covers a huge chunk of the general public.....and the very ones who are most susceptable, by definition!!

  The others.. presumambly, have a strong enough immune system to fight off the infection and therefore don't require a substance which may even compromise that immunity?

What a Bizarre kind of world we live in....."money, money, money"

Hi David,

That's a reasonable request.  Real world, as you say evidence that vaccines work is very widespread and conclusive, at least that the principle of vaccination itself works.

for individual vaccines I certainly wouldn't rely solely on drug companies own statistics unless I could see the raw data for myself, which is unlikely.

Your presumption that if someone has a strong enough immune system to tolerate immunization then they will be resistant to all infections is simply false.  There are plenty of infectious diseases that can make us ill, even if our immune system is perfectly healthy.

Rather than go into detail about all or each vaccine, since their are so many I thought I would provide a link to evidence in support of MMR

http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004407/pdf_fs.html

This is a reasonable recent account of the evidence.  Have a read and see what you makes of the studies look at and the conclusions drawn.  it is a Cochrane Review, which are usually excellent and highly regarded analysis of the data that exists at the time.

Ob fourse, it is wrong to suggest that every vaccine is 100% safe.  This simply isn't true.  Vaccines carry a small risk, but since so many people will recieve them, this means that there will always be people who suffer negative reactions to them.  

A very small number of people hold the extreme view that vaccination carries no health benefits and it purely there as a means of serving the manufacturers of vaccines.  This ismply isn't supported by the evidence as it exists today, or by the successes that mass vaccination has had all over the world.  

But lets not get ahead of ourselves, have a look at that review (I hope the link works) and let me know what you make of their analysis, whether you think it is fair and if not what problems you have with it.  

Regards

So if I pay $29.95 to Big Pharma, I can read their cover up of MMr. No thanks.

Hello Richard.

Are you referring to the link I posted?  Does it ask for payment?  It took me straight to the pdf free of charge.  

Perhaps I am misunderstaning your post, but I might be forgiven since there is quite a lot of that sentiment on these forums.

Are you suggesting in an serious way that payment to a publisher is payment to pharmaceutical companies, or that the evidence is the Cochrane Review originates from the pharmaceutical industry?

Forgive me if you are talking about something else entirely, butthat's the impression I am getting.  

Perhaps there is another source where you can find the peer reviewed studies of MMR safety and risks.  Your absolutely right not to rely on any one particular source of information.  But its important to remain objective throughout (ie.e don't let me or anyone else tell you what to think and don't beleive what you read unless it provides evidence), or whatever you read will be a waste of time.

The link goes direct to a pay portal, Wiley Interscience and you have to pay $29.95 to read it. There is lots of good vax info on sites like whale.to and mercola.com that doesn't cost a penny.

The Cochrane Collaboration is funded by the pharmaceutical companies. Not directly but through trusts and cut-outs so that it isn't so glaringly obvious, but the information is out there, it isn't secret.

Richard, Sorry about that.  I didn't realise.  it took me straight to pdf.

I haven't looked at mercola.com, but I am sadly familiar while the whale.to site since the culprit used to post on this site.  

I'm afriad if you cite that as "good info" then we will have to completely disagree in our definitions of good and info.  I would call it "make up any old thing then if all else fails claim a conspiracy against you" and can't see how any reasonable person can sensible converse with it.

I guess perhaps you see no problem with that.  What I don't understand though is that you obviously, quite rightly, understand that all evidence must be referenced and sourced.  You do not accept evidence at face value (i.e., so much so that raw data presented in cochrane reviews is suspect to you, even though peer reviewed, independently reviewed and subsequently open to review by all others in the public domain.

However you don't seem to extend that level of scepticism to the like of whale.to, which is a website or quotes, parnoid rants about satanic conspiracies and links to more quotes.  That, to you, is evidence.

Can you see what I am getting at?  I applaud anyone who is sceptical, but apply that to all sides objectively.  that is, if you are interested in correct conducting reason and reaching some sort of truth.

regards

The problem with conspiracy theories is that, nomatter what evidence comes along, one can simply dismiss it and say "this evidence is made up, its all part of a conspiracy" and whatever evidence is lacking- "this evidence was covered up, its all part of a conspiracy".

This means that people who take this position are no longer open to any evidence that is contrary to what they say.  There is no possible line of argument, no amount of fact or opinion, no cold, hard data that they take on board unless it supports their case.

The evidence for their case however, can be very flimsy.  It can be perhaps just one opinion, a handful of opinions, backed up by a book or several studies.  The point is that the evidence doesn't actually matter becuase, even if it did all turn out to be wrong and everyone largely agreed on that, this would not change the conspriacy theorist mind, since they would still see it all as part of a conspiracy.

How many times have I heard on this site that a) arguments for alternatives don't need evidence b) the reason why they don't is becuase of a conspiracy c) the conspriacy involed the entire medical profession, academia, publishers, etc d) we are the chosen few who see the light and are trying to change the tide.

The "chosen few" beleif is another one often associated with conspiracy theories.  That the world can be divided into three groups 1) the blind masses 2) the great conspirators 3) the chosen few who see through this and crusade against it.

Its a very common world view.  it is impervious to logic and reason for the reaons set out above.  A belief that is impervious to reason is a tough one to debate with, since it does not follow logic and does not understand how to evaluate and objectively critisise evidence

The internet is coming down with this sort of thing becuase it is basically lazy and easy.  it is so, so easy to come up with these sorts of ideas, then ram them home as if you were actually onto something profund, or were saying something worhtwhile.  Any idiot can do that.  it is much, much harder to actually know something which is based on truth, based on an appreciation of evidence and a critical appraisal of it.  That takes a great deal more work!

Harradine

I don't know what you are going on about.

Some of the information on whale.to is quite loopy, but Dr. Scudamore has done a lot of work to compile the information on vaccination and its dangers. It is not written by him, so his personal veracity shouldn't enter into it.

There has never been a study whch has demostrated the safety of the MMR vax or any other over a long period of time, to all of its victims. Never.

In the US alone there are 5000 victims whose cases have enough clinical evidence to make it to the vaccine court.  When the decision comes it will bankrupt the vaccination industry and I doubt you will see compulsory vaccination anymore.

Harradine,

if your computer takes you directly to the pdf of that paper you mentioned, and other mortals (including myself) are asked to pay $29 for access, that must mean that your computer is already linked and paid up - so you may be either in a research facility, hospital, university, or drug company.

That makes a difference.

And in all the years I have studied vaccination issues, I have never seen a study that answers this question:  If the vaccine keeps a person from having a particular disease, what does it give them instead?  The choices seem to be "measles or autism", "whooping cough for 3 months or asthma for life", and maybe even "chicken pox or severe eczema" - and in my case, I suspect, "polio or chronic fatigue"?

Truth is relative, and so totally in the eye of the beholder.  Anybody who believes there is such a thing as objective knowledge - knowledge that is true outside of the observer - is ignorant of the findings in quantum physics, which clearly say that the observer is part of the observed.  There is no such thing as objective truth.

All talk about conspiracy aside, why would the "scientific" establishment not believe parents who say their children got sick or damaged after vaccination?  Why would these parents lie?  WHy would you not investigate immediately if a healthy child suddenly becomes non-functional after a particular medical intervention?  If they got the same kind of reaction from mint tea, wouldn't you immediately call for a ban on all mint tea?

I say, parents beware.  Too much money is at stake.  What if the parents were right and the vaccinators were wrong?  Oops does not begin to describe the resulting mess.

AnneMarie.  I accessed that paper from my home computer as it happens.  But ofcourse, that makes no difference anyway.

Another one who misunderstands the findings of quantum physics completely.  Heisenberg's uncertainty principle does not, in any way, argue that there is no such thing as objective truth is some poetic, philosphocial, post-modern sense that you suggest.  for you to use a branhc of science in a way that only people who don't get it ever do (and directly contrary to those such as Feynman, etc who went to great pains to avoid such misunderstanding) is telling in itself.  Quantum physics has to be one of the most bastardised phrases from science used by the loony crowd, along with "energy".

Any claim that a treatment causes an adverse reaction has to be taken very, very seriously.  Something as serious as a risk of mass vaccination to child health is ofcourse just such a thing.  Sadly you don't see that it was taken seriously' the link was scrutinised closely and no evidence for CAUSATION was found.  What was found was evidence against causation.  Even the evidence for the association has since been overturned.  

So all you have left with are fightened parents being told of a link that doesn't exists by people who either don't understand or cannot interpret the evidence but are certain it must prove that medicines are in the wrong.  That's called a health scare.  Fine if their is reason for one, but in this example there is not.  

No one is saying that parents are lying.  Just that the idea that there ever was a link between MMR and autism hit the headlines before anyone had any evidence for it.  Since then, despite all the independantevidence that has accumulated against the link, its too late.  The damage is done.  parents have been scared out of their wits for no reason and convinced that health advice is all just one big con with the aim of making people rich.

When people stop trusting health advice, you can imagine what happens next.  Any halfwit with a potion to sell steps in with a list as long as your arm of cures that people "swear by".  Forget evidence.  Ignore any proper health advice- you can't rust that any more.  No, trust alternatives instead.

That is when we go back to the spread of childhood illnesses like we haven't seen since before the days of vaccination.  Even people on this very website seem to think we live in a time when illness has never been so bad.  Perhaps they have never been in ward filled with children with diptheria.

Harradine

it is true as you have alleged that the diseases of old are no longer as prevalent as they were. Infectious diseases have been curatailed by modern medicine, sanitation

and public health.

However now we are facing epidemic levels of diseases unheadr of by our forefathers. Autism, cancer, autoimmune diseases, fibromyalgia, multiple chemical sensitivity, moregellons, electrosensitivity, asthma were virtually unknown a century ago.

In my grandfather's day people worked in the field s until they were in their nineties. Now you see nursing homes stuffed with decrepit people in their sixties and seventies.How can you say we are healthier now?

I agree with Richard.

We have less infectious diseases now,due to better sanitation and housing conditions,NOT vaccines, but far more chronic,degenerative disease than ever in history.

In both WW1 and WW2 about 50% of all military applicants in both the Uk and USA were turned away due to not being healthy enough to endure the rigours of military service.

I wonder what that % would be today after 50 yrs of poor food and all the environmental toxins humans are exposed to?

We have more technology and scientific advancements than ever but we have never been sicker.

If you discount all the people kept alive by drugs,we are NOT living any longer.

Kids  seem to grow faster and are taller than their grandparents but they are also more prone to disease...just like crops grown with chemical fertilizers.

The bottom line is...The further mankind moves away from Nature,the sicker he becomes.

Right now, in the developed world, life expectancy is longer than it has ever been.  Many infections diseases are a thing of the past largely thanks to vaccinations, but of course, before the development of vaccine, clean water and an understanding of germ theory played an absolutely enourmous role in public health.

Richard you say that in your grandfathers day people workd in the fields until 90.  Perhaps a few, but there are more nontagenarians now than there were in your grandfathers day.  

The population is ageing.  In the next 50 uyears we can expect to see the avergae age increase even more.  With that we can expect to see certain illness increase according.  Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, strokes and cancer are all diseases where increasing age is a risk factor.  Ergo, an ageing population will see these illness more.  Also, if vaccination is used widely throughout a population, then you will expect to see adverse reactions to the vaccine occur more commonly that the disease it is used to prevent.  

Health interventions, of which drugs and vaccines are only a part, have changed the lanscape in terms of life expectancy and the illness we see.

Autism has increased rapindly since the 70s which is normally arritubed to perfectly simultaneously improved and more widely used methods of screening and diagnosis.  Just like something like dyslexia.  No one beleives more kids have these problems than ever before.  Just than in the 50s and 60s their problems were ignored, called something else or just put down to kids being "strange".

Some diseases probably genuines are increasing, like HIV AID, age realted diseases (see above).  But really, to suggest that we should abandon all of medicine as we know it and return to a stone agr system of trying whatever we could would simply mean returning to a stone age lifespan

This is not to say there isn't a real argument of the overmedicalisation of scoiety and the idea that all lifes problems can be helped by labelling them as a disease or disorder.  This has happened and is happening.  As far as I can see it is something drug companies and alternative health proponents both use widely.

Blobby kids grow fast compared to their grandparents of their grandparents didnot have enough to eat and were stunted (which happened very widely in the UK just two of three generations ago).

You say kids today are more prone to disease than their grandparents.  That just isn't supported by the facts.  Look at the data fro childhood mortality under the age of 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, etc, etc over the last 100 years, then 50 years.

Check it out.   In the 18th Century infant mortaility was as high as 500/1000!!!!  By 1989 this had dropped to 1/1000.  

These ideas that we have never been so sick are simply wrong.

For a humorous look at the problems of confusing fantasy with reality...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/07/education

Harradine

Yes the pro-vaccination lunatics are confusing the fantasy of epidemiology with the facts of iatrogenic illness due to vaccines.

Richard,

What do you mean, the "fantasy of epidemiology"?  Epidemiology is an application of mathematics.

Lets talk epidemiology.  I am presuming you understand what it means, right?

Then you wil know that whoever you are, whatever your background and whatever you are trying to show, epidemiology is how you will show it, right?

If I had an idea that drug A causes condition X, (say..MMR and Autism for example) epidemiology is how I would show it.  Yes?  Or, no?

It seems we must go back to basics.  What is your understanding of these matters?

Or is your problem now with mathematics?

[I am not interested in spin or opinion from any quarter.  I hope you will extend the same courtesy to me at least.]

p.s That is not to say that drug companies are not guilty of BAD epidemiology!!!  In fact the cheat!  Is that what you mean?

But, having said that, your wacky theories don't even bother with any sort of evidence, they just put themselves oput there and ARGUE!!

Like I say, lets go back to basics.  What do you understand about epidemiology?  

How would you apply this to..say, MMR and Autism.?

Lies, damn lies and statistics. Epidemiology is just statistics which can be used to prove anything. Actual human observation is the only kind of evidence that is allowed in a court of law.  Think about it.

Complete nonsense Richard.  Epidemiology is used frequently in the courts.  it is used as evidence of causation or otherwise.  What are are saying is simply incorrect factually.  Human observation is definitely NOT the only kind of evidence allowed in court.  That is called eye witness testimony and is used in criminal cases as a form of identifying suspects, etc.  In cases where causation is being tried between exposure and outcome, human observation is consdered not to be valid evidence.  I would suggest you think about it or better still have a look at some recent cases.

Statistics cannot be used to "prove anything".  That's called lying and you don't need statistics to do that.  Human observation can be wrong also, either because of dishonestly or honest, yet incorrect observation or conclusion.  That is what epimdemiology is for.

If there is just one exposure linked to an outcome, then that is personal observation but not really evidence of a link (since there may have been millions of people with the same exposure but no such outcome).  However, if many, many people have this link, then you have some evidence and a reason to look more deeply.  That's epimdiology.  People who haven't got a clue about statistics usually call it all lies simply becuase they find it impenetrable.  It isn't.  Its very straightfroward.

As any

Harradine,

If humans are healthier than ever before,how do explain this:

1 in 2 will get cancer.

Heart Disease,rare before 1920,is touted as the biggest killer.

85% of all Americans are on at least 1 prescription drug.

Massive obesity epidemic.

Fat kids are becoming the norm as is asthma and allergies.

You can quote all the "research" and "studies" you like but I highly recommend you just walk up any high st and OPEN YOUR EYES.

Hi Blobby.  I think I have pretty much answered those points several time now already.  Cancer has always been with us, as has heart disease.  But, as the average life expectancy grows 9as it very much has done, or are you dispting this?), then of course the relative incidence of these and certain other diseases will increase.

This doesn't mean that human health has taken a dive 9well, in the developed world at least.  What is means is that the types of things people worry about and die from have changed.  Quite incredibly so.  No longer are diseases such a cholera, smallpox and scurvy the enormous problems that they were for so long.  

What we are seeing is a general improvement both in people's health and in their life expectancy.  If you dispute that life expectancy has increased and infant mortality decreased over the last 200, 100 or 50 years, then look at the fact and ask anyone old enough to remember.  Drug companies cannot take the credit for this.  Generally soeaking people have much better diets than before (i.e., they are not starving), their living conditions have improved, as have their working conditions (not being sent up a chimney at age 5 is probably a good thing, right?), but part of this has been developments in the medical world, particularly anitbiotics (so good they wre completely abused) and vaccination.  Of course, antiseptic surgery and painkillers.anaesthestics did a great deal of good also.

A massive obestiy epidemic?  Well at least that means we are not starving.  Asthma and allergies.  That's an interesting one.  Probably something to do with so much polution, but then again, tell that to those who worked down the mines, up the chimneys or basicaly just about anywhere during the days of the industrial revolution when the country was balck with hydrocarbon fumes and soot!

Heart disease.  well, what was the biggest killer in the 1920s Blobby?  Surely you are suggesting that there wasn't one!  In 100 years these stats will no dounbt have changed from what they are now and who knows, perhaps alzheimers dieases will be the biggest killer (since it is fast increasing given our lenghtening lifespans).  But no one can tell the future, so who knows.

But this idea what if you were magically transported back to the 16th century, before the days of modern technology as it is today, everyone was living a long, carefree happy and healthy existence is a strange idea indeed and I;m not sure when on earth it comes from.  I suppose it is a general cynicism towards the modern world, which is common enough.  that's fine, but don't just make it up as you go along.  Had you been alive then you would have had the plauge to dogde, clean water to find (or even realise it was a good idea to stick to drinking clean water), no medicine to speak of (some leeches perhaps), no aneathesia (but plenty of gangrene), and flea and tick infested pleasure every day.

So, have another little think about it as you enjoy all the benefits of the modern world that have clearly been taken so much for granted by you than you don't even recognise them as real.  And you accuse others of being blinkered.  I hope the irony is not also lost on you.

85% of Americans are on a prescription drug?  Well, they would be wouldn't they!  

So, from this you summise that the very notion of drug therapy is an abject failure, that the world has gone to hell in a handcart and that that of course, human health is clearly much better in the third world which has no such difficulty, or in europe 500 years ago before we had any problems with health?

That's the bit I don't get.  Whatever point you are making life expectancy is higher and infant mortality lower than is has even been in the developed world, for a whole host of reasons.  But lets face it homeopathy is not one of them.

"Mortality has been declining in the UK since the 18th century with the largest fall in mortality rates occurring since the 19th century. This is associated with the decline in the impact of infectious diseases, which improved survival rates across all ages including among the very young. Unlike at the start of the 20th century, nowadays only a small minority of deaths occur at younger ages.

Life expectancy at birth for people born in 1851 was 40.2 years for men and 43.6 years for women. Among those born 50 years later, in 1901, life expectancy had increased to 50.3 years for men and 57.0 for women. Improvements were even faster during the first half of the 20th century, with male life expectancy at birth rising to 77.3 years and female to 82.1 years for those born in 1951.

The chance of babies surviving to their first birthday was unchanged between 1851 and 1901 (83 per cent for boys and 86 per cent for girls). Those born in 1951 had a much greater chance of survival with 97 per cent of both sexes surviving to the end of their first year of life."

Sources: Office for National Statistics.

I suggest Blobby that you are suffering from a very modern syndrome known as "whinging".  People may have never lived as long as they, nor been as healthy as before.  But a growing number seem determined to completely ignore this and just moan about how sick everyone is, how terrible the world has become, how much better things used to be.  

I think this may be part of a general malaise (just because we live longer does not make us happier), or could it be part of the success of medcicine.  Nowadays we are constantly being reminded to be health conscious in a way that people never were before.  This comes from Governments (who would reall rather not poay for our treatments or see us out of work) drug companies (who want us to need treatments for whatever), food manufacturers (who want to convince us that bread with Omega 3 will make our kids super intelligent) or the usual army of pseudoscience clap trap like this site, who make their living from people being convinced they are ill when they are not (since those types of illness respsond so well to alternative therapies, well all therapies).

Just look at the facts.  Health has never been so good, but the types of illness around have changed and probably always will.

The advent of modern public health, mainly sanitation in living conditions and medical procedures, can be considered the causes of the greatly enhanced life expectancy between 1851 and 1951.

Somewhere between 1951 and the present day life expectancy peaked and is beginning to decline. We are still seeing the effect of the decline in smoking related deaths which is masking the rise in deaths from previously unknown diseases.. The effect of vaccinations, pharma drugs, processed food and emf are starting to make themselves felt with a concomitant rise in brain disorders such as autism, auto immune diseases,AIDS, cancers, multiple chemical sensitivity, fibromyalgia and mysterious new ailments such as morgellons and electrosensitvity.

We are getting less healthy and peoples' quality of life is starting to suffer.

The thin ray of hope is the new interest in alternative medicine which offers the chance to kick the pharma drugs habit and live the way nature intended us to.

We are always being told how alternative approaches to treatment have been around for thousands of years.  If that is the case, then why is it only now that life expectancy has shot up?  Since the advent of modern medical healthcare, improved living conditions and increased availability of food and clean water, vaccines, antibiotics, anaesthetics and aseptic surgery?

What were the alternative therapists doing all those thousands for years when life was short and unhealthy, infant mortality vastly greater than now?  Homeopathy certainly hasn’t made any different, nor did any these others approaches that people have apparently been “swearing by” for eons.  

No, it was the advent of modern medicine.  Thanks to the likes of Joseph Lister’s antiseptic, Luis Pasteur’s work on vaccines and microbes, Edward Jenner’s vaccine, Alexander Flemming’s penicillin, Christian Barnard’s transplant surgery.  What where the alternative practitioner’s doing then while all this was going on?  The same thing they have been doing for thousands of years and the same thing they are doing now. Conning people into believing that what they do has some basis in science, when all of science says it has no such thing.  Creating alternative systems of reality and encouraging people to believe in them regardless of the reams and reams of accepted fact that they ignore.  Offering false hope to people who have no other option but to try anything and worse, encouraging people to abandon treatments that could help them for ones that cannot.

We all know that when people become ill enough to think seriously about their health which system they will turn to.  

Again, what contribution to life expectancy and infant mortality were alternatives making all that time before modern medicine was developed because it seems like then, as now, it didn’t work.

It was only when we started living crowded together in cities that life expectancy started to decrease. Over crowding ,unsanitary conditions, lack of good food and sunlight allows dis-ease to fluorish and infectious dis-ease to spread.

Rural people living places like Okinawa or Hunza, that worked hard all their life and had access to pure non-processed food, lived to great ages. Sadly even in those places life expectancy has declined because of western processed foods, smoking, vaccinations and other evils of the modern world.

It is really difficult to take part in a debate when one side is free to simply make things up.  Where on earth have you got these ideas from about how perfect, idyllic and long life was before the advent of the modern world, and now even cities!  

What do you think the life expectancy was for our ancestors during the pre-writing era?  Any rough ideas?  Back when life was free from man made chemical pollution, city living, vaccines or processed food?  

What was the average human life expectancy or rate of infant mortality back before city life then, before it "started to decrease"?

On Hunza:

"The life expectancy of the average Westerner is about 70 years. The life expectancy of the average Hunza falls onto a different scale altogether - these people reach both physical and intellectual maturity at the venerable age of one hundred! This fact emphasizes the relative nature of what we refer to as normal.

As we’ll see a little later on, the way we are conditioned to perceive aging has a determining effect on the way we develop.

At one hundred years old, a Hunza is considered neither old nor even elderly. Even more extraordinary is the fact that Hunzas remain surprisingly youthful in all ways, no matter what their chronological age is.

According to a number of sources, it is not uncommon for 90 year old Hunza men to father children. Hunza women of 80 or more look no older than a western woman of 40 - and not only any woman, but one who is in excellent shape. "

On Okinawa and how their life expectancy is plummeting due to western diet and way of life.

"Okinawans used to enjoy the longest life expectancy in Japan. Books have been written about the positive health effects of following the Okinawan lifestyle -- moderate calories, low fat, plenty of walking and other exercise.

But things are different now. Okinawan men are now the fattest people in Japan, and their life expectancy has plummeted. What happened? Okinawa was governed by the U.S. for more than 25 years. Fast food, cars, and shopping malls moved in. Okinawa has more burger joints per capita than anywhere else in Japan. Okinawans also lead in eating bacon, processed meat, and canned foods, and lag in eating salad and sushi.

The government has now started a program urging Okinawans to lose weight. "

Harradine,

Just get this: People are waking up to the lies and evil trying to brainwash us.

Truth is truth and just because you do not see it does not mean it is not truth.

Unbrainwashed people actually have an astonishing sense for truth, I have followed this sense all my life. The only times when I got into trouble was when I listened to somebody trying to convince me to do something which I felt was wrong.

You can stand on your head, scream until you are red in your face, shoot people, scare them or simply lie to them: You will not be able to extinguish the sense for truth in such people. You might have physical power but you have no authority because no one and nothing can have any authority over a free thinking human being unless he gives permission. That's the difference between authority and power. Pharmaceutical companies and politicians have power and desire power because they are inherently psychopathic. They live in the delusion that they have authority when in fact, they only have power. Excercising power without authority is called tyranny.

I am grateful that so many people are waking up to the sense of truth (or instinct as some might want to call it).

I can already hear you rumbling on about that a sense of truth is not evidence etc.

Fact is that we only know what we directly experience ourselves (which of course includes our instinct or sense for truth) or that which we ourselves have profoundly researched, verified and understood. We cannot obtain knowledge simply by taking in information. Information might be true or false and as such has no relevance to our own lives. It simply serves us as a tool to choose which areas we wish to obtain knowledge about and thereby it is the knowledge that is relevant.

I often recommend to people who are depressed or down to stop watching television and reading newspapers or news on the Internet for a minimum period of two weeks. It is very hard to for people to persist with this but those who do all are feeling a lot better after those two weeks. Many even decide to carry on. The most amazing thing is that these people are better informed about the state of the world (and their own state by the way) than most of those who drown their instincts in media propaganda. These people get a feeling about the world which then becomes knowledge and they are not able to point their finger on where exactly the knowledge came from.

I then came across a book by Dr. Bruce Lipton, a cell biologist who in his book "Biology of belief" in a nutshell has scientifically shown that we control the state of our own cells and genes through our mind and emotions. He also states that fear is the most potent immune system killer known to man. Are the media not the perfect tool to keep people in a constant state of fear? And more importantly, are they not actually doing so? I have no first hand knowledge of the science behind it but my sense for truth tells me that what he says is true. This is also the reason why people who are given a placebo and who show improvement are eliminated from medical studies. I know this first hand because I took part in a medical study many years back and showed big improvement. After only 10 days (the study was actually meant to last for 6 weeks), they told me that I am not a suitable candiate because I responded to a placebo. I thought that if a placebo can improve my health that drastically then I can do it without any medication. I dropped my mediaction and have not suffered from asthman ever since.

Do I need anybody claiming that he or she has any evidence of this or that? No, I do not but if he/she does, I will consult my instincts first to determine whether the "evidence" is true or not.

I finish with a quote of one of the most evil people in history: Joseph Goebbels:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Who is this Harradine? (rhetorical). Harradine, you are enough to make any one ill. Talk about verbal diarrhoea!

Thank you Brandon. I am taking your advice in that I shall be reading NO more comments. I am perfectly capable in forming my own opinion about health issues with regard to my own, my family's and my friends' conditions. If a cure happens to be a placebo effect, GREAT! No drugs, no side effects. I don't care what you call it. Over and out!