The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Just so you know...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Yes and no. (see in situ)

Just so you know...

I'm actually not against vaccines. I think vaccination is a phenomenal science. And I do agree with you that some alternative medicines are not always what they're cracked up to be. However, I don't believe everything requires a vaccine. I can see why someone would want or need a vaccine for, say, tetanus, MMR or HIV (if a vaccine existed for HIV, that is), since these types of diseases are not cured by nutrition. The common cold and the flu, on the other hand, can be cured by nutrition and nutrition alone. Why certain pathogens can be killed by nutritional supplements while others cannot is beyond me. So while I can understand why everyone needs, or should have, e.g., a MMR shot, I cannot understand why everyone needs a flu shot. There "may" be certain individuals - the sick, the elderly, those with compromised immune systems - which might benefit from a flu shot (maybe), but I don't see why there can't be more emphasis on proper nutrition. If nutrition works for me, it will work for anyone. That's really what my point was.

And even though I support vaccination in general (if it's voluntary), I still think there needs to be more focus on many of the contaminants found in vaccines. I do not know whether thimerosal, for example, causes autism, but I do know that any mercury compound is toxic to a human cell (including the nerve cell which will not be protected by the blood-brain barrier) and cannot be healthy. Many other contaminants (including carcinogenic viruses, such as SV40) have been found in vaccines. Such controversies have largely been swept under the rug by the medical establishment. In my opinion, more transparency is needed.