Mid boomer here with siblings who caught the whole box and dice, back in the days when Mums worked solely at at home. The Mums knew the drill and the older ones counselled (and consoled!) the young new Mums, reassuring and advising. We had daily dose of C.L.O (cod liver oil) and had to play ouside the house (Vit D). When an illness hit we were put to bed with extra blankets to keep the temperature up, regular fluids included egg-flips (eggs whisked up with milk, cream and vanilla) and chicken soup. Definitely NO sweets and NO sugar — the old women in the family were adamant that sugar ruined the immune response. Nourishment was given ONLY when awake - we slept uniterrupted - which was considered v important. With those of us under 10yo Mum had us sick with the childhood diseases at one time or another. We got sick, then got better. Job well done from my Mum who managed all her ten kids by herself. Lots if big families then - the lady up the road had fifteen. No one ever needed hospital for any childhood illness — the Mums' grapevine would've been all over that. No one in our 15K town died either (not one kid - over the 47 years Mum & Dad lived there) We all played something — netball, tennis or footy, and anything like death or bad news in a town that small, spreads like wildfire. Whoopteedoo..... kids get sick, recover, immune system more robust. We had GOOD nutrition! Free ranged our own chooks and grew our own vegies with no herbicides. Plenty of walking, playing in fresh air and sunshine. Lots of physical activities, like endless skipping throughout the year - except hot days. Could it be we were actually stronger back then? Are children being treated too preciously now, making them inadvertently fragile?
Trick is to focus on raising kids in a robust way - lots of outdoor activities in the sunshine, with awareness to avoid sunburn. Good quality nutrition, no crap food or "treats". We will never vaccinate death away. Our reliability on pharma is now beyond absurd.
I love the way you phrase it as 'Mums working at home'. We minimise the vital work that mothers do, by dismissing it as 'staying at home', as though we're just hanging out with our kids!
And yes, my husband is a Boomer and like you, he had all the childhood diseases, as did his friends and classmates, and miraculously, all of them survived! When my son brought chickenpox home from school camp, he passed it to my daughter and then I got it (I'd never had it as a child, despite not being vaccinated against it). Guess who didn't get chickenpox?
This incident, by the way, is one of the things that convinces me that contagion is real, and so is acquired immunity against diseases previously encountered. The explanations that I've heard from no-virus people - like 'you were all eliminating together' (except, strangely enough, my husband, who supposedly didn't need to eliminate) - just don't explain the facts on the ground.
Yes, the contagion thing must be real is the point I think we all agree on - including Paul — but what exactly IS it, given the arguments that viruses don't exist, seem more than plausible.
Thank you for my complimenting my phrase, but it was just as I witnessed it. I have so much admiration for Mums, but especially those pre 1980s. Recalling memories of 1970s "feminism". The overt denigration of raising children, like it was an easy thing that anyone can do. Feminism came out in no subtle way, that running a household while also raising children was for the dim-minded enough to tolerate such "lack of stimulation".
Sadly, in liberating women from their households, their valued role as mother and home-maker, was also inversely derided and their children were side-lined.
Interestingly, the feminist fanfare most often came from mouths of the-well-to-do, upper class, who had on-staff housekeepers, ironers, gardeners, window cleaners and often cooks, so they could make their golf tournaments on time.
Those pushing the tsunami of feminism in the 1960, 70s, and 80s, often did so, while volunteering at their local sports club, or charity. The feminist "stay at home mums" description, was their derogatory euphemism for "SIT-At-Home-Mums" yet, those of that era, knew first hand, the hard organisation that it takes to run a household with several people of different ages. No mother I've known, has ever "SAT" at home! Community mums were all in the same boat. Homes with children were busy and pressured; every meal was cooked - including breakfast, no cereals except porridge from time to time through winter, sandwiches for school, cooked work-place meals for Dads, demanding well organised routines. There is an art to time management and organising a family — the sheer forethought, planning and routine is what makes it appear "effortless". Many today outsource the work, lest the sheer scale of work of washing, drying, ironing, culinary demands and various family member schedules, have them nearing physical and mental collapse.
There is much pride to be had in a job well done with running any household - and conveying that to growing children as they participate in various tasks while growing, is also a job well done, in and of itself.
No great surprise that feminism was pushed by all the usual suspects in cultural destruction, especially the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. Gloria Steinem was on the payroll of the CIA. These apparently spontaneous 'liberation movements' were nothing of the sort.
Interesting, I had observed for myself that sugar weakens my immune response. Then I noticed people like Gary Fettke offering scientific arguments for why that is. I always avoid sugar if feeling a bit under the weather now.
It used to be part and parcel of every reasonably well-educated person, especially mothers, that the best defence against disease was the disease itself, hence the once-prevalent chicken pox party.
I had measles as a boomer-generation child. There was no fuss made . All I can remember now is that I was covered in a rather interesting rash and I got to stay home in my pyjamas, which was the ultimate in cool. Home with mum and no school. Yay.
I was sooooo disappointed to have missed out on the childhood diseases. I don't know why, but neither my brother nor sister nor I ever got chickenpox, measles or anything else that was going around. I was insanely jealous of my friends getting to stay home for a week. Oh yeah, and finally getting chickenpox in my 30s wasn't all that fun.
Haven't been able to make it right through the great webinar yet (not the best internet connection here), so, sorry if it's mentioned later on in the vid and I haven't gotten to it yet but...
Dr Joe mentions the 1 in 1000 or so fatality rate of measles but do we know the context of those deaths? Were they people of poor health, poor sanitation? Were they deficient in any of the mentioned vitamins? Did they receive the care during their infection the other Drs advocated for and still died? Has it been proven the measles jabs eliminate this 1 in a thousand fatality rate? I just don't think we should accept that fatality reduction justification for the jabs without seeking to build some context around it. Can Dr Joe or anyone help with that context please?
Further, in raising the measles death rate as justification for the measels jab, Dr Joe failed to acknowledge the advice mentioned earlier in the conversation about natural childhood measles infection in the very least being associated with a reduction in a raft of other diseases later in life, many of which could have themselves been fatal. It might be a nightmare to quantify the rate of reduction in deaths of those other diseases that may be associated with earlier natural childhood measles infection, but I feel Dr Joe needed to at least acknowledge or question it given it was mentioned earlier in the convo by others on the call.
He also didn't acknowledge or question the point made about lower or lack of, maternal transfer of what one of the others referred to as immune memory, from a jabbed mother to her child.
You raise several excellent points. On the '1 in a thousand' mortality rate, as far as I've been able to determine, this is a composite mortality rate derived from averaging mortality in rich Western countries with mortality in poor countries. J. B. Handley cites figures from Washington state in 1959, in which they had 16,659 cases of measles and 1 death - that's a 0.0000600276% mortality rate (https://jbhandley.substack.com/p/measles-is-a-con-job). On the other hand, malnourished kids who are already weakened by recurrent diarrhoeal illness are going to have far more than a 1 in 1000 mortality rate (I wrote about this in https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/beating-measles-with-toilets-the).
On the lives saved vs lives lost comparison, providing this information should be part of the informed consent process, but it never is.
Thanks for that. That Washington data is quite remarkable. The displacing of naturally derived immunity for the false promise of long term jab derived immunity strikes me as somewhat misguided.
Can we ask Dr Joe if 1/1000 is the rate he is happy to advise his patients and their caregivers, and if so where it came from? The rate seems close to what's able to be gleamed from data the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare publish, which pegs it at about 1 death per 1078 notified cases.
However, the data that is recorded (measles has been a nationally notifiable disease in Oz since '91) doesn't include a large chunk of measles cases (so overestimates the true fatality rate), because so many people who get measles recover without going to a GP or hospital. The AIHW explicitly warns about this in their data download. They say "Notifications data represent only a proportion of the total cases occurring in the community, that is, only cases for which health care was sought, a test conducted and a diagnosis made, followed by notification to health authorities. The degree of under-representation of all cases is unknown...". Does anyone know of studies that estimate the true infection numbers and thus what the under-reporting factor might be? I can't find any but would caution against putting too much faith in the advised 1/1000 death rate. The best I could find was a Department of Health and Aged Care article suggesting that "up to a third" of people infected with measles will develop a complication. Which begs the question of just how many people who have no complications, which is at least 2/3 of all measles cases in Oz bother going to the Dr? I'd suggest bugger all of them, and the true death rate is likely closer to 1/3000 than it is to 1/1000, but very happy to be corrected on that.
Furthermore, as those two cases in USA warn us about, it's possible the cause of death might (I'm not saying definitely - it remains for the allegations to be proven in court) be incorrectly recorded or preventable. If that were happening in Oz, that too would make the case fatality rate look worse than it actually is.
All that said, the 'our world in data' website has measles death numbers (not the fatality rate) for many countries, including Oz:
People can hold their mouse over the data points to get info for each year. I'm not sure how so many of the Oz data points show less than one death for each of those years. Does anyone know how that data is recorded and why it isn't whole numbers of deaths per year rather some sort of decimal figure? Maybe it's a percentage of the global total for that year?
As noted in the article, only a few measles deaths in Oz in the last three decades. For some context, and because Dr Joe mentioned it I went looking for the deaths by paracetamol overdoses/misuse and the TGA pegs it at about 50 deaths in Oz every year. Maybe the community would be better served focussing on killer paracetamol instead.
"Does anyone know of studies that estimate the true infection numbers and thus what the under-reporting factor might be?" - not in the post-vaccine era, because most doctors are extremely reluctant to consider the possibility that a vaccinated child could contract the disease they're supposedly immunised against. I've witnessed this first hand, when a girl in my daughter's class had a terrible cough for weeks and weeks. Eventually the girl's GP tested her for whooping cough, and found that did indeed have it. By this stage, she'd infected half the class (including my daughter, who was the only unvaccinated child to get it). But the doctor didn't suspect whooping cough at first, because - say it with me now - the girl was vaccinated so she couldn't possibly get it.
Likewise, when my kids got chickenpox (from a vaccinated child), I never took them to a doctor, so their cases weren't notified. We really have no idea how many cases of these illnesses truly occur in community settings, because most of them are mild and easily managed at home.
We sure live in interesting times. Strange days indeed.
On a slightly related matter, I know of three health care professionals who have changed or walked away from their careers since covid, after realising they'd always be carrying water for commercial interests and being unable to reconcile that with their strong moral code. That's only the people I know well enough to know for sure why they left. Great people with so much to offer society, but lost to front line public health when we can least afford to lose anyone competent.
I don't blame them either. It became a matter of trying to save themselves rather than drown in a system determined to interfere with and adversely influence their ability to do what they ultimately signed up and sacrificed so much to do: help and heal people.
One moved into environmental health from being a GP, so she can try to influence policy so society doesn't need the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff quite so much. I hope that works out for her, but I fear that's going to have similar malevolent actors and influences she'll be banging her head against soon enough.
I too know a couple of GPs, a nurse, and a handful of specialists who retired rather than betray their principles. Like the good cops who left the police rather than enforce bad law (that wasn't even law), their departure leaves their professions even more dangerous, because now they have no dissidents in their ranks. Not that I hold it against them, of course.
Also, they renamed it (common tactic used throughout history). Hand Foot and mouth is basically indistinguishable and you can play games with doctors by saying you aren't vaccinated for measles and they will declare it measles, but if you say you are they will say it's hand foot and mouth.
Totally. If you're vaccinated against pertussis, then your persistent paroxysmal cough is definitely not whooping cough, but if you aren't vaccinated, then it's whooping cough.
This gets to a metaphysical issue with western medicine (and science/thought in general) of classifying things into universals. We take an individual and dependending on symptoms we classify them into a 'case' that is applicable to everyone, everywhere, at all times.
Until you view things through a different lens (say TCM) you can't really see how silly this is.
To discover the truth doesn’t mean you need to be a brain surgeon
A couple of hours researching how they find the ‘virus’ claim it’s isolated and then how it fails every attempt at contagion - a year 7 kid could do it
But it appears many seemingly intelligent capable people claiming to be part of the freedom community are unable to
Destroy the virus myth you destroy any need for vaccines
I am a self declared fence sitter on that matter. Whilst I am pro-terrain, inso much as keep the body in a healthy state, it seems from childhood experience that "SOMEHING" or another was indeed contagious - maybe we have been misrepresenting it - or perhaps it's something entirely different, but something used to sweep schools and neighbourhoods back in the 1950's. We all got those childhood diseases - and so did our brothers and sisters, cousins, who were born in the 1930's and 40's.
P.S. I am still yet to meet anyone from our era, who actually knows of anyone who died from the measles..... so far, death is printed in text books, yet anecdotal evidence amongst our healthier communities (as against 3rd world) seems evasive. Again, supporting the wealth of terrain immunity.
I'm finding the whole argument rather perplexing. Is it possible, the answer may lie somewhere in between the two sides?
"Is it possible, the answer may lie somewhere in between the two sides?" - IMO, yes. I don't see any contradiction between the germ and terrain theories. Rene Dubos' 1965 masterwork, Man Adapting (https://archive.org/details/manadapting00dubo) makes it clear that susceptibility to pathogen-borne disease is largely determined by terrain factors.
There is no doubt people are connected way beyond our general understanding and do come down sick or unwell together - my point however is the virus theory- it’s just fully unsupported and unsubstantiated by any critical view.
However - should they spend a fraction of the billions and billions they spend on vaccines and the propaganda around them I am sure they will find genuine reasons.
The whole vaccine industry is based on fraud and lies.
There are a thousand reason's why people get sick but a virus is not one of them.
I very much appreciate your comment. It will be interesting and helpful, when we can broaden the conversation to open up I have only become aware of the "no virus exists' theory over the last 4 years, and I must say it did not come entirely as a surprise. I am saddened by the collective health departments, loss of confidence, in our natural abilities to fight off ill health. Decades ago, parents born pre-WW2, were unphased by illnesses and viewed them as a natural part of life, which strengthened the immune system. Nannas' treatments, of time-honoured home protocols, honed recovery — considered a victory for fortifying wellbeing
Enders’ measles virus isolation paper is not proof of a measles “virus”…
Enders’ own conclusion:
“The findings just summarized support the PRESUMPTION that this group of agents is composed of representatives of the viral species responsible for measles.”
Enders does not offer any proof of the existence of a measles “virus”. Enders merely presumes (i.e. supposes to be true without proof) a measles virus.
No scientific study, which must include CONTROL EXPERIMENTS testing the validity of the independent variable, exists to demonstrate those claims.
Lanka's core arguments and evidence, including CONTROL EXPERIMENTS which soundly falsify virology's core methodologies, have been translated into 10 languages available here:
The measles vaccine virus is a result of GOF work and unlike the wild-type virus, infects via CD46. CD46 is present on nerve cells. So the vaccine strain virus will cause more nerve, brain damage than the wild-type.
Even most kids know wounds must be kept clean to avoid infection. Doctors create a wound, damage nerves, pump this GOF, brain-damage-optimized live virus (MMR vaccine) directly on to the nerves. The virus infects nerves and predictably causes encephalitis, a vaccine injury listed on the vaccine injury table.
As part of your “balanced” approach, I was surprised Homeopathy isn’t included in the list of alternative modalities under Section 11,
“What other kinds of health professionals can people turn to outside of the GP clinic and hospital settings”.
Homeopathic remedies, even in the hands of the lay public, have a stellar history of attenuating symptoms brought about as a result of contracting Measles. The approach is safe, effective, and cheap, with virtually zero chance of adverse effects when used in low potencies.
Used alongside the eminently sensible practical advice you offer for managing a measles infection (especially the avoidance of allopathic fever suppressants), the symptoms of the disease can in most cases be safely managed to a satisfactory conclusion.
If the modality was excluded because you believe it is ‘fringe’ and unproven’, I would hope a 200 year history and studies which, on balance, demonstrate effectiveness would help to change your view.
You can get ask a GP to do blood tests for several nutrients, but you may get some pushback.
Serum vitamin C should be at least 40 μmol/L; higher is better.
Serum vitamin A's reference range is 0.7-2.8 µmol/L; again, being toward the higher end of the range is generally better, but vitamin A toxicity is a real concern so don't exceed the upper limit.
Vitamin D is a tricky customer, because the test measures the inactive storage form, 25-OHD, and this is an acute phase reactant i.e. it drops when a person is in an inflammatory state, as inflammation causes the body to convert the storage form into the active form, the hormone calcitriol (see my series on vitamin D, especially Part 4: https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/the-vitamin-d-ilemma-part-4).
Zinc is tricky to measure accurately, but if your plasma (not serum) zinc is below 10 μmol/L, you're well advised to increase intake.
Please excuse my language but that link to the vit D info is a bloody awesome. Thank you for taking the time to help us learn. As much as it’s such a sad loss when great professionals are driven out of health care, it’s such a blessing to have your ilk to shine the light for us useless eaters.Thanks again. ;-)
Thanks! That vitamin D series was one of my toughest self-assignments yet. It's an incredibly complex topic which is almost universally dumbed-down for mass consumption. As always, the true situation is far more complex than the purveyors of supplements would have us believe.
After reading the work of people like Drs S Bailey, Stefan Lanka, The Perth group and others I'm coming to the view that virology is 'junk science'; science that has been created to serve a commercial interest. If we can't prove these things exist, how can we then propose medicines, or therapeutics for them. As long as we accept the tenets of virology, we are going to have new 'threats' thrown at us year after year and our children are going to be given an increasing number of dubious vaccines. I highly recommend watching a video made by Neil Oliver where he talks about this in the context of the big 'daddy' of viruses Sars-Cov-2: https://youtu.be/Cmaq4TVSGRU?si=86xR_dbQ2AU7i-X4
Mid boomer here with siblings who caught the whole box and dice, back in the days when Mums worked solely at at home. The Mums knew the drill and the older ones counselled (and consoled!) the young new Mums, reassuring and advising. We had daily dose of C.L.O (cod liver oil) and had to play ouside the house (Vit D). When an illness hit we were put to bed with extra blankets to keep the temperature up, regular fluids included egg-flips (eggs whisked up with milk, cream and vanilla) and chicken soup. Definitely NO sweets and NO sugar — the old women in the family were adamant that sugar ruined the immune response. Nourishment was given ONLY when awake - we slept uniterrupted - which was considered v important. With those of us under 10yo Mum had us sick with the childhood diseases at one time or another. We got sick, then got better. Job well done from my Mum who managed all her ten kids by herself. Lots if big families then - the lady up the road had fifteen. No one ever needed hospital for any childhood illness — the Mums' grapevine would've been all over that. No one in our 15K town died either (not one kid - over the 47 years Mum & Dad lived there) We all played something — netball, tennis or footy, and anything like death or bad news in a town that small, spreads like wildfire. Whoopteedoo..... kids get sick, recover, immune system more robust. We had GOOD nutrition! Free ranged our own chooks and grew our own vegies with no herbicides. Plenty of walking, playing in fresh air and sunshine. Lots of physical activities, like endless skipping throughout the year - except hot days. Could it be we were actually stronger back then? Are children being treated too preciously now, making them inadvertently fragile?
Trick is to focus on raising kids in a robust way - lots of outdoor activities in the sunshine, with awareness to avoid sunburn. Good quality nutrition, no crap food or "treats". We will never vaccinate death away. Our reliability on pharma is now beyond absurd.
I love the way you phrase it as 'Mums working at home'. We minimise the vital work that mothers do, by dismissing it as 'staying at home', as though we're just hanging out with our kids!
And yes, my husband is a Boomer and like you, he had all the childhood diseases, as did his friends and classmates, and miraculously, all of them survived! When my son brought chickenpox home from school camp, he passed it to my daughter and then I got it (I'd never had it as a child, despite not being vaccinated against it). Guess who didn't get chickenpox?
This incident, by the way, is one of the things that convinces me that contagion is real, and so is acquired immunity against diseases previously encountered. The explanations that I've heard from no-virus people - like 'you were all eliminating together' (except, strangely enough, my husband, who supposedly didn't need to eliminate) - just don't explain the facts on the ground.
Yes, the contagion thing must be real is the point I think we all agree on - including Paul — but what exactly IS it, given the arguments that viruses don't exist, seem more than plausible.
Thank you for my complimenting my phrase, but it was just as I witnessed it. I have so much admiration for Mums, but especially those pre 1980s. Recalling memories of 1970s "feminism". The overt denigration of raising children, like it was an easy thing that anyone can do. Feminism came out in no subtle way, that running a household while also raising children was for the dim-minded enough to tolerate such "lack of stimulation".
Sadly, in liberating women from their households, their valued role as mother and home-maker, was also inversely derided and their children were side-lined.
Interestingly, the feminist fanfare most often came from mouths of the-well-to-do, upper class, who had on-staff housekeepers, ironers, gardeners, window cleaners and often cooks, so they could make their golf tournaments on time.
Those pushing the tsunami of feminism in the 1960, 70s, and 80s, often did so, while volunteering at their local sports club, or charity. The feminist "stay at home mums" description, was their derogatory euphemism for "SIT-At-Home-Mums" yet, those of that era, knew first hand, the hard organisation that it takes to run a household with several people of different ages. No mother I've known, has ever "SAT" at home! Community mums were all in the same boat. Homes with children were busy and pressured; every meal was cooked - including breakfast, no cereals except porridge from time to time through winter, sandwiches for school, cooked work-place meals for Dads, demanding well organised routines. There is an art to time management and organising a family — the sheer forethought, planning and routine is what makes it appear "effortless". Many today outsource the work, lest the sheer scale of work of washing, drying, ironing, culinary demands and various family member schedules, have them nearing physical and mental collapse.
There is much pride to be had in a job well done with running any household - and conveying that to growing children as they participate in various tasks while growing, is also a job well done, in and of itself.
No great surprise that feminism was pushed by all the usual suspects in cultural destruction, especially the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. Gloria Steinem was on the payroll of the CIA. These apparently spontaneous 'liberation movements' were nothing of the sort.
Yes, all part of co-ordinated plan to dismember the family unit.
Contagion Myth by Dr Thomas Cowan
Virus Mania by Dr Sam Bailey & Ors
What Really Makes You Ill by Lester & Parker
The Invisible Rainbow by Firstenberg
Doctors, the Biography of Medicine by Nuland
Dissolving Illusions by Bystrianyk & Humphries
Bible by God - Pray for wisdom and insight to find the right thread!
Interesting, I had observed for myself that sugar weakens my immune response. Then I noticed people like Gary Fettke offering scientific arguments for why that is. I always avoid sugar if feeling a bit under the weather now.
Homeopathy is an effective form of treatment.
It used to be part and parcel of every reasonably well-educated person, especially mothers, that the best defence against disease was the disease itself, hence the once-prevalent chicken pox party.
I had measles as a boomer-generation child. There was no fuss made . All I can remember now is that I was covered in a rather interesting rash and I got to stay home in my pyjamas, which was the ultimate in cool. Home with mum and no school. Yay.
I was sooooo disappointed to have missed out on the childhood diseases. I don't know why, but neither my brother nor sister nor I ever got chickenpox, measles or anything else that was going around. I was insanely jealous of my friends getting to stay home for a week. Oh yeah, and finally getting chickenpox in my 30s wasn't all that fun.
Haven't been able to make it right through the great webinar yet (not the best internet connection here), so, sorry if it's mentioned later on in the vid and I haven't gotten to it yet but...
Dr Joe mentions the 1 in 1000 or so fatality rate of measles but do we know the context of those deaths? Were they people of poor health, poor sanitation? Were they deficient in any of the mentioned vitamins? Did they receive the care during their infection the other Drs advocated for and still died? Has it been proven the measles jabs eliminate this 1 in a thousand fatality rate? I just don't think we should accept that fatality reduction justification for the jabs without seeking to build some context around it. Can Dr Joe or anyone help with that context please?
Further, in raising the measles death rate as justification for the measels jab, Dr Joe failed to acknowledge the advice mentioned earlier in the conversation about natural childhood measles infection in the very least being associated with a reduction in a raft of other diseases later in life, many of which could have themselves been fatal. It might be a nightmare to quantify the rate of reduction in deaths of those other diseases that may be associated with earlier natural childhood measles infection, but I feel Dr Joe needed to at least acknowledge or question it given it was mentioned earlier in the convo by others on the call.
He also didn't acknowledge or question the point made about lower or lack of, maternal transfer of what one of the others referred to as immune memory, from a jabbed mother to her child.
You raise several excellent points. On the '1 in a thousand' mortality rate, as far as I've been able to determine, this is a composite mortality rate derived from averaging mortality in rich Western countries with mortality in poor countries. J. B. Handley cites figures from Washington state in 1959, in which they had 16,659 cases of measles and 1 death - that's a 0.0000600276% mortality rate (https://jbhandley.substack.com/p/measles-is-a-con-job). On the other hand, malnourished kids who are already weakened by recurrent diarrhoeal illness are going to have far more than a 1 in 1000 mortality rate (I wrote about this in https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/beating-measles-with-toilets-the).
On the lives saved vs lives lost comparison, providing this information should be part of the informed consent process, but it never is.
Thanks for that. That Washington data is quite remarkable. The displacing of naturally derived immunity for the false promise of long term jab derived immunity strikes me as somewhat misguided.
Can we ask Dr Joe if 1/1000 is the rate he is happy to advise his patients and their caregivers, and if so where it came from? The rate seems close to what's able to be gleamed from data the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare publish, which pegs it at about 1 death per 1078 notified cases.
However, the data that is recorded (measles has been a nationally notifiable disease in Oz since '91) doesn't include a large chunk of measles cases (so overestimates the true fatality rate), because so many people who get measles recover without going to a GP or hospital. The AIHW explicitly warns about this in their data download. They say "Notifications data represent only a proportion of the total cases occurring in the community, that is, only cases for which health care was sought, a test conducted and a diagnosis made, followed by notification to health authorities. The degree of under-representation of all cases is unknown...". Does anyone know of studies that estimate the true infection numbers and thus what the under-reporting factor might be? I can't find any but would caution against putting too much faith in the advised 1/1000 death rate. The best I could find was a Department of Health and Aged Care article suggesting that "up to a third" of people infected with measles will develop a complication. Which begs the question of just how many people who have no complications, which is at least 2/3 of all measles cases in Oz bother going to the Dr? I'd suggest bugger all of them, and the true death rate is likely closer to 1/3000 than it is to 1/1000, but very happy to be corrected on that.
Furthermore, as those two cases in USA warn us about, it's possible the cause of death might (I'm not saying definitely - it remains for the allegations to be proven in court) be incorrectly recorded or preventable. If that were happening in Oz, that too would make the case fatality rate look worse than it actually is.
All that said, the 'our world in data' website has measles death numbers (not the fatality rate) for many countries, including Oz:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/deaths-due-to-measles-gbd?showSelectionOnlyInTable=1&country=OWID_WRL~AUS
People can hold their mouse over the data points to get info for each year. I'm not sure how so many of the Oz data points show less than one death for each of those years. Does anyone know how that data is recorded and why it isn't whole numbers of deaths per year rather some sort of decimal figure? Maybe it's a percentage of the global total for that year?
As noted in the article, only a few measles deaths in Oz in the last three decades. For some context, and because Dr Joe mentioned it I went looking for the deaths by paracetamol overdoses/misuse and the TGA pegs it at about 50 deaths in Oz every year. Maybe the community would be better served focussing on killer paracetamol instead.
"Does anyone know of studies that estimate the true infection numbers and thus what the under-reporting factor might be?" - not in the post-vaccine era, because most doctors are extremely reluctant to consider the possibility that a vaccinated child could contract the disease they're supposedly immunised against. I've witnessed this first hand, when a girl in my daughter's class had a terrible cough for weeks and weeks. Eventually the girl's GP tested her for whooping cough, and found that did indeed have it. By this stage, she'd infected half the class (including my daughter, who was the only unvaccinated child to get it). But the doctor didn't suspect whooping cough at first, because - say it with me now - the girl was vaccinated so she couldn't possibly get it.
Likewise, when my kids got chickenpox (from a vaccinated child), I never took them to a doctor, so their cases weren't notified. We really have no idea how many cases of these illnesses truly occur in community settings, because most of them are mild and easily managed at home.
We sure live in interesting times. Strange days indeed.
On a slightly related matter, I know of three health care professionals who have changed or walked away from their careers since covid, after realising they'd always be carrying water for commercial interests and being unable to reconcile that with their strong moral code. That's only the people I know well enough to know for sure why they left. Great people with so much to offer society, but lost to front line public health when we can least afford to lose anyone competent.
I don't blame them either. It became a matter of trying to save themselves rather than drown in a system determined to interfere with and adversely influence their ability to do what they ultimately signed up and sacrificed so much to do: help and heal people.
One moved into environmental health from being a GP, so she can try to influence policy so society doesn't need the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff quite so much. I hope that works out for her, but I fear that's going to have similar malevolent actors and influences she'll be banging her head against soon enough.
The other two retired well before their time.
I too know a couple of GPs, a nurse, and a handful of specialists who retired rather than betray their principles. Like the good cops who left the police rather than enforce bad law (that wasn't even law), their departure leaves their professions even more dangerous, because now they have no dissidents in their ranks. Not that I hold it against them, of course.
Also, they renamed it (common tactic used throughout history). Hand Foot and mouth is basically indistinguishable and you can play games with doctors by saying you aren't vaccinated for measles and they will declare it measles, but if you say you are they will say it's hand foot and mouth.
Totally. If you're vaccinated against pertussis, then your persistent paroxysmal cough is definitely not whooping cough, but if you aren't vaccinated, then it's whooping cough.
This gets to a metaphysical issue with western medicine (and science/thought in general) of classifying things into universals. We take an individual and dependending on symptoms we classify them into a 'case' that is applicable to everyone, everywhere, at all times.
Until you view things through a different lens (say TCM) you can't really see how silly this is.
Well I am going to say it again
The really weird thing is ….
To discover the truth doesn’t mean you need to be a brain surgeon
A couple of hours researching how they find the ‘virus’ claim it’s isolated and then how it fails every attempt at contagion - a year 7 kid could do it
But it appears many seemingly intelligent capable people claiming to be part of the freedom community are unable to
Destroy the virus myth you destroy any need for vaccines
Or else we are going around in circles
Dr Sam Bailey explains it quite well here
https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/viruses-unplugged/the-truth-about-viruses/
I am a self declared fence sitter on that matter. Whilst I am pro-terrain, inso much as keep the body in a healthy state, it seems from childhood experience that "SOMEHING" or another was indeed contagious - maybe we have been misrepresenting it - or perhaps it's something entirely different, but something used to sweep schools and neighbourhoods back in the 1950's. We all got those childhood diseases - and so did our brothers and sisters, cousins, who were born in the 1930's and 40's.
P.S. I am still yet to meet anyone from our era, who actually knows of anyone who died from the measles..... so far, death is printed in text books, yet anecdotal evidence amongst our healthier communities (as against 3rd world) seems evasive. Again, supporting the wealth of terrain immunity.
I'm finding the whole argument rather perplexing. Is it possible, the answer may lie somewhere in between the two sides?
"Is it possible, the answer may lie somewhere in between the two sides?" - IMO, yes. I don't see any contradiction between the germ and terrain theories. Rene Dubos' 1965 masterwork, Man Adapting (https://archive.org/details/manadapting00dubo) makes it clear that susceptibility to pathogen-borne disease is largely determined by terrain factors.
There is no doubt people are connected way beyond our general understanding and do come down sick or unwell together - my point however is the virus theory- it’s just fully unsupported and unsubstantiated by any critical view.
However - should they spend a fraction of the billions and billions they spend on vaccines and the propaganda around them I am sure they will find genuine reasons.
The whole vaccine industry is based on fraud and lies.
There are a thousand reason's why people get sick but a virus is not one of them.
I very much appreciate your comment. It will be interesting and helpful, when we can broaden the conversation to open up I have only become aware of the "no virus exists' theory over the last 4 years, and I must say it did not come entirely as a surprise. I am saddened by the collective health departments, loss of confidence, in our natural abilities to fight off ill health. Decades ago, parents born pre-WW2, were unphased by illnesses and viewed them as a natural part of life, which strengthened the immune system. Nannas' treatments, of time-honoured home protocols, honed recovery — considered a victory for fortifying wellbeing
Enders’ measles virus isolation paper is not proof of a measles “virus”…
Enders’ own conclusion:
“The findings just summarized support the PRESUMPTION that this group of agents is composed of representatives of the viral species responsible for measles.”
Enders does not offer any proof of the existence of a measles “virus”. Enders merely presumes (i.e. supposes to be true without proof) a measles virus.
As per German New Medicine article:
https://learninggnm.com/SBS/documents/i_virus-trial.html
There is no valid scientific evidence that:
1. The measles virus exists;
2. It causes the condition known as "measles."
No scientific study, which must include CONTROL EXPERIMENTS testing the validity of the independent variable, exists to demonstrate those claims.
Lanka's core arguments and evidence, including CONTROL EXPERIMENTS which soundly falsify virology's core methodologies, have been translated into 10 languages available here:
https://wissenschafftplus.de/cms/de/wichtige-texte
The measles vaccine virus is a result of GOF work and unlike the wild-type virus, infects via CD46. CD46 is present on nerve cells. So the vaccine strain virus will cause more nerve, brain damage than the wild-type.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7107371/#:~:text=attenuated%20measles%20vaccine%20was%20created%20by%20passaging%20the%20virus%20until%20mutations%20arose%20that%20altered%20virus%20tropism
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9140188/
Even most kids know wounds must be kept clean to avoid infection. Doctors create a wound, damage nerves, pump this GOF, brain-damage-optimized live virus (MMR vaccine) directly on to the nerves. The virus infects nerves and predictably causes encephalitis, a vaccine injury listed on the vaccine injury table.
As part of your “balanced” approach, I was surprised Homeopathy isn’t included in the list of alternative modalities under Section 11,
“What other kinds of health professionals can people turn to outside of the GP clinic and hospital settings”.
Homeopathic remedies, even in the hands of the lay public, have a stellar history of attenuating symptoms brought about as a result of contracting Measles. The approach is safe, effective, and cheap, with virtually zero chance of adverse effects when used in low potencies.
Used alongside the eminently sensible practical advice you offer for managing a measles infection (especially the avoidance of allopathic fever suppressants), the symptoms of the disease can in most cases be safely managed to a satisfactory conclusion.
If the modality was excluded because you believe it is ‘fringe’ and unproven’, I would hope a 200 year history and studies which, on balance, demonstrate effectiveness would help to change your view.
Are there some simple and cheap DIY ways to monitor vitamin levels and what levels of each of the most beneficial should we be aiming for please?
You can get ask a GP to do blood tests for several nutrients, but you may get some pushback.
Serum vitamin C should be at least 40 μmol/L; higher is better.
Serum vitamin A's reference range is 0.7-2.8 µmol/L; again, being toward the higher end of the range is generally better, but vitamin A toxicity is a real concern so don't exceed the upper limit.
Vitamin D is a tricky customer, because the test measures the inactive storage form, 25-OHD, and this is an acute phase reactant i.e. it drops when a person is in an inflammatory state, as inflammation causes the body to convert the storage form into the active form, the hormone calcitriol (see my series on vitamin D, especially Part 4: https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/the-vitamin-d-ilemma-part-4).
Zinc is tricky to measure accurately, but if your plasma (not serum) zinc is below 10 μmol/L, you're well advised to increase intake.
Please excuse my language but that link to the vit D info is a bloody awesome. Thank you for taking the time to help us learn. As much as it’s such a sad loss when great professionals are driven out of health care, it’s such a blessing to have your ilk to shine the light for us useless eaters.Thanks again. ;-)
Thanks! That vitamin D series was one of my toughest self-assignments yet. It's an incredibly complex topic which is almost universally dumbed-down for mass consumption. As always, the true situation is far more complex than the purveyors of supplements would have us believe.
After reading the work of people like Drs S Bailey, Stefan Lanka, The Perth group and others I'm coming to the view that virology is 'junk science'; science that has been created to serve a commercial interest. If we can't prove these things exist, how can we then propose medicines, or therapeutics for them. As long as we accept the tenets of virology, we are going to have new 'threats' thrown at us year after year and our children are going to be given an increasing number of dubious vaccines. I highly recommend watching a video made by Neil Oliver where he talks about this in the context of the big 'daddy' of viruses Sars-Cov-2: https://youtu.be/Cmaq4TVSGRU?si=86xR_dbQ2AU7i-X4