My position is that the benefits of the polio vaccine campaign are demonstrably over-stated. It's hard enough to accurately calculate the actual impact of the vaccine program on decreasing polio virus cases due to the issues I posted about initially (seriously, why the hell would they make such a change to diagnosis at the exact time they introduced the vaccine?), however, the data on polio vaccine adverse events is sorely lacking as well (i.e. under-reporting of vaccine side effects is "significant"). For example, one of the few studies that looked into under-reporting of adverse events following vaccination found that around 40% of vaccine-induced polio cases were not recognized (e.g. even if the vaccine led to polio, nobody recognized the vaccine as the culprit). There have been similar patters with different vaccines (e.g. MMR and seizures). All in all, we have very little actual "science" that supports the assertions of vaccine proponents, and that is troubling to me, particularly when these folks want to take away my, and more importantly my kids', heath autonomy.
That's just not really a strong enough argument in my opinion. So you're saying that the benefits are over-stated, but you're not committing to saying that the benefits does not outweigh the risks. At that point you're not saying it's not the right choice, just that it isn't a perfect choice. You speak to the evidence but you practically didn't present any, and resorted to aspersions about conspiracies. I assume the CDC is a viable source, considering you qouted it earlier. Although primary sources are always the best place to look, even if they themselves can have faults and biases.
Anyway, regarding your initial point that they changed the definition coinciding with the vaccine. I'm not saying it isn't true, but can you source when, how, why? Instead of instantly jumping to conspiracies, maybe there is something viable there.
I see what you're getting at. Those who are supposedly telling us what's healthy are also the bad guy in my scenario. Well, nutrition is health imo. Health is also a healthy body, inside and out so what we consume in every way contributes to our health, including reading sherdog, and the cheeseburgers we suck down, etc... To be healthy we have to be conscious of what we're consuming and why...
We have an idea of what our specific ancestors ate because it grows in the region they're from and the region in which we were "made". Ideally we would forage and consume that which we can procure withing a few miles of where we are.
We also have to be exposed to various challenges which in turn makes us stronger both of mind and immune system. Challenges like illness and germs and alternative perspective, etc...
Humans are extremely resilient and can handle an aweful lot but to continue to blindly abuse and misuse our bodies will lead to someone else taking over responsibility, "they're" actively attempting it at all times and we'd be much better off if we took responsibility for ourselves...
Exactly what I was getting at. Your grasp on what is healthy and what isn't, wouldn't be nearly as refined if not for the countless of researchers and scientist examining these things. Sure, something might
feel better or worse intuatively, yet we know that our tastes and senses do not always work that way. Natural doesn't always
necessitate better, or more healthy, and in reality it's a hard to quantify what it means. Tuberculosis is natural, infections are natural, vira are natural, dying from small injuries is natural, and so on. Many other deadly and unhealthy things are natural.
You mention that we need to be exposured to vira and germs (and different opinions which I like) to grow stronger and healthy. That's a true premise, to a point. However, vaccines are exactly that. It's the most ingenious way of exposing us to small enough dose that we get immunity, yet don't bear the full force of the disease. Gems and vira have killed billions of people throughout history, and weakened even more. There's nothing strong about getting, say, a neurological disease like polio. Or being ravaged by the plague. Quite the contrary.
You wouldn't know who ate what either, if it wasn't for research, science and anthropology. What our ancestors ate changed through human history depending on scarcity, geographics, agriculture, tribal relationships, disease, avaliability, war so on. Many of them got sick and died early for various reasons. Just foraging within a few miles would leave millions around the world with nutrition deficiencies, if it was even possible. Many places in food deserts would simply not allow people to survive that way. Even if you're talking about agriculture, which wouldn't be "
natural" by hunter gatherer standards.
I guess what I am getting at is twofold. You are informed on history, biology, nutrition and health by the people you are all lumping together and claim are out to get you. It seems like you want it both ways. Secondly, although I understand your point and sympathize with it, natural is a term that requires a lot of context and it doesn't necessitate health. We are on average in many ways, or at least have the option to be, healthier, stronger and more resilient now than people in the past.
