What diseases have actually been cured, and not just eradicated by vaccination?

johnTS1047609 wrote:Thus I would state
a curative vaccine does not work
...
When people have the flue, rabies, AIDS, cancer, simply initiating an immune response against influenza virus, HIV, rabies virus, tumor related antigens will not be sufficient to cure the disease. Actually the body has already initiated an immune response, which could not prevent the onset of clinical disease.

In clinical manifest disease, scientist have to be more creative to be able to boost curative responses.

John

http://www.jjljacobs.tk/

So which router should be our priority? Finding a cure for the aformentioned diseases or developing effective vaccines against them?

I say we should stop trying to developed vaccines. Why? Take cancer for example, with all the multitude of different types of cancer that excist we'de probably have to take 50 or more vaccines for each kind, 1 vaccine for lung cancer, 1 vaccine for prostate cancer, 1 vaccine for breast cancer, pancriatic, ext. Additionaly, as of this post, all vaccines that have been tried against HIV have failed and failed miserably. Some of them even made people more succeptible to becomming infected.

Besides, vaccines are so old school, a 10th grader with a decent lab could make a vaccine. We're going to need some creative geniuses to come up with cures.

ElwalTS1040613 wrote:So which router should be our priority? Finding a cure for the aformentioned diseases or developing effective vaccines against them?

I say we should stop trying to developed vaccines. Why? Take cancer for example, with all the multitude of different types of cancer that excist we'de probably have to take 50 or more vaccines for each kind, 1 vaccine for lung cancer, 1 vaccine for prostate cancer, 1 vaccine for breast cancer, pancriatic, ext. Additionaly, as of this post, all vaccines that have been tried against HIV have failed and failed miserably. Some of them even made people more succeptible to becomming infected.

Besides, vaccines are so old school, a 10th grader with a decent lab could make a vaccine. We're going to need some creative geniuses to come up with cures.

I understand your reasoning, and I largely agree. Scientist, including myself, are too stubborn to stop going on a certain route. Some keep on trying to develop new kinds of vaccines that can overrule the current immune status in patients. Maybe it will work, time will tell ... My own work, however, goes in a different direction, see http://www.cancerimmunotherapy.tk
John

I'm sorry. Actually I want to say : Stop Vaccination ...................and maybe in Biology : Stop
Genetically Modified Organisms !
Since God always creates everything in accordance with " the size " - all things in Proportion
and Measure - , so that God does not like the exaggerated thing. For those who always exaggerate will be precisely mislead by their own empty illusions. In the case of AIDS, why in such this modern science and technology also the molecular biology that has reached many complicated matters, for more than 25 years still can not subjugate AIDS ? In my opinion, AIDS is " a guest " sent by God in the world. This is a natural law, a kind of warning and forcing element to make the human to go back to the right way, also not to exaggerate on destroying their own circles of life, but to organize a harmonious life with the universe ....................

Gatot S Astari

I know absolutely no chronic diseases that have been cured in the past century! I have held that argument out for at least 10 years on radio shows, debates, articles, etc. and no one has ever given me a positive answer either for a cure of any chronic disease. I believe that the theories of the germ cause of disease is basically wrong and we have followed a wrong path by using pharmaceutical medicine as the answer. It does not work!!
In order to cure a disease, one must find the cause first. Outside of infectious diseases, such as smallpox and polio, no one has found a cause of a chronic disease. If you look up the work of Otto Warburg on cell respiration, I believe you'll find that to be more of a correct direction. Also, inflammation is dramatically on the rise and is implicated in multiple chronic diseases. Maybe in tracking down the cause of that inflammation and how to deal with it could be a key. My clinical research has shown that most common cause of major inflammation in the body is the result of surgery. The inflammation created by entering surgically a body cavity is enormous.
Instead of using pharmacological medicine, which consists of foreign chemicals and negative "direct" effects, perhaps figuring out how to oxygenate each cell would give better results. Cancer is an anaerobic disease and maybe oxygen would help, for example

HarveyTS1050503 wrote:I know absolutely no chronic diseases that have been cured in the past century! I have held that argument out for at least 10 years on radio shows, debates, articles, etc. and no one has ever given me a positive answer either for a cure of any chronic disease.

Tuberculosis has been cured, which used to be a chronic disease ...

HarveyTS1050503 wrote:I believe that the theories of the germ cause of disease is basically wrong and we have followed a wrong path by using pharmaceutical medicine as the answer. It does not work!!
In order to cure a disease, one must find the cause first. Outside of infectious diseases, such as smallpox and polio, no one has found a cause of a chronic disease.

I've lost track of your reasoning. Germs are the cause of infectious diseases, aren't they ....

So the only thing that does work would be the thing that does not work

HarveyTS1050503 wrote:If you look up the work of Otto Warburg on cell respiration, I believe you'll find that to be more of a correct direction.

Please explain

HarveyTS1050503 wrote:Also, inflammation is dramatically on the rise and is implicated in multiple chronic diseases. Maybe in tracking down the cause of that inflammation and how to deal with it could be a key. My clinical research has shown that most common cause of major inflammation in the body is the result of surgery. The inflammation created by entering surgically a body cavity is enormous.

Inflammation is caused by most diseases, ranging from infection to irritation to toxicity to cancer to allergies to autoimmune diseases. The immune system and inlammation happen to be central to many diseases.

HarveyTS1050503 wrote: Instead of using pharmacological medicine, which consists of foreign chemicals and negative "direct" effects, perhaps figuring out how to oxygenate each cell would give better results. Cancer is an anaerobic disease and maybe oxygen would help, for example

It is indeed true that cancer cells are dying by lack of oxygen, and that this is causing inflammation. But personally, I prefer to have my cancer cell dying, instead of having them well-oxygenated.

" Ten Lies About AIDS ", by Etienne de Harven, M.D : " HIV infection is not the cause of AIDS.
Severe immune deficiencies, commonly reffered to as AIDS, result from the toxicity of many recreational drugs and of most antiretroviral medications, from the abuse of antibiotics and certain therapeutic protocol, from inappropriate life style, and/or from malnutrition, alone or combined ".

www.aras.ab.ca

I largely agree with Dr.Etienne de Harven.

Hey ......, don't hide the truth !

GatotICN000316476 wrote:" Ten Lies About AIDS ", by Etienne de Harven, M.D : " HIV infection is not the cause of AIDS.
Severe immune deficiencies, commonly reffered to as AIDS, result from the toxicity of many recreational drugs and of most antiretroviral medications, from the abuse of antibiotics and certain therapeutic protocol, from inappropriate life style, and/or from malnutrition, alone or combined ".

www.aras.ab.ca

I largely agree with Dr.Etienne de Harven.

Hey ......, don't hide the truth !

What are you aids denialist trying to acheive, is your beef with big pharma companies? Secondly, no one knows who the hell you are quoting!

ElwalTS1040613 wrote:
So which router should be our priority? Finding a cure for the aformentioned diseases or developing effective vaccines against them?

I say we should stop trying to developed vaccines. Why? Take cancer for example, with all the multitude of different types of cancer that excist we'de probably have to take 50 or more vaccines for each kind, 1 vaccine for lung cancer, 1 vaccine for prostate cancer, 1 vaccine for breast cancer, pancriatic, ext. Additionaly, as of this post, all vaccines that have been tried against HIV have failed and failed miserably. Some of them even made people more succeptible to becomming infected.

Besides, vaccines are so old school, a 10th grader with a decent lab could make a vaccine. We're going to need some creative geniuses to come up with cures.

Haven't you heard the adage:
"Prevention is better than cure"

Vaccines work. They prevent disease before it actually occurs.

You'd like scientists to stop pursuing a known successful disease prevention strategy (that you admit is so easy to produce too) to focus more efforts on cures that will only work on people who have to get the disease (and be diagnosed correctly, and then allocated teh correct treatment, and then follow the course)??

'Scuse my forum-board-smack-talk but that's what I like to call batshit crazy.

Unfortunately "cures" also fail at being universal panaceas. This means that while we might need a vaccine for breast cancer, a different one for lung cancer, and a further one for cervical cancer* - the exact same is true when you talk about cures. You'll need a different cure for each type of cancer.

*It's actually even more complicated, you'll need a vaccine/cure for each and every different mechanism by which these cancers operate. So that's one for HER2+ breast cancer, one for 000 breast cancer, one for a different breast cancer etc. - and even then you're bound to miss out on some of those cancers of unknown aetiology. Luckily some cancers share the same mechanism (like HER2+, or VEGF).
But, hey, ten years ago, people would have laughed at the idea of vaccines to prevent cancer - as they aren't infectious diseases caused by invading pathogens. (Well, generally - FUNFACT: Cervical cancer vaccines are actually against various strains of HPV -human papilloma virus - the virus behind genetial warts.)

In Summarry: Developiong vaccines is a good strategy to follow as its a proven successful and well understood (which makes it easier to produce) disease prevention strategy. I'd much rather have infectious diseases eradicated, than still around, but have a universal cure.

Technically HIV has been cured by drugs - just not often. Post-exposure prophylaxis does work, both in exposed medical personnel and in newborn infants.

Big Pharma Companies ?

" Dominated by THE MEDIA, by SPECIAL PRESSURE GROUPS, and by the interests of several PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, the AIDS establishment efforts to control the disease lost contact with open-minded, peer-reviewed medical science since the unproven HIV / AIDS received 100 % of the research funds while ALL OTHER HYPOTHESES WERE IGNORED " ( Dr. Etienne de Harven, Reppraising AIDS Nov/Dec 1998 ).

The 17^th International AIDS Conference in Mexico City :

- All the BIG PHARMACEUTICAL and MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANIES will be there ......

- With each passing year, this meeting has been looking increasingly like A GIANT TRADE FAIR.

( Helen Epstein, August 3, 2008 ).

like A GIANT TRADE FAIR

WAR AGAINST AIDS VIRUSES :

IN A BATTLE, THE MAIN GOAL IS VICTORY, NOT EXTENDING THE CAMPAIGN.

It's rather interesting the idea of a suppressed cure. A good friend of mine who is something of a tin foil hat wearer is insistent that there are cures for most diseases, but that they are never released due to the fact that it would cos the pharmaceutical companies billions in sales and revenues. While obviously I dispute his claims saying the burden of proof lies with him, I do find the idea somewhat disturbing. That said, he also champions the use of blood electrification as being the single greatest method of maintaining a healthy body

A good friend of mine who is something of a tin foil hat wearer is insistent that there are cures for most diseases, but that they are never released due to the fact that it would cost the pharmaceutical companies billions in sales and revenues.

Because no one could make any money from a proven effective cure for AIDS ...

There are a great many people who have survived HIV for a long time thanks to the "evils of Big Pharma". It is important for patients not to be duped by those dismissing modern science to promote therapies based only on optimism and vague phrases like "a healthy immune system". But it also remains important for scientists to keep an open mind, keep trying, and leave no stone unturned.

For example, it is known that transplant recipients receiving HIV lacking the Nef protein survived a very long time without progression, though with some immune damage. Nef works at least in part through association with tyrosine kinase signals, preventing infected cells from producing the MHC complexes that target them to the immune system, thus helping HIV to stay hidden inside cells. So it's not impossible that one of the herbal treatments that interfere with tyrosine kinase signals (maybe some osteoporosis directed treatment like soy genistein, yukmi-jihang-tang and dae-bo-won-chun) might interfere with Nef activity and help HIV patients.1 2 3

Now that's just wild speculation, mind, but it should demonstrate that we still shouldn't rule out the idea that "alternative" treatments might potentially have some use. And to be fair, it is true that pharmaceutical companies don't have any obvious motive to pioneer such treatments.

...thus helping HIV to stay hidden inside cells......

HIV has a hidden ability to harm. After entering the suitable cell, it can grow and hide in a latent
form. Not more than just as a " sleeping ' virus. It may take place for years, before it finally " gets up " and destroy its host-cell or transforming into the form of productive virus.

There are some grey areas in the world of vaccines.

The rabies vaccine is an example of a vaccine that can be used to cure a condition after exposure to the pathogen. When a patient is bitten by a rabid animal, a schedule of several doses of the vaccine is immediately started. This vaccine then "jump starts" the immune system to get it to produce antigens to the virus that is in the system and will soon multiply in the body.

There are also Post Exposure Prevention (PEP) for HIV which eliminate the infection (could you call it a "cure"?) if administered within 72 hours of initial exposure to HIV. Details...
http://www.sfcityclinic.org/services/hivservices.asp

Now, I have to admit, you could argue that because there are no symptoms, what's being cured might not yet be defined as a disease.

Indeed, scientists are also investigating "vaccines" for diseases not caused by microorganisms. For example, there is a spinal cord injury vaccine being tested in animals now. (To prevent paralysis due to nerve death in the spinal column that happens in the weeks after a spinal cord trauma.) And you can google information about vaccines in development to prevent addiction.

MichaelTS863182 wrote:

A good friend of mine who is something of a tin foil hat wearer is insistent that there are cures for most diseases, but that they are never released due to the fact that it would cost the pharmaceutical companies billions in sales and revenues.

Because no one could make any money from a proven effective cure for AIDS ...

Can I just ask, why there's no money in creating an effective cure for AIDS? I don't get it.

Unfortunately the viruses and bacterias seem to get the better our of human race frequently and keep popping up here and there.

make money from home | targeted traffic

I could see that "diseases" and "cured" could be broadly defined to encompass ills that have basis in psychological, nutrient deficiency, natural and xenobiotic toxicants, and non-human victims, as well as the standard genetic, biochemical, and pathological agents of humans that would be brought to mind.

An alternate interpretation of the question is that it asks "Which diseases have been cured by vaccination and not just eradicated by vaccination?" and was intended to pertain only to human diseases. That would greatly reduce the selections unless you included mental conditioning as a psychological form of vaccination.

MarkTS1082139 wrote:

MichaelTS863182 wrote:

A good friend of mine who is something of a tin foil hat wearer is insistent that there are cures for most diseases, but that they are never released due to the fact that it would cost the pharmaceutical companies billions in sales and revenues.

Because no one could make any money from a proven effective cure for AIDS ...

Can I just ask, why there's no money in creating an effective cure for AIDS? I don't get it.

Pretty sure the reply was sarcasm. Any big Pharm that created a cure for Aids would make Trillions & Trillions of dollars. No company would hide such a cure either because a competitor would inevitably release it in the meantime.

Oh gee i thought he was serious and there was a real reason why there was no money in it. Sheesh.