105 replies to this topic

[Paracelse]

Wearer of Hats, on 30 December 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

Pro- and Anti-vaccination brigaders are never going to agree.

Then why isn't a choice but a systematic order?  Isn't that some form of dictature?  When democracies makes too many rules, it's called a dictatorship.  (See staline, hitler., mao, the roman ceasars, napoleon, monarchy in general etc.......... ).

[Br Cornelius]

Paracelse, on 30 December 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Then why isn't a choice but a systematic order?  Isn't that some form of dictature?  When democracies makes too many rules, it's called a dictatorship.  (See staline, hitler., mao, the roman ceasars, napoleon, monarchy in general etc.......... ).

Because vaccines only work on a herd principle. Its the bargin we make to live in large cities and not have plagues killing us off at regular intervals. Some things are more important than personal choice.

Br Cornelius

[preacherman76]

Merc14, on 30 December 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

SO one PHD condemning immunization is all it takes?  That paper certainly doesn't say:
1. Known the vaccines don’t work
2. Known they cause the diseases they are supposed to prevent
3. Known they are a hazard to children
4. Colluded to lie to the public
5. Worked to prevent safety studies

as the OP asserted.  

No one ever said that vaccines are completely harmless and people are regularly hurt by them but they have saved millions if not billions from terrible diseases and this good far outweighs the bad.

Yes the paper proved each point throughly. With links to the Information act requested. Sorry this one isnt just like reading a quick article. If you want to know that what the OP is claiming is true, then you have at least a couple hours worth of work here. The good clearly does NOT outweigh the bad in all cases.

[preacherman76]

Wearer of Hats, on 30 December 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

Pro- and Anti-vaccination brigaders are never going to agree.

True. Even when the drug companies have more then proven a strong will to decieve.

[Br Cornelius]

preacherman76, on 30 December 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Yes the paper proved each point throughly. With links to the Information act requested. Sorry this one isnt just like reading a quick article. If you want to know that what the OP is claiming is true, then you have at least a couple hours worth of work here. The good clearly does NOT outweigh the bad in all cases.

Tell that to the people who didn't suffer the horrible death of smallpox or the millions who aren't crippled by Polio.

Lets make a bit more personal - tell it to the thousands of mothers who don,t have to bury their children each year because measles has all but been wiped out by the MMR vaccine.

Quote

In 2000 the WHO estimated that there were ~45 million cases of measles worldwide with 800,000 deaths from it. Mortality in developed countries is ~1/1000. In sub-Saharan Africa, mortality is 10%. In cases with complications, the rate may rise to 20–30%. In 2010, approximately 380 deaths occurred every day from measles.^[31]
Even in countries where vaccination has been introduced, rates may remain high. In Ireland, vaccination was introduced in 1985. The number of cases was 99,903 in that year. Within two years, the number of cases had fallen to 201, but this fall was not sustained: case numbers in 1989, 1993 and 2000 were 1,248, 4,328 and 1,603, respectively. This country's example illustrates the need for vaccination rates greater than 95% to prevent the spread of measles.
According to the WHO, measles is a leading cause of vaccine-preventable childhood mortality. Worldwide, the fatality rate has been significantly reduced by a vaccination campaign led by partners in the Measles Initiative: the American Red Cross, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the United Nations Foundation, UNICEF and the WHO. Globally, measles fell 60% from an estimated 873,000 deaths in 1999 to 345,000 in 2005.^[9] Estimates for 2008 indicate deaths fell further to 164,000 globally, with 77% of the remaining measles deaths in 2008 occurring within the Southeast Asian region.^[32]

http://en.wikipedia....asles#Prognosis

That fall by 60% is a direct consequence of Measles Vaccination programs. Try telling the 345,000 people who are still alive in 2005 alone due to measles vaccines, that the good doesn't outweigh the bad.


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 30 December 2012 - 11:11 AM.

[preacherman76]

Br Cornelius, on 30 December 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Because vaccines only work on a herd principle. Its the bargin we make to live in large cities and not have plagues killing us off at regular intervals. Some things are more important than personal choice.

Br Cornelius

Doesnt the herd principle state that even those who didnt get the vaccine will be protected cause the majority had been vaccinated? What about the admited cases where measle out breaks happened even in places where 99% of the population where vaccinated, and 95% still had measle antibodies in there system?

[Br Cornelius]

preacherman76, on 30 December 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

Doesnt the herd principle state that even those who didnt get the vaccine will be protected cause the majority had been vaccinated? What about the admited cases where measle out breaks happened even in places where 99% of the population where vaccinated, and 95% still had measle antibodies in there system?

THE HERD PRINCIPLE protects those unvaccinated but only up to a point of 95% coverage. The recent Dr wakefield  caused scare campaign meant that coverage fell below the required 95% and numerous small outbreaks occurred.

Vaccines are not 100% effective so if the herd immunity falls below a certain level even vaccinated people who have not achieved 100% immunity become vunerable because the unvaccinated people become a ready vector for spread. It is entirely expected that there will be very small levels of measels even in a 99% immunised community. The issue is how many people will die or become seriously injured in a vaccinated vs unvaccinated community.

[Chrlzs]

Simbi Laveau, on 29 December 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

It's like it always is on here. You western medical fiends ,who have never touched a patient in your lives,have all the links we provide,and you still deny it ,and believe the stuff spoon fed to you,by the murderers making these drugs.

Nice... I hope the better drug manufacturers are watching your allegations..

Quote

Whatever works for ya .  ... Duh...

Well, that sort of stuff certainly sounds .. professional...

Quote

Let's see how many I can find

You're off to an ABYSMAL start, by immediately using the old "Look at how much stuff is on the Internet!!!11!!11 - it must be be TRUE!!!111!!!!"

What actually counts in any SCIENTIFIC discipline, rather than an amateurish and simplistic attempt to find news reports and make them into a claim, is to actually properly VERIFY the information, look at the information, look at all the possible contributing factors to the information, and then (and ONLY then) draw conclusions.

You guys should try it some time.

Anyway I'm assuming Simbi has put her best evidence forward as the first link.  So let's take a look, shall we?

Quote

http://www.free-pres...1291053674.html

This link doesn't start well..  'Free Press release"???  Um, yes, press releases are free..  But shouldn't the first thing be to say where this release was from?  Nope.  It actually self-references to the same site - it's not a press release or news story at all.
Then it very unprofessionally refers to an un-named and un-dated report by the 'vaccine reporting agency', it doesn't even bother to name the agency until later.  This is a professional press release?

It starts off by saying - and please note the wording carefully:

Quote

Unfortunately, as suspected, the number of injury and deaths associated with an HPV Vaccine continue to rise.

This is the sort of simplistic and biased drivel that is so often thrown at the fan by these biased pseudo-news sites..  The use of the emotive term 'unfortunately' in combination with the weasel words 'associated with'.  Associated with?  In other words, there was no causal link found, so they couldn't say 'caused by'.  And what of any other reasons that 'associated' injuries and deaths might occur, like the fact that it is a new program, so of course ANY associated effects will increase, whether they are caused by the vaccine or not.

But hang on - where is the 'information' coming from and who has done the analysis..  Well, it refers to a VAERS report, so I foolishly clicked on the PDF link expecting to find it... but that is NOT to any VAERS report.  It's just a PDF version of the same drivel.

So where are the actual numbers?  The actual breakdown of injuries (type, severity), the actual numbers of injuries versus deaths, whether the deaths were likely casued by the vaccine or by pre-existing conditions?  Go on, dear reader, go visit that site, and see if you can find those numbers.  See if you can find any sort of real analysis.  See if you cvan even find a link to the report, or even the name and date of it...

It's NOT there. All you get is one story and the claim that injury/death numbers are increasing (they may well be, but I'd like to see the original report and a proper and reasoned analysis).  I'd also like to see an analysis of deaths/injuries amongst those not vaccinated...  You'd sorta think that might be worth a bit of thought..  But, "whatever works for ya", I guess..

Now ask yourself, if you were writing that story, WHY on earth would you not refer to the actual report and a full breakdown and comparison of the actual numbers?  Any PROPER news story or PROPER analysis would do so, but not that site..

Simbi, despite picking that site as her first link, apparently didn't notice all that, or think it was important, and I'm guessing she won't know why they didn't provide that link - do you?

Anyway, I read on, and found this:

Quote

If these numbers are not tragic enough, it is estimated that only 1 to 10% of all vaccine injuries and deaths ever get reported to VAERS. Imagine what these statistics would look like if everyone reported.

First up, we don't know how 'tragic' these 'numbers' are, because the proper breakdown and comparison wasn't given.  Secondly, how was the 1-10% 'estimated'?  And as for the emotive 'imagine what it would be like...' - what a load.

That sort of site is a travesty, and anyone with a smidgeon of scientific background should recognise that it is a deliberate and shameful attempt to drum up hysteria.

And THAT was the best example given?  Simbi, I don't want 10,000 links - I can find far more than that on faeries and leprechauns.  I want ONE GOOD ONE.

Can anyone do a little better?  OP, where are you?


BTW, I have personal experience of the damage that can be done by ignorant parents who 'know better' and don't vaccinate their children - so YES, I'm biased. Perhaps there's a reason why these folks aren't doctors or scientists or statisticians....

[Br Cornelius]

Let me give you a very personal example of the direct consequences of not been vaccinated.
About four years ago there was the flu which had a tendency to cause bleeding in the lungs of a small minority of infected people. It was one of the first years a special flu shot was made available and the public was encouraged to take it generally. I was skeptical of vaccines at the time and so declined. The flue came to our house and it was one of the nastiest I have ever had. I got over it after about a month and that was fine. However my son developed asthma as a direct consequence of the damage it did to his lungs. He still has asthma and we have had at least one life threatening attack since then which landed him in hospital.

Was I right to deny my son the available vaccine? We will never know, but it changed my opinion on vaccines in a radical way.

Br Cornelius

[preacherman76]

Br Cornelius, on 30 December 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Tell that to the people who didn't suffer the horrible death of smallpox or the millions who aren't crippled by Polio.

Lets make a bit more personal - tell it to the thousands of mothers who don,t have to bury their children each year because measles has all but been wiped out by the MMR vaccine.

But its been admited by the drug companies that neither measles or rubela commonly have complications with small children. They straight admit there is no real need to vaccinate for either. Youd know that if you bothered to read the information provided. Its better to catch either one then to be vaccinated. They straight admit the only people that should be vaccinated for R are women just before they reach puberty, cause if they get it later in life while pregnate, it could cause harm to the unborn child. This is thier words, not mine.


Polio and small pox were vaccines that worked, and was before the companies became mega giants. In fact no one is saying There is no need for any vaccine. The point is there has been alot of deception regarding many of the vaccines we see today.

Quote

http://en.wikipedia....asles#Prognosis

That fall by 60% is a direct consequence of Measles Vaccination programs. Try telling the 345,000 people who are still alive in 2005 alone due to measles vaccines, that the good doesn't outweigh the bad.


Br Cornelius

As this information shows, these people have major influance in the media, and in the medical fields. What ever "truths" they want you to think, chances are most are going to believe them. This conversation is pointless till you decide to go through all the information provided.

[preacherman76]

Br Cornelius, on 30 December 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

THE HERD PRINCIPLE protects those unvaccinated but only up to a point of 95% coverage. The recent Dr wakefield  caused scare campaign meant that coverage fell below the required 95% and numerous small outbreaks occurred.

Vaccines are not 100% effective so if the herd immunity falls below a certain level even vaccinated people who have not achieved 100% immunity become vunerable because the unvaccinated people become a ready vector for spread. It is entirely expected that there will be very small levels of measels even in a 99% immunised community. The issue is how many people will die or become seriously injured in a vaccinated vs unvaccinated community.

What small levels? These people straight admitted thier were major measel out breaks in populations where 99% of people were vaccinated.

[Little Fish]

That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades.

If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations.

I usually give the physicians who question my statement that herd immunity is a myth a simple example. When I was a medical student almost 40 years ago, it was taught that the tetanus vaccine would last a lifetime. Then 30 years after it had been mandated, we discovered that its protection lasted no more than 10 years. Then, I ask my doubting physician if he or she has ever seen a case of tetanus? Most have not. I then tell them to look at the yearly data on tetanus infections – one sees no rise in tetanus cases. The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood infections. It was, and still is, all a myth.
http://www.h4cblog.c...f-herd-immunity

[preacherman76]

Br Cornelius, on 30 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

Let me give you a very personal example of the direct consequences of not been vaccinated.
About four years ago there was the flu which had a tendency to cause bleeding in the lungs of a small minority of infected people. It was one of the first years a special flu shot was made available and the public was encouraged to take it generally. I was skeptical of vaccines at the time and so declined. The flue came to our house and it was one of the nastiest I have ever had. I got over it after about a month and that was fine. However my son developed asthma as a direct consequence of the damage it did to his lungs. He still has asthma and we have had at least one life threatening attack since then which landed him in hospital.

Was I right to deny my son the available vaccine? We will never know, but it changed my opinion on vaccines in a radical way.

Br Cornelius

My one year old got the flu this week. We brought him to the doctor and they actualy had him pee on this stick thing, like a pregnancy test. He has type A. Poor kid looked like someone beat him with a bat. I thought for sure the doctor was going to give me some crap for declining the flu shot this year. To my surprise she told me they were being over run with flu cases, and even the kids who got the shot were coming in in large numbers. There have been lots of studies saying the flu shot isnt effective in kids nearly at all. So I wouldnt beat yourself up too much over it.

Anyhow He is doing much better today.

[Br Cornelius]

preacherman76, on 30 December 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

But its been admited by the drug companies that neither measles or rubela commonly have complications with small children. They straight admit there is no real need to vaccinate for either. Youd know that if you bothered to read the information provided. Its better to catch either one then to be vaccinated. They straight admit the only people that should be vaccinated for R are women just before they reach puberty, cause if they get it later in life while pregnate, it could cause harm to the unborn child. This is thier words, not mine.


Polio and small pox were vaccines that worked, and was before the companies became mega giants. In fact no one is saying There is no need for any vaccine. The point is there has been alot of deception regarding many of the vaccines we see today.




As this information shows, these people have major influance in the media, and in the medical fields. What ever "truths" they want you to think, chances are most are going to believe them. This conversation is pointless till you decide to go through all the information provided.

You assume that I have not been through the trajectory of been in denial about vaccines benefits and then having proved to myself that I was wrong. I am not going to indulge your conspiracy delusions as thats all they are.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

preacherman76, on 30 December 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

What small levels? These people straight admitted thier were major measel out breaks in populations where 99% of people were vaccinated.

Care to show that evidence. As I said cases in immunised populations are expected.

Br Cornelius