It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Vaccines - Kill or Cure? w/ graphs

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:29 PM

Polio death rate from 1923 to 1953. The graph shows the polio death rate was actually decreasing before vaccines were introduced.

Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis

Pertussis death rate from 1900 to 1935. The graph shows the pertussis death rate had decreased by more than 75 percent before the vaccine was introduced.

Mumps, Rubella and Measles

Measles death rate from 1915 to 1958. The graph shows the measles death rate had decreased by more than 95 percent before the vaccine was introduced.

more here:

Seems to make no sense why these vaccines were introduced, when the virus was already on a steady decline. Did they take advantage with cases like this to trick tax payers into stealing their money?

[edit on 8-8-2009 by Blundo]

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:35 PM
You are comparing mortality and morbidity rates from turn of the century medicine to a much more modern system in the 1960's

Modern medicine would eliminate the borderline cases but people would still be dying

posted on Aug, 8 2009 @ 06:40 PM
reply to post by Blundo

From your link:

There is no question that in this case better hygiene and sanitation and better living conditions were bringing down the number of cases of polio, but the vaccine itself, finally, was probably responsible for dispatching the final blows to the disease.

I would have to agree about the reasons for the decline AND about the vaccines dealing the final blows.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:24 AM
The vaccines didn't seem to change the slopes any I have to agree they were already on their way down. The second one actually looks like it rises a lil when the vaccines introduced.

The timing is suspicious like they only dare introduce the vaccine when the disease is naturally finished maybe vaccines are bunk science it would be interesting to see more graphs.

Something for me to think about.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by Teknikal

Again turn of the century medicine was simply NOT up to dealing with nor had the ability to create vaccines. The technology was not there. If they had a vaccine avalible in 1910 they would have used it. it would have simply been effective much earlier.

Your assertion that they dare not intoduce the vaccine untill the disease is beaten down is flawed. Under that assertion the vaccine would not work no matter where it was introduced early on or later. But it did

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:50 AM
There is a World Health Organization report (somewhere, I forget where I read this) that says that 95% of the reduction in infectious diseases like polio, smallpox, etc. was due to better hygiene alone.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by Studenofhistory

No doubt, but thats probably the upper limit of effectivness in that regard. The remaining 5% can and does cause untold havoc.

If 5% of the US population contracted polio we are looking at about 15 million or so. Thats enough to overwhelm and possible collapse the healthcare system

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:40 PM
I'm only basing my comment on the relevant part of the graphs before and after the vaccine introduction as far as I can see the angle line stays steady.
If vaccines actually worked I would at least expect the angles to dip some.

If vaccines work as claimed I would think there should be at least some graphs on an up slope before the vaccine and down slope after if someone shows me one I'll admit vaccines may work even a noticeable dip after is good enough.

As far as I can see though there is no further dip in the angle unless those graphs are flawed I'm keeping to my original opinion I agree with the Op but my reasons differ though as it's only the last part of the graph I'm paying attention to.

Don't get me wrong I understand the science behind vaccines (weak/dead virus your immune system can adjust to) and I'd like to think they would work these graphs don't seem to correlate that though.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Teknikal]

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Teknikal
I'm only basing my comment on the relevant part of the graphs before and after the vaccine introduction as far as I can see the angle line stays steady.

One big factor left out is life expectancy. Those who got those diseases usually died, and in areas where there was a high mortality rate this usually limited the spread.

A second factor left out is tracking... before the CDC and its organized data, there were no hard records of who died of what. It was done through obituary research (usually) and those didn't always have death certificates (and sometimes those said things like "excess of humors").

I've done some obituary research for a statistical paper on "causes of death in physicians" and had to scan obituaries and so forth back to 1900. After awhile, the data is mostly hearsay -- they said "Uncle Billy died of the measles" when in fact he might have died of pneumonia which showed up as part and parcel of the measles.

Also... the charts don't say where they get their data from. Where DOES it come from, anyway? Inquiring minds would love to doublecheck it.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by FredT

what about countries that don't vaccinate?

they don't have 15 milliobn cases.

seems you are easily deceived.

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 01:43 PM
I've posted extensively in previous vacc threads.

The graphs unfortunately are 'inconclusive' due to the fact they plot morbidity, not cases, however, they do shoot massive holes in the Vacc PR bunkum that vaccinations are one of the miracles of modern medicine.

The data for the charts is universally available if you really care to look, much of it comes from countries outside the US (UK, Oz, Europe) from Governmental Health Statistics.

The graphs are however a good illustration and are capable of shocking some people into beginning to question the vax myths, which hopefully leads to more research and a rather large amount of clear evidence that the Vax PR is one of the greatest scams in modern medicine.

Of course, even common sense tells us that sanitation, clean water, nutrition and other similar amenties we take for granted nowadays, are by far the greatest contribution to the improvement in health and eradication of diseases.

We continue to be deceived by the allopathy money men to credit these things to doctors and medical science, whereas it is actually the engineers that we should be thanking.

The pro-vax camp will not be able to supply much, if anything, in the way of scientific proof for vaccine efficacy (over 70 ATS pages on the subject I've not seen more than one study that deserved a second look). Instead, you will constanly hear the anecdotes "I remember when the hospitals were full of polio kids - not anymore" as if that is somehow evidence that vaccines were the deciding factor.

The hospitals are not full of scarlet fever kids nor many other horrible historical diseases and plagues, which never received the attention of vaccinations.

These old diseases are naturally dying out, with or without vaccines, only to be replaced by much more voracious killers such as heart disease, cancer and the number one cause of death in the US: modern medicine itself.

The old diseases were diseases of lack, the new ones are diseases of excess (generalisation). This is kind of obvious if you look at the parts of the world where the old diseases still occur regularly.

Vaccinations, IMO, are at best a sham, and at worst a nasty stain on the pages of human health. I believe the new Swine Flu vax issues added to the horrible Vioxx, Gardasil etc, will bring the scam to light for more and more people now.

I believe we will look back at this time and shudder at the barbaracy of our medical fumblings. Injecting multiple toxic cocktails into our newborns and toddlers is IMO an act of complete insanity. Hippocrates must be rolling in his grave to know how far our ego's have misled us from his original wisdom "let food be your medicine and medicine be your food" - an axiom that worked well for 2200 years.

For those currently on the fence, there really is good info out there, you just need to sift through a lot of sensationalist propaganda from both sides.

Back at the turn of the 20th century, there was massive resistance to vax, and some of the most prestigious science and medical men of the day were completely against the concept.

Unfortunatly for the health of the planet, Jenner had good backing and the money men knew how to cash in on a good idea - a good idea to make money.

In order to be utilised on a massive scale, paid for by the state and legislated into our lives, vaccines MUST be proven:

1. Necessary
2. Effective
3. Safe

They fail on all 3 counts.

1. There are ample, cheaper, natural alternatives
2. This one is the most hotly contested, but I'll say again, the evidence points at the ineffective nature of vaccines, not the other way around.
3. Whilst many will claim that the risk of a reaction is worth it for the falsely promised gain, even the most ardent pro-vax PR man cannot say vaccines are universally safe. Even the US govt pays out billions each year in vaccine damage compensation.

[edit on 10/8/09 by RogerT]

posted on Aug, 10 2009 @ 04:22 PM
Hey here is a great thread by TheMythLives about vaccines and their dangers as opposed to the necessity. It should complement your thread well.

[edit on 8/10/2009 by jkrog08]

[edit on 8/10/2009 by jkrog08]

top topics


log in