It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Tetanus Vaccine

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa



I spoke with one of the experts on the disease in Cambridge while he was treating my sister


Of course you did...



My family lived near Cambridge at the time, there's nothing unusual about experts being based in Cambridge or them wanting to treat a patient who has the disease who visits the hospital they work in

This comment you made that I've quoted above gives away that you are a wind-up merchant so I won't waste anymore time on this, you are clearly out for an argument or perhaps even paid to be here to liven things up

That's me done, I was only here out of duty and I know I will have got the message out to plenty of people reading this thread and they can choose whether to research further into the issue.
edit on 4-1-2011 by jameshawkings because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jameshawkings

This comment you made that I've quoted above gives away that you are a wind-up merchant


Really? Refusing to accept anecdotes that are being presented as fact makes me a "wind-up merchant"?

What a silly sort of reasoning.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa

Originally posted by jameshawkings

This comment you made that I've quoted above gives away that you are a wind-up merchant


Really? Refusing to accept anecdotes that are being presented as fact makes me a "wind-up merchant"?

What a silly sort of reasoning.


I've been on messageboards long enough to spot certain types of agenda. I was here out of duty after seeing the thread title, in fact I've got a lot of work to get on with so haven't got time to get into a big debate. When an honest person gets called a liar it annoys them, especially when they've got work to be getting on with and had gone out of their way to get an important message out

Back to my work now



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jameshawkings
 


I'm not saying you're dishonest. I'm saying that you are being irresponsible and unethical by using an anecdote to get people to eschew a treatment with decades of research to support it.



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Vne Zony Dostupa
 


I find highly unlikely that a real doctor would cruise this website . A bed pan jockey would . A want to be would . Of course you can be just about anything you want to be on the Internet . I'm pretty sure a medical doctor would apply his time to continuing education . Do you have any links that substantiates your implied Internet persona .



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Vne Zony Dostupa
 


I find highly unlikely that a real doctor would cruise this website . A bed pan jockey would . A want to be would . Of course you can be just about anything you want to be on the Internet . I'm pretty sure a medical doctor would apply his time to continuing education . Do you have any links that substantiates your implied Internet persona .


Because, you know, when you get those two magical letters, MD, after your name, you cease to be a person and become a caricature of what people have seen in movies and television.

And no, I don't have any "links" to substantiate my identity. I prefer not to give my identity on this site for personal and professional reasons, as do most people here.

Regardless of whether you believe I'm a physician or not, why can't you argue against me based on the data on the issue, rather than trying to play character assassin? Is it because you now realize the data is against you, and you have no other recourse?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by jameshawkings
 


I'm not saying you're dishonest. I'm saying that you are being irresponsible and unethical by using an anecdote to get people to eschew a treatment with decades of research to support it.


Your argument only holds up if Big Pharma isn't completely corrupt and purely profit driven, are you honestly going to tell me that you believe the Pharms not corrupt and profit driven? If you are then you'll make it clear to even those who haven't realized yet that you are writing here as a Pharma Shill. The WHO recently concluded that they need more control over the Internet, posters like you are no doubt part of their plan and the fact that people like you are here giving out 'The Official Story' needs to be exposed

The Pharms are the ones who should be ethical but they are not and that's why we've ended up in this total mess. We are now at a stage where the only way we can get this cleaned up is to create an independent body, with no links to Big Pharma, to test all vaccines and drugs for safety and efficacy. They need to track what happens after vaccination, not just for a few hours, but for years, we need proper studies, long term data, no more coverups and manipulation or economy of data. Yes, your worst nightmare! Those dodgy statistics that they give us will be cleaned up i.e. 2% of users might experience (insert illness), when the reality is over 50% will. Go to the doctors "Oh you must be one of that 2%" i.e. Track if the people who take vaccines actually are less likely to get the illness, rather than saying "Measles Outbreak, Get Vaccinated! Then it turns out all the ones who were getting Measles were the ones who had already had the vaccine so had weakened immune systems



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


You need to go back to your basic statistics class. You stated that "1 in 100 get schizophrenia". This means you are suggesting that for every child born, one out of one hundred will develop it (this is called incidence). However, what the stats you quoted clearly state is that about one in one hundred CURRENTLY HAVE schizophrenia (this is called prevalence). An incidence rate of 1/100 does not translate to a prevalence of 1/100, nor does it work the other way around. There is a big difference between incidence and prevalence. Look them up.
edit on 1/4/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)


You are incorrect to say that incident is the number of children who will get a disease. Nor did I say that.
Incidence is the number or percent of a population who will get the disease in a given year or time. Prevalence is the percent who have the disease in a given year or time.
You are correct that the statistic of 1.1 in hundred over the age of 18 is the prevalence.

You have omitted the statistic of lifetime risk data.

Approximately 1 percent of the population develops schizophrenia during their lifetime – more than 2 million Americans suffer from the illness in a given year.




Lifetime risk data: Some conditions report a risk factor for having a condition in your lifetime. For example, cancer is widely reported to affect about 1 in 3 people in their lifetime. These rates are naturally much higher than either prevalence or incidence data, because they are effectively the cumulative risk of incidence/prevalence over multiple years. Read more at www.wrongdiagnosis.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


RRokky, his answers to me didn't make sense either, but I didn't have time to sit with him and explain and I'm sure he didn't want me to either



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jameshawkings

Your argument only holds up if Big Pharma isn't completely corrupt and purely profit driven, are you honestly going to tell me that you believe the Pharms not corrupt and profit driven? If you are then you'll make it clear to even those who haven't realized yet that you are writing here as a Pharma Shill.


What a lovely little strawman argument you've built for yourself there.

Nothing I've said mentiond big pharma, their obvious corruption, or anything to do with profit. What I WAS pointing out, was that you are using an anecdote (not evidence, not science, not logic) to try to convince people to avoid a proven medical treatment.

You are being irresponsible and unethical.


The WHO recently concluded that they need more control over the Internet


Source, please.


posters like you are no doubt part of their plan and the fact that people like you are here giving out 'The Official Story' needs to be exposed


I post here purely as a mental exercise. It's fun for me to come here and think of how I would respond to patients who might bring these issues up. And, by addressing these issues here, I'm able to formulate well-researched responses to give to those patients. It's already come in handy two times, that I can think of.


We are now at a stage where the only way we can get this cleaned up is to create an independent body, with no links to Big Pharma, to test all vaccines and drugs for safety and efficacy


We do this for every vaccine. Additionally, other nations (where big pharma has no influence due to social health systems not pandering to corporations) do their own testing. These nations all report the same safety results as the studies performed in the states.


They need to track what happens after vaccination, not just for a few hours, but for years, we need proper studies, long term data,


We do this. It's called the VAERS system, and all of the data is available, for free and in raw format, HERE.


2% of users might experience (insert illness), when the reality is over 50% will. Go to the doctors "Oh you must be one of that 2%" i.e.


This certainly would be a nightmare if it occurred anywhere but your fevered imagination.


"Measles Outbreak, Get Vaccinated! Then it turns out all the ones who were getting Measles were the ones who had already had the vaccine so had weakened immune systems


Actually, the only people I can recall becoming infected during the last measles outbreak were those who WEREN'T vaccinated. HERE is an article about it.

Can you explain why the only children who contracted measles during this outbreak were those who hadn't had the vaccination? And can you explain why none of the vaccinated children in the class contracted measles?



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


I suppose I have to spell this out to you in equation format. This is from the handy-dandy biostatistics for clinicians textbook that I have on my bookshelf.


INCIDENCE = (New cases in population over a given time) / (Total population at risk during that time)

PREVALENCE ~=~ INCIDENCE * disease duration

INCIDENCE = new incidents

POINT PREVALENCE = (total cases in population at a given time) / (total population at risk in a given time)

PREVALENCE > INCIDENCE for chronic diseases (diabetes, mental disorder, etc.)

PREVALENCE = INCIDENCE for acute diseases (cold, MI, etc.)


Now, the statistic you were citing states that currently (this is the KEY WORD) there are about 2 million people living in this country who have schizophrenia. This is POINT PREVALENCE, as those who CURRENTLY have the disorder fall under the "total cases" variable. In contrast to this, when you were saying "1 in 100 kids gets schizophrenia", you are talking about INCIDENCE, because you are talking about "new cases".

Additionally, schizophrenia is a chronic disease. This means the prevalence (remember, TOTAL CASES in a time period) will always be higher than the incidence, as old, unresolved cases are included in the tally for prevalence, but not incidence (which is only NEW CASES).

Total cases in a time period and new cases in a time period give you completely different sets of information about the epidemiology of a disease.
edit on 1/4/2011 by VneZonyDostupa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
post by SunnyDee on page 2,

study referenced from NEJM ends with the following conclusion -

www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199407073310104
The 1993 Epidemic of Pertussis in Cincinnati -- Resurgence of Disease in a Highly Immunized Population of Children

Celia Christie, Mary L. Marx, Colin D. Marchant, and Shirley F. Reising

N Engl J Med 1994; 331:16-21 July 7, 1994



Conclusions

Since the 1993 pertussis epidemic in Cincinnati occurred primarily among children who had been appropriately immunized, it is clear that the whole-cell pertussis vaccine failed to give full protection against the disease.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Maybe this is way the push you to get the shot, hey its Tetanus. Take your booster.. Just saying could be very possible
edit on 5-1-2011 by TribeOfManyColours because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jjjtir
 


It's interesting that you only quote the portion of the study that supports your narrow-minded, unscientific stance. Why not quote the actual findings, rather than just the conclusion portion of the abstract? The whole article is available for free.

Here's a relevant portion of the discussion:

There are a number of possible reasons for the dramatic resurgence of pertussis among older immunized children. First, there appears to have been intense circulation of B. pertussis in the community. Second, reported vaccine efficacy has wide confidence limits (65 to 95 percent6), which could mean that there is a substantial number of susceptible children among those who have been immunized. Third, increased surveillance for pertussis in an informed community may have contributed to increased case finding during the epidemic year. Fourth, the efficacy of whole-cell pertussis vaccines may have declined in recent years. All these factors may have contributed to the resurgence of pertussis.


So, in fact, they DON'T know if the vaccine efficacy was to blame. It certainly may have been a contributing factor, but they do not state that it is the sole, or even a major, contributor.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Highly recommended viewing, Gary Null puts things into perspective.








posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I would recommend listening to the point this guy makes, he gets himself together after the 1st minute with some information to get you all thinking



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Vne Zony Dostupa
 


Would you agree that there is no safe level of ethylmercury or aluminum in the body especially absorbed in brain tissue . And would you say neurological disorders would generally be the results of over exposure of these poisons by any means of introduction . How can we be sure that these poisons do not exceed the limits set forth for these vaccines .
Vaccines are good for really dangerous diseases , but at a high rate of exposure to mercury and other poisons used in vaccines for lesser diseases combined with day to day exposures can't be good .
The Swine flu flop of the 70's and an immediately available vaccine and the re emergence of the Swine flu flop part 2 has made people wary of the Government . We are not all doctors , and we don't all read the "Official" reports by the accepted sources , but we aren't stupid either .



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


Looks like Vne Zony Dostupa has got the sack, which is a shame as they'll replace him with someone better, on a higher salary, but it's cheaper than assassinating all of us lot with fake car crashes



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by jameshawkings
 


Im pretty sure the missing doctor was on the CNN national news this morning discussing the same topic . Yes it would seem that he is a paid spokesman for someone . This guys name was Gput or something like that . Of course the two doctors were hailing the accusation where the Dr. Wakefield's study is called a fraud . So all the other side effects that rivals autism does not account for any thing . So I guess that fish containing mercury , lead paint and arsenic used in pressure treated wood is ok for you also especially if used in a vaccine created by pharma .



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 


As I've stated before in previous threads about vaccines:

The autism scare all started in 1998 with a report, that at the time was rejected by major health organisations in the world. This report was eventually retracted by the writers, by then it was too late, it had snowballed.

MMR vaccine controversy


Claims of a connection between the vaccine and autism were raised in a 1998 paper in The Lancet, a respected British medical journal. Later investigation by Sunday Times journalist Brian Deer discovered that the lead author of the article, Andrew Wakefield, had multiple undeclared conflicts of interest, had manipulated evidence, and had broken other ethical codes


They also stopped using thiomersal in children's vaccines in 2001

Mercury, vaccines & autism


Manufacturers, moreover, did successfully mobilize to remove thimerosal from their routine infant vaccines in a remarkably short time; the effort was largely complete by the summer of 2001


Immunisations & autism


In particular, some have suggested an association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism. Our literature review found very few studies supporting this theory, with the overwhelming majority showing no causal association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism.


If you have any doubts or any queries about getting the vaccine, the best possible advice you could get is from your doctor/gp. They are experts in the field, because they have trained and studied for years to get to the level they are at. They know a lot more about the situation than some celebrity or internet know it all ever will.

One last link for you all to enjoy

Study finds no autism link in vaccine
edit on 6/1/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/1/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join