Childhood diseases return as parents refuse vaccines

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by scoobdude
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Got a link to that 66% mortality rate? And even with modern medicine, where exactly is the proof that vaccines are what slowed this rate to what it is now? according to your theory 66% of unvaccinated babies should be dead..

No, I said the decrease was attributed to modern medicine, which includes (but is not limited to) vaccination. Did you know you could die of a stubbed toe before penicillin? Probably not. Do some homework, you are seriously lacking in historical awareness.

Your right our education can be transfered via osmosis, but that does not mean what you have learned is correct either way, nor does it mean what I have is either.

Let's see: educated in knowledge discovered through scientific method or educated by reading questionable websites and watching youtube videos. I know which I have more faith in.

But sources to provide some sort of information for me to read to at least prove that your information is correct. Without this, please refrain from being in disbelief when I do not take your word as gospel. Please also understand I may not believe you cause i still have questions.

I can't magically transfer you back to my secondary school. I can't magically elicit all of the knowledge I've learned from books and other sources. If you actually bothered to do some reading on the topic, you would be enlightened. I am not going to compensate for your lack of education. What I am saying is not controversial in the slightest.

it was an example with the mercury thing. But nice change of tactic there

No, you were intellectually dishonest by putting words into my mouth that I never said.

Peer reviewed makes it correct or just helps you believe it?

Do you even know what peer-review is? Do you understand why it is a cornerstone of scientific method? Seriously, it's a waste of time "debating" people who have such low levels of scientific literacy yet hold the very thing they misunderstand in such contempt.

A better response would be to point out holes in the logic or theory.

And you're seriously going to do that?

The person who doesn't even understand peer-review or the concept of dosage? The person that cannot grasp the concept that before modern medicine infant mortality rates (and mortality rates in general) were much higher than they were today in the modern world? Like I said above, it is absurd discussing anything with people who are so disturbingly ignorant of the very concepts trash talk.

Your mockery attempt is uncalled for and you statement has added nothing to the conversation. Please help us believe you at least

Mockery? Of Dr Vera Schrieber? That lone crank who cannot even get basic methodology correct? I love your cherry picking of data: let's ignore the massive body of good, solid research that has been validated independently by objective parties and instead take the word of some lone crank with questionable qualifications instead.

edit on 25-9-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)

Name calling, belittling, and still no sources to back up your claims. Well you can stick by what i said earlier. Provide some proof for your side of the argument so i can at least attempt to have a discussion with you. good day to you sir

p.s. and for my lack of dosage understanding, peer reviewed definition and process, as my complete unawareness of history, i am willing to listen......deal me some cards so i can play along will ya.

reply to post by scoobdude


Name calling? I'm calling it how it is, you are ignorant, as you have demonstrated quite adequately. Let's re-frame the argument: rather than me fishing around for statistics in a haystack (and you being too lazy to educate yourself), show me the peer-reviewed science that demonstrates that vaccines are ineffective and harmful. Instead of me having to "prove" self-evident facts about modern medicine, show me the good quality research that has been validated independently and objectively by experts in their field that clearly backs up any of your statements.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by scoobdude

 

Name calling? I'm calling it how it is, you are ignorant, as you have demonstrated quite adequately. Let's re-frame the argument: rather than me fishing around for statistics in a haystack (and you being too lazy to educate yourself), show me the peer-reviewed science that demonstrates that vaccines are ineffective and harmful. Instead of me having to "prove" self-evident facts about modern medicine, show me the good quality research that has been validated independently and objectively by experts in their field that clearly backs up any of your statements.

More name calling and more refusal. Got it!

reply to post by scoobdude

ig·no·rance/ˈignərəns/ Noun: Lack of knowledge or information: "he acted in ignorance of basic procedures".

That's not an insult, it's an observation. Anyway, enough ducking and diving, demonstrate your lack of ignorance by providing peer-reviewed research from credible journals that supports your notion that vaccines are harmful and ineffective.

One of my daughters had severe chickenpox was hospitalised for a week at 4 months old,was one of the most scariest points of my life,she had her vaccines delayed about 1 month before.
The amount of scabs she had on her body,face,legs,arms was horrifying.She wasnt drinking as they were in her mouth.

All my children have had there vaccines since and whilst some have caught chickenpox it was next to nothing compared to my other daughter.

I truly would like to thank all the NHS doctors and nurses who helped me and my family through that week.

Was one of those periods of life that i will never forget.

Regards to all

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by Griffo

 

Whooping Cough is coming back, even here in Alaska. I think around twenty children died in California in a couple of months. Measles is coming back also.

Child abuse? ...and for what, paranoid delusional parents?

Those parents have a right to be concerned. Many vaccines do cause harm this has been proven. Vaccines are pushed on the public without the proper testing needed to find the side effects and possible long term damage it will cause. They say if they wait years to do the testing then the vaccine wont be there to help people now so they push it. People are still going to die one way or another.

Most diseases kids get vaccinated against do not kill them if they get the disease, only a handful cause terminal illness. Most of the time with proper treatment the kids get sick then they get better. A parent really is making the choice to play Russian roulette if the kid gets the vaccine or not and it's the parents choice to do so.

You go around trying to force parents to give the kids vaccines they don't want or believe in and you have George Orwell's 1984. That is not the role of government and to do so is against the U.S. Constitution.

Child abuse? Your out of your cotton picking mind.

The pharmaceutical industry is to blame for this, Not the parents. If they would get their act together and create vaccines that had proper testing and were proven safe people would not be afraid to use them. You wanna attack someone, attack the right people responsible, not the parents who have to weigh the good the bad and the worse and do the best they can.

reply to post by john_bmth


I am only going to bring up one facet on how they harm using the CDC

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

How can mercury affect my health? The nervous system is very sensitive to all forms of mercury. Methylmercury and metallic mercury vapors are more harmful than other forms, because more mercury in these forms reaches the brain. Exposure to high levels of metallic, inorganic, or organic mercury can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetus. Effects on brain functioning may result in irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, and memory problems. Short-term exposure to high levels of metallic mercury vapors may cause effects including lung damage, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increases in blood pressure or heart rate, skin rashes, and eye irritation.

And i do not think i need to put up anything supporting the mercury is in these vaccines do I. Sometimes your scientific process is to much red tape to help you understand what common sense has said all along.

But lets add this:

Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health? The EPA has set a limit of 2 parts of mercury per billion parts of drinking water (2 ppb).
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a maximum permissible level of 1 part of methylmercury in a million parts of seafood (1 ppm).

Now that we know that is for adults.. lets see how much children get:

www.naturalnews.com...

Some vaccines, such as vaccines for hepatitis B, contained as much as 12.5 micrograms of mercury per dose. That's more than 100 times the EPA's upper limit standard when administered to infants.

deduction from just these 2 articles should help you understand my view. And until mercury is proven non toxic (especially since the kidneys and liver do not function of a newborn until the first 24-48 hours) can we not agree that once substance in the vaccine does more harm then good. Best part is there are other alternative to thimerosal...


Please also understand from this person's view, your derogatory statements do not help your argument nor do they make you look as educated as you prop yourself up to be. Again, keep this at a friendly discussion please.

Originally posted by scoobdude
reply to post by john_bmth

 

I am only going to bring up one facet on how they harm using the CDC

www.atsdr.cdc.gov...

How can mercury affect my health? The nervous system is very sensitive to all forms of mercury. Methylmercury and metallic mercury vapors are more harmful than other forms, because more mercury in these forms reaches the brain. Exposure to high levels of metallic, inorganic, or organic mercury can permanently damage the brain, kidneys, and developing fetus. Effects on brain functioning may result in irritability, shyness, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, and memory problems. Short-term exposure to high levels of metallic mercury vapors may cause effects including lung damage, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increases in blood pressure or heart rate, skin rashes, and eye irritation.

Has anyone denied that high doses of mercury are dangerous? Nope.

And i do not think i need to put up anything supporting the mercury is in these vaccines do I. Sometimes your scientific process is to much red tape to help you understand what common sense has said all along.

Scientific method trumps "common sense" every time. It was "common sense" to spread dog poop on wounds before modern medicine. It was "common sense" to eat spiders to treat malaria. What you call "common sense" is in fact your own lack of understanding,

But lets add this:

Has the federal government made recommendations to protect human health? The EPA has set a limit of 2 parts of mercury per billion parts of drinking water (2 ppb).
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a maximum permissible level of 1 part of methylmercury in a million parts of seafood (1 ppm).

Now that we know that is for adults.. lets see how much children get:

www.naturalnews.com...

Some vaccines, such as vaccines for hepatitis B, contained as much as 12.5 micrograms of mercury per dose. That's more than 100 times the EPA's upper limit standard when administered to infants.

deduction from just these 2 articles should help you understand my view. And until mercury is proven non toxic (especially since the kidneys and liver do not function of a newborn until the first 24-48 hours) can we not agree that once substance in the vaccine does more harm then good. Best part is there are other alternative to thimerosal...

Show the peer-reviewed science from credible journals that demonstrates that vaccines are harmful and ineffectual. If it's that obvious and "common sense", it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate.

Please also understand from this person's view, your derogatory statements do not help your argument nor do they make you look as educated as you prop yourself up to be. Again, keep this at a friendly discussion please.

I called you ignorant. I still call you ignorant. You have demonstrated your ignorance of modern medicine and scientific method enough times in this thread. It is not an insult to call someone ignorant, it is an observation. Ignorance is, as I have already stated, a lack of knowledge. Ignorance isn't a bad thing unless it's wilful. You are demonstrating wilful ignorance by making baseless assertions about topics you clearly have little to no understanding of. What's the motto of this site? Deny Ignorance.

Unless you can substantiate your innuendo and assertions with proper scientific evidence, you are contributing nothing to the topic. This is the Science & Technology Forum, thus if you make baseless assertions, be prepared to back them up when challenged. So, one last time, show the peer-reviewed science from credible journals that demonstrates that vaccines are harmful and ineffectual.

Originally posted by scoobdude

Originally posted by john_bmth
The whole "anti-vaccine" crowd live in 1st world societies buoyed up by modern medicine. They have never had to deal with high infant mortality rates due to preventable diseases so it's easy to poo-poo the science that, statistically speaking, is the reason they are alive today and not crippled/killed by small pox or polio or one of the many numerous childhood diseases of yesteryear. It's sad really when people are so far removed from the dangers that modern medicine has guarded them from that they start to question the role that it has played. It's even sadder that they are willing to put not only their own children at risk but also society at large. If this foolishness keeps up, we could very well see the return of the crippling and often fatal diseases we once thought we'd eradicated. If only there was a vaccine for human stupidity and ignorance.

So what was the case 2000 years ago? Did everyone just die and stuff due to no modern medicine? Your theory is flawed and proof is severely lacking. Please back up the above statements. Or should i just take your word for it like when you say mercury is good for you?

You realize that long before vaccines populations tended to be so small that pathogens couldn't establish themselves right? Hunter-gatherers were only comparatively healthy because they were in small bands which meant things like measles could only achieve a Type III outbreak(periods with no illness and short lived "spikes" in disease). As soon as the agricultural revolution began and people started living in towns and cities there were major disease outbreaks. Look at the Black Death, it exterminated 1/3 to 2/3 of the entire European population.
Look of the "Pharaoh's Plague" or the "Antonine Plague". The Pharaoh's Plague(blood fluke disease) is believed to have caused the collapse of the entire ancient Egyptian civilization(their workforce/military was too sick to fight off external politics).

I'm not saying you're wrong, vaccines aren't necessary if you live in a population of less than 10,000 with no contact of other populations, otherwise you better those evil doctors and scientists have enough vaccines for you, because you will be exposed to disease outbreaks, and people are going to start getting very sick/dying.

If you want a really good introduction to the concepts of disease outbreaks, countermeasures, vaccines and the historical impact of "plagues" you might want to read "The Power of Plagues" by Irwin W. Sherman.

Edit: Oh, and to mirror what the poster above me said, yes, what I've responded to just now is one of the most ignorant things I've heard regarding vaccines I've ever heard.

Originally posted by Tetrarch42
reply to post by WhiteHat

 

You do realize that every unvaccinated person in a population decreases the herd immunity of said population right? Pathogens need uninterrupted chains of transmission to remain in a population, vaccines prevent these chains of transmission. The reason that things like measles are rare today(even amongst those who are unvaccinated) is because of this herd immunity.

I'm a bit confused here at the different stances-perspectives between WhiteHat and Tetrarch42..so please bear with me if I've misunderstood.

WhiteHat, you seem to be posting about the oddities of the Whooping Cough-Pertussis vaccine. I whole heartedly understand. Seems extremely bizarre...so I'll quote some stats...

From a high of about 250,000 cases annually in the 1940s, when the first whooping cough vaccine was introduced, the number of reported cases plunged to just over 1,000 a year three decades later. Since then, however, it has been creeping upward, hitting 17,000 in 2009.

from an article Duval County leads Florida in resurgent whooping cough

Anyone else instantly notice something odd here? For 60 years the Whooping Cough-Pertussis vaccine worked just fine. And in Florida it decreased the annually average of Pertussis cases to a mere 1000 cases on average per year...60 whole years. But then in 2009, it suddenly jumps up to 17,000 cases. WTF?!? It really has nothing to do with illegal immigrants as the number of illegal immigrants into Florida really didn't change. And it really doesn't account for people choosing to go without the vaccine.

So what's really going on here? The Pertussis vaccine with a mere childhood initial and teenage booster worked just fine for a whole 59 years. No one needed boosters every 10 years for those 59 years. No one needed boosters every 3 years for those 59 years. So why all of a sudden does the vaccine no longer work? And why does everyone suddenly need boosters? What's really causing it? Is it a new bacterial strain of pertussis, genetically different from the previous one for 59 years that people suddenly need a new vaccine for? Is there something else being sold on the market in Florida, some other product--food, liquid, or skin--that causes a decrease in the efficiency of the Pertussis vaccine? Was there something in another 2009 vaccine like an additive to the one of the flu vaccines on the market that suddenly rendered the Pertussis vaccine ineffective?

What's causing the ineffectiveness of the Pertussis-Whooping Cough vaccine when it worked just fine for 59 years?

Tetrarch42, I might be misinterpreting your perspective and if so I apologize. But you seem to be concerned that unvaccinated people are somehow decreasing the immunity of the rest of the population. How so?

Either a person somehow got immunized by a vaccine, or they didn't. If a non-vaccinated person is more immune than a vaccinated person...then what's going on? The example used is measles, right?

If a person didn't get immunized to measles then they would be susceptible right-- compared to the unvaccinated persons? Yet, measles is popping up in places like Canada among 20-30 year olds who have already been vaccinated. I hardly see how an unvaccinated person caused it. Since the Canadian outbreak occurred initially at a hotel, then either....
a) there's a new strain-mutation of measles that the original vaccine doesn't cover.
b) there was something wrong with the vaccination to 20-30 year olds in Canada that didn't give them immunity.
c) there's another product (or additive to another vaccine) on the market rendering the measles vaccine ineffective.
d) there's another disease out there-frequent among 20-30 year olds weakening their immune systems and even if they've been vaccinated, the vaccine was useless towards their weakened immune systems.

Measles outbreaks worldwide in 2011

Please note that on the above link that measles outbreaks recently got their own folder because 2010-2011 there have been so many measles outbreaks worldwide (even among those vaccinated) that FluTrackers gave it a new folder out of all the childhood vaccinated diseases.

So what's really going on? This can't possibly be the minority of the population unvaccinated causing outbreaks among those vaccinated. There has got to be another cause.

The spike in whooping cough cases could be from a variety of reasons, I can only really speculate but it's possible that hard immunity was reduced due to unvaccinated individuals(leading to illness in unvaccinated people that would otherwise be safe, or the pathogen might have mutated, I really don't know.

My reference to the "immunity" of the population was so a principle called "herd immunity". Essentially diseases have a minimum threshold of susceptible individuals to remain in a population. Measles is in the realm of 85% I believe. Herd immunity protects even those who aren't vaccinated by breaking chains of pathogen transmission or the "R0" of an outbreak which is the number of people infected per infected individual at the beginning of the outbreak. If the R0 is greater than 1(that is each infected person infects any more than 1 person) the disease will spread until the R0 drops below 1 at which point it will die away in the population unless a new factor comes in(like immigrants or new births). Here's an example of herd immunity=>
Person A(unvaccinated)>Person B(unvaccinated)>Person C(unvaccinated)>Person D(vaccinated)>//Person E(unvaccinated)>Person F(unvaccinated).

As you can see, even though the first three people became ill because they were exposed to a disease and had no vaccine the chain of transmission broke at "Person D" because they did not transmit the disease, so even persons E and F remained healthy because that chain of transmission was broken. The more unvaccinated people, the more chains of transmission and the more likely an outbreak will occur and keep going until the R0 drops below 1.

A lack of vaccinations can also cause a pathogen to adapt and become more virulent, obviously the faster a disease kills someone the less likely it is they will pass it on to a new host. So when a high % of the population is immune pathogens are pressured to become less virulent(and thus leave their hosts alive for longer and increase the chance of transmission). The less people who are immune the more likely the pathogen will be able to trade off virulence for other characteristics.
It's possible that hard immunity has been weakened due to anti-vaccers and led to the development of a new measles strain, I really don't know.

reply to post by john_bmth


So because we agreed that mercury was bad ....and the article I posted simply stated the dosage kids get.... I am ignorant? OK. Glad you got that figured out.

Answer this though, if Hg is bad and its in vaccines and we inject it in people....then there is no harm then right? So if these vaccines go past what the CDC says is an acceptable limit..of a harmful substance...then we are still OK? I await your next response of enlightenment and more clarification of the word ignorant.

In addition, I can answer your question of where you can find how vaccines are harmful, on the insert. It is all laid out for you under side effects.

reply to post by Griffo


I'd be more willing to believe in the efficacy of vaccines if they weren't protected from liability by a specialized vaccine court, of which the judges' salaries are paid for by vaccine profits.

Consider that the article points out France had over 10,000 reported cases of measles with only 6 deaths. With odds like that, I'd rather not subject my child to the potential risks of vaccines without being able to sue Big Pharma if things go south.

Vaccines are nothing more than a money making racket for the pharmaceuticals.

Here's a nice site that is dedicated to the of reporting side effects by vaccines. Of course, none of the people effected by those vaccines will be able to sue Big Pharma in open court with a jury.

thevaccinesideeffects.com...

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Griffo

 

I'd be more willing to believe in the efficacy of vaccines if they weren't protected from liability by a specialized vaccine court, of which the judges' salaries are paid for by vaccine profits.

Consider that the article points out France had over 10,000 reported cases of measles with only 6 deaths. With odds like that, I'd rather not subject my child to the potential risks of vaccines without being able to sue Big Pharma if things go south.

Vaccines are nothing more than a money making racket for the pharmaceuticals.

Here's a nice site that is dedicated to the of reporting side effects by vaccines. Of course, none of the people effected by those vaccines will be able to sue Big Pharma in open court with a jury.

thevaccinesideeffects.com...

edit on 27-9-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

In total agreement with you there! I contributed much earlier in this thread and after reading all this I am even more convinced that vaccines are a scam. I just don't trust human science. What is fact today is a mistake tomorrow! Countless examples of this exist in history; nuclear energy, GM food, full frontal lobotomies, giving women ECT after being raped and becoming hysterical, just a few perculiar examples. Science is just a continuous EXPERIMENT, and one that has many many casualties.

Lets also not forget that over the time that vaccinations were bought in the conditions people were living in were getting better. If you go look at how some diseases are started you would see that polio is from fecal matter that's what started it. Then go look at tetanus that manifests when the outer side of a wound heals before the inside and the incubates disease. If you go and see what causes most diseases you would see that you can go and get a vaccination from whooping cough but that wont stop you from being infected there are news stories on google if you care to look for your self. Diseases do end up mutating when you do what we are doing hence why there is belief that whooping cough has done exactly this.

When confronted with contrary evidence, those who reject vaccinations experience a bout of cognitive dissonance. They deny, justify, and blame to reduce the dissonance. Reality shows that vaccinations are good, but the person believes they're bad. Seeing this, the person is shaken up. This is what dissonance is. It represents a conflict between ideas. The dissonance is reduced by denying the reality or justifying ones choices as necessary or some other tactic.

Those who're addicted, conspiracy theorists, cultists and others exhibit this as well.

Originally posted by jonnywhite
When confronted with contrary evidence, those who reject vaccinations experience a bout of cognitive dissonance. They deny, justify, and blame to reduce the dissonance. Reality shows that vaccinations are good, but the person believes they're bad. Seeing this, the person is shaken up. This is what dissonance is. It represents a conflict between ideas. The dissonance is reduced by denying the reality or justifying ones choices as necessary or some other tactic.

Those who're addicted, conspiracy theorists, cultists and others exhibit this as well.

edit on 29-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

As the saying goes, just cause one is paranoid does not mean they are not out to get them. And as you may have read there are several cases which IMHO have shown instances or coincidences that vaccines are not good. So am I living in reality....or better yet are we living in the same one?

Originally posted by scoobdude

As the saying goes, just cause one is paranoid does not mean they are not out to get them. And as you may have read there are several cases which IMHO have shown instances or coincidences that vaccines are not good. So am I living in reality....or better yet are we living in the same one?

Then post the peer-reviewed science from credible journals that supports your view. It's as simple as that.

reply to post by Griffo


Listen, I'm a pharmacist and knowing what I know about vaccinations, I do not take vaccinations anymore myself. I also refuse to admnitster vaccinations, so I don't work in retail pharmacy. My professional opinion (backed by scientific literature) is that vaccinations do more harm than good.

When childhood diseases and non-fatal diseases (like chicken pox) are suppressed, it only screws up people's immune systems. You need to get sick once in a while in order to keep your immune system healthy. If you suppress your immune system too much, it turns against itself, and you get auto-immune diseases.

Think of the human immune system like Yellowstone National Forest. For thousands of years, the forest was healthy. Then when the national forest service started "taking care of Yellowstone" by suppressing normal, natural yearly forest fires, the underbrush never got cleared away, and it made it more vulnerarable. Eventually, after years of suppressing natural forest fires, a forest fire came along that was so massive that it severely damaged a great portion of Yellowstone, because the health of the forest had severely deteriorated. Why? Because the forest service tried to make it "healthier' by suppressing forest fires all those years. Nature knows best. Don't screw with hit.

Same thing with your immune system.

Now, if you're already sick and could die from the flu, fine...take a flu shot. If you're already immuno-compromised, fine take vaccinations. But when we vaccinate children against every disease possible (including non-fatal diseases like chicken-pox, for God's sake!), we are only creating more problems.

If you don't believe me, just look at the health of our nation! We are the most over-vaccinated country, and we are also the sickest.

And that is why I, a pharmacist, do not take vaccinations. Nor do I recommend them. Nor do I work in places where I would be required to give them.

Childhood diseases are breaking out over here due to all the 3rd worlders being brought in.

We've got full blown cases of Tuberculosis and Foot and Mouth Disease epidemic popping up from all the foreigners the Fed's are letting in.

American Pharmaceuticals failed in their mission to peddle their wares in other countries. And now those foreigners are bringing those diseases back into America.

1/3rd of America will be dead in 5 years. +70 million Baby Boomers ain't gonna live forever. So they're on a mad rush to bring millions of new suckers in to fluff up the population.