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.

 

Courts Quietly Confirm MMR Vaccine Causes Autism

page: 7
71
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Rubinstein

boncho
I agree with you, you are talking about the anti-vax industry right?


There is almost no money to be made in warning about vaccine dangers, if anything you lose money as it takes up your free time. Those who spread the message about vaccine dangers are altruists. As for Mercola he is an honest man, he needs money to fund his website, but he's regularly proven to be right. I would trust Mercola over the pharmceuticals any day.



Not sure what you are talking about but Natural News has over seven methods of generating revenue. Trillions or billions in revenue is relative. Sure a CEO of a large corp can make anywhere from a few million to a few hundred million, but I don't see what the difference is when a smaller outfit does half a million , 1 million or 5. The money and incentive is the same. (and with less overhead, sometimes more concentrated with fewer people) And in most cases, they are being run by people who couldn't hack it in the real world, or possibly were blacklisted for speaking out about something, but that doesn't mean everything that comes from them from set day forward is truth.

www.naturalnews.com...

Natural News being anything but transparent:


Does he care whether his readers receive the information in the post—about radioactive contamination of drinking water and milk—or is he more interested in deceiving them into believing a conspiracy theory?

I’m all for challenging mainstream institutions, especially when they engage in cover ups. But if we are going to make such accusations, it’s vital that we make them accurately, otherwise we lose our power to challenge. We lose it at moments like this, when we’re proven to be foolish.


www.forbes.com...



Quite the opposite of the $Trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry which can lobby politicians, change laws and pull strings in the media. Even people who post pharma propaganda and marketing on the Internet (similar to your posts) get paid over $50,000 per year. I was told that by a chap who recruits such posters.
edit on 21-11-2013 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)


I thought I already covered this one. Even with all those billions in lobbying and the supposed media control, the pharm companies have been fined billions and billions.

Oh, and one minute the media is covering up their shenanigans, and some other post people are claiming the media is what caused them to get prosecuted.

Did they lobby for all these fines?


GlaxoSmithKline[4] $3 billion
failure to disclose safety data 2012
Paxil False Claims Act/FDCA
Pfizer[5] $2.3 billion
Zyvox/Lyrica False Claims Act/FDCA
Abbott Laboratories[6] $1.5 billion
Eli Lilly[7] $1.4 billion
TAP Pharmaceutical Products[8] $875 million
Prescription Drug Marketing Act
Amgen[9] $762 million
GlaxoSmithKline[10] $750 million
Paxil CR/Avandamet False Claims Act/FDCA
Serono[11] $704 million
kickbacks/monopoly practices 2005
Merck[12] $650 million
Purdue Pharma[13] $601 million
Allergan[14] $600 million
AstraZeneca[15] $520 million
Bristol-Myers Squibb[16] $515 million
kickbacks/Medicare fraud 2007
Schering-Plough[17] $500 million
Schering-Plough[18] $435 million


en.wikipedia.org...

Let me be clear, I am not saying the pharm industry doesnt have its corruption, nor does it not have influence in government, nor is it innocent… In fact, Id say its criminal and there is evidence to support that.

What I am saying, is that just because something is not another, doesn't make it the opposite or without its own caveats. Also, your interpretation of how the industry works is not realistic, and I believe I have shown that.

And most importantly, if company XYZ releases a drug that causes cancer, it does not mean that every drug they have causes cancer.
edit on 21-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Rubinstein

boncho

If this were true, we would see far less disease in places that had no vaccines, but that isn't the case. Also, I remember measles as a kid and it was pretty common, but now I can't think of one kid out of all my friends children that has gotten it.



You do see far lower rates of Autism, Diabetes Type 1, Asthma, Epilepsy, Cot Death etc in unvaccinated populations.

As for Polio they just renamed it, an obvious scam, they should care about Paralysis, not about Polio, they paralyse 1,000's of people with their Polio vaccine every year. Most people who catch Polio don't even know they've got it.



boncho
In the U.S., up to 20 percent of persons with measles are hospitalized.


That's completely untrue, it's just Big Pharma trying to rewrite history. There was a Measles outbreak in the UK and the majority of people were fine apart from one chap who had chronic Asthma (caused by DPT vaccine) and was incredibly skinny and malnourished, for him Measles was the straw that broke the camel's back. When I was young we all had Measles, we were fine, as long as you have enough Vitamin A it's nothing to worry about.



boncho
Strange, if 20% of people with measles are hospitalized, wouldn't that mean big profits for the hospital stays? Or this is just disinfo cause it doesn't fit into your tinfoil?


Even if the 20% figure were true, 10 days of Measles isn't going to bring many sales to the pharmaceuticals, when compared to lifelong Diabetes Type 1, lifelong Autism, lifelong Asthma etc etc. They want money from you for 30,000 days, not just 10 days, that's how to make real money, there can be no comparison.


That's odd, I see no sources for any of the information you posted, while I have sourced every response I made. Personally, I think people like you are the equivalent of scribbles on the forum. If you don't source your information it's not information.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by hiddencode
 

Good point, I'm surprised Mercola even has enough money to keep his site running. Well done to him though, Big Pharma are desperate to shut down his site and censor that side of the debate.



Source?



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Well, this is one issue it seems futile to continue arguing about. I have yet to see a staunch advocate or enemy of vaccination change their opinion due to a discussion on the internet. I should have known better than to try to engage.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

hiddencode
Good point, I'm surprised Mercola even has enough money to keep his site running. Well done to him though, Big Pharma are desperate to shut down his site and censor that side of the debate.


Rubinstein

boncho
I agree with you, you are talking about the anti-vax industry right?


There is almost no money to be made in warning about vaccine dangers...


Mercola is not only making a ton of money (has a 2 million subscribers + sales) he has enough to take out an ad in Times Square (I thought he was censored?)


A 15-second public service message featuring the National Vaccine Information Center is being shown on the CBS JumboTron on Times Square through April 28. Made possible by support from Mercola.com, the message is shown every hour for 18 hours a day on the 20 by 26-foot full color big screen located on 42nd St. between 7th and 8th Avenues near Broadway and the NY Port Authority and directly beneath where the crystal ball drops at midnight on Times Square every NewYear’s Eve.

The 15 second spot includes the logos of NVIC and Mercola.com and a photo of a Mom with her baby


scienceblogs.com...

And lives in a 2 million dollar mansion.

But I will agree with one thing, he should be shut down. Just as a drug company should be prosecuted if they lie and cheat their way to profits.

What a hypocritical mess of tinfoil the lot of you are.

Seriously,

"Well, this guy lied to us, so lets go to the other side and believe their lies and give them our money instead."

I don't know how much effort has been made by regulators (which they are mostly hamstrung because natural health products are barely regulated) but Mercola deserves the full force of scrutiny when the time comes.

Snake oil is not new, but you would think people are on to it by now. Lest we forget.
edit on 21-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

opopanax
Well, this is one issue it seems futile to continue arguing about. I have yet to see a staunch advocate or enemy of vaccination change their opinion due to a discussion on the internet. I should have known better than to try to engage.


It's profit driven but more so like MLM than big industry. Similar to politics. You either have XYZ with a site promoting and selling products or useful idiots that get their weekly newsletters. So you are either arguing with someone who has financial incentive or someone who believes everything they read when being told big corporations are killing them. Who then order a bottle of colloidal silver to battle the next cold they get.

Similar to free energy arguments.

Those are nightmarish.

It's like arguing with a scientifically illiterate person on how the sun is a giant ball of gas but they believe it's a hole poked in backdrop of the sky.

The argument is not actually meant to be won, it's meant to enlighten people who are on the fence, looking for information, or those that want a better explanation in the debate. The observer.
edit on 21-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Rubinstein

Pardon?

The only definitive way that any medicine can be proven useful or harmful is through proper testing.
Not through a court of law.
Think about it.



When the testing is rigged and controlled by the same corporations who would lose $Billions if they proved that vaccines are causing Autism, the courts are of infintely more use.
edit on 21-11-2013 by Rubinstein because: (no reason given)


So you're saying that numerous peer-reviewed studies and even independent testing is inferior to an individual lawyer's decision?
A lawyer's?
Can you hear what you're saying?
You really believe that?

Don't you think it strange that there are numerous studies out there (a lot of them funded by anti-vaxxers) which are trying to prove a correlation between vaccine and autism but they are all failing?
That can't be coincidence right?
Why do you think that is?
Are big pharma sabotaging their data?
Or is it because there are NO studies which prove any correlation?



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   

opopanax
Well, this is one issue it seems futile to continue arguing about. I have yet to see a staunch advocate or enemy of vaccination change their opinion due to a discussion on the internet. I should have known better than to try to engage.


For the most part you are arguing against a belief system, not science as there's no viable evidence to support the claim that vaccines are bad.
However, I don't particularly argue against anti-vaxxers per se as it's like arguing over religion, rather I will counter their claims so people who may be on the fence or uninformed don't fall for their nonsense.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

boncho



Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2011, there were 158 000 measles deaths globally – about 430 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2011 worldwide.
In 2011, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.


www.who.int...

So yes, you are right, measles doesn't cause much death in places there are vaccinations for it.


Im not calling for the banning of vaccinations, if you had read my posts you would have seen that all Im asking for is a choice for separate vaccines from the MMR. I also showed how the fear of measles is wildly overblown and grossly exaggerated. Measles was almost eradicated in the UK BEFORE vaccinations even started.
Good health care and better hygiene alone almost eradicated it. So arguing that vaccinations are the cause of measles decline is a blatant lie.
I think in the UK we have had only one death in the UK attributed to measles in the last few years, in a grown man with other problems, the measles being the actual cause of death was indeterminate.
Im also not claiming that any vaccine causes autism, Im saying they cause death and other illnesses.
Its possible, and Im going to do further deeper research on it, that MMR vaccines have killed more people in the UK than measles over the past 4 years.
Its funny how they try to keep the deaths caused by vaccines secret. Its also not the easiest thing in the world to find mortality rates for vaccinations, or measles for that matter. They trumpet on about the infection rates and scare monger people to get vaccinated, but the scaremongering isnt justified by the NHS, WHO nor CDC's OWN STATISTICS.
Im not pulling numbers out of the air, and prefer to use their own statistics.

Just for the record, Im not anti vaccine, Im pro choice, im pro freedom, Im anti court judgements ordering parents to risk harming their children when they are not comfortable with it.
And first and foremost, Im pro truth.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Pardon?

opopanax
Well, this is one issue it seems futile to continue arguing about. I have yet to see a staunch advocate or enemy of vaccination change their opinion due to a discussion on the internet. I should have known better than to try to engage.


For the most part you are arguing against a belief system, not science as there's no viable evidence to support the claim that vaccines are bad.
However, I don't particularly argue against anti-vaxxers per se as it's like arguing over religion, rather I will counter their claims so people who may be on the fence or uninformed don't fall for their nonsense.


Well to be quite blunt... you are wrong.

Vaccines removed from market..
Rotavirus Vaccine (RotaShield®) and Intussusception


Have any vaccines been permanently withdrawn from the US market due to a safety concern?
Yes. As an example, in 1999 the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decided that RotaShield®, the only U.S.-licensed rotavirus vaccine at that time, should no longer be recommended for infants in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1999). This decision was based on the results of a review of safety data that indicated a strong association between RotaShield® and intussusception (a rare, potentially life-threatening form of intestinal obstruction) among some infants during the first 1-2 weeks following vaccination. RotaShield® was voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer before the ACIP withdrew its recommendation, but after the CDC recommended suspending use of the vaccine. See more information about RotaShield®.

In early 1976, the CDC detected the circulation of a flu virus, known as swine flu, which was similar to the Spanish flu virus that killed many people in 1918. The government, out of concern about a potentially devastating flu pandemic like the one in 1918, began a mass swine flu vaccination campaign. In December of 1976 the campaign was stopped because of an unusually high number of reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome or GBS (a rare disorder that causes weakness and oftentimes temporary paralysis, usually in the arms, legs or face) in some people who received the swine flu vaccine (Schonberger et al. 1979). A study that looked at the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 seasonal flu vaccines found a small increase in the risk of GBS following vaccination (Lasky et al. 1998). However, no flu vaccine has been associated with a similar increased risk of GBS as the swine flu vaccine.


What was the "Cutter incident"?
The 1955 “Cutter incident” is named after the manufacturer of polio vaccine lots that accidentally created a serious safety problem. This incident involved a safety-related recall by the US Public Health Service (PHS). At the very beginning of the polio vaccine program, some people developed polio soon after receiving the polio vaccine. After the PHS recalled the vaccine, an investigation showed that some vaccinated people got polio because the poliovirus in the vaccine was still active (or live), when it should have been killed. New manufacturing and safety testing procedures were introduced, and the vaccination program resumed without any further safety problems (Nathanson and Langmuir 1963).

Source - CDC

Novartis Flu Vaccine Recalled in Germany after particles found inside it.
Source - Huffington Post - Note the vaccine is still available in the US and UK.


I already posted previously that MMR vaccine had killed 4 children in the UK in the last 4 yrs.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

OneManArmy

boncho



Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2011, there were 158 000 measles deaths globally – about 430 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2011 worldwide.
In 2011, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.


www.who.int...

So yes, you are right, measles doesn't cause much death in places there are vaccinations for it.


Im not calling for the banning of vaccinations, if you had read my posts you would have seen that all Im asking for is a choice for separate vaccines from the MMR. I also showed how the fear of measles is wildly overblown and grossly exaggerated. Measles was almost eradicated in the UK BEFORE vaccinations even started.
Good health care and better hygiene alone almost eradicated it. So arguing that vaccinations are the cause of measles decline is a blatant lie.
I think in the UK we have had only one death in the UK attributed to measles in the last few years, in a grown man with other problems, the measles being the actual cause of death was indeterminate.
Im also not claiming that any vaccine causes autism, Im saying they cause death and other illnesses.
Its possible, and Im going to do further deeper research on it, that MMR vaccines have killed more people in the UK than measles over the past 4 years.
Its funny how they try to keep the deaths caused by vaccines secret. Its also not the easiest thing in the world to find mortality rates for vaccinations, or measles for that matter. They trumpet on about the infection rates and scare monger people to get vaccinated, but the scaremongering isnt justified by the NHS, WHO nor CDC's OWN STATISTICS.
Im not pulling numbers out of the air, and prefer to use their own statistics.

Just for the record, Im not anti vaccine, Im pro choice, im pro freedom, Im anti court judgements ordering parents to risk harming their children when they are not comfortable with it.
And first and foremost, Im pro truth.


Measles wasn't "almost eradicated in the UK BEFORE vaccinations even started".
Whilst it's true the mortality rate (no. of deaths) was dropping pre-vaccine (due to better living conditions and medicine), it was only AFTER vaccines were introduced that the INCIDENCE of measles fell.

You claim that vaccines cause death and other illnesses then you say that "you're going to do further research on it" so what's your claim based upon?
You say "Its also not the easiest thing in the world to find mortality rates for vaccinations" but in the sentence above you allude that you when all of the data (which is verifiable to the nth degree) says there aren't.
And this data isn't the NHS's, WHO's or the CDC's. It's submitted by individual doctors and it can be checked and re-checked if necessary.
One set of data that does take a fair bit of digging to find (but it's there if you know where to look) is the number of children who have been irreversibly harmed by measles related diseases like septicaemia but have lived albeit with a disability.
That number dropped dramatically after vaccinations were introduced and has thankfully stayed very low.
However, if the incidence of measles increases then surprise surprise, the incidence of measles related disease rises too (but not necessarily deaths due to what I mentioned above).
The anti-vaxxers seem to conveniently forget this.

You say you're not anti-vaccine but you're pro-choice.
Who's choice are you for?
Personally I'm pro-choice in favour of children not getting vaccine preventable diseases especially when the risk from the vaccine is about the same odds as you'd get for being struck by lightening whilst buying the winning ticket in the lottery.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:38 PM
link   

OneManArmy

Pardon?

opopanax
Well, this is one issue it seems futile to continue arguing about. I have yet to see a staunch advocate or enemy of vaccination change their opinion due to a discussion on the internet. I should have known better than to try to engage.


For the most part you are arguing against a belief system, not science as there's no viable evidence to support the claim that vaccines are bad.
However, I don't particularly argue against anti-vaxxers per se as it's like arguing over religion, rather I will counter their claims so people who may be on the fence or uninformed don't fall for their nonsense.


Well to be quite blunt... you are wrong.

Vaccines removed from market..
Rotavirus Vaccine (RotaShield®) and Intussusception


Have any vaccines been permanently withdrawn from the US market due to a safety concern?
Yes. As an example, in 1999 the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) decided that RotaShield®, the only U.S.-licensed rotavirus vaccine at that time, should no longer be recommended for infants in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1999). This decision was based on the results of a review of safety data that indicated a strong association between RotaShield® and intussusception (a rare, potentially life-threatening form of intestinal obstruction) among some infants during the first 1-2 weeks following vaccination. RotaShield® was voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturer before the ACIP withdrew its recommendation, but after the CDC recommended suspending use of the vaccine. See more information about RotaShield®.

In early 1976, the CDC detected the circulation of a flu virus, known as swine flu, which was similar to the Spanish flu virus that killed many people in 1918. The government, out of concern about a potentially devastating flu pandemic like the one in 1918, began a mass swine flu vaccination campaign. In December of 1976 the campaign was stopped because of an unusually high number of reports of Guillain-Barré syndrome or GBS (a rare disorder that causes weakness and oftentimes temporary paralysis, usually in the arms, legs or face) in some people who received the swine flu vaccine (Schonberger et al. 1979). A study that looked at the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 seasonal flu vaccines found a small increase in the risk of GBS following vaccination (Lasky et al. 1998). However, no flu vaccine has been associated with a similar increased risk of GBS as the swine flu vaccine.


What was the "Cutter incident"?
The 1955 “Cutter incident” is named after the manufacturer of polio vaccine lots that accidentally created a serious safety problem. This incident involved a safety-related recall by the US Public Health Service (PHS). At the very beginning of the polio vaccine program, some people developed polio soon after receiving the polio vaccine. After the PHS recalled the vaccine, an investigation showed that some vaccinated people got polio because the poliovirus in the vaccine was still active (or live), when it should have been killed. New manufacturing and safety testing procedures were introduced, and the vaccination program resumed without any further safety problems (Nathanson and Langmuir 1963).

Source - CDC

Novartis Flu Vaccine Recalled in Germany after particles found inside it.
Source - Huffington Post - Note the vaccine is still available in the US and UK.


I already posted previously that MMR vaccine had killed 4 children in the UK in the last 4 yrs.


To be as blunt, I'm not wrong as I said ARE, not were or might be.
There's a big difference.

As for the MMR killing 4 children in the last 4 years in the UK do you have any proof of this?
And I mean real proof other than testimonies and dodgy websites?



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Pardon?

OneManArmy

boncho



Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2011, there were 158 000 measles deaths globally – about 430 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2011 worldwide.
In 2011, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.


www.who.int...

So yes, you are right, measles doesn't cause much death in places there are vaccinations for it.


Im not calling for the banning of vaccinations, if you had read my posts you would have seen that all Im asking for is a choice for separate vaccines from the MMR. I also showed how the fear of measles is wildly overblown and grossly exaggerated. Measles was almost eradicated in the UK BEFORE vaccinations even started.
Good health care and better hygiene alone almost eradicated it. So arguing that vaccinations are the cause of measles decline is a blatant lie.
I think in the UK we have had only one death in the UK attributed to measles in the last few years, in a grown man with other problems, the measles being the actual cause of death was indeterminate.
Im also not claiming that any vaccine causes autism, Im saying they cause death and other illnesses.
Its possible, and Im going to do further deeper research on it, that MMR vaccines have killed more people in the UK than measles over the past 4 years.
Its funny how they try to keep the deaths caused by vaccines secret. Its also not the easiest thing in the world to find mortality rates for vaccinations, or measles for that matter. They trumpet on about the infection rates and scare monger people to get vaccinated, but the scaremongering isnt justified by the NHS, WHO nor CDC's OWN STATISTICS.
Im not pulling numbers out of the air, and prefer to use their own statistics.

Just for the record, Im not anti vaccine, Im pro choice, im pro freedom, Im anti court judgements ordering parents to risk harming their children when they are not comfortable with it.
And first and foremost, Im pro truth.


Measles wasn't "almost eradicated in the UK BEFORE vaccinations even started".
Whilst it's true the mortality rate (no. of deaths) was dropping pre-vaccine (due to better living conditions and medicine), it was only AFTER vaccines were introduced that the INCIDENCE of measles fell.

You claim that vaccines cause death and other illnesses then you say that "you're going to do further research on it" so what's your claim based upon?
You say "Its also not the easiest thing in the world to find mortality rates for vaccinations" but in the sentence above you allude that you when all of the data (which is verifiable to the nth degree) says there aren't.
And this data isn't the NHS's, WHO's or the CDC's. It's submitted by individual doctors and it can be checked and re-checked if necessary.
One set of data that does take a fair bit of digging to find (but it's there if you know where to look) is the number of children who have been irreversibly harmed by measles related diseases like septicaemia but have lived albeit with a disability.
That number dropped dramatically after vaccinations were introduced and has thankfully stayed very low.
However, if the incidence of measles increases then surprise surprise, the incidence of measles related disease rises too (but not necessarily deaths due to what I mentioned above).
The anti-vaxxers seem to conveniently forget this.

You say you're not anti-vaccine but you're pro-choice.
Who's choice are you for?
Personally I'm pro-choice in favour of children not getting vaccine preventable diseases especially when the risk from the vaccine is about the same odds as you'd get for being struck by lightening whilst buying the winning ticket in the lottery.




Im pro choice for parents to choose whats best for their children, not a pharmaceutical company that cares more about profit than health.
You seem to be using the same tactic of ridicule by association that the chemtrail debunkers use.
Calling me an anti vaxxer is not only incorrect, it is libelous. I suggest you stop trying to character assassinate me.
Its simply rude and bad manners, and illegal.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Pardon?
Measles wasn't "almost eradicated in the UK BEFORE vaccinations even started".
Whilst it's true the mortality rate (no. of deaths) was dropping pre-vaccine (due to better living conditions and medicine), it was only AFTER vaccines were introduced that the INCIDENCE of measles fell.

Yes OK, I accept that. The mortality of measles is affected greatly by nutrition and health services, and not vaccination.



To be as blunt, I'm not wrong as I said ARE, not were or might be.
There's a big difference.

As for the MMR killing 4 children in the last 4 years in the UK do you have any proof of this?
And I mean real proof other than testimonies and dodgy websites?


I linked the source on page 4.
But let me post again its important..


Four deaths have been linked to suspected adverse reactions to the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) triple jab, according to documents prepared for the Government's expert advisers on immunisation.


After the death of a child who developed meningitis and swelling of the brain three weeks after an MMR jab in 2004, a claim for compensation was made by the child's parents. It is not known if this was successful.


Six fatalities followed meningitis C vaccinations between 2001 and 2003. The deaths of seven other babies were linked to combined vaccines against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough and reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). They include a baby who died from a heart attack. Another died after a polio jab.
Almost 800 other reports of suspected complications of childhood vaccination - including convulsions and hyptonia, in which the baby becomes floppy like a "rag doll" - were also made, including 160 for MMR.

Source - The Telegraph

edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmThu, 21 Nov 2013 13:01:54 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

OneManArmy

Pardon?

OneManArmy

boncho



Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2011, there were 158 000 measles deaths globally – about 430 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2011 worldwide.
In 2011, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.


www.who.int...

So yes, you are right, measles doesn't cause much death in places there are vaccinations for it.


Im not calling for the banning of vaccinations, if you had read my posts you would have seen that all Im asking for is a choice for separate vaccines from the MMR. I also showed how the fear of measles is wildly overblown and grossly exaggerated. Measles was almost eradicated in the UK BEFORE vaccinations even started.
Good health care and better hygiene alone almost eradicated it. So arguing that vaccinations are the cause of measles decline is a blatant lie.
I think in the UK we have had only one death in the UK attributed to measles in the last few years, in a grown man with other problems, the measles being the actual cause of death was indeterminate.
Im also not claiming that any vaccine causes autism, Im saying they cause death and other illnesses.
Its possible, and Im going to do further deeper research on it, that MMR vaccines have killed more people in the UK than measles over the past 4 years.
Its funny how they try to keep the deaths caused by vaccines secret. Its also not the easiest thing in the world to find mortality rates for vaccinations, or measles for that matter. They trumpet on about the infection rates and scare monger people to get vaccinated, but the scaremongering isnt justified by the NHS, WHO nor CDC's OWN STATISTICS.
Im not pulling numbers out of the air, and prefer to use their own statistics.

Just for the record, Im not anti vaccine, Im pro choice, im pro freedom, Im anti court judgements ordering parents to risk harming their children when they are not comfortable with it.
And first and foremost, Im pro truth.


Measles wasn't "almost eradicated in the UK BEFORE vaccinations even started".
Whilst it's true the mortality rate (no. of deaths) was dropping pre-vaccine (due to better living conditions and medicine), it was only AFTER vaccines were introduced that the INCIDENCE of measles fell.

You claim that vaccines cause death and other illnesses then you say that "you're going to do further research on it" so what's your claim based upon?
You say "Its also not the easiest thing in the world to find mortality rates for vaccinations" but in the sentence above you allude that you when all of the data (which is verifiable to the nth degree) says there aren't.
And this data isn't the NHS's, WHO's or the CDC's. It's submitted by individual doctors and it can be checked and re-checked if necessary.
One set of data that does take a fair bit of digging to find (but it's there if you know where to look) is the number of children who have been irreversibly harmed by measles related diseases like septicaemia but have lived albeit with a disability.
That number dropped dramatically after vaccinations were introduced and has thankfully stayed very low.
However, if the incidence of measles increases then surprise surprise, the incidence of measles related disease rises too (but not necessarily deaths due to what I mentioned above).
The anti-vaxxers seem to conveniently forget this.

You say you're not anti-vaccine but you're pro-choice.
Who's choice are you for?
Personally I'm pro-choice in favour of children not getting vaccine preventable diseases especially when the risk from the vaccine is about the same odds as you'd get for being struck by lightening whilst buying the winning ticket in the lottery.




Im pro choice for parents to choose whats best for their children, not a pharmaceutical company that cares more about profit than health.
You seem to be using the same tactic of ridicule by association that the chemtrail debunkers use.
Calling me an anti vaxxer is not only incorrect, it is libelous. I suggest you stop trying to character assassinate me.
Its simply rude and bad manners, and illegal.


Your not pro choice as you don't accept irrefutable evidence and promote nonsense.
That's not choice, that's confirmed bias.

Feel free to cherry pick the truth about measles rates and ignore the non-lethal harm they do too.
Pro-choice?
Really.

And I asked for confirmed deaths from MMR in the UK, not possible "linked" to "suspected adverse events" ones. That's not confirmed is it? And after reading your original post that's why I asked for proof, not conjecture but you've just posted the same again.

Going back to one of your earlier posts I find it quite strange that on one hand you state that the health organisations are hiding data on vaccines then in another post you link to the CDC page on why a vaccine was pulled.
You seem a bit confused.
Which data from them do you believe, just the stuff that fits your agenda?


And whilst you may not think you're an anti-vaxxer, believe me, you are.

Oh, I'm guessing your knowledge about UK libel laws and law in general is about as spurious as your knowledge of medicine...

edit on 21/11/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Pardon?

OneManArmy

Pardon?

OneManArmy

boncho



Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2011, there were 158 000 measles deaths globally – about 430 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2011 worldwide.
In 2011, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.


www.who.int...

So yes, you are right, measles doesn't cause much death in places there are vaccinations for it.


Im not calling for the banning of vaccinations, if you had read my posts you would have seen that all Im asking for is a choice for separate vaccines from the MMR. I also showed how the fear of measles is wildly overblown and grossly exaggerated. Measles was almost eradicated in the UK BEFORE vaccinations even started.
Good health care and better hygiene alone almost eradicated it. So arguing that vaccinations are the cause of measles decline is a blatant lie.
I think in the UK we have had only one death in the UK attributed to measles in the last few years, in a grown man with other problems, the measles being the actual cause of death was indeterminate.
Im also not claiming that any vaccine causes autism, Im saying they cause death and other illnesses.
Its possible, and Im going to do further deeper research on it, that MMR vaccines have killed more people in the UK than measles over the past 4 years.
Its funny how they try to keep the deaths caused by vaccines secret. Its also not the easiest thing in the world to find mortality rates for vaccinations, or measles for that matter. They trumpet on about the infection rates and scare monger people to get vaccinated, but the scaremongering isnt justified by the NHS, WHO nor CDC's OWN STATISTICS.
Im not pulling numbers out of the air, and prefer to use their own statistics.

Just for the record, Im not anti vaccine, Im pro choice, im pro freedom, Im anti court judgements ordering parents to risk harming their children when they are not comfortable with it.
And first and foremost, Im pro truth.


Measles wasn't "almost eradicated in the UK BEFORE vaccinations even started".
Whilst it's true the mortality rate (no. of deaths) was dropping pre-vaccine (due to better living conditions and medicine), it was only AFTER vaccines were introduced that the INCIDENCE of measles fell.

You claim that vaccines cause death and other illnesses then you say that "you're going to do further research on it" so what's your claim based upon?
You say "Its also not the easiest thing in the world to find mortality rates for vaccinations" but in the sentence above you allude that you when all of the data (which is verifiable to the nth degree) says there aren't.
And this data isn't the NHS's, WHO's or the CDC's. It's submitted by individual doctors and it can be checked and re-checked if necessary.
One set of data that does take a fair bit of digging to find (but it's there if you know where to look) is the number of children who have been irreversibly harmed by measles related diseases like septicaemia but have lived albeit with a disability.
That number dropped dramatically after vaccinations were introduced and has thankfully stayed very low.
However, if the incidence of measles increases then surprise surprise, the incidence of measles related disease rises too (but not necessarily deaths due to what I mentioned above).
The anti-vaxxers seem to conveniently forget this.

You say you're not anti-vaccine but you're pro-choice.
Who's choice are you for?
Personally I'm pro-choice in favour of children not getting vaccine preventable diseases especially when the risk from the vaccine is about the same odds as you'd get for being struck by lightening whilst buying the winning ticket in the lottery.




Im pro choice for parents to choose whats best for their children, not a pharmaceutical company that cares more about profit than health.
You seem to be using the same tactic of ridicule by association that the chemtrail debunkers use.
Calling me an anti vaxxer is not only incorrect, it is libelous. I suggest you stop trying to character assassinate me.
Its simply rude and bad manners, and illegal.


Your not pro choice as you don't accept irrefutable evidence and promote nonsense.
That's not choice, that's confirmed bias.

Feel free to cherry pick the truth about measles rates and ignore the non-lethal harm they do too.
Pro-choice?
Really.

And I asked for confirmed deaths from MMR in the UK, not possible "linked" to "suspected adverse events" ones. That's not confirmed is it? And after reading your original post that's why I asked for proof, not conjecture but you've just posted the same again.

Going back to one of your earlier posts I find it quite strange that on one hand you state that the health organisations are hiding data on vaccines then in another post you link to the CDC page on why a vaccine was pulled.
You seem a bit confused.
Which data from them do you believe, just the stuff that fits your agenda?


And whilst you may not think you're an anti-vaxxer, believe me, you are.

Oh, I'm guessing your knowledge about UK libel laws and law in general is about as spurious as your knowledge of medicine...

edit on 21/11/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)


Firstly if I was an anti vaxxer, I wouldnt have vaccinated all 3 of my children.

When it comes to finding measles and vaccine mortality rates online, its like the information is buried.
Im limited on what I can find in "OFFICIAL" sources. Its not cherry picking it all, its working with whats available and still CREDIBLE. You ask for credible sources and I provided them. Now you accuse me of cherry picking.
Its seems it is you that is confused, as you cannot see the plain as day facts Im presenting to you from official sources.
When it comes to infection rates and so called "outbreaks" the information is abundant.
The fear mongering is strong in the "dangers of measles in the western world" compared with the factual evidence.
Its not my fault thats what the evidence says.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Ive told about it on here before.. but my oldest had severe reactions ( 2) to the MMR. They were so obvious and profound that we filled out 2 sets of VAERS reports through the Dr and hospital. We dont know why really some do and some dont have reactions.. but its a fact. Predisposition, genetics, whatever... why take the chance. Particularly if you have an older child with a severe reaction that has caused lifetime difficulties and then they attempt to pressure you into getting the other younger kids vaccinated with the MMR.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

OneManArmy

Pardon?

OneManArmy

Pardon?

OneManArmy

boncho



Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2011, there were 158 000 measles deaths globally – about 430 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2011 worldwide.
In 2011, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.


www.who.int...

So yes, you are right, measles doesn't cause much death in places there are vaccinations for it.


Im not calling for the banning of vaccinations, if you had read my posts you would have seen that all Im asking for is a choice for separate vaccines from the MMR. I also showed how the fear of measles is wildly overblown and grossly exaggerated. Measles was almost eradicated in the UK BEFORE vaccinations even started.
Good health care and better hygiene alone almost eradicated it. So arguing that vaccinations are the cause of measles decline is a blatant lie.
I think in the UK we have had only one death in the UK attributed to measles in the last few years, in a grown man with other problems, the measles being the actual cause of death was indeterminate.
Im also not claiming that any vaccine causes autism, Im saying they cause death and other illnesses.
Its possible, and Im going to do further deeper research on it, that MMR vaccines have killed more people in the UK than measles over the past 4 years.
Its funny how they try to keep the deaths caused by vaccines secret. Its also not the easiest thing in the world to find mortality rates for vaccinations, or measles for that matter. They trumpet on about the infection rates and scare monger people to get vaccinated, but the scaremongering isnt justified by the NHS, WHO nor CDC's OWN STATISTICS.
Im not pulling numbers out of the air, and prefer to use their own statistics.

Just for the record, Im not anti vaccine, Im pro choice, im pro freedom, Im anti court judgements ordering parents to risk harming their children when they are not comfortable with it.
And first and foremost, Im pro truth.


Measles wasn't "almost eradicated in the UK BEFORE vaccinations even started".
Whilst it's true the mortality rate (no. of deaths) was dropping pre-vaccine (due to better living conditions and medicine), it was only AFTER vaccines were introduced that the INCIDENCE of measles fell.

You claim that vaccines cause death and other illnesses then you say that "you're going to do further research on it" so what's your claim based upon?
You say "Its also not the easiest thing in the world to find mortality rates for vaccinations" but in the sentence above you allude that you when all of the data (which is verifiable to the nth degree) says there aren't.
And this data isn't the NHS's, WHO's or the CDC's. It's submitted by individual doctors and it can be checked and re-checked if necessary.
One set of data that does take a fair bit of digging to find (but it's there if you know where to look) is the number of children who have been irreversibly harmed by measles related diseases like septicaemia but have lived albeit with a disability.
That number dropped dramatically after vaccinations were introduced and has thankfully stayed very low.
However, if the incidence of measles increases then surprise surprise, the incidence of measles related disease rises too (but not necessarily deaths due to what I mentioned above).
The anti-vaxxers seem to conveniently forget this.

You say you're not anti-vaccine but you're pro-choice.
Who's choice are you for?
Personally I'm pro-choice in favour of children not getting vaccine preventable diseases especially when the risk from the vaccine is about the same odds as you'd get for being struck by lightening whilst buying the winning ticket in the lottery.




Im pro choice for parents to choose whats best for their children, not a pharmaceutical company that cares more about profit than health.
You seem to be using the same tactic of ridicule by association that the chemtrail debunkers use.
Calling me an anti vaxxer is not only incorrect, it is libelous. I suggest you stop trying to character assassinate me.
Its simply rude and bad manners, and illegal.


Your not pro choice as you don't accept irrefutable evidence and promote nonsense.
That's not choice, that's confirmed bias.

Feel free to cherry pick the truth about measles rates and ignore the non-lethal harm they do too.
Pro-choice?
Really.

And I asked for confirmed deaths from MMR in the UK, not possible "linked" to "suspected adverse events" ones. That's not confirmed is it? And after reading your original post that's why I asked for proof, not conjecture but you've just posted the same again.

Going back to one of your earlier posts I find it quite strange that on one hand you state that the health organisations are hiding data on vaccines then in another post you link to the CDC page on why a vaccine was pulled.
You seem a bit confused.
Which data from them do you believe, just the stuff that fits your agenda?


And whilst you may not think you're an anti-vaxxer, believe me, you are.

Oh, I'm guessing your knowledge about UK libel laws and law in general is about as spurious as your knowledge of medicine...

edit on 21/11/13 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)


Firstly if I was an anti vaxxer, I wouldnt have vaccinated all 3 of my children.

When it comes to finding measles and vaccine mortality rates online, its like the information is buried.
Im limited on what I can find in "OFFICIAL" sources. Its not cherry picking it all, its working with whats available and still CREDIBLE. You ask for credible sources and I provided them. Now you accuse me of cherry picking.
Its seems it is you that is confused, as you cannot see the plain as day facts Im presenting to you from official sources.
When it comes to infection rates and so called "outbreaks" the information is abundant.
The fear mongering is strong in the "dangers of measles in the western world" compared with the factual evidence.
Its not my fault thats what the evidence says.


Good for you for getting them vaxed.
Not just your kids but other kids will benefit from that.

Measles and vaccine mortality rates are very available online.
They may not be the numbers you hope to see but they are all there. They're certainly not buried anywhere.


The alleged adverse incidents you present are conjecture and supposition, they are not proven therefore they are not facts.
Had those deaths been proven to be vax related they'd have been splashed all over the papers.
Remember Wakefield? His "study" made the front page.
The retraction hardly got a mention.

As for the cherry picking you did it directly with one of my posts and you're repeating your post about 4 alleged vaccine deaths (in 4 years) out of millions of kids who've been vaccinated.
You're using official sources when it suits then denigrating them when it doesn't.
Sure seems like picking cherries to me.



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Pardon?

Good for you for getting them vaxed.
Not just your kids but other kids will benefit from that.


Well one of my daughters is on the autism spectrum so the benefits are questionable.




Measles and vaccine mortality rates are very available online.
They may not be the numbers you hope to see but they are all there. They're certainly not buried anywhere.


I have been searching for the results, you claim they are there yet provide no links.
I have found limited information and will keep digging hence my first reference to digging deeper.




The alleged adverse incidents you present are conjecture and supposition, they are not proven therefore they are not facts.
Had those deaths been proven to be vax related they'd have been splashed all over the papers.
Remember Wakefield? His "study" made the front page.
The retraction hardly got a mention.


It was in The Telegraph, when did that cease to be a newspaper?

Yes I remember Wakefield very well, he made the mistake of suggesting more research should be done on the safety of MMR vaccine. His career was destroyed and his name was dragged through the mud, very publicly.
You have a strange comprehension of facts and history.




As for the cherry picking you did it directly with one of my posts and you're repeating your post about 4 alleged vaccine deaths (in 4 years) out of millions of kids who've been vaccinated.
You're using official sources when it suits then denigrating them when it doesn't.
Sure seems like picking cherries to me.


Im just comparing the scaremongering stories with the official facts.
Call it what you like, I call it investigation.
edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmThu, 21 Nov 2013 16:13:17 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2013 @ 04:49 PM
link   

OneManArmy

boncho



Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2011, there were 158 000 measles deaths globally – about 430 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2011 worldwide.
In 2011, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.


www.who.int...

So yes, you are right, measles doesn't cause much death in places there are vaccinations for it.


Im not calling for the banning of vaccinations, if you had read my posts you would have seen that all Im asking for is a choice for separate vaccines from the MMR. I also showed how the fear of measles is wildly overblown and grossly exaggerated. Measles was almost eradicated in the UK BEFORE vaccinations even started.
Good health care and better hygiene alone almost eradicated it. So arguing that vaccinations are the cause of measles decline is a blatant lie.


It was still a problem affecting a large portion of the population. You have to remember that it affects children primarily. So because the rates drop from 600,000 a year, to 100,000 a year, really means little when you consider the age span up to puberty, that leaves 1.5 million to get it, then compare that to the birth rate.

www.news-medical.net...

If we look at the US for example:


Measles before the vaccine
Before the vaccine, measles affected almost all of the population at some point in their lives. There were approximately three to four million cases, and an average of 450 deaths due to measles annually in the United States.

Every two to three years there was an epidemic of the infection affecting millions. Approximately 50 percent of the population had measles by the time they were six years old, and 90 percent had the disease by the time they were 15 years old.


Consider that even if measles is not in epidemic proportions, any time someone incurs a hospital stay, that is a drain on the economy on a preventable disorder. In the case of an adult it's missed work, as in, if the child is young enough, the parent may have to stay home and take care of it.

So while you say "choice", especially in a country with universal health care, you are making choices for taxpayers. I believe in choice as well, but in this case I'd say if you decide not to get it, you foot the bill for medical costs. But then again, vaccinations work when everyone gets them, not having carriers of viruses walking around.



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join