Measles is back, and it's because your kids aren't vaccinated

reply to post by ANoNyMiKE


Have you even read any of the thread or the links within it? Don't just say you have. Even try the Library or talk to a doctor, or multiple doctors and get their opinion - In Real life of course.

You clearly have not. Please read the thread, please search the ATS archives wherein you will find numerous links to the documents you requested me to find for you.

Are you not competent enough to do so yourself? Please do your own research, like the other adults and older children do...

*and please stop putting words into my mouth; implying I said something when I didn't etc... are you going to explain this Alex Jones connection (you have made) for the members or is that asking too much?

[edit on 12-9-2008 by TruthTellist]

Originally posted by TruthTellist
reply to post by ANoNyMiKE

 

I've caused autism.

Have you caused autism?

Have you even read any of the thread or the links within it?

You clearly have not. Please read the thread, please search the ATS archives wherein you will find numerous links to the documents you requested me to find for you.

Are you not competent enough to do so yourself? Please do your own research, like the other adults and older children do...

[edit on 12-9-2008 by TruthTellist]

Yep, I have. Did you not read the studies I posted? They clearly show there is no connection.

I don't see any studies supporting your claims, sorry. Please clarify by posting them if they exist rather than trying to convince me they do based on your word. I posted mine, do the same.

By the way, for someone who doesn't know who Alex Jones is, you sure post in a lot of threads defending him Oh my.

reply to post by ANoNyMiKE


I'd rather you posted some solid evidence that vaccinations prevent diseases. That's the one question I've been asking on threads like these and have read over 50 pages of pro vaccine PR without anything that resembles convincing evidence.

Without that, your efforts to deny the toxicity of vaccine ingredients is a bit of a mute point IMO.

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by ANoNyMiKE

 

I'd rather you posted some solid evidence that vaccinations prevent diseases. That's the one question I've been asking on threads like these and have read over 50 pages of pro vaccine PR without anything that resembles convincing evidence.

Without that, your efforts to deny the toxicity of vaccine ingredients is a bit of a mute point IMO.

I'll make you deal.

I will do your research for you and post it here for all to see if you will actually take a reasonable approach to the studies. If I do, and your like this other guy and give me "Well that's great but Alex Jones said it's bad.", or "Yeah but this one other obscure, retired doctor says that doesn't count." I won't waste 20 minutes or so of my time. I think that's fair?

Are you interested in the truth or in perpetuation of your perception of such and nothing else will change that?

[edit on 13-9-2008 by ANoNyMiKE]

I'll be happy to take a look at whatever you post.

However, as a concerned parent I have done my own research, months of it, so don't do this under the misconception that you're 'doing my research for me'.

I'd also appreciate if you would read the stuff you intend to post before doing so, rather than simply doing a 2 minute google and copying and pasting a few choice paragraphs.

I'm looking forward to the debate, hopefully we can both learn something.

Here is my position on the vaccination issue as it is currently presented and practiced:

1. Vaccines do not work
2. Vaccines are unnecessary
3. Vaccines are often dangerous to health and potentially lethal.

If any one of the above is accurate, then injecting a newborn with a cocktail of toxic chemicals and foreign pathogens is IMO insane.

Studies debunking the Thimerosol/Autism link will not hold any water in this debate. I personally have not reached a conclusion about the link, however, as previously stated, it's a mute point, or at least a very minor one, when you consider the rather obvious disaster of vaccination throughout it's murky history.

Originally posted by RogerT
I'll be happy to take a look at whatever you post.

However, as a concerned parent I have done my own research, months of it, so don't do this under the misconception that you're 'doing my research for me'.

I'd also appreciate if you would read the stuff you intend to post before doing so, rather than simply doing a 2 minute google and copying and pasting a few choice paragraphs.

I'm looking forward to the debate, hopefully we can both learn something.

Here is my position on the vaccination issue as it is currently presented and practiced:

1. Vaccines do not work
2. Vaccines are unnecessary
3. Vaccines are often dangerous to health and potentially lethal.

If any one of the above is accurate, then injecting a newborn with a cocktail of toxic chemicals and foreign pathogens is IMO insane.

Studies debunking the Thimerosol/Autism link will not hold any water in this debate. I personally have not reached a conclusion about the link, however, as previously stated, it's a mute point, or at least a very minor one, when you consider the rather obvious disaster of vaccination throughout it's murky history.

See I don't understand your stance. I did read the studies and they clearly show there is no connection between the two. Can you explain why the studies are not true?

And vaccines are not a disaster at all.. I can't begin to image why you would say that. Small Pox anyone? We've managed to eradicate entire diseases! Millions of lives have been saved! I can't even wrap my head around your logic and I don't mean that to be a jerk I just can't see it.

My first point is what I want to know mainly, it just sounds like nothing I can say would sway you. Any studies that don't say vaccines are bad, are wrong, why? What then makes a study valid besides it's result?

Measles made me itch
Calomine lotion no work
Vaccinate you kids : )

reply to post by ANoNyMiKE


Look, I can understand why you wouldn't want to follow up on your offer of engaging in this debate.

It's easy to take the stance that vaccinations eradicate diseases, as that's what we have all been spoonfed since birth.

When I challenge posters to actually back up the assertion with something more than rhetoric and pharma PR they usually begin the same way as you "come on man, it's obvious, since vaccines were introduced there is no more smallpox/polio/xxx so vaccines must work", which is like me saying "there is no smallpox anymore so England's world cup win in 1966 must have eradicated the disease".

Just because one thing follows another chronologically does not infer a cause and effect relationship.

What generally happens next is the poster either goes for the ad hom attack, or they go off to find all that scientific evidence to prove vaccines are the wonder of the ages. When they fail to find any evidence, they either come back to PR and ad hom, or they just stop posting and quietly hope no-one will notice and they can go back to 'just believing' their medical conditioning.

So are you up for this or not?

If you can really show me convincing evidence that I am wrong on all 3 counts of my above post, I promise to accept my mistakes and reconsider my stance of vaccines.

As for your whining about why your posted articles don't 'count', well if we were debating the connection of vaccines to autism, then they would be worthy input. But as I have offered to debate the merits, efficacy and dangers of mass vaccination campaigns as a whole, this small but contentious issue is hardly a rebuttal to my assertions.

If you want to continue, let's start by finding out if mass vaccination campaigns have 'done what they said on the tin' or not. Show me some convincing evidence that vaccines have eradicated any major disease in history. Why don't we start with measles, as this is what the OP is about. That's a good start.

edit to add -- Vaccine threads usually run about 20 pages before fizzling out without any convincing evidence, so we still have quite a way to go

[edit on 13/9/08 by RogerT]

To prove that your first statement, "Vaccines do not work," is incorrect, what would be required? Would a double-blind, peer-reviewed study comparing infection rates in a vaccinated and placebo-vaccinated population be sufficient? And what level of "working" do you require? Nothing in life is 100% -- if the vaccine reduces active disease process by 85%, would that be enough?

An example: suppose 1000 infants are given vaccine x and 1000 infants are given a placebo. Of the vaccinated infants, 2 get the disease being vaccinated for, and of the placebo (control) group, 20 of the infants do. Would you accept that as proof that the vaccine works?

Edit: and how many different vaccines do we have to show proof for? Is your position that vaccines never work because the theory is flawed or that some particular vaccines are ineffective?

[edit on 9/14/08 by americandingbat]

reply to post by RogerT

In agreement,

A Law forcing a Country to purchase mass quantities of vaccines - be they used or not - would be a source of vast profits for a pharmaceutical corporation.

All companies have an obligation to their shareholders to make the most profits they can and refusing to lobby for such a law would put them at legal risk for not fulfilling these obligations.

The latest 'flu shots' have not even been matched correctly to the predominant strains prevalent in the time periods and areas to which they were administered -this nullfies the argument that this sort of vaccination program is in some way reducing profits. When in Reality, it is the opposite....

.. Governments Wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars to purchase a stockpile of vaccines that were proven utterly ineffective; being based on a strain of influenza that was NOT prevalent during the period and through which the vaccine was designed and supposed to give protection against.

Keep up the work work Roger, Your posts are important.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by TruthTellist]

Hey uh...

131 got it
63 were not Vaccinated

That means, 68, vaccinated, got it. More than 50% of the sickened, got the disease, even though vaccinated...


IOW: Pointless.

reply to post by americandingbat


Why don't you post your study instead of hypotheticals and then we can discuss the study, not the idea of one.

How many vaccines? Well, if you were supporting injecting my children with some toxic cocktail, then each and every one of them would need to be demonstrated safe, effective and necessary. Isn't that common sense?

[edit on 14/9/08 by RogerT]

The latest 'flu shots' have not even been matched correctly to the predominant strains prevalent in the time periods and areas to which they were administered - so you cannot make the argument that this was in some way reducing profits. In fact, it was the opposite.

Well as a Doc, you would know better than me, but my understanding is that flu shots are manufactured in advance of the 'flu season' and therefore the cocktail of pathogens is an educated guess at best? Surely it is impossible to predict how any given virus will mutate and present itself in the future?

reply to post by Foxe


I think this point has been covered earlier in the thread and the conclusions you are drawing are not supported by the article in its entirety. Better to read the whole thing rather than jumping to conclusions based on limited info - after all, that is what many of the pro-vaccine camp have been doing all their lives by swallowing the pharma PR and defending it most vociferously when challenged to think for themselves

reply to post by ANoNyMiKE

I'll make you deal.

I will do your research for you and post it here for all to see if you will actually take a reasonable approach to the studies.

...


Are you interested in the truth or in perpetuation of your perception of such and nothing else will change that?

Hmm, well it seems as if you are finding it as difficult as everyone else to:

1) Come up with any convincing evidence that mass vaccination is effective, safe and necessary.
2) Admit to it.

Perhaps you are still searching or maybe you're hoping no one will notice your quiet retreat from the debate before it even begins.

And I thought we had a deal !

[edit on 14/9/08 by RogerT]

reply to post by RogerT


I will ask again directly:

Is it your position that vaccines don't work because the theory behind them is flawed? Or would you be willing to reconsider your absolutist position if I can show you that one vaccine works?

Here is a nice study:

In this large, multinational trial conducted in 20,169 infants for efficacy and 63,225 infants for safety, the live attenuated RIX4414 G1P[8] HRV vaccine was highly protective against severe rotavirus gastroenteritis and related hospitalizations. This rotavirus vaccine also proved to be safe with respect to the risk of intussusception.

Within this trial setting, the vaccine was not associated with an increased risk of intussusception during a 31-day period after administration of either of the two doses, as compared with placebo.

Would you be willing to accept this study as evidence that the HRV oral vaccine is effective against rotavirus? That unlike earlier rotavirus vaccines which have been withdrawn from market it does not increase risk of intussusception (a condition where one portion of the intestine slides over the next, risking blockage)?

[edit on 9/14/08 by americandingbat]

[edit on 9/14/08 by americandingbat]

Thanks for that link. At first glance this does indeed seem to be one up for the vaccine camp, but I will look closer and see if all is as it seems on the surface.

Did you notice this in the study:

Fifty-six deaths occurred in the vaccine group, and 43 in the placebo group ... Further analysis of the deaths stratified at the level of MedDRA preferred terms suggested that there was a potential imbalance of deaths due to pneumonia among infants receiving the HRV vaccine.

I'm still reading, and I am curious to know if any reasearch was given to the possibility that the new HRV vaccine had anything to do with the pneumonia.

From the study, it does indeed appear that gastroenteritis is reduced, however, there are other completely safe, proven and natural ways to do this.

Will this be one more case of a vaccine withdrawn at a later date when the adverse effects become clearer, as has been the case with all previous HRV vaccines as my brief searching appears to show?

[edit on 15/9/08 by RogerT]

I have finished reading the study and have some more comments.

As a reminder, the summary of my position on mass vaccination as currently practised is:

1. Vaccines do not work
2. Vaccines are unnecessary
3. Vaccines are often harmful to health and potentially lethal

Let's assume that the study you posted is:

a) Accurate
b) Comprehensive
c) Fully disclosed (meaning there is no data that has been 'left out' or 'altered' to support the initial hypothesis)

Under these assumptions, Yes, I concur that in this case, for this vaccine and this condition, the vaccine appears to be effective.

Every year, rotavirus is associated with 25 million clinic visits, 2 million hospitalizations, and more than 600,000 deaths worldwide among children younger than five years of age.6,7 Development of a safe and effective rotavirus vaccine is therefore a high priority, particularly but not exclusively in developing countries, where the burden of disease is highest.

Clearly, rotavirus needs attention, whether a vaccine is the most effective way to deal with it, I would challenge, but that is another discussion, although it does fall into my second tenet of 'vaccines are unnecessary'.

We should bear in mind when discussing rotavirus that gastroenteritis caused by rotavirus is usually self-limiting and although there are claimed 2.7 million cases in U.S. children each year and 55,000 to 70,000 of those require hospital care, only 20-60 deaths were attributed to rotavirus. Hardly an epidemic. In contrast, what are the stats for the adverse reactions
to the vaccinations? We will never know.

What's interesting here, comparing those stats, is if only 20-60 of the 600,000 deaths are in the states, where are all the others. I'm going to take a guess and say predominantly developing world? Can anyone say 'nutrition' 'clean water' 'sanitation' 'sewage treatment' 'education'?

As for my third position, that vaccines are harmful to health and potentially lethal, the study does not satisfy my skepticism. Yes, the study appears to demonstrate that this vaccine does not increase risk of intussusception, which is the main thrust of the paper and reason for the withdrawal of previous hrv vaccines.

To address an earlier point you raised - Yes I do believe that the vaccine/immunity theory is flawed. The idea that immunity conveys protection against infectious disease and we can induce immunity is very seductive, however, this doesn't bear out in reality. Many studies have shown that infections can still occur in fully immune individuals.

One of the many:

Serological surveys have consistently demonstrated high rates of post-vaccination seroconversion, with long-term persistence of antibody titers…data from recent measles outbreaks show little or no evidence of waning immunity and apparent high rates of vaccine efficacy. The recent occurrence of large, sustained out-breaks in highly vaccinated school populations however, was unexpected.

Journal of the American Medical Association (May 1990) "Mild Measles and Secondary Vaccine Failure during a Sustained Outbreak in a Highly Vaccinated Population".

When you throw into the mix the profit motives of pharma companies, corrupt political agendas, eugenics, population control ideology and the sheer arrogance and ignorance of the Allopathic Medical industry, you've got a recipe for disaster that has already born itself out countless times in the past 2 centuries.

So let's take a look at Rotarix cocktail, the vaccine in your posted study...

The placebo used in the study was not sugar water, it was the rotarix vaccine minus the virus, so what are the ingredients of Rotarix? Could they be harmful?

continued next post:


[edit on 15/9/08 by RogerT]

[edit on 15/9/08 by RogerT]

The other ingredients in Rotarix are:

Powder: sucrose (sugar), dextran, sorbitol (sugar alcohol), amino acids, Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM)

Solvent: calcium carbonate, xanthan gum, sterile water

Dextran Side Effects: Although there are relatively few side-effects associated with dextran use, these side-effects can be very serious. These include anaphylaxis, volume overload, pulmonary oedema, cerebral oedema, or platelet dysfunction. An uncommon but significant complication of dextran osmotic effect is acute renal failure.

The pathogenesis of this renal failure is the subject of many debates with direct toxic effect on tubules and glomerulus versus intraluminal hyperviscosity being some of the proposed mechanisms.

Patients with history of diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, or vascular disorders are most at risk.

Brooks and others recommend the avoidance of dextran therapy in patients with chronic renal insufficiency and CrCl

as a bit of 'fun' playing with stats:

From the study: chances of contracting pneumonia and dying by taking the oral HRV vaccine Rotirax are 1 in 6,000.

From general rotavirus stats: chance of dying from contracting rotavirus in the USA are 1 in 45,000 to 1 in 135,000

So you are 7 to 21 times more likely to die from the vaccine than from the virus!

I'm not a gambling man, especially when it comes to the lives of my children, but I know which odds I'd rather take

[edit on 15/9/08 by RogerT]