The anti-vaccine thread

[Moat]

The death rate from diseases like Diphtheria, measles etc etc was declining long before vaccines arrived on the scene. And some people do suffer autism after being vaccinated - despite serious efforts being made by doctors and researchers to hide that data.

The problem is these arguments are entirely anecdotal, and may or may not relate to vaccination whatsoever.

For example; some people suffer autism after not being vaccinated. Or what about the huge increase in our exposure to new chemicals in our environment over the same time period (millions of pounds of pesticides/herbicides used in farming, plastics, air pollution due to burning fossil fuels, fracking/water supply, etc...) - could they be the cause? Or at least a contributing factor to it?

Maybe doctors/researchers are not so much trying to "hide that data" as they are simply not willing to waste their limited time/resources on something that they know is nonsense?

Things are not so clear and simple as they seem at a glance - we need to do more more research and develop hard data in support of such decisions.

Also - the mechanisms behind how antibiotics function and how vaccinations function are completely different, completely unrelated - and working on entirely different "bugs" (antibiotics being specific chemicals aimed at weakening/destroying the protein cellular wall of target bacterium - vaccines being weakened/inactive samples of the target virus, thus triggering the body's natural immune reaction process of creating a useful supply of antigen "markers" for said target, thus preparing the body for readiness in response to future exposures of the same virus).

Not saying that vaccinations can't become ineffective due to viral mutations (they do - seasonal influenza for instance), but AFAIK it's far less likely/common for the "biggies" - and in any case, new vaccines can be produced to fight them (either in the lab, or via the body's own immune system). Not necessarily so for developing new, mutation-effective antibiotics, unfortunately...

Bob

[Galbi]

And what happens when my right of choice, puts in risk your (or your family) health?

The right to choose, sounds very democratic, but the thing is that science it's not democratic.

Please, google images of viruela which was erradicated thanks to vaccines, just to mention one example...

Saludos.

[Terry H]

The British doctor who started the entire ADD/vaccination uproar was proven a fraud, IIRC.

See ... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

but wait....there's more. Scientist who investigated study, has refuted the fraud charge.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ongoing-investigations-by-dr-david-lewis-refute-fraud-findings-in-dr-andrew-wakefield-case-133649563.html

[Barkin]

but wait....there's more. Scientist who investigated study, has refuted the fraud charge.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 49563.html

That "Andy's not-guilty" press-release is from "strategic autism initiative" ...
http://www.prnewswire.com/news/strategic-autism-initiative

Guess who is the president of "strategic autism initiative" , (p7/22) ...

[perdido]

One thought about mandatory vaccinations.
There is a possibility of your government secretly injecting rfid chip(s) and claiming its a "vaccination".
That way you can be tracked for your next vaccination.
But your government would not do that...

[perdido]

Who Should NOT Get Vaccinated with these Vaccines?
Adenovirus
Anthrax
DTaP
Hep A
Hep B
Hib
HPV-Gardasil-9
HPV-Gardasil
Influenza
JE Ixiaro
MMR
MMRV
Meningococcal
Serogroup B Meningococcal (MenB)
PCV13
PPSV23
Polio
Rabies
Rotavirus
Shingles
Smallpox
Td
Tdap
Typhoid
Varicella (chickenpox)
Yellow Fever

As greengeek has mentioned, best to use your own judgement on whether to vaccinate.

.

[Moat]

Who Should NOT Get Vaccinated with these Vaccines?

That's common sense, and largely goes without saying.

The real issue is otherwise healthy vaccination candidates who decide not to be vaccinated due to whatever ideological/religious/conspiracy/etc reasons (i.e. - "free-riders"); a certain number of the population must remain immune/resistant in order to prevent future outbreaks;

Herd Immunity

The people listed in your above CDC's "Should NOT" article are the very ones who greatly benefit from this exact thing - who's lives depend on it. Galbi's post above about questioning the right to choose if it puts the health of others at risk, is appropriate towards maintaining a herd immunity. In the past, the U.S courts have supported overriding that right, for that reason;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Smallpox is one example of an unimaginably awful, nasty bitch, for which we can clearly and joyously thank vaccinations for eradicating;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_ ... f_smallpox

Don't knock it 'til ya' try it...

Bob

[p310don]

The problem with the right to choose whether to vaccinate kids or yourselves, is that oftentimes, the individuals lack the knowledge and understanding to make an informed decision. Unfortunately immunology is so far out of the grasp of the average joe, yet he/she wants to have an opinion on it.

One can only look at the eradication (or near so) of such diseases such as smallpox, polio, measles etc to see that vaccination works.

[Barkin]

... what about the huge increase in our exposure to new chemicals in our environment over the same time period (millions of pounds of pesticides/herbicides used in farming, plastics, air pollution due to burning fossil fuels, fracking/water supply, etc...) - could they be the cause? Or at least a contributing factor to it?

Autism runs in families: once there is one autistic child subsequent children are >10x more likely than average to have it.
The older the parents, the higher the incidence of autism, just like a genetic disorder.
Male:Female ratio in autism is 4:1 , just like you get with an x-linked genetic disorder.

[greengeek]

Maybe doctors/researchers are not so much trying to "hide that data" as they are simply not willing to waste their limited time/resources on something that they know is nonsense?

I was referring to the specific case where Merck deliberately discarded the data that showed certain people DID get autism as a direct result of receiving the MMR vaccine:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-s ... 81914.html

Here is a quote:

The third whistleblower -- a senior CDC scientist named William Thompson -- only indirectly blew the whistle on Merck. He more blew it on himself and colleagues at the CDC who participated in a 2004 study involving the MMR vaccine. Here, the allegations involve a cover-up of data pointing to high rates of autism in African-American boys after they were vaccinated with MMR.

[greengeek]

One can only look at the eradication (or near so) of such diseases such as smallpox, polio, measles etc to see that vaccination works.

It is easy to confuse co-incidence with causation. The graphs available at the link I provided show that measles was on the decline well before vaccination became available. Vaccines were not the cause of that decline in mortality.

Barkin implies that vaccination has been responsible for the improvements in public health since 1800 but that claim is bogus. The declines in disease were attributable to people like Sir Christopher Wren and others who championed fresh air, effective sewerage systems, Pasteurisation of milk, refrigeration etc etc.

Here is the link again:
http://wavesnz.org.nz/immunity/disease-decline/

[greengeek]

... the steady increase in longevity ...

So, by your own admission, a "steady increase in longevity", has accompanied widespread vaccination.
Vaccination can't be doing much harm then.

Your graphs are a good study in poor science. Take a look at the figure for a person born in the year 2000. Your graph implies they will live to be 78 years old.

Anyone who assumes that they know how many millenials will still be alive in the year 2078 is not much of a scientist and nothing more than a crystal ball polisher.

The increase in child cancer, strange leukemias, autism etc etc may well have an impact on the longevity of current generations.

Attributing better longevity purely to vaccines is incompatible with the graphs showing massive health improvements well PRIOR to the introduction of vaccination campaigns.

[greengeek]

What was the TB Society (?) logo... a three-armed cross?
Today - or in the last 30 years or so? Gone. Completely disappeared from the public's eye, perception and concern, as those vaccination programs were apparently hugely successful.

The idea that TB is "gone" is a good example of the inaccurate whitewashing we get fed by vaccine shrills.

In New Zealand, there are approximately 300 cases of TB diagnosed each year. While life-threatening complications such as haemorrhage from the lungs are now rare, TB can still be a very serious disease, particularly for older people."

http://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/c ... is-disease

Vaccines will never eliminate ANY disease. Those diseases will always be present. Vaccines also cannot guarantee you immunity. Healthy living environments, healthy diets, good sanitation and good medical care are the best guarantees of survival.

[greengeek]

The right to choose, sounds very democratic, but the thing is that science it's not democratic.

Are you saying that you feel I should be forced to receive a faulty vaccine because it makes you feel more safe? That is why I responded to your original pic.

My stepdaughter has been told by her doctor never to have a Tetanus injection ever again - due to serious complications that arose the first time.

Some people do experience serious side effects from vaccines. So why should their freedom to choose be taken away?

As a child I received vaccines that contain simian viruses so I know that vaccine science is never perfect and can adversely affect longevity and morbidity.

Why do "baby boomers" suffer so much Hep C?? Possibly because of the exposure to poor quality vaccines given in the late fifties and early sixties.
http://www.healthline.com/health/hepati ... #overview1

[greengeek]

Herd Immunity

I am so glad someone mentioned "herd immunity" - the biggest unscientific con ever.

Lets play a little game:

Moat and Barkin I hope you hope you don't mind me using you as examples since you appear to be pro mandatory vaccination:

Lets imagine that Moat and Barkin are in a room together and are both vaccinated. Do they have "herd immunity"? Yes!

Now let me walk into the same room - and lets assume that I am unvaccinated. Do Barkin and Moat still have 'herd immunity"? No!! They lost it as soon as I walked into the room.

Herd immunity is a bogus concept which really means "isolation". If you build a social wall around you and live in isolation then you can avoid disease.

"Herd immunity" is a concept being pushed by doctors in an attempt to shame people out of excerising their right to choose what goes into their bodies, however the truth is that if you are using an airport toilet you can immediately lose your herd immunity anytime someone walks into the next cubicle.

Oh yeah - the same goes for the local mall and local school too. And the gas station. And the footy game. And the cinema...

[greengeek]

Autism runs in families: once there is one autistic child subsequent children are >10x more likely than average to have it.
The older the parents, the higher the incidence of autism, just like a genetic disorder.
Male:Female ratio in autism is 4:1 , just like you get with an x-linked genetic disorder.

You still have not addressed Mercks behaviour in hiding the results of their MMR testing - and the genuine increase in autism after vaccination that it showed.

Your links above suggest that some people are genetically susceptible to Autism. Thank you for pointing that out. Those families should have the right to make an informed decision about whether or not they inject themselves with a vaccine proven to increase the autism rate in susceptible people.

[Sylvander]

Be careful with statistics.
Example:
The ages at which people are said to have died are probably "the mean age of death".
This creates a problem.
When there is a large infant mortality rate, that skews the MEAN.
i.e. Makes it seem as though people are dying young, when that is not so.
A large proportion are dying VERY YOUNG, which reduces the MEAN to make it well below the MODE [most common age of death].
Hence, people appearing to live longer may actually be children not dying in large numbers at an early age.

In the 1700's and 1800's, those who didn't die in childhood would [by definition] commonly live to an age greater than the MEAN age of death.

EXAMPLES:
When I was studying my ancestors for my family tree....
I found:
a. A female who lived to be 100+, born in the 1700's died in the 1800's.
She lived all her life in "Gatehouse of Fleet", which was known for people living to a very old age back then.
The environment/air/water/food were very clean/wholesome, and there was plenty of fish in their diet.
Although there were practically no pensions back then, she didn't need one; she owned a house and rented out rooms to young relatives.

b. Two elderly widows whose husbands had been miners [tied houses].
Hence, they had no pension [no means of support?]
They both killed themselves I believe, using gas [asphyxia].
Robert Burns said: "October is the month when the English hang and drown themselves".
This cause now eliminated by the introduction of Social Security payments [pensions].

c. Two men, father & son, who both died around middle age of "dropsy" [chronic lead poisoning].
Low quality pewter tankard including too much lead?
Lead introduced to cider during pressing of the apples?
Lead water pipes, and lead-lined water tanks?
Eliminated by no longer using lead in contact with drinking water, and using "potable water" straight from the water main, not from a storage tank.

d. A woman who bore MANY children ["the rich get the money and the poor get children"].
It was common for poor women to have a child every 2 or 3 years between the ages of 21 and 40, and so have up to 16 children.
This woman in her early 40's contracted an infection related to the birth of her final child, and since poor women lived in a bad environment [4 to a room was the norm], ate poor/scarce food and usually didn't have any medical care, she died.
I guess she was totally worn out.
Improvements in family planning, food, accommodation, and medical care have improved the situation dramatically.

e. My father's, father's, only wife's 1st husband...
A young father of 3 who was killed in an accident in an open cast coal mine near Edinburgh in the late 1800's.
"Premature explosion of shot".
"Fracture to the base of the skull".
They had 3 children.
She was put out of her house.
Had to go live with her husbands parents and 2 of their offspring; 8 in total living in their 2-room miners cottage.
Improvements in mine safety has no doubt reduced the accident rate.

[Burn_IT]

My Father was the seventh child of a seventh child.
Actually his Grandmother had 11 children and 8 of those 11 children had 11 children.
My latest move with work just happened to take me within 2 miles of where my father was born and I often meet people in the pub that are relatives that I've never known.
One I met recently at a family wedding is the spitting image of what I looked like at his age, and he has exactly the same names as well.

[Barkin]

www.huffingtonpost

see ... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post

whistleblower -- a senior CDC scientist named William Thompson ...

See ... http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/?s=%22CDC+whistleblower%22

[Barkin]

When there is a large infant mortality rate, that skews the MEAN.

Stats on childhood mortality are available ... https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality/