The toll of the anti-vaccination movement, in one devastating graphic

Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
So, vaccines don't work? And how can I live in a sanitary, disease free environment 24/7?



Sorry. I was grumpy at the time and found your "makes you wonder" a bit naive.
Click to expand...
Vaccines use epidemiological studies to prover their "validity." Epidemiology is unscientific.

Cornell University said:
Epidemiological studies can never prove causation; that is, it cannot prove that a specific risk factor actually causes the disease being studied.
Click to expand...
One specific example is tetanus vaccines. In areas where tetanus vaccines are administered, tetanus occurrences decrease. But at the same time, the environment where tetanus thrives is minimized. We have fewer incidents of tetanus in the United States, even without the vaccine. So does the vaccine really work, or if it does, does it work well enough compared to the risks from the vaccine itself?

The OP's graph proves what I'm saying and your comment about being in a barracks with 100 men does too. Unlike the areas where these diseases are widespread, we keep everything clean. From our drinking supply, hospitals, private residence, and places in the public.

Because of ethical considerations, we can't use a control environment and force people to live in unsanitary conditions, which includes how our hospitals have the hospital chemical cleaner smell. If you go into any area where people are immune deficient, you must wash your hands for two minutes with this really strong germicidal chemical soap. Like when I visited my children when they were in the Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit. Those types of conditions just don't exist in "third world" countries where the OP tries to "prove," that, "the toll of the anti-vaccination movement!" Again, is it our soap, or the vaccines?

The government itself knows vaccines are unknown. It just coddles the pharmaceutical companies into fooling you these vaccines are safe because of the money involved, when there's no proof either way. What makes you wonder is if they're so effective, why has the Supreme Court ruled you cannot sue the government, doctor or companies who makes these poisons if you have a reaction and one of your loved ones becomes extremely ill or dies based on the same epidemiological evidence it must have been the vaccine? Hmmm?

Why doesn't epidemiological evidence work both ways?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan said:
Vaccines use epidemiological studies to prover their "validity." Epidemiology is unscientific.



One specific example is tetanus vaccines. In areas where tetanus vaccines are administered, tetanus occurrences decrease. But at the same time, the environment where tetanus thrives is minimized. We have fewer incidents of tetanus in the United States, even without the vaccine. So does the vaccine really work, or if it does, does it work well enough compared to the risks from the vaccine itself?

The OP's graph proves what I'm saying and your comment about being in a barracks with 100 men does too. Unlike the areas where these diseases are widespread, we keep everything clean. From our drinking supply, hospitals, private residence, and places in the public.

Because of ethical considerations, we can't use a control environment and force people to live in unsanitary conditions, which includes how our hospitals have the hospital chemical cleaner smell. If you go into any area where people are immune deficient, you must wash your hands for two minutes with this really strong germicidal chemical soap. Like when I visited my children when they were in the Neo-natal Intensive Care Unit. Those types of conditions just don't exist in "third world" countries where the OP tries to "prove," that, "the toll of the anti-vaccination movement!" Again, is it our soap, or the vaccines?

The government itself knows vaccines are unknown. It just coddles the pharmaceutical companies into fooling you these vaccines are safe because of the money involved, when there's no proof either way. What makes you wonder is if they're so effective, why has the Supreme Court ruled you cannot sue the government, doctor or companies who makes these poisons if you have a reaction and one of your loved ones becomes extremely ill or dies based on the same epidemiological evidence it must have been the vaccine? Hmmm?

Why doesn't epidemiological evidence work both ways?
Click to expand...
One simple question... How do you explain this?

 
M

minnesmoker

Well-Known Member
So much wrong, bad, and misleading information get...

Canna, vaccines can, and mostly do, work.

You have said repeatedly that there are dangers to vaccines. Well, prove it. Prove that there's a risk based on vaccination please. Prove that the chemicals in vaccinations, or the quantity of those chemicals, causes health issues aside from the statistical expectation. The following causes of reaction are not caused by the vaccine, they're each pre existing, and any legitimate scientific research would include caveats stating the same. Pre existing allergies, weakened immune functions, currently ill with an analogue/mutation, malnourished, our otherwise suffering from a compromised immune system during injection.)

Please don't give me any citation that's not bound in blood to either a medical journal of proven history, or from a research college or institute that discloses their methodology. You want scientific method, all so do I. I also respect burden of proof. You made the accusation that they're dangerous - more dangerous than a weakened herd, so, please convict with evidence.



Personally, I don't do vaccinations, no flu shots, no boosters. I don't need a majority of them, and don't like paying for what I don't need. Of course, I realize my decision compromises others around me, as some are susceptible to diseases even after immunization, and people with a family history of immunity can become carriers without ever becoming ill or showing any symptoms. I don't care though. My choice is selfish, it's about me and my family, that's the only herd I concern myself with. I won't make a disingenuous, fallacious argument against the shots, just because I don't like random doctors jabbing me.
 
Cascadian

Cascadian

Well-Known Member
Ever since they put squalene in the H1N1 vaccine even though it was illegal in the U.S. for good reason, I don't trust anything vaccine related until I research it and know exactly what is in it... no acceptions. Btw they planned an immunizing 75 million children with it.

I see the benefits of vaccines for pandemic diseases, don't get me wrong. I am just saying to blindly take a vaccine because Uncle Sam said so is the definition of a "retard alert" IMO.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Cascadian said:
Ever since they put squalene in the H1N1 vaccine even though it was illegal in the U.S. for good reason, I don't trust anything vaccine related until I research it and know exactly what is in it... no acceptions. Btw they planned an immunizing 75 million children with it.

I see the benefits of vaccines for pandemic diseases, don't get me wrong. I am just saying to blindly take a vaccine because Uncle Sam said so is the definition of a "retard alert" IMO.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's why I'm vaccinated, because Uncle Sam told me to do it, not because they work or anything...
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
So vaccines are dangerous are they? Yet millions of people are vaccinated with very little lasting side effects

The anti-vaccine movement is ignorant of what vaccines are and how they work so they are afraid of them, just like in most other things people don't know anything about
 
racerboy71

racerboy71

bud bootlegger
kinetic said:
If you're a contractor working in a hospital they are. I wonder how many people would turn down prevailing wage based on their belief?
Click to expand...
my sister is a nurse, and a few times a year she gets paid to go to big co's in the area and give out hundreds of flu shots, and of course she always has a few extras, and is always pushing them on me and my mom..mom, being older, always says yes, me being healthy and younger, always say hell no..
 
Cascadian

Cascadian

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Yeah, that's why I'm vaccinated, because Uncle Sam told me to do it, not because they work or anything...
Click to expand...
I said "blindly" take a vaccine because Uncle Sam told you. I also said any vaccine should be researched before taking it. You say they work, so clearly you have "researched" it and drawn your own conclusion. Congratulations on that, it was exactly my point. Not sure how any of it was missed?

On the squalene matter, you are welcome to it. I will never put that shit in my body for any reason...
 
M

minnesmoker

Well-Known Member
kinetic said:
If you're a contractor working in a hospital they are. I wonder how many people would turn down prevailing wage based on their belief?
Click to expand...
Ok, but do YOU think they should be mandatory, across the board? I'm just blatant about my reason -- inconvenience. I won't lie and claim any adverse affect fears. Nor will I lie and claim that, when I eat food prepared in the first world, I'm scared of possible chemical introduction.

racerboy71 said:
my sister is a nurse, and a few times a year she gets paid to go to big co's in the area and give out hundreds of flu shots, and of course she always has a few extras, and is always pushing them on me and my mom..mom, being older, always says yes, me being healthy and younger, always say hell no..
Click to expand...
Statistically speaking, with the flu pandemics aren't you (healthy, younger, male) more likely to die from the resultant cytokine storm? That's the reason the 1918 flu was so devastating. (That, and the guys that suffered the most were stressed, in wartime, were exposed to biological materials, and survived in less than sanitary conditions.)

Depending on the expected flu track for the year, if my sis offered shots, I might take her up some years. (I doubt our family has a lot of immunity to west-African viral outbreaks.)
 
neosapien

neosapien

Well-Known Member
For most people vaccines will do more good than harm but to say that vaccines can not be dangerous is a lie. Guillain-barré syndrome was linked to flu vaccines in 76-77 as well as SV40 contamination in the Polio vaccine administered from 55-63. Who's to say what we find in the next 20 years about all these new vaccines.

My wife received her first ever flu vaccine when she was 30 weeks pregnant at the behest and pressuring of her obi/gyn. 10 days later she was diagnosed by exclusion with full blown Bell's Palsy. A study in Sweden did find an increased risk of Bell's Palsy and narcolepsy with the flu vaccine. No one, not the hospital, not her pcp, not her obi/gyn made any note about the vaccine and developing the Bell's Palsy. If they didn't record anything for her, how many other people have they not recorded? If you do a search for flu vaccine and Bell's Palsy, you'll find a plethora of testimonials just like my wife's. According to the research I've done, some doctors think that in some people the flu vaccine tricks the body's immune system into attacking the 7th facial nerve resulting in the Bell's Palsy. Nowadays, if you have kids, most doctors won't even treat them if they're not vaccinated. And the bottom line is never health. It is profits. Billions. Just some food for thought.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Come on people. Vaccines do not do more harm than good. You can cherry pick statistic all you want but the fact of the matter is vaccines are hands down one of the greatest things to ever happen to humanity in terms of saving lives and preventing illness. There is absolutely no debate about it, to think otherwise is having your head up your ass. Most intelligent people will equate anti-vaxxers with evolution deniers.

It sucks that your wife, or your child, or whoever develops any type of disease. But a quick look at the statistical number of cases of any given disease, and the amount of vaccines administered, I would be absolutely shocked to NOT find a number of cases of diseases developing right after a vaccine.

That's like me saying I watched law and order, and then the next day was diagnosed with cancer. WTF law and order gave me cancer! I almost never watch it, and I did, and BAM I got cancer! But again looking at the number of people who occasionally watch law and order, and the number of people that get diagnosed with cancer, I would be shocked to NOT find a great number of people getting cancer directly after watching an episode.

Same with people smoking MJ and having heart attacks. The sheer number of each means statistically it will happen simultaneously some of the time. A lot actually. But it doesn't mean it's a cause and effect.
 
Cascadian

Cascadian

Well-Known Member
Just some food for thought below. My stance is that for me, I chose not to inject squalene for any reason. If you chose to that is your business. I feel there are too many questions about it's safety. And the potential ailments it precipitates have too long of a "gestation" for me to be comfortable. The bold is mine below. To each his own... Peace

The role of squalene in vaccines Why, then, would anyone want to inject squalene directly into the bloodstream?
Well, some pharmaceutical companies that produce vaccines see an advantage in this. The role of squalene in vaccines is to act as an immune adjuvant that makes the vaccine more effective by enhancing the body's immune response. This means two things:

  1. Less of the original virus is required to make each dose of vaccine. And it can be argued that such vaccines are, in fact, safer than vaccines that do not contain adjuvants but contain more of the original virus.
  2. More vaccine can be produced in a shorter period of time.
Technically, squalene is actually not an adjuvant but a component of adjuvants used by vaccine makers. But in everyday language, squalene in vaccines is commonly described as an adjuvant.


Danger of squalene in vaccines Currently, there are two types of squalene in vaccines used as adjuvants - MF59 used by Novartis and AS03 used by GlaxoSmithKline. Of the two, MF59 is more controversial and widely discussed, while not a lot is being discussed about AS03. However, both contan squalene squelent and are not allowed in the US, but used in Europe and most other countries.
Many Americans believe MF59 was one of the ingredients in an anthrax vaccine given to US troops in the 1991 Gult War and that it caused or contributed to the "Gulf War Syndrome", in which tens of thousands of US troops suffered a wide range of medically unexplained symptoms.
These include:

  • chronic fatigue
  • loss of muscle control
  • headaches and dizziness
  • loss of balance
  • memory problems
  • muscle and joint pain
  • indigestion
  • skin problems
  • shortness of breath
  • insulin resistance.
The Defense and Veterans Affairs departments have now recognised the following symptoms as being potentially connected to the Gulf War:



  • Brain cancer deaths
  • amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)
  • multiple sclerosis
  • fibromyalgia.
However, the US Department of Defense has denied that squalene was added to the anthrax vaccine recived by Gilf War troops as well as by participants in the more recent Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP). However, the FDA discovered the presence of squalene in certain lots of AVIP product.

This has led to intense debates, with some Americans saying they do not trust the Department of Defense and other government bodies, while others have dismissed any link between squalene and the Gulf War Syndrome as being unproven and untrue.
Those who see a danger in squalene say it is strongly associated with auto immune diseases, where the body's immune system attack healthy cells. The trouble is, these diseases take years to develop and it is hard to pin point the cause to squalene in vaccines, or, for that matter, other causes.

Indirectly acknowledging the dangers of squalene in vaccines, doctors and government health authorities often recommend that pregnant women and young children be given vaccines without adjuvants.
More indirect affirmations came from Germany, where it was reported in October that government officials, the German military, police and members of pandemic crisis committees will receive a non adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine produced by Baxter that does not contain squalene, while the general public will only be offered the GlaxoSmithKline Pandemrix shot, which contains the adjuvalent squalene in vaccines.

This led to public outrage. And the result is that most Germans are now rejecting the H1N1 vaccine even though it is being offered for free. Latest polls indicate that, as of November 2009, only 13 percent of Germans say they would get themselves vaccinated whereas two months earlier, some 51 percent of Germans said they would.

Incidentally, why doesn't Baxter, unlike other vaccine manufacturers, use squalene in vaccines? According to them, and contrary to popular belief, adjuvants such as squalene in vaccines DO NOT enhance the immune response and the effectiveness of vaccines.
 
M

minnesmoker

Well-Known Member
neosapien said:
For most people vaccines will do more good than harm but to say that vaccines can not be dangerous is a lie. Guillain-barré syndrome was linked to flu vaccines in 76-77 as well as SV40 contamination in the Polio vaccine administered from 55-63. Who's to say what we find in the next 20 years about all these new vaccines.
Click to expand...
Were you ALIVE in 76-77? Or 55-63?
In 1915, you could buy Heroin (Bayer brand) at the druggist's.

neosapien said:
My wife received her first ever flu vaccine when she was 30 weeks pregnant at the behest and pressuring of her obi/gyn. 10 days later she was diagnosed by exclusion with full blown Bell's Palsy. A study in Sweden did find an increased risk of Bell's Palsy and narcolepsy with the flu vaccine. No one, not the hospital, not her pcp, not her obi/gyn made any note about the vaccine and developing the Bell's Palsy. If they didn't record anything for her, how many other people have they not recorded? If you do a search for flu vaccine and Bell's Palsy, you'll find a plethora of testimonials just like my wife's. According to the research I've done, some doctors think that in some people the flu vaccine tricks the body's immune system into attacking the 7th facial nerve resulting in the Bell's Palsy. Nowadays, if you have kids, most doctors won't even treat them if they're not vaccinated. And the bottom line is never health. It is profits. Billions. Just some food for thought.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing for or against -- I can't even find out if a majority of pro-vaccine advocates want mandatory vaccinating.

Your study tells me one thing, though, that your anecdotal evidence also tells me: people in high risk groups get more flu shots, and have more reactions to the flu shots.

Again, a certain demographic of the population will react negatively to a glass door, or local tap water.
 
neosapien

neosapien

Well-Known Member
minnesmoker said:
Were you ALIVE in 76-77? Or 55-63?
In 1915, you could buy Heroin (Bayer brand) at the druggist's.



I'm not arguing for or against -- I can't even find out if a majority of pro-vaccine advocates want mandatory vaccinating.

Your study tells me one thing, though, that your anecdotal evidence also tells me: people in high risk groups get more flu shots, and have more reactions to the flu shots.

Again, a certain demographic of the population will react negatively to a glass door, or local tap water.
Click to expand...
No lol, I wasn't alive, it still goes to show that the science changes over the years.

We chose to get our daughter vaccinated for a number of reasons. The biggest beings that the doctors around here in the health group won't see you if you're not vaccinated and act as if your a complete moron and are endangering your child if you question anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top