Unvaccinated Kids Can't Threaten Others' Health if Shots are Effective
When students contract disease, vaccine proponents are quick to blame the outbreaks on unvaccinated children. Yet, the official data tells a different story: a majority of cases occur in fully vaccinated populations. Dr. William Atkinson, senior epidemiologist with the CDC, admitted that “measles transmission has been clearly documented among vaccinated persons. In some large outbreaks…over 95% of cases have a history of vaccination.” Similar problems with vaccine efficacy plague other vaccines as well. For example, in a 2003 outbreak of pertussis, 4 of every 5 people who contracted the disease were vaccinated against it. In 2006, there was a large outbreak of mumps in the United States; 92% of the cases were in people who were vaccinated against mumps. Such data provides evidence that herd immunity—the idea that when a proportion of people within a targeted population are immune to a disease, transmission rates are reduced—may not apply to vaccinated populations. Vaccination and immunity are not synonymous.
Authorities claim that vaccines won't work for society unless a very high number of people in the targeted population—school children—take them. Apparently, unvaccinated children are a threat to the group. But this does not make sense. By this reasoning, the unvaccinated—who are being coerced into taking the shots—are somehow responsible for protecting the vaccinated. How ironic! If some students are vaccinated, that's their family’s choice. If other students are unvaccinated, that's their family’s informed decision as well. Vaccinated students take their chances hoping to avoid serious adverse reactions, while unvaccinated students risk contracting the disease. However, if vaccinated students contract the disease, the shot was ineffective, NOT the fault of unvaccinated students. Officials ignore their own ineffective vaccine, choosing instead to smear the unvaccinated. Outrage should be vented in the proper direction—at those who developed ineffective shots and falsely promoted a defective product.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I was a young child in the 1950's, when my mother was persuaded with many other mothers that it was best to expose young children to measles, so that immunity for life might be had. Some of my siblings did get the measles. I seemed immune already, as i recall and never got those lovely red dots on my face. I was the family member who "played in the dirt" everyday and who was intimate with the the nearby rural valley, fields and loved climbing trees, exploring generally and even played in a stream, where a local village drained it's (low-flow) septic-seepage. (My mom worked abroad where we were stationed, and i somewhat predated the latch-key kid era).
My counter vaccination argument-- What if school kids today got diseases from additional sources, such as failure to immunize through natural means, as i did? Perhaps much less invasive, external methods exist, to immunize kids, including rational nutrition, (and banning junk foods from schools ).
Therefore why not test kids for susceptibility, straightforwardly? Is our society too primitive to rule out dangerous experiments upon the public at large? Why not use external immunization? Is it the feared loss of profiteering which prevents rational approaches?
"I was a young child in the 1950's, when my mother was persuaded with many other mothers that it was best to expose young children to measles, so that immunity for life might be had. Some of my siblings did get the measles. "
For centuries measles was a deadly disease, but after the introduction of the vaccine in the mid sixties the number of outbreaks dropped to nearly non existant... spiking only in unvaccinated populations.
This can be seen in the measles outbreak in 2006 (449 cases, vs 56 in 1998) which included the first measles death in the UK in over ten years.
"What if school kids today got diseases from additional sources, such as failure to immunize through natural means, as i did?"
Then you are accepting the high number of deaths that will correspond from allowing the disease to run through the population.
"Perhaps much less invasive, external methods exist, to immunize kids, including rational nutrition, (and banning junk foods from schools )."
Nutrition does not lead to immunization.
"Therefore why not test kids for susceptibility, straightforwardly?"
Test them for what? Cases of vaccine injury have involved very rare underlying conditions that are hard to detect without specific tests.
"Is our society too primitive to rule out dangerous experiments upon the public at large?"
There are serious ethical concerns with running such experiments... largely due to the risk of increased outbreaks in diseases (as has consistently followed reductions in vaccination ).
"Why not use external immunization?"
What do you mean by external immunization?
"Is it the feared loss of profiteering which prevents rational approaches?"
It is more like the reasonable fear of lethal outbreaks keeps such tests from being performed.
"Then you are accepting the high number of deaths that will correspond from allowing the disease to run through the population."
No, my point is that I was naturally immune, due to elements of lifestyle and/or perhaps my own recessive genes which my siblings lacked.
"Test them for what? Cases of vaccine injury have involved very rare underlying conditions that are hard to detect without specific tests."
Then let the focus be your "very rare underlying conditions"-- Pinpoint causes and effects. Consider preventative measures. Why continue on with thoughtlessness of internally invasive immunization. Instead support the immune system by providing for it's particular needs. Perhaps your "very rare underlying conditions" refer to unhealthy conditions of life needing correction, (even in our day and age).
So you might argue and instead focus on some narrow issues of statistics. Statistics lacking the controls of reasoned, healthful lifestyles. Indeed nutrition and lack thereof plays a huge part of disease susceptibility. We see billionaires bragging about sending pharmaceuticals by the ship load to Africa, purportedly to improve public health . Yet far better health is to be achieved if these recipients could have normalized diets, municipal hygiene technologies and financing. Also sustainable-local-economies will help greatly. Remove the incentives for slavery which still today sneaks in through sweat shops and very unsafe living conditions generally. The list goes on. Scholarship is to be found which supports these mere sentences.
"There are serious ethical concerns with running such experiments... largely due to the risk of increased outbreaks in diseases (as has consistently followed reductions in vaccination )." Touche- I seriously doubt this assertion. Let us chart this out using the best scholarship on both sides of the argument. Surely a concept-experiment is far safer than experimenting directly on the public with newly formulated vaccines .
"What do you mean by external immunization?" This refers to the difference between internal medicine and external medicine. External medicine or therapies are the least invasive and extremely effective when proper remedies are applied. When healthful lifestyles are lived, as a precondition. When mixed practices are not conflicting. In my case immunity from measles was apparent at around age six, when my siblings got the measles, i didn't, we lived in close quarters daily, as young children .
"It is more like the reasonable fear of lethal outbreaks keeps such tests from being performed." I agree. let us prevent mass-experimants using designer-vaccines!
PS-- I am fine with self quarantine-- I am not sending kids to any schools . Don't create public unrest with outrageous vaccine police , (just because populations of people mix all sorts of disease vectors into their lives-- In which the experts find troubles in sorting out causes and effects of outbreaks).
“We see billionaires bragging about sending pharmaceuticals by the ship load to Africa, purportedly to improve public health .”
They do improve health… look at the incidence of polio and smallpox within those populations between now and before the vaccines were made available, then look at the incidence of polio in areas where vaccinations are refused. Nigeria is a good example, as due to the actions of extremists the percentage of the population vaccinated has dropped below the level needed to maintain herd immunity. This has been followed by a resurgence of the disease in both the regions the extremists are active in and in surrounding regions. This can also be seen in Bangladesh, which borders India (where polio is still endemic)… Bangladesh experienced a resurgence in polio in 2006 due to the import of the disease from India.
“Yet far better health is to be achieved if these recipients could have normalized diets, municipal hygiene technologies and financing.”
Vaccination is part of improving the health of a population, it is not in opposition to that heath improvement.
“Also sustainable-local-economies will help greatly. Remove the incentives for slavery which still today sneaks in through sweat shops and very unsafe living conditions generally. The list goes on. Scholarship is to be found which supports these mere sentences.”
Then please offer citations. I do not disagree that improvements in hygiene and diet help prevent the spread of disease… but those are only part of improving public health.
“Touche- I seriously doubt this assertion. Let us chart this out using the best scholarship on both sides of the argument. Surely a concept-experiment is far safer than experimenting directly on the public with newly formulated vaccines .”
Alright… what do you want to look at first? The rate of infection for a given disease in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations? The worldwide rate of some diseases before and after the introduction of vaccines for those diseases?
“This refers to the difference between internal medicine and external medicine. External medicine or therapies are the least invasive and extremely effective when proper remedies are applied.”
You are talking about things like dietary changes and exercise ? Those are an important part of maintaining health, but they are not the sum total of health as even someone with a good diet and lots of exercise can get ill.
“In my case immunity from measles was apparent at around age six, when my siblings got the measles, i didn't, we lived in close quarters daily, as young children .”
How can you say for certain that you did not get the measles? It is likely that you were infected with a mild strain of the wild virus and did not become symptomatic (or that the symptoms were not noticeable). Your claim about diet seems to fall apart in this example as your sisters would have had the same diet as you did.
“I agree. let us prevent mass-experimants using designer-vaccines!”
Huh? Vaccines are tested before they are released into the population. Further there are vaccines in use that have been tested extensively for years.
“PS-- I am fine with self quarantine-- I am not sending kids to any schools .”
Though this can be effective it is not as effective as vaccination , as we are often contagious before we become symptomatic.
“Don't create public unrest with outrageous vaccine police , (just because populations of people mix all sorts of disease vectors into their lives-- In which the experts find troubles in sorting out causes and effects of outbreaks). “
I’m not sure what you are trying to get across here, can you clarify.
An interesting side note… I’ve learned of another positive side effect of vaccination and herd immunity. It exerts evolutionary pressure on viruses to lower their ferocity. A disease that quickly makes its carrier to sick to interact with others cannot spread very far, and as such there is evolutionary pressure on viruses to have long periods where they are transmittable but have mild (or no) symptoms.
In a given population as the number of vaccinated increases the number of vulnerable people someone infected with a disease has a chance to come into contact with decreases, thus decreasing the chance for transmission. A virus that multiplies quickly therefore has an even smaller chance of being passed on, while a virus that does not incapacitate has longer to spread through the population. The result of this pressure is that less dangerous forms of a given disease survive.
You wrote "You are talking about things like dietary changes and exercise ? "
I speak of much more as in the word Holistic and the lack of government funding to extend the value of studies to include all possible disease vectors, contrasted with all possible vectors of immunity. Too complex would be it said? No surprise! The powers That Be avoid the bigger pictures, the deeper truths and the wider paradigms.
You wrote-- "Narrow? How else are we supposed to study the effects ofvaccination or disease of a population of more then three hundred million?"
I say-- Ha, try 6+ billion!
I had also written about-- “Statistics lacking the controls of reasoned, healthful lifestyles.”
You responded-- "I’m not sure what you are getting at here… the statistics are looking at the incidence of diseases in the general population. Since many people live unhealthy lifestyles they have to be included because they can get sick and spread pathogens."
Me-- Ahah! the unhealthy lifestyles must me studied along with all the support-systems as a disease vector! Currently your mentioned-approach lumps the unhealthy populations along with those who strive to abstain from unhealthy life styles. What sort of science is that? It produces a useless statistic in terms of finding causes and effects!
“I speak of much more as in the word Holistic and the lack of government funding to extend the value of studies to include all possible disease vectors, contrasted with all possible vectors of immunity. Too complex would be it said? No surprise! The powers That Be avoid the bigger pictures, the deeper truths and the wider paradigms.”
That makes no sense. Disease vectors are well studied, as are methods of immunization (immunity can only form following exposure to a pathogen, allowing the body to recognize the pathogen when encountered in the future).
“I say-- Ha, try 6+ billion!”
Again, statistics is the only scientific way to study a population of any appreciable size
“Me-- Ahah! the unhealthy lifestyles must me studied along with all the support-systems as a disease vector! Currently your mentioned-approach lumps the unhealthy populations along with those who strive to abstain from unhealthy life styles. What sort of science is that? It produces a useless statistic in terms of finding causes and effects!”
What causes / effects are in question here? That healthy people recover faster and get less sick is well known… but it does not prevent infection.
Look at the worldwide rate of smallpox, measles, and polio. The rate of infection drops suddenly and rapidly when vaccination is introduced, and spikes when vaccination is reduced / removed. The measles outbreak in England following the MMR scare is a prime example of this, but so are the outbreaks of polio in Nigeria, India, and Bangladesh. In all those outbreaks there was not both a removal of vaccination and a sudden shift in the health habits of the population, it was just the removal of the vaccine.
"What causes / effects are in question here? That healthy people recover faster and get less sick is well known… but it does not prevent infection."
Causes and effects deserve more study beyond ivory tower assertions based upon severely restricted statistics. There are better methods and worse methods to 'prevent infection' (or preferably yet, to sustain good health ). The mantra 'prevent infection' ignores the importance of generally-acceptable living practices in the first place. Statistics ignore the fact that many populations are malnourished, that they lack sanitation and opportunity for hygiene and that they even lack calories ! Amazing! In the western-industrial settings, the industrialized statistical data is mixed with data from impoverished and repressed countries. Western-industrialized populations have very different causes and effects. Take the merca staff infection, for example. This merca infection is not prevented by any vaccine. Epidemics have ebbed and flowed for millennia before vaccines . The ebbing can occur naturally (not only artificially). Statistics confuse the causes of ebbing. Let us study this further before concluding. The flow or the causes of this pandemic have many questionable features, some of which might even be artificial. A sacred-set of broad-brush statistics for all people everywhere, regardless of specific causes and effects is not comprehensive science . It also prematurely triggers bad public health policies.To treat only one effect, such as a single infection, can miss the causes, the vectors, and consequently all the inevitable world problems. The advantage of missing or of smearing relevant causes and effects is an advantage of amassing colossal profits from gullible populations. This generally is managed by cozy media sponsorship, along with blackouts of competing science. Fudging statistics is cleverly achieved by extremely narrow foci. Pin-point foci like pandemic-vaccines can sound very impressive to the uninformed.
That old English folk lore inspired a profiteer to heavily invest and establish the earliest rudiments of a vaccine industry is not a noble chapter for science-history. I recommend reading about the entire history of vaccines. That the earlier folk lore observed and suggested immunities does not prove that the best implimentation of these immunities should be through internal-injections, through intravenous vaccination filled with dangerous substances. Apparently some enhanced immunities were obtained merely by the labor of milk-maidens and not by vaccination, per se. This reminds me of my childhood memory about my measles recollections. Please study this earlier history of the pox diseases. Chances are that your nearby library lacks these segments of history, so please ask for inter library sources. Or easier yet, use the internet . For a long researched multimedia presentation, see this trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUMZ-O-OsG0 The DVD: http://www.vaccinenation.net/buy_dvd.php Books: http://www.vaccinenation.net/books.php Uncensored FAQ: http://www.thinktwice.com / The history of vaccines is not a noble history like many proud human discoveries which are noble by contrast. Another white paper: http://www.garynull.com/VaccinesDarkInferno.pdf
We need more comprehensive science and less profiteering. More science- jobs for scientists may solve more world problems. Tax more profiteers to pay for more science-jobs.
“Apparently some enhanced immunities were obtained merely by the labor of milk-maidens and not by vaccination , per se.”
Their immune system was not ‘enhanced’, they had been exposed to cowpox… and thus when exposed to smallpox their immune system already ‘recognized’ the pathogen and was able to respond.
“This reminds me of my childhood memory about my measles recollections.”
Your childhood recollections hardly rise to the level of Scientific evidence
“Please study this earlier history of the pox diseases. Chances are that your nearby library lacks these segments of history, so please ask for inter library sources. Or easier yet, use the internet .”
I am familiar with the history of vaccination, as well as the mechanism by which vaccines provide protection against viruses... that history supports the effectiveness of vaccination.
“http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUMZ-O-OsG0 “
A youtube video ? All I see is a sequence of undocumented/unsupported claims as well as the usual spread of anecdotal evidence.
“Uncensored FAQ: http://www.thinktwice.com /”
Looking under their sources they have a bit where they link AIDS and vaccination (with sources twenty years old). Their autism – vaccine sources includes Wakefield. Vaccines – Cancer has no links younger then ten years ago, and a number of links older the I am. Vaccines – diabetes has nothing younger then 1997... Vaccines – hearing loss has a German study from 2001, but other then that everything else is over ten years old. Vaccines - Hep B has citations from 2001, but that is a case study of two patients, not a statistical analysis of a larger population. Vaccine – immunological has most of it's studies older then me. MMR has wakefield again. Mumps is all over twenty years old. Vaccines and neurological disorders has a cities an article from 1938 (and includes some random bits that are not citations). Most of the polio citations appear to be from the 1950s or older... there is also a bit about how a poor diet can increase susceptibility. Rubella is again sources more then ten years old. Miscellanea is again old studies and case studies. Their study on GSB indicates that the chance of getting the syndrome was ~4 in 10000000.
Interestingly enough even though this site lists sources it does not say HOW they support their claim. With the average age of the articles being in the 1980s they are exceptionally hard to 'dig up' and read for oneself.
The articles section includes one on homeopathy...
They have a section of personal stories... aka anecdotal evidence
“ The history of vaccines is not a noble history like many proud human discoveries which are noble by contrast. Another white paper: http://www.garynull.com/VaccinesDarkInferno.pdf
These are not 'white papers' they are PDFs published on an individuals website.
“We need more comprehensive science and less profiteering. More science- jobs for scientists may solve more world problems. Tax more profiteers to pay for more science-jobs.”
While I am all for more Science… you’ll find that the results would still likely fall out in favor of vaccines (or how many times do we need to go over the evidence for evolution ).
My interest in this issue is "well being" and i'm alerted to numerous reports, against rampant vaccines . May the greatest good for the greatest number win this generalized debate. Are vaccines safe and effective? Is political and market power skewing the public perception? Is the internet today equalizing these forces with public common sense?
I would like to see a comprehensive chart of this debate, as it progresses. Or even help to chart out links for peer reviewed and double blind studies on this subject. From what i hear, the pro vaccine side does not have overwhelming proof in these two categories. Naturally, double blind studies are extremely expensive, yet if the rich and powerful corporations are not able to fully substantiate their vaccines in this way, then, forced vaccination , as enforced by the UN's WHO, during highly questionable pandemics, does sound fascistic and profiteering.
Like wise, individualized reporting by doctors and scientist would be interesting to chart out. Providing that nearly identical conclusions are lumped together. This should help see the bigger picture.
One individual doctor among many nay-sayers to vaccines says--
"Routine use of the hepatitis B vaccine for all newborns began in 2002, despite the fact that there was absolutely NO logical argument for it. It should never have been included in the immunization schedule, and here’s why."
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/10/08/Hepatitis-B-Vaccine-Triples-the-Risk-of-Autism-in-Infant-Boys.aspx
May truth prevail.
"My interest in this issue is "well being" and i'm alerted to numerous reports, against rampant vaccines ."
Do you read anything from the other side as well? Do you check your sources? The internet is great but at the same time anyone and their dog can post something here... and we have to be careful to ensure that we are getting accurate information.
"May the greatest good for the greatest number win this generalized debate."
Which is my hope as well.
"Are vaccines safe and effective?"
The body of evidence says yes. That is not to say that vaccines are perfectly safe and perfectly effective, but rather that the chance of injury is so small that the risk of not being vaccinated far outweighs it.
"Or even help to chart out links for peer reviewed and double blind studies on this subject. From what i hear, the pro vaccine side does not have overwhelming proof in these two categories"
Double blind vaccine studies on humans violate a whole host of ethical rules. It would be like conducting a double blind study on antibiotics. There is a large body of peer reviewed evidence supporting vaccination .
"Like wise, individualized reporting by doctors and scientist would be interesting to chart out. Providing that nearly identical conclusions are lumped together. "
What exactly do you mean by 'individualized reporting"?
"One individual doctor among many nay-sayers to vaccines"
The statement of one doctor opposing one vaccine does not indicate opposition to vaccines as a whole. If you can show that a majority of doctors do not support vaccination then that would advance your view.
I visited the website you provided, as similar to your other link it is rather suspect. Nearly all of the links I came across led to other places within the mercola website... and exclusively citing your own writings as supporting your ideas is not valid.
He also states that the US government conceded that mercury caused autism in the Hanna Polling case... which has been thoroughly disproved: she has a very rare mitochondrial disorder that had a very rare reaction to a vaccine she received, so rare that she is one of only a handful of reported cases in medical history, that caused a host of symptoms including some autism like ones.
"Do you read anything from the other side as well? Do you check your sources? "
Yes, i read many sides and more than two sides. I check sources to a degree and scan for relevance. I think it is time to chart this part of science with comprehensive and relevant links. Such that non-experts can weigh the validity of opposing views and opposing claims.
Our Quotes: ...."Are vaccines safe and effective?"
"The body of evidence says yes. That is not to say that vaccines are perfectly safe and perfectly effective, but rather that the chance of injury is so small that the risk of not being vaccinated far outweighs it."
It is our respective right to differ in our beliefs on this matter. My belief is that science needs much more upgrading to overcome the commercialism which propagates beliefs of doctors , of scientists and of everyone else.
"I visited the website you provided, as similar to your other link it is rather suspect."
Suspicion, like theory, plays a role. May it mount up until science as a whole, upgrades beyond dependency on chance-financiers. So far that has been a severely limiting factor. The bean counter ultimately can reduce parts of science, to mere infomercials.
Yet i thank you for your voluntary inquiry and dedication to "the greater good".
“Yes, i read many sides and more than two sides. I check sources to a degree and scan for relevance. I think it is time to chart this part of science with comprehensive and relevant links. Such that non-experts can weigh the validity of opposing views and opposing claims.”
If you do then why did your posted links contain such easily refutable ‘evidence’ like Wakefield and Hanna Polling?
“It is our respective right to differ in our beliefs on this matter. My belief is that science needs much more upgrading to overcome the commercialism which propagates beliefs of doctors , of scientists and of everyone else.”
Yet you are into evolution -denial territory with your consistent refusal (and conspiracy mongering) with regards to the evidence presented.
“Suspicion, like theory, plays a role. May it mount up until science as a whole, upgrades beyond dependency on chance-financiers. So far that has been a severely limiting factor. Te bean counter ultimately can reduce parts of science, to mere infomercials.”
I’ll be blunter then… The website you linked to contains claims that are factually incorrect, as well as being nearly entirely self referencing… and is thus junk.
“Yet i thank you for your voluntary inquiry and dedication to "the greater good".”
I am because the anti-vax crowd is actually causing deaths in the population by lowering the number of vaccinated… so they are killing people. Further it benefits my health to maintain herd immunity
"I am because the anti-vax crowd is actually causing deaths in the population by lowering the number of vaccinated… so they are killing people. Further it benefits my health to maintain herd immunity "
Apparently there is more than one crowd concerned about unnecessary death and unreasonable risk. There are multiple interpretations for all points covered. My links stand on there own producers, not me. Most of these link producers may invite feedback to address them forthrightly. In case that was your own concern and your own interest. Just as you may wish to push your marginally proven experiment on to the entire public. I wish to indicate the reversed concerns like opposing- scientific works and also iotragenics for that matter. http://www.iatrogenic.org / I thought you were studying contrasting positions, as i was.
"Yet you are into evolution -denial territory with your consistent refusal (and conspiracy mongering) with regards to the evidence presented."
Where did i deny evolution? (which by the way is actually accepted by some religionists) Darwin himself studied religeon among his "suspect" studies. Why should serious studies be harassed anyway? In case it is us who doubt those particular studies? Where did scripture deny evolution per se? Which conspiracy do you speak of? The case against vaccines has numerous proponents who each stand upon sufficient evidence to propell at least several legal proceedings in courts of law . I don't have those links at hand. Would anyone like me to post the legal proceedings when i get around to looking for them?
"just as you may wish to push your marginally proven experiment on to the entire public."
What is marginal about it?
"Postlicensure safety surveillance for quadrivalent human papillomavirus recombinant vaccine."
JAMA. 2009 Aug 19;302(7):750-7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690307?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2 .PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Indicates that over the 2.3 years that the HPV has been in use ~23,000,000 doses have been used... the VAERS database reports over that period that there were 12,424 (59.3 per 100,000 doses) injuries reported of which 32 deaths were reported... or a 0.000139% of the population that took the vaccine.
According to the American Cancer society cervical cancer (of which HPV is a significant cause) will kill an estimated 4070 women .
"Where did i deny evolution ?"
My comparison was of your vaccine denial to evolution denial... in that even when presented with a vast body of effective proof you refuse to see that vaccines are effective in reducing the spread of disease.
And yes vaccines are not perfectly safe , but their track record (deaths caused vs. deaths prevented) shows that getting a vaccine is virtually always the rational choice.
“Causes and effects deserve more study beyond ivory tower assertions based upon severely restricted statistics. There are better methods and worse methods to 'prevent infection' (or preferably yet, to sustain good health ).”
How would you study those effects without using statistics?
“The mantra 'prevent infection' ignores the importance of generally-acceptable living practices in the first place.”
How so? You seem to assume that the only thing being discussed with regards to health is vaccination … and that simply is not true. In this case we are focusing on vaccines , because it is the effectiveness of vaccines that is currently being discussed.
“Statistics ignore the fact that many populations are malnourished, that they lack sanitation and opportunity for hygiene and that they even lack calories ! Amazing!”
Then how do you explain the extermination of smallpox?
“In the western-industrial settings, the industrialized statistical data is mixed with data from impoverished and repressed countries. Western-industrialized populations have very different causes and effects.”
I’m not sure I’m following you here… are you saying that measles has a different cause in different countires?
“Take the merca staff infection, for example. This merca infection is not prevented by any vaccine.”
MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) is an antibiotic resistant bacteria and is not treated with vaccines…
“Epidemics have ebbed and flowed for millennia before vaccines .”
Smallpox was endemic for centuries, but has not been found in the wild since the 1970s, this downward trend relates directly to the smallpox eradication program. What data do you offer to show that this disappearance is the result of a natural process. Further the polio eradication attempt similarily
“That old English folk lore inspired a profiteer to heavily invest and establish the earliest rudiments of a vaccine industry is not a noble chapter for science -history. I recommend reading about the entire history of vaccines. That the earlier folk lore observed and suggested immunities does not prove that the best implimentation of these immunities should be through internal-injections, through intravenous vaccination filled with dangerous substances.”
It was not folklore that inspired vaccination, it was observation (milkmaids who were more likely to have contracted cowpox were far less likely to suffer from smallpox). This was then tested by exposing a test subject to cowpox and then after they had recovered exposing them to smallpox. The individual was an 8 year old boy, and thus the only common element between the milkmaids and the test subject were their exposure to cowpox. When the boy did not develop smallpox further testing was conducted, and it is from those foundations that vaccination was developed. Those tests were conducted in the late 1790s, and it was not until Dr. Pasture’s work that vaccines really began to develop.
Most Americans Dying From Flu-Related Illness Are Likely To Exhibit
"WHO's Dr Chan admits in speech " swine flu " mild and not mutating to become more virulent"
http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=853 %3Awhos-dr-chan-admits-in-speech-qswine-fluq-mild-and-not-mutating-to-become-more-virulent&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=64&lang=en
Also:
Nutritional Deficiencies
by Bill Sardi
Recently by Bill Sardi: Where Did the H1N1 Late-2009 Flu Season Virus Come From?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi123.html
How does that respond to the points I made regarding smallpox, vaccination , or statistics?
Yes it is already well known that the flu does not directly kill people, but it does make people far more vulnerable to secondary infections (which can be fatal to an individual already weakened by the flu). The key to preventing these deaths is to prevent vulnerable people from being exposed to the flu... which means vaccination and herd immunity.
"How does that respond to the points I made regarding smallpox, vaccination , or statistics?"
Those are large side-issues that we cannot expect to conclude here. The "subject" we vote on and discuss is "Mandatory Vaccinations?" A mandatory edict is invasive and has too often proven harmful in human history. The possibility of sudden and instantaneous "vaccine police " could materialize if the population has no discussion at all.
It appears to me we are simply comparing notes and references about the broad subject of mandatory vaccination. Neither of us seem to expect direct responses, by our posts. Yet gradually collecting tidbits might provide the contrasts to puzzle together.
Posts seem to require use of the "Reply" button.
leave it up to God he will take care of everything
Free will has a purpose, no?
My personal experience is clear to me and disagrees with your suggested theory of my personal experience, (about my measles as a young child-- You completely sidestepped my combination of facts. You have a right to your suggested theory and we can leave it there).
As to lengthy shadow boxing debates-- My posting privilege is much smaller than yours appears to be, but here is a link to a pdf full of citations which is highly opposed to vaccination . It is from persons with credentials. I personally have no such credentials. So in case you are highly credentialed and wish to debate at that level, then perhaps you and your colleagues of similar opinion might like to address or perhaps invite some of these skilled experts to address the science and scholarship of the issues at hand.
Likewise, it is the individual responsibility of non-experts to determine which experts are closer to the truth and have the public interest at heart. We non-credentialed persons must also determine which protocol is "snake- oil " or profiteering and which side promotes better health . Governments are today preparing to enforce citizens to accept complex systems and pay heavily for them through taxes . A government by the people, requires the people to study the choices and vote by every means available (or suffer an unwanted bill of goods).
On Topic Citations through a pdf white paper-
http://www.garynull.com/SwineFluWhitePaper.pdf
“My personal experience is clear to me and disagrees with your suggested theory of my personal experience, (about my measles as a young child-- You completely sidestepped my combination of facts. You have a right to your suggested theory and we can leave it there).”
How do you support your theory? Both are untestable because they are based on your recollections from your childhood. You stated that your siblings got sick while you did not, was your diet or activities significantly different from them? Were you older then them? If your ‘natural immunity’ was genetically based then why did it not extend to your siblings? What about your personal experience disagrees with my theory?
Your statement: ‘I seemed immune already, as i recall and never got those lovely red dots on my face.’ Is not a scientifically valid one, where as my supposition that you were exposed to a milder strain of the virus and thus had developed immunity seems to be a reasonable one. Yet it does not follow that by playing in the dirt an individual can gain immunity to a virus, because the chance of exposure is to haphazard.
“I personally have no such credentials. So in case you are highly credentialed and wish to debate at that level, then perhaps you and your colleagues of similar opinion might like to address or perhaps invite some of these skilled experts to address the science and scholarship of the issues at hand.”
I’m not a physician, I’m an engineer and a scientist… as such I have some skill at reading and reviewing the evidence in these matters.
“Likewise, it is the individual responsibility of non-experts to determine which experts are closer to the truth and have the public interest at heart. We non-credentialed persons must also determine which protocol is "snake- oil " or profiteering and which side promotes better health .”
And the only true way to differentiate the snake oil from the real stuff is through the Scientific process… in which the evidence clearly supports vaccination .
“Governments are today preparing to enforce citizens to accept complex systems and pay heavily for them through taxes . A government by the people, requires the people to study the choices and vote by every means available (or suffer an unwanted bill of goods).”
True, but again when the body of evidence supports vaccination.
On Topic Citations through a pdf white paper-
http://www.garynull.com/SwineFluWhitePaper.pdf
When you bore down into it the evidence they posit seems rather weak... they cite that vaccines are not 100% effective, but this is a known fact... they claim that improved sanitation would have eliminated measles while ignoring the measles outbreaks that have followed reduced vaccination (as well as not mentioning smallpox or polio).
A truly wonderful example of this is the following:
“Vaccines are portrayed as being indispensable and somehow better at disease protection than what our innate biological defenses and nutritional resources have accomplished for thousands of years.”
Vaccines use the bodies 'innate biological defenses' to protect against viruses by 'educating' those defenses... and the bit about 'nutritional resources' makes little sense as well (good health can help mitigate the severity of a disease, and otherwise speed recovery, but it does not help the body identify viruses).
"What about your personal experience disagrees with my theory?"
My immunities were superior to my siblings. It can be suggested that i played in more beneficial dirt than my siblings did-- Dirt which provided my immune system an inspiration. This was external medicine , no injection into my blood stream was required. Also our genes are not identical, nor was our dietary preferences or our habits.
Let's consider this vaccine recipe from the CDC- http://www.whale.to/vaccine/measles_virus.html Quote follows:
In an online paper entitled 'Isolation and Identification of Measles Virus in Cell Culture,' the CDC, the central Health Research authority of the USA, lays out how isolation of this virus should be done so it can be used, say for a vaccine. It instructs, first obtain from the patient a small sample of urine or fluid from the nose or mouth.
Next 'sacrifice' a marmoset monkey, take some of its cells, then make these cancerous, perhaps by exposing them to radiation, and then give them, on top of this, Epstein-Barr disease! Such extremely sick cells, the CDC informs us, are '10,000 times' more sensitive to the measles virus than are normal human cells.
Now add to these cells a toxin called trypsin. The CDC tells us to expect some cells to fall off the sides of the vessel as if they have been poisoned. They have been. Now add nutrients and glucose and leave for two or three days so the cells can somewhat recover.
Now add to the cells the sample gathered from the patient. After an hour, inspect the cells in the culture with a microscope to see if any of the cells are becoming distorted, or are floating free as they did when trypsin was added. If they are, the CDC says this is proof that measles virus is present and making the cells ill.
as a further note the lab manual mentioned above can be found at
http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/LabManualFinal.pdf
a find on the word trypsin will bring up the relevant passages.
Unfortunately your "acceptable science " is strictly highly funded, or highly lobbied. I highly doubt this condition will be forever maintain respect in the future of science or scientific opinion.
Also, an individual has a right to there own opinion, (until or unless they unfortunately fall under cruel dictatorial institutions).
You can discredit my testimony about 1] being closely subjected to measles from kids having the measles with red spots on their faces and suffering for a week or two from measles symptoms, according to parents and a pediatrician of that time in the 1950s. (They were simply called family doctors back then)-- 2] Meanwhile, despite my living with and nearby such fellow- children , my condition remained fairly steady and little effected by measles, (all at a tender age of 5 years or so). My explanation remains that my 'immunity' or sensitization came from my prior association with 'unclean' dirt during play, with a wild environment to visit and with many other children who had uncountable exposures of a more primitive era.
In case your statistical method observes that measles deaths have occurred-- I further wonder just how sterilized the lifestyle of those victims were? I'm inclined to suspect that the victims did not enjoy the natural, unsterilized life style which i have enjoyed, for most of my life. I would distinguish between sanitary and sterilized lifestyles, along with dietary facts between victims and survivors of measles exposures, as a special subset for study of statistics. Yet, i would further doubt that your statistics would even cover facts like that. Why? Well clearly, the fact remains that studies are arranged to support vested interests. Apparently, the interests like mine have no capital to shower upon the studies which could support my claims.
It might be argued that such exposures as mine could be antiseptically delivered in a vaccine of some sort, like the recipe above, which you appear to like. Yet it is my personal right to prefer the exposure i in fact received.
Furthermore, deaths occurring soon after vaccination are rarely studied and applied to statistics. Again, it might prove cost prohibitive to study so many things.
Here is a report of deaths occurring recently, allegedly after current vaccinations-
English translation- http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1350 %3Afourth-vaccine-death-reported-in-sweden&catid=1%3Alatest-news&Itemid=64&lang=en
Swedish report- http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/90-aring-avled-efter-vaccinering-1.981600
The world is too fast moving to rely on sound bites. Forced vaccination likewise has moved upon the scene to quickly, to know if it is safe of effective.
Yet i certainly accept your right to differ, as you please. I would not accept your insistence that i should be vaccinated, for your belief system to become satisfied.
"Unfortunately your "acceptable science " is strictly highly funded, or highly lobbied. I highly doubt this condition will be forever maintain respect in the future of science or scientific opinion."
You claim a bias that, but have yet to demonstrate that bias. Just because the science does not support your claims does not mean that there exists some vast conspiracy manipulating the numbers. Decades worth of statistics and science support the effectiveness of vaccines .
"My explanation remains that my 'immunity' or sensitization came from my prior association with 'unclean' dirt during play, with a wild environment to visit and with many other children who had uncountable exposures of a more primitive era."
Yet for centuries many people lived and played in such conditions , and the measles cut through the population just the same.
Your experience, as you recall it decades later, is anecdotal at best.
"It might be argued that such exposures as mine could be antiseptically delivered in a vaccine of some sort, like the recipe above, which you appear to like. Yet it is my personal right to prefer the exposure i in fact received."
Yet you have yet to demonstrate it was your exposure is what led to your seeming immunity to measles, or how it could be replicated in a controlled manner that would be effective in providing immunity to the larger population.
As to your right, that is true to some extent... however by refusing vaccination you are not only endangering your health but you are also endangering the health of those around you.
"Here is a report of deaths occurring recently, allegedly after current vaccinations-'
Four deaths, out of how many vaccinations (Hundreds, thousands)?
"The world is too fast moving to rely on sound bites. Forced vaccination likewise has moved upon the scene to quickly, to know if it is safe of effective."
Vaccination has existed for over a century, and is responsible for the elimination of Smallpox, the near eradication of Polio, and drastic reduction in other diseases (measles, whooping cough, diphtheria, etc.)
"Yet i certainly accept your right to differ, as you please. I would not accept your insistence that i should be vaccinated, for your belief system to become satisfied."
You being vaccinated does not 'validate' my belief system... the statistics showing the effectiveness of vaccination provides all the validation I need to continue my support for vaccination.
Perhaps you overlook this point concerning the OP official question (in your post). I at least have not 'required' that a large group of people accept State force in a hastily mandated treatment. A treatment which does not possess full proof, of efficacy and safety, especially concerning added ingredients besides the vaccine itself, at a publicly recognized scientific level. If you were to provide such, it is actually needed by the proponents who apparently seem to lack such definitive proof in science , (in the current, official debates. The debates which are now going on.. This is a major component worth noting among the 'Opposing Views'.
Also, the anecdotal component is offered in an openly solicited public discussion. Nothing greater is expected of casually invited public opinions, beyond the personal experience of the poster. Regarded at face value, not as a deceptive remedy. Personal experience and yes, distant memories of a public member, are not offered as official science. In case that was assumed as a defective argument, given that ordinary opinion is actually solicited here. That ordinary opinion deserves a place in public discussion, without unduly-repetitive berating. My conversation is a simple affirmation of my opinion. I respect that you affirm yours.
In any case, the 'science' debate is hardly won over to the 'science' or 'philosophy' which either of us separately prefer. I suggest that the ongoing official debate can be viewed by a public, should a public member look it up in reliable news reports. For instance the string of events in New York State, recently, ending with the Governor's retraction of orders that health workers be forcibly vaccinated (or be fired , etc..).
“I at least have not 'required' that a large group of people accept State force in a hastily mandated treatment.”
What is hasty about the h1n1 vaccine? It is the same vaccine with a different virus in it… no different then the seasonal flu vaccine.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm182399.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5839a3.htm #tab
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5810a1.htm
“A treatment which does not possess full proof, of efficacy and safety, especially concerning added ingredients besides the vaccine itself, at a publicly recognized scientific level.”
What level of proof is it that you demand? Randomized trials are unethical in cases where other evidence indicates that the treatment is effective. Statistics show that vaccines like the flu shot are highly effective at preventing illness and death among vulnerable populations, and as such it would be highly unethical to run a random trial (consider how dangerous it would be to run a randomized trial on the effectiveness of antibiotics).
“If you were to provide such, it is actually needed by the proponents who apparently seem to lack such definitive proof in science , (in the current, official debates. The debates which are now going on.. This is a major component worth noting among the 'Opposing Views'.”
Official debates?
“Also, the anecdotal component is offered in an openly solicited public discussion. Nothing greater is expected of casually invited public opinions, beyond the personal experience of the poster.”
And it does not meet even the minimum standards of evidence to be considered as proof. Throughout the entirety of my college carrier I never got the flu… that does not mean that I was somehow ‘immune’ to it.
“My conversation is a simple affirmation of my opinion. I respect that you affirm yours.
In any debate it is of the up most importance that we support our opinions with both credible evidence and keep them well grounded in reason.
“In any case, the 'science' debate is hardly won over to the 'science' or 'philosophy' which either of us separately prefer.”
How can it be ‘hardly won over’ when the scientific evidence supports the effectiveness of vaccines? Studies show that when the seasonal flu vaccine matches the dominant strain of flu in a given season that it is approximately 95% effective, dropping to approximately 50% effectiveness when it is a poor match.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=342306&dopt=Abstract
Further a meta study conducted in 2004 concluded of 66428 individuals:
{ Inactivated parenteral vaccines were 30% effective (95% CI 17% to 41%) against influenza-like illness, and 80% (95% CI 56% to 91%) efficacious against influenza when the vaccine matched the circulating strain and circulation was high, but decreased to 50% (95% CI 27% to 65%) when it did not. Excluding the studies of the 1968 to 1969 pandemic, effectiveness was 15% (95% CI 9% to 22%) and efficacy was 73% (95% CI 53% to 84%). Vaccination had a modest effect on time off work, but there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on hospital admissions or complication rates. Inactivated vaccines caused local tenderness and soreness and erythema. Spray vaccines had more modest performance. Monovalent whole-virion vaccines matching circulating viruses had high efficacy (VE 93%, 95% CI 69% to 98%) and effectiveness (VE 66%, 95% CI 51% to 77%) against the 1968 to 1969 pandemic. }
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=17443504&dopt=Abstract
There is also the data coming for Ontario, Canada that demonstrates the effectiveness of seasonal vaccination :
{After UIIP introduction, influenza-associated mortality for the overall population decreased 74% in Ontario (RR = 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20–0.34) compared to 57% in other provinces (RR = 0.43, 95% CI, 0.37–0.50) (ratio of RRs = 0.61, p = 0.002) (Table 3). In age-specific analyses, larger mortality decreases in Ontario were found to be statistically significant only in those ≥85 y.}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=18959473&dopt=Abstract
I suggest that the ongoing official debate can be viewed by a public, should a public member look it up in reliable news reports. For instance the string of events in New York State, recently, ending with the Governor's retraction of orders that health workers be forcibly vaccinated (or be fired , etc..).
He bowed to political pressures, not to the evidence (which supports immunization of health care workers as a way to both prevent the disease and a way to shield vulnerable people from the disease).
From one viewpoint it appears like higher science . From another viewpoint it appears like higher finance. Proofs are in the eyes of the sponsoring beholder. It would be interesting to see this snapshot in hind sight. As in what will anthropology or history of science say in a 100 or a 1000 years? Say about this time and this issue. Since so few US citizens possess a high standard of health , we might for the most part be classified as stumbling victims of media biases. At least we might agree that political pressure weighs heavily on one hand and perhaps the other hand as well. It might almost reach a Kafkaesque impasse.
“From one viewpoint it appears like higher science . From another viewpoint it appears like higher finance. Proofs are in the eyes of the sponsoring beholder.”
The proof is with the Science. Unless you can show specific flaws in the methodology used in the voluminous supporting studies the anti-vax crowd will remain on the fringe with creationists, homeopaths, reiki practitioners, acupuncturists, faith healers, UFO enthusiasts, and others.
“It would be interesting to see this snapshot in hind sight. As in what will anthropology or history of science say in a 100 or a 1000 years? Say about this time and this issue.”
It would be interesting… assuming that Science continues to advance over that period it will likely be seen in 100 years as similar to how we look at the germ theory debate. At the 1000 year mark it would be harder to judge… perhaps akin to how we look Roman medicine (we know that they are wrong but acknowledge that they did the best they could with what they knew at the time).
“At least we might agree that political pressure weighs heavily on one hand and perhaps the other hand as well. It might almost reach a Kafkaesque impasse.”
An impasse based only on the anti-vax side’s refusal to examine the evidence that disproves their claims.
To be fair sir, it is possible you have no time, for comprehensive reading of the offered links. I can personally appreciate that. It is possible industry has it's complex networks of business as usual. I am personally reserved and scientifically-skeptical about industry's performances in debates like this. Seemingly, all the critical funding of universities and of institutions is designed to support specific funding-interests. Instead of boldly exploring new scientific progress, which openly demonstrates superior results (and actual healing in the case of medicine and in the case of healing many sufferers of AIDS ). True science , unstained by human weaknesses, (like needing a job or a grant) would question the current teachings, (would question the protocols and data bases).
Therefore take your best aim. Your statement about coffee-enemas is mis-ascribed and off-topic. Check your facts. Have you aired your best already? Please, let us not condescend to ad ad-hominan tactics! Would be debaters have every right to properly ask for serious scientific debate. Instead, we get side-stepping and industrial-strength-cowardice. Unscientific excuses are given, as in the New York case, recently.
Let us not mix metaphors mistakenly.
There are various divisions of the forced-vaccine debate. Two major categories are vaccines with all the latest designer-adjuvants-and-additives. The other division is vaccines without the latest designer additives. For example a 'debate' occurred in Germany, largely thanks to the German Army which declined the insufficiently-tested additive-laced vaccines. The German public demanded equal treatment of applied standards. Additional arguments focus on the non-specifity, within vaccine formulae, for given 'pandemics' or seasonal outbreaks. (Which should each indicate the use of very different vaccines. That one shoe, does not fit all pandemic feet.)
Ultimately, world-wide, it is also argued that the science to support mass-involuntary- vaccination , actually lacks good and proper scientific testing . That seasonal flue has essentially always been 'pandemic', (and therefore needs no UN sponsored fear mongered status). The questionable science, so it is argued, needs to be reviewed to weed out defective studies which clearly lack a true-gold-standard of efficacy and safety. This latter point is argued even by pro vaccine experts. If funding for such a huge effort is not available, then do not force the public, essentially at gun point, to obey highly questionable industrialized-belief-systems. Science-funding should not be engineered specifically to support 'insider-entities'. Similar irrational totalitarianism is the very thing Mussolini used to define and declare Facism, while citing Roman traditions of absolute power, by any means necessary.
We seem to have a pleasant web atmosphere here, thanks to the Opposing Views hosts (and up to now we have a reasonably free and open internet ). May it remain so. This might be the very sort of Renaissance-ambiance, which we need for art of science to flourish for clearer vision! Moments where Galileo and intellects at large, can openly discuss societal advancement. Progress which will allow efficacious discoveries, without the usual doctrinaire harassments. Without interference of open, peaceful, free exchange of ideas.
With thanks and appreciation, yours truly....
“Seemingly, all the critical funding of universities and of institutions is designed to support specific funding-interests.”
You don’t seem to realize that Science is self correcting… when research is published it is to the benefit of other scientists to dig through it and expose flaws.
“Instead of boldly exploring new scientific progress, which openly demonstrates superior results (and actual healing in the case of medicine and in the case of healing many sufferers of AIDS ).”
You have yet to provide any real proof that backs up those claims. The doctor that can demonstrate a workable cure for AIDS would probably be the most famous doctor of their generation…
“True science , unstained by human weaknesses, (like needing a job or a grant) would question the current teachings, (would question the protocols and data bases).”
And Science does that… which is why studies on the effectiveness of vaccines are still taking place… studies that confirm their effectiveness.
“Therefore take your best aim. Your statement about coffee-enemas is mis-ascribed and off-topic. Check your facts. Have you aired your best already? Please, let us not condescend to ad ad-hominan tactics! Would be debaters have every right to properly ask for serious scientific debate. Instead, we get side-stepping and industrial-strength-cowardice. Unscientific excuses are given, as in the New York case, recently.”
My point is that Gary Null is not a sound source for medical information. I’ve already shot holes in his anti-vax stance… and I point out that he is an AIDS denialist and a supporter of completely unfounded treatments to further show that he is not to be relied upon.
“Additional arguments focus on the non-specifity, within vaccine formulae, for given 'pandemics' or seasonal outbreaks. (Which should each indicate the use of very different vaccines. That one shoe, does not fit all pandemic feet.)”
The flu shot is not a general vaccine… it is a mix of what is predicted to be the most likely strains of the flu for the upcoming flu season. Some years the predictions are very accurate and the vaccine is very effective, but other years the predictions are not as accurate and the vaccine is less effective. Yet even in years where the vaccine is not as effective it still provides a tangible benefit.
“Ultimately, world-wide, it is also argued that the science to support mass-involuntary- vaccination , actually lacks good and proper scientific testing .”
This is a view held by a tiny minority of the actual medical community, individuals who are routinely trounced by their peers for failing at the basic principals of Science based medicine.
“The questionable science, so it is argued, needs to be reviewed to weed out defective studies which clearly lack a true-gold-standard of efficacy and safety. This latter point is argued even by pro vaccine experts.”
Really? There are serious ethical issue with using a double blind study when dealing with vaccines, especially on a large scale.
“If funding for such a huge effort is not available, then do not force the public, essentially at gun point, to obey highly questionable industrialized-belief-systems.”
Are we talking about one specific vaccine (the seasonal flu) or the idea of mandatory vaccination? In either case I would still say that the evidence is incredibly strong in support of vaccine effectiveness at preventing diseases.
“Science-funding should not be engineered specifically to support 'insider-entities'.”
There are two options here… either the Science is correct, or there is a global cabal that controls the media and all the research organizations that is manipulating the data to make vaccines appear effective.
Many doubt your "feelings about proof". Yet i acknowledge your right to express an opinion or a feeling. Why are so many doctors and scientists refusing the vaccine? This fact offers caution to authoritarian claims.
“Many doubt your "feelings about proof".”
Many, but not many in the medical or scientific community.
“Why are so many doctors and scientists refusing the vaccine? This fact offers caution to authoritarian claims.”
Can you cite numbers to back that up? Does a significant majority of the medical profession refuse the vaccine?
If you look at the ‘dissenters’ you will see a fringe group in the medical community, one that does not represent the common consensus on vaccines .co
Ah yes, it is not so hard to find numbers reported. (Use google for a quick scan). Yet of what use are such numbers when there is no 'gold-standard'. No gold standard for numbers of pros and numbers of cons, reminding us of no gold standard for efficacy and for safety. Thence to proclaim a risk-too-great-in-using- science -for- testing . What use is it, if a vested interest is rich and powerful enough to block actual science?
Why is there no truly true authority? The answer has to do with endless struggles between authorities and which authority has the stronger army behind it at that moment. Watch it though, not all armys suck up.
Let us ponder 'forced treatments'. I claim this is very much like the moments when gays were accused of increasing health risks for the whole population, through mosquito bites! (The early AIDs crisis). Or earlier times when some minority were falsely accused of anything convenient, for a powerful group, with an agenda. What of the US military forcing diseased blankets upon the American Indian tribes? What of the forced, US military experiments at Tuskegee, with syphilis? The early atom bomb testing with live US soldiers? The list goes on. Force is used in error and sometimes disastrously or worse. Mistakes are made. This is human but it does not deserve complicity.
Was it not George Washington's very own physician who wrote that black people suffered from a disease called 'nigratude' or some such nonsense. Granted it was a very different period and granted that racism and slavery were a very wide spread psychoses, world-wide. Contexts never forgives the errors, but certainly they do explain the retardation of evolution . Was it not this same physician who bled George Washington to death, while he used that devious, but authoritative practice of blood-letting? Was this doctor right or was he wrong? Was he obedient to the authority of his profession? Would not have George Washington enjoyed a longer life, to share with his loved ones? Did he not deserve more time to share?
I ask you in the same attitude. I ask you "is anyone so perfect as force another person into history's list of errors".
“The early atom bomb testing with live US soldiers?”
The difference here is that we did not know what the effects of radiation are… unlike vaccines which we are very familiar with.
“The list goes on. Force is used in error and sometimes disastrously or worse. Mistakes are made. This is human but it does not deserve complicity.”
Can the government force quarantine people who are sick with highly contagious and deadly diseases?
“Was it not George Washington's very own physician who wrote that black people suffered from a disease called 'nigratude' or some such nonsense.”
What does George Washington’s physician have to do with modern pathology? He was just some guy who died over two hundred years ago.
“Was it not this same physician who bled George Washington to death, while he used that devious, but authoritative practice of blood-letting? Was this doctor right or was he wrong? Was he obedient to the authority of his profession? Would not have George Washington enjoyed a longer life, to share with his loved ones? Did he not deserve more time to share?”
Science based medicine was at its infancy at that time… which doesn’t help you a great deal. George Washington died of shock after a bloodletting treatment was administered in response to his pneumonia. There was no evidence to support this treatment, no studies or statistics to back up its use in this case. Bloodletting was abandoned as a treatment after it was shown to be ineffective and even dangerous… using the same process that now shows that vaccines are effective.
As a final point of interest George Washington had the Continental Army vaccinated against smallpox…
{ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_12_33/ai_81566194/?tag=content ;col1 }
“I ask you in the same attitude. I ask you "is anyone so perfect as force another person into history's list of errors".”
An interesting question… largely because of your assumption that vaccines will be seen as ineffective or harmful at some point in the future, and not just ineffective/harmful in that future technology will be more effective but that vaccines were a net negative.
My response is quite simple: smallpox, polio, measles, Whooping Cough. Smallpox, a very deadly virus, is extinct in the wild due to the smallpox vaccine. Polio has been nearly eliminated, and is present only in areas where vaccination programs are not prevalent. Measles and Whooping Cough have decreased drastically in the past few years, yet are resurgent in areas where the anti-vax crowd has been effective in reducing the vaccinated population.
"What gold standard are you referring to? A massive double-blind study? That possesses some serious ethical questions, not to mention the risk to the public health ."
Indeed, ethical questioning is most desirable. Why are ethical questions so hushed in governance? Who benefits most from quitting ethical questions?
"Actually we are working within the confines of the cruelest and most unforgiving tyranny possible… that of the Evidence. Studies and meta-studies have repeatedly shown that vaccines are effective in reducing illness, and are very safe ."
Come now, this is extremely thin ice to tread upon, where vested interests steer the results. Deep cold water lies below to wake us up. Let us dive down deeply, yes.
"Which was disproven using the same methods that show that vaccines are safe. "
Again, safety and efficacy are open, variable subjects, accessible by free choice through personal freedoms -- There are pro-vaccine experts who argue against forced vaccination using specific, vaccine products in the forced vaccination market. This question of sudden enforcement is the focus of this particular web forum.
Also, too little noted is that vaccines are so specific as to rule out random and pre emptive prediction of pandemics.
Furthermore, some pro-vaccine experts define pandemics as ordinary and seasonal occurrences, (not worrhty of massive, sudden edicts).
'"What of the forced, US military experiments at Tuskegee, with syphilis?” '
"Those were deliberate violations of medical ethics in human testing , which… again… is not at all similar to mandatory vaccines. We know that vaccines are effective at preventing the spread of disease and we know that they are very safe."
We agree here except my point is that government has too often and too egregiously violated science , period.
"Can the government force quarantine people who are sick with highly contagious and deadly diseases? "
Clearly this can make ethical sense, but overly simplistic wording here opens Pandoras Box including some proven errors.
"What does George Washington’s physician have to do with modern pathology?"
""Science based medicine was at its infancy at that time… which doesn’t help you a great deal. George Washington died of shock after a bloodletting treatment was administered in response to his pneumonia. There was no evidence to support this treatment, no studies or statistics to back up its use in this case. Bloodletting was abandoned as a treatment after it was shown to be ineffective and even dangerous… using the same process that now shows that vaccines are effective.""
......continued in pt 3
“Indeed, ethical questioning is most desirable. Why are ethical questions so hushed in governance? Who benefits most from quitting ethical questions?”
Are you suggesting that we abandon the ethical standards regarding human research, as well as ignoring the established evidence?
Nobody would benefit from abandoning those standards.
“Come now, this is extremely thin ice to tread upon, where vested interests steer the results. Deep cold water lies below to wake us up. Let us dive down deeply, yes.”
You have yet to present any concrete evidence that there is manipulation of the data.
“Again, safety and efficacy are open, variable subjects, accessible by free choice through personal freedoms -- There are pro-vaccine experts who argue against forced vaccination using specific, vaccine products in the forced vaccination market. This question of sudden enforcement is the focus of this particular web forum.”
And with vaccines that have established safety and effectiveness records mandatory vaccination is possible.
“Also, too little noted is that vaccines are so specific as to rule out random and pre emptive prediction of pandemics.”
Completely unpredicted pandemics yes, but vaccines are effective at preventing diseases that are known to cause pandemics (smallpox, measles, mumps, influenza, etc…).
“Furthermore, some pro-vaccine experts define pandemics as ordinary and seasonal occurrences, (not worrhty of massive, sudden edicts).”
Some the flu is a seasonal pandemic that kills people every year. Getting the seasonal flu vaccine has been demonstrated, repeatedly, to reduce the number of deaths caused by the flu.
“We agree here except my point is that government has too often and too egregiously violated science , period.”
Has does not mean is, or that every government action in an egregious violation of science.
"Are you suggesting that we abandon the ethical standards regarding human research, as well as ignoring the established evidence? Nobody would benefit from abandoning those standards."
Hardly, which word seemed to suggest your assumption? Let's review my words with comments added: "Why are ethical questions so hushed in governance? Who benefits most from quitting ethical questions”. This intends to mean- Why are ethical questions, especially the largest ethical questions avoided in governance. Or say governments for that matter? Who or what benefits when ethical questions are avoided? For starters, follow the capital, see where it is misappropriated, as in pointless, perpetual war industries. In terms of medicine and health .... My opinion is based on my life experience which proves to me as an individual that my best health advances came from 'preventative medicine' which perfects (builds up) real health-- My worst, more debilitating experience of medicine came from the ER, like after my head was hit by a 20 ton excavator bucket, on the job-- Although my symptoms and immediate feelings were that i was finished (major head trauma per CT Angio). Statistics might have suggested permanent suffering. Yet with time i healed myself naturally on my own, without the offered protocols. In addition to nutrition exceeding the genetic expression, i woke up to many common sense practices, all of which healed me.... We agree, if you call for better ethical standards.
"You have yet to present any concrete evidence that there is manipulation of the data."
This is a large subject in itself. Manipulating 'purpose' of studies, manipulation of the methods of study, manipulation of apparatus in experiments, manipulation of conclusions.... My personal focus would be be on 'purpose' as in the purpose of health in the first place. The purposes for developing strong immunities. Funding studies with persons who actively pursue and can already prove high immunity. Then study which group(s) get flus and which flus don't within a common environment . A rational approach to comparing apples with apples. Instead of failing to screen for compelling factors among study subjects. I digress, much more qualified people have many times presented proposals, some of which cover my personal view in this paragraph. You might assume there is only one kind of concrete in evidence. I believe there are many factors included in materials science .
"And with vaccines that have established safety and effectiveness records mandatory vaccination is possible."
Possibility in itself is just a tiny fraction of science. In the wrong hands, possibility can also wreak the worst horrors, as is observed in tyranny.
"Completely unpredicted pandemics yes, but vaccines are effective at preventing diseases that are known to cause pandemics (smallpox, measles, mumps, influenza, etc…)."
I don't object to an individualized remedy preference here, unless you insist it becomes a government edict that every child or that every person be forcibly vaccinated. That government forcibly mandate remedies at random. That government completely ignore superior health practices and superior health protocols.
"Getting the seasonal flu vaccine has been demonstrated, repeatedly, to reduce the number of deaths caused by the flu."
Again, it can also be argued, that healthier, comprehensive life protocols reduce death and disease. We need a well funded study to investigate this or even to compare average people on vaccines with un-average people who have fully adopted healthier, comprehensive life protocols. See which group does better. See what specific elements can be indicated to reduce health in average people.
Again, this is why i have asked: "Why are ethical questions so hushed in governance? Who benefits most from quitting ethical questions”.
“Then study which group(s) get flus and which flus don't within a common environment . A rational approach to comparing apples with apples. Instead of failing to screen for compelling factors among study subjects.”
You do realize that those studies have been done don’t you? Studies are not just ‘a bunch of people’ they are controlled for age, race , economic status, etc.
“I believe there are many factors included in materials science .”
When dealing with a large population with a great deal of variance (like the human population or the population of the USA) what other way is there to consider other then a statistical analysis
“Possibility in itself is just a tiny fraction of science. In the wrong hands, possibility can also wreak the worst horrors, as is observed in tyranny.”
Possibility is a huge part of Science. As stated above, when studying large populations statistics is the only effective tool.
“That government forcibly mandate remedies at random.”
What is random here? Vaccines are not just chosen at random then thrown out there, they are tested and studied before being released to the general populations
“That government completely ignore superior health practices and superior health protocols.”
Which are? Mandating vaccines does not mean that other protocols are ignored, it just recognized that vaccines are highly effective.
“Again, it can also be argued, that healthier, comprehensive life protocols reduce death and disease. We need a well funded study to investigate this or even to compare average people on vaccines with un-average people who have fully adopted healthier, comprehensive life protocols. See which group does better.”
That a healthy lifestyle is effective at reducing the seriousness of disease is not in question. But all the healthy living out there will not render an individual immune to diseases. Vaccination has been shown to be effective at reducing infection rates in both healthy and unhealthy populations.
“See what specific elements can be indicated to reduce health in average people.”
Poor diet , not enough exercise , stress, living conditions , genetics, and blind luck reduce the heath of ‘average people’.
“Again, this is why i have asked: "Why are ethical questions so hushed in governance? Who benefits most from quitting ethical questions”.”
Are vaccines demonstrably effective at preventing diseases? Do well established vaccines have a strong safety record? Can it be shown that those who refuse a given vaccination are putting others at risk from that disease?
"You do realize that those studies have been done don’t you? Studies are not just ‘a bunch of people’ they are controlled for age, race , economic status, etc. "
We may hope for such controls, but closer looks with this very point do find sagging standards. The sagging standards fail to disqualify many intervening conflicts of interest. Even this mere anecdotalist has seen these issues.
"When dealing with a large population with a great deal of variance (like the human population or the population of the USA) what other way is there to consider other then a statistical analysis"
Lovely, lets have more studies with balanced panels, not just one sided ones.
"Possibility is a huge part of Science. As stated above, when studying large populations statistics is the only effective tool."
Fine then, say it that way. Be sure to balance the reviews and balance the studies. Be sure that competing evidence is included. Be sure that Scientific purpose is not overwhelmed by corporate interests primarily. Install some protection against profiteering motives. Protect history and kept records from self interested defilement.
"What is random here? Vaccines are not just chosen at random then thrown out there, they are tested and studied before being released to the general populations"
Let us equally note here that vaccines are strain specific and not suited for pre-emptive deployment, before a 'pandemic' has actually matured. Before the virulence of a flu strain is known. As currently is panning out. Note the increasing retractions, by vaccine promoters world wide.
"But all the healthy living out there will not render an individual immune to diseases."l
Ah, but if public health was actually and accurately first achieved, then disease propagating environments would not exist!
"Do well established vaccines have a strong safety record? Can it be shown that those who refuse a given vaccination are putting others at risk from that disease?"
Those of us who work hard to achieve truly good health know what true health is. We know it is not disease care or casino-insurance profiteering.
“We may hope for such controls, but closer looks with this very point do find sagging standards. The sagging standards fail to disqualify many intervening conflicts of interest. Even this mere anecdotalist has seen these issues.”
What sagging standards?
“Lovely, lets have more studies with balanced panels, not just one sided ones.”
How are the panels unbalanced?
“Fine then, say it that way. Be sure to balance the reviews and balance the studies.”
The studies are open to review by anyone willing to do so, just as anyone can seek to perform the studies that they chose (within the ethical limitations placed on human research).
“Be sure that competing evidence is included.”
What do you mean by ‘competing evidence’? All the evidence collected in a study is analyzed.
“Be sure that Scientific purpose is not overwhelmed by corporate interests primarily. Install some protection against profiteering motives. Protect history and kept records from self interested defilement.”
Those measures do exist.
“Let us equally note here that vaccines are strain specific and not suited for pre-emptive deployment, before a 'pandemic' has actually matured. Before the virulence of a flu strain is known. As currently is panning out. Note the increasing retractions, by vaccine promoters world wide.”
Retractions? I cannot think of anyone who has put forth a serious claim that a vaccine can be developed for a completely unknown pathogen. The seasonal flu vaccine is developed based on what is predicted as the most likely strains of flu to emerge. When the prediction is highly accurate the seasonal flu vaccine is highly effective, and when the prediction is not as accurate the effectiveness drops (though it still provides some protection).
“Ah, but if public health was actually and accurately first achieved, then disease propagating environments would not exist!”
Sure they would. Consider that even in the cleanest hospitals there is still a chance for an infection. It is physically impossible to remove all disease propagating environments. Public health goes a long way towards preventing diseases, and vaccination is part of that public health.
“Those of us who work hard to achieve truly good health know what true health is. We know it is not disease care or casino-insurance profiteering.”
I am unsure as to what you are saying here. Even if you are healthy you can still become sick, and if you become sick then being treated for that illness would be an important part of becoming healthy again.
>>">>“Lovely, lets have more studies with balanced panels, not just one sided ones.”>>">>
"How are the panels unbalanced?"
Vested interests like employment or business relationships, (either in the past or promised in the future). Proofs? Yes let us have an investigation by completely-insulated third parties. Government lets the industry write it's own rules and also processes all respective proceedings. This is simple enough for lay people to understand.
"The studies are open to review by anyone willing to do so, just as anyone can seek to perform the studies that they chose (within the ethical limitations placed on human research)."
Ah yes and reviews have been made and submitted-- However, in a dictatorial process as we currently have in place-- The competing reviews and views are consistently suppressed, by the dictatorial hand. Science needs constant reaffirmation of industrial-neutrality and commercial-fairness. We have actually lost that neutrality.
"What do you mean by ‘competing evidence’? All the evidence collected in a study is analyzed."
Great, but then it is suppressed, where it competes with the profiteer.
" Consider that even in the cleanest hospitals there is still a chance for an infection."
Ha, Most often because of overuse of antibiotics and also toxic substances of many description. Instead of wiser use of promoting internal bodily healing mechanisms. Instead of harmony with life, we are getting a disharmonious form of sterility.
If you are employed in some extension of the currently-dominent system, then it is clear that you should play your part of supporting it. Otherwise, clearly, you risk your job. I have spent my life under employed and have discovered means to survive without continuous job dependencies. This is a sad statement, that progressive motivation has to come from poor people or from small business people. Thanks to all these people, a groundswell is now developing. As unemployment rises in seriousness, more people will find hope in our multi-threaded cause. Less income to those people will reduce profits of the dictatorial industry. Just because said movement is comprised from independently associated interests, does not disqualify the eventual overthrow of dictatorial industries.
“Vested interests like employment or business relationships, (either in the past or promised in the future).”
Which are to be revealed as part of the process.
“Yes let us have an investigation by completely-insulated third parties.”
Who would these completely insulated third parties be? You need to be a doctor in order to really review these studies, and that is a rather limited pool to pull from.
“Ah yes and reviews have been made and submitted-- However, in a dictatorial process as we currently have in place-- The competing reviews and views are consistently suppressed, by the dictatorial hand. Science needs constant reaffirmation of industrial-neutrality and commercial-fairness. We have actually lost that neutrality.”
How have we lost neutrality? Competing reviews are subjected to the same process that supporting views are (Wakefield comes to mind).
“Great, but then it is suppressed, where it competes with the profiteer.”
What evidence is being suppressed?
“Ha, Most often because of overuse of antibiotics and also toxic substances of many description. Instead of wiser use of promoting internal bodily healing mechanisms. Instead of harmony with life, we are getting a disharmonious form of sterility.”
You mean by using sanitation technologies? My point about the hospital was that even when we take the most strident efforts to remove disease from an environment we are unsuccessful.
“If you are employed in some extension of the currently-dominent system, then it is clear that you should play your part of supporting it. Otherwise, clearly, you risk your job.”
No, I am not employed in the medical field.
“Just because said movement is comprised from independently associated interests, does not disqualify the eventual overthrow of dictatorial industries.”
That does sound nice… but the dictator your are fighting against is the physical universe… a much more brutal and uncaring ruler then any corporation could dream of being.
What evidence is being suppressed?"
The question is where to begin? Given the very nature of competitive markets which easily evolve over the decades. Which easily tend towards one sidedness.
"How have we lost neutrality?"
On average, at this point in time, authoritarian elements use the veil of popular market demand, to look good and feel good. While underneath the basic tactic of winning control prevails. The philosophic irony is that authoritarians are completely dependent upon consumer support .
You mean by using sanitation technologies?
This is just one critical element.
My point about the hospital was that even when we take the most strident efforts to remove disease from an environment we are unsuccessful.
Then why pretend that enforcement be required?!
"That does sound nice… but the dictator your are fighting against is the physical universe… a much more brutal and uncaring ruler then any corporation could dream of being."
I doubt your interpretation, because free will is clearly available, except when fascists stomp on personal freedoms, like choice of medical practices or protocols.
“The question is where to begin? Given the very nature of competitive markets which easily evolve over the decades. Which easily tend towards one sidedness.”
Competitive markets, as long as they remain competitive, tend only towards one sidedness when that is the only effective product. If there is a more effective product out there then the first company to take it up will make tones of money … and the last company to do so will be on the loosing end.
Science is in many was a competitive market… the most famous scientists are those who discover something that overturns an established paradigm. That is the nature of fame in the scientific community. If you discover something that turns conventional wisdom on its head then you become the next Einstein, Hubble, or Pasteur.
Naturally this means that scientists are brutal critics of each others work… but at the same time if a set of results is verified then the scientist who does the verifying runs a huge risk in denying that they were able to verify.
“On average, at this point in time, authoritarian elements use the veil of popular market demand, to look good and feel good. While underneath the basic tactic of winning control prevails. The philosophic irony is that authoritarians are completely dependent upon consumer support . “
You keep saying that, but you have offered no evidence to support it. On what basis do you make that claim?
“This is just one critical element.”
And I have not denied that.
“Then why pretend that enforcement be required?!”
I am not sure what you mean by that. Since even our most stringent attempts at creating a disease free environment do not work we should not mandate vaccinations?
“I doubt your interpretation, because free will is clearly available, except when fascists stomp on personal freedoms, like choice of medical practices or protocols.”
How so? Even if everyone in the USA decided that the earth was flat that would not change the fact that the earth was round… and even if everyone in the USA said that vaccines were useless that would not change the fact that they are useful in disease prevention.
“Hardly, which word seemed to suggest your assumption? Let's review my words with comments added: "Why are ethical questions so hushed in governance? Who benefits most from quitting ethical questions”. This intends to mean- Why are ethical questions, especially the largest ethical questions avoided in governance. Or say governments for that matter?”
The largest ethical question is “is it ethical to run a very large scale double blind study on the effectiveness of vaccines ?” and the answer is pretty much “No, based on the evidence such a trial would represent an unnecessary health risk to those involved in the study”.
It’s like suggesting a double blind study for antibiotics.
“My opinion is based on my life experience which proves to me as an individual that my best health advances came from 'preventative medicine ' which perfects (builds up) real health—“
And as has been pointed out, your personal experience is anecdotal, and is not applicable to the population at large. Your lifestyle does play into your health, but so does your genetics (which cannot be changed) and a not inconsiderable dose of chance.
If there was a smallpox outbreak would you feel perfectly safe ?
“My worst, more debilitating experience of medicine came from the ER, like after my head was hit by a 20 ton excavator bucket, on the job-- Although my symptoms and immediate feelings were that i was finished (major head trauma per CT Angio).”
So why did you go to the ER?
“Statistics might have suggested permanent suffering. Yet with time i healed myself naturally on my own, without the offered protocols. In addition to nutrition exceeding the genetic expression, i woke up to many common sense practices, all of which healed me.... We agree, if you call for better ethical standards.”
The important word there is ‘might’. A nasty blow to the head carries a high chance of permanent injury, but it does not mandate a permanent injury.
Did the hospital just push you out the door once you could walk? How long was your recovery time? Did people who were similarly injured recover in a similar amount of time (and did those who acted as you did recover faster on average)?
Questions like that are why anecdotal evidence is not a reliable source of data. There are to many factors at play on a given individual so say with any degree of certainty that it was your nutritionally / lifestyle choices that were a key component in your recovery.
“This is a large subject in itself. Manipulating 'purpose' of studies, manipulation of the methods of study, manipulation of apparatus in experiments, manipulation of conclusions....”
So can you demonstrate where that is occurring? The choices are “manipulation of massive numbers of studies spanning multiple countries, decades, and researcher / labs” and “the studies are an accurate representation of the effectiveness of vaccines”
“My personal focus would be be on 'purpose' as in the purpose of health in the first place. The purposes for developing strong immunities. Funding studies with persons who actively pursue and can already prove high immunity.”
When you look at the studies they show that vaccines are effective without regard for physical location, gender, economic status, race , or any other factor. The common link is the presence of vaccines. Yet you seem to be suggesting that all these people spread across age and culture share a superior immune system? Is the fact that they were vaccinated just a coincidence?
"The largest ethical question is “is it ethical to run a very large scale double blind study on the effectiveness of vaccines ?” and the answer is pretty much “No, based on the evidence such a trial would represent an unnecessary health risk to those involved in the study”."
On that persisting 'ethical excuse' to hide true health from the public eye: To claim that advancing medical technology might prove unethical, therefore competitive-health-proving experiments might be 'unethical'. You have not shown how it is unethical to resist disease through well disciplined and well informed health. You haven't shown how health is irrelevant. You have not shown how mandatory- vaccination -programs are worth more tax- money -expenditure than proven health is. You have not shown how profiteering is more key in governance, than is true public health. You have not shown current health mandates are even healthy, (they are actually more about disease-care and insurance profiteering, 20- 30% to the investor right there, is it?)
"And as has been pointed out, your personal experience is anecdotal, and is not applicable to the population at large. Your lifestyle does play into your health, but so does your genetics (which cannot be changed) and a not inconsiderable dose of chance. "
Ah so, the anecdotalist must be shunned from science , aye? Let us remember that this is a public forum, which clearly implies that anecdotalists are on board. Let us also remember the humility demonstrated by the worlds greatest scientists. Genes are actually under experiment, in science, with a fanfare all of it's own.
If there was a smallpox outbreak would you feel perfectly safe ?"
Let us clarify a thought experiment here. Let us say we were transported back in time to 1900. You would probably ask to take your bag of selective vaccines, based on your historical book -learning of the diseases of that time. Me- I would be quite content with a bag of selective alternative remedies. Now would we head straight for the densest parts of the ghettoes? I think that unwise. Yet if we could fast-forward 10 years, we would see the beginnings of hope in electrification. Fast-forward another 10 or 20 years, we would see the market installing food refrigeration, enhanced education through night lighting, septic clean-up on industrial scales making progress. Yet is it possible to infect the healthiest person? Sure it is possible, but likewise such people know how to mange life's situation, through self discipline , education, and progress.
"The important word there is ‘might’. A nasty blow to the head carries a high chance of permanent injury, but it does not mandate a permanent injury.
My initial report was from radiologists who in part reported blood on the brain and a fractured skull. I was blacked out initially for hours and recovered consciousness only after literally walking around a bit incognito with my co worker and family. As a classified poor person, my only interest in the ER was legal procurement of the ultimate pain killer. My head throbbed for several days, i had difficulty thinking, i was continuously dizzy, my eyesight was skewed completely cross-eyed. My family tantalized me with a hint of pain killers.
Did the hospital just push you out the door once you could walk?
No, the hospital wants poor people to stay in luxury hospital beds and suck away money from government to pay for the poor. Unfortunately, it is insured persons who are oddly billed for this. I never wanted to burden any other soul, so i got out of the hospital, as soon as my head ache stopped and could accesses the situation, before any public money was spent on me. Yet weirdly, i could have paid far less to a street drug dealer for that pain killer, amazing.
How long was your recovery time?
It took 6-7 weeks before i recovered enough at home, to work again and drive again. I pushed forward my healing with diet , supplements and spiritual miracle. Most notable is the fact that after leaving the hospital, after taking pain killers for a few days more, it occurred to me that my head aches advanced most after lying for periods of time. So i arranged my sleeping for sitting up while sleeping with ample pillows. After the first morning awakening, after sit-sleeping, my head was not aching at all. The head ache never throbbed again, as i avoided lying down. Six weeks seemed a long disability, but each day slight improvements came.
Did people who were similarly injured recover in a similar amount of time (and did those who acted as you did recover faster on average)?
What i read of this on the web suggested no complete recoveries from severe head trauma, like mine, are noted publicly. Yet i can work equally well or better than many 20 year olds, i'm 60, (58 yrs at the time of my accident).
“I think that unwise. Yet if we could fast-forward 10 years, we would see the beginnings of hope in electrification. Fast-forward another 10 or 20 years, we would see the market installing food refrigeration, enhanced education through night lighting, septic clean-up on industrial scales making progress.”
Yet polio was endemic throughout those years… it was only after the polio vaccine entered wide spread use in the mid to late 1960s (the vaccine was licensed in 1962) that polio numbers continued to drop.
Further expanded sanitation technologies do not explain why polio dropped in populations that did not use sanitation technologies (either for ideological or monetary reasons). Polio has been eliminated in the Amish population, which does not use modern sanitary technologies (refrigeration and such). Polio has also been eliminated in third world countries that do not have access to clean water or refrigeration.
At the present time polio is endemic in four countries: India, Nigeria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If sanitation technologies were the actual cause for the near elimination of polio then why is it endemic in Nigeria and not Ethiopia or Ghana?
“Yet is it possible to infect the healthiest person? Sure it is possible, but likewise such people know how to mange life's situation, through self discipline , education, and progress.”
And part of that progress involves the use of vaccines to protect people from known viruses.
“I was blacked out initially for hours and recovered consciousness only after literally walking around a bit incognito with my co worker and family. As a classified poor person, my only interest in the ER was legal procurement of the ultimate pain killer.”
Again… I said ‘might’…
This is the danger of anecdotal evidence. Your single experience does not extrapolate to the entire population of those with head injuries. Just because you did not need surgery after getting banged on the head does not mean that surgery is unnecessary when people get banged on the head.
“No, the hospital wants poor people to stay in luxury hospital beds and suck away money from government to pay for the poor.”
So did you ever get a follow-up scan?
“Six weeks seemed a long disability, but each day slight improvements came.”
Is that the usual recovery time without treatment? Do people recover faster if they receive continued treatment in the hospital? Do people who receive no medical treatment recover at the same rate? Was that exact combination of treatments that you used the cure or were any of them extraneous? Is that combination of treatments globally effective or does it have to be altered based on the individual? If it has to be altered then what factors have to be altered and why?
From a Scientific standpoint those are the first questions that pop into my mind when thinking about your recovery. They highlight why anecdotal evidence is not valid, because they can obviously not be answered using just your personal experiences.
It is like if I said that cups do not break if they fall on the floor… because I just dropped a cup and it did not break.
Or as a better example consider this… I lived a rather unhealthy lifestyle when I was going through college . My sleep was erratic, my diet was horrible ( one semester my usual lunch consisted of a bottle of Nestea sweet tea and a butterfinger or snickers bar, and I ate at Burger King so much that I have not set foot in one since I graduated), I was overweight, and I got virtually no exercise . Through all that I never once got seriously ill (I once had a nasty fever once)… Fast forward to today… I’m exercising a great deal, I’ve lost most of the weight I gained in college, I’m eating much better ( I cut out the fast food , sugary drinks, eat vegetarian for about half my meals)… and the sickest I can ever recall being was last spring ( mono is not fun ).
“What i read of this on the web suggested no complete recoveries from severe head trauma, like mine, are noted publicly. Yet i can work equally well or better than many 20 year olds, i'm 60, (58 yrs at the time of my accident).”
Where were you looking? We would have to look at the published research to see what the recovery rates are for such an injury. Also have you had an MRI since then to check on the injury?
"Actually I have. I have shown, repeatedly, that vaccines are very effective at preventing the spread of known pathogens… the money saved through the prevention of disease outbreaks far exceeds the money spent on vaccination campaigns."
You have worded the second part of this such that it supports 'prevention' . Indeed, prevention like intelligent life styles obviates conditions for disease to start or to incubate, etc...
>>">>“You have not shown how profiteering is more key in governance, than is true public health . You have not shown current health mandates are even healthy, (they are actually more about disease-care and insurance profiteering, 20- 30% to the investor right there, is it?)”>>">>
"Neither of which are at all relevant to the core of my argument… that vaccines programs can be scientifically demonstrated to be safe and effective, and that the benefits offered by some vaccines are significant enough to mandate their uses."
Ah, is it not for health-minded individuals to spot a bad deal? Is there no mandate for governance to provide the best deal possible? If in fact, the current US bill throws away 20-30% of a health-related budget , then people will gradually become alarmed. Facts like this will surface and fester. If profiteers and pushers 'force' their wares upon the public, then arguments will arise. Dictatorial medicine tries to dominate, but democratic choice ultimately wins the days ahead.
Again- "....and that the benefits offered by some vaccines are significant enough to mandate their uses."
Your use of the modifier 'some' may serve as an admission that the vaccine model does not always work as expected (and that it is not the ultimate modality).
>>">>“Let us remember that this is a public forum, which clearly implies that anecdotalists are on board.” >>">>
"Anecdotalists? That’s like saying that there are flat-earthers or homeopaths here, and that we should respect them."
Let me say that it was you who introduced the effects relating to anecdotes. Tolerance may be very hard for perfectionists. Ad hominem tactics are anti- science . Let the merits of proof proceed in a free country. Or is freedom losing ground to some would-be dictators who believe they dictate science? Indeed, the political- church proved that, through historical scientists like Galileo .
RE: Refrigeration... Your examples, under that heading, omit comprehensive analysis. In brief-- The Amish people have strict rules of living, including certain health practices. To be fair, we should consult them for more details. Yet the Amish, like any people in any country can and do benefit, to some extent, by remote sanitation which has become industrialized (separately). In that trade and other effective vectors circulate all places.
Freedom to choose modalities, or obtain second opinions was key in scientific history. Vaccines alone, on top of junk diets, like total junk food , or like impoverishment beyond belief are not key examples. It is pointless to claim victory over dead pretexts. It is silly to profess vaccine cures in the case devastating, chronic famine. Likewise where 'food' is void of nutrition it is silly if not an intentional culling mechanism, to ignore precursors of disease and precursors of health.
"Also have you had an MRI since then to check on the injury?"
The single benefit from modern medicine which i got, was a little pain killer from the hospital-- Just enough lapse from the throbbing head ache, due to blood pressure build up-- Blood on the brain, (with fractured skull) as evidenced in the CAT scan. Just a small lapse of that head ache, to realize that my head should remain raised at all times, to subside that painful pressure buildup. My natural healing proceeded from that moment forward. Your statistics completely miss healing like mine.