Bitcoin Forum

Doctors agree with censored study that concludes unvaccinated children ... (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/210383-2017-01-09-doctors-agree-with-censored-study-that-concludes-unvaccinated-children.htm)


https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/693-0109084421-vaccines-are-scary.jpg (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/210383-2017-01-09-doctors-agree-with-censored-study-that-concludes-unvaccinated-children.htm)




Read more and click the links at http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-01-08-doctors-agree-with-study-that-concludes-unvaccinated-children-are-healthier-than-vaccinated-children.html.


8)

OK, let's do some critical analysis on this article.

Firstly, it is well known (and pretty obvious) that naturalnews.com is a seriously questionable source when it comes to professional medical advice. You only need to look at how much they rely on dodgy ads (and a specific demographic of readers that lap up this anti-establishment/alternative medicine/anti Big Pharma journalism) to get an idea of how they make money. Just look at the sidebar ads on this page alone.

But let's give them the benefit of the doubt this time, and actually check the sources for the article. It claims, that a doctor (Jennifer Margulis, PhD) claims, that a paper was published in the journal "Frontiers in Public Health", and then removed without explanation. OK, so now we check what sort of a "doctor" Jennifer Margulis is.



source: http://kindredmedia.org/author/jennifer-margulis-phd/ (http://kindredmedia.org/author/jennifer-margulis-phd/)

Right, the plot thickens... she's not a medical doctor at all, just a journalist with a BA in Engish and Russian, and a doctorate in English. Hmm, this is where alarm bells start to ring.

Then we can look up some information on the journal itself, "Frontiers in Public Health". While it is a peer-reviewed journal, it has had many criticisms and even been added (albeit controversially) to a "blacklist of questionable publications" by another academic, Jeffrey Beall. source:

http://www.nature.com/news/backlash-after-frontiers-journals-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers-1.18639 (http://www.nature.com/news/backlash-after-frontiers-journals-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishers-1.18639)

So both the "doctor" and the journal are now both sounding less reputable than the article implies. But, lets give them both the benefit of the doubt and look at the details given on the paper itself:


Ding ding ding!! This is where we start to really see how unreliable the source for the article is. Any bonafide medical doctor or scientist will tell you that "parental surveys" are an incredibly questionable source of data for any study, (and I wouldn't be surprised if this was the reason that the paper was pulled from publication). Not to mention that the sample was taken from a rather specific section of the population, limited to a few of the more backward States of America (OK, OK, citation needed for that  ;D)

The article doesn't quote any other studies, but goes on to mention a few other "doctors" that agree with the findings, that all seem just as sketchy as good old doctor of English and controversial journalist, Jennifer Margulis. I could probably find a bunch of dirt on them too, but I can't be bothered to investigate further as the article has already lost most of its credibility.

While I would personally agree that studies into the potential dangers of vaccination should continue (even if just to socially educate people), this article stinks.

I haven't done much research into vaccines causing "ADD/ADHD, asthma and other auto-immune disorders", but there are some very meticulous and thorough studies that suggest that vaccines absolutely do not cause autism. For example, here is the abstract of a meta-analysis of 10 studies involving over 1.2 million children:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559)

And an article explaining it: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/final-nail-coffin-vaccine-autism-myth/ (http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/final-nail-coffin-vaccine-autism-myth/)

My personal opinion is that in recent years, a greater understanding of autism and ADHD type disorders has led to an increase in their diagnosis. Most children get vaccinated, and if even a small percentage of these children develop autism or ADHD, it's understandable (but incorrect) that the parents could make a false assumption that one had caused the other.

Imagine you started feeding your kid solid food, perhaps PB & J sandwiches for the first time in their life, and a few months later they got some weird disease. Then you read about other parents who did the same thing, and their kids got the same disease. That absolutely doesn't mean that PB & J sandwiches gave them the disease, it was just a coincidence, but these parents get sucked into this filter bubble/echo chamber, and suddenly everything they're reading and hearing is confirming what they suspected. It's called confirmation bias, and is extremely easy to succumb to on the internet.

Moral of the story is, check your sources thoroughly and be extremely careful with websites like "naturalnews.com" - they are using you as a means of making money, and they themselves probably don't believe the majority of the shit they post.

Exactly. IMO, the government must prosecute the owners of these websites for attempting to harm the health of the people. Anyone who advocates against the usage of modern medicine deserves criminal prosecution.

I'm not sure if this is irony or not.

Assuming that ''modern medicine" is always right is insane. Modern medicine may have preserved the life of many, but there have also been catastrophic mistakes, even advocated by highest rank authorities in the field (e.g. think of prefrontal lobotomy).

Vaccination related negative health conditions are a reality. Today they are assumed to be very rare, but comparative long term assessment of vaccination-related health status is largely unavailable.

Without commenting on the particular study in question, assuming a publication bias is at least plausible, because there is significant capital allocated in the vaccination industry.

The decision to receive vaccination or not should be made freely by every single individual.

The prosecution is not correct. Person has the right to dispose of their health. Another thing is that if the person refuses vaccination, he represents the threat of the epidemic. He needs to pay for insurance in case of illness.

You're right in saying that we shouldn't just trust modern medicine/Big Pharma, because they have made huge mistakes in the past (eg the Thalidomide catastrophe) and are known to sometimes be corrupt (eg withholding data that shows their drugs to be ineffective, as is the case with Roche and their Tamiflu drug).

But that doesn't mean that everything Big Pharma makes is dangerous or ineffective. We just need to be careful, and study the actual data and evidence, rather than rely on hearsay.


Well, the eradication/control of many diseases such as smallpox, polio, yellow fever, measles and many more constitute a long term assessment that vaccines are effective. You can compare the data and see the correlation quite clearly.

There are also many studies/research into the side effects of vaccines (such as the research I linked in my post regarding autism), and the general consensus is that it's far safer to get vaccinated than not, even though there are minuscule chances for allergic reactions.

I don't like the idea of too much state involvement in people's personal lives, but I also don't believe herd immunity should be compromised because some parents refuse to vaccinate their children - it puts others in danger that may not be able to be vaccinated for real medical reasons (such as allergic reactions)

I don't think full on prosecution of parents is fair, but I do think they should be "persuaded" to vaccinate - for example some countries have started stopping welfare/benefits for parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. That seems like a good idea to me.

The wealthy and affluent are the ones who are most resistant to vaccinating their kids.  They have the time are resources to do the research, and in some cases are probably well aware of the game and evil enough to be in favor of it.  And they don't need your stinkin' welfare checks.  The kids of this 1% class need to compete against others in their peer group so it is a non-starter to physically damage them with vaccines.  In fact the gauntlet that your average rich-kid runs (fast cars, quality drugs, etc) is already nearly as dangerous as most of the inner city youth face.

The rate set for 'herd immunity' is completely flexible and has varied a lot depending on pharma needs.  The elite 1% kids can easily be slipped into whatever cracks need to be opened up.  A handful of doctors can be chosen to issue waivers, and with 'privacy' laws things could be pretty much completely opaque.  A very interesting study even right now would be to compare the titer levels of the affluent teens vs. the 99%.

It's actually a rather clever system design to:

 - 'persuade' (aka, 'extort') the needy into poisoning their offspring using welfare checks as the carrot.

 - force the middle class to:

    - foot the bill for the welfare check extortion

    - sicken their own kids

    - join the ranks of the needy once all of their property and savings have been handed over to the 1%

Through it all the controllers can harvest the bizzaro autists who pop out.  Classroom bio-metric feedback collection anyone?  Being generally bereft of normal ethical potential and sometimes unusually bright in some ways, such 'human resources' can make very capable technocrats.  Just need to sieve them out.

When this cycle is complete and the middle class is history, the non-useful 'human resources' can be disposed of.  They'll have limited means of resistance being mentally damaged, sick, and totally dependent on the corp/gov state.

That assumption is not entirely correct, since person has no right to risk lives of other people. There is a thing called collective immunity. One who are applying vaccination is protecting not only himself, but he also provides protection to those who either have weak immune response or can't be immunized due to medical contraindications. It is our civil responsibility to ensure that infection will not spread through us to the most vulnerable members of our society, such us children, elders or disabled people. If somebody denies that simple fact then he should be exiled to uninhabitable island.

Qualitatively at least you are telling me that I need to sicken myself in order to offset the risk of someone else who has a regrettable deficiency which I have nothing to do with.  Or simply the power to buy their way out.  Screw that!

Logically speaking, the tiny minority with the supposed deficiency should be the ones who are 'exiled to an uninhabitable island'.  Being a classical liberal rather than an indoctrinated collectivist totalitarian wannabe, however, I don't wish malice upon them and would favor more humanitarian conditions.

If I felt confident that the risk/reward of 'doing good' by someone who has misfortune was transparently and accurately calculated, I very well might do just that.  This is not AT ALL the case with the medical/industrial complex in this country at this time.  Fix that problem BEFORE you force-march people into the the clinic to get whatever big-pharma wishes injected into their bloodstream.  Or expect significant resistance.

Bolded by me.

You say "sicken yourself" but all the reputable data shows us that you are not in fact sickening yourself by getting vaccinated. You are actually protecting yourself and others by getting vaccinated. There are small children (too young to get vaccinated), not just people who have medical conditions that prevent themselves from getting vaccinated, and by refusing vaccination you are putting them at risk. You are sounding a little like you condone ethnic/genetic cleansing.

Your posts so far in this thread have been hyperbole/personal opinion, and you haven't added any actual evidence to back up your claims. At least I analysed the OP's article and showed the glaring holes in it, demonstrated how certain media outlets with a money making agenda profit from the disinformation and misleading sources, and posted some very thorough conflicting evidence that vaccines are relatively safe.

If they are so dangerous and cause diseases, where is the evidence for that? Where are all the people dying from vaccination, a common process in the modern world that is used on the vast majority of the population?

I already said that I believe that increasing diagnoses of ADHD and autism are almost certainly a result of increased understanding in the conditions, not due to any vaccination poisoning or other such unsubstantiated nonsense. In past, sufferers of conditions like these would have been branded "imbeciles", "idiots" or "cretins", and probably sent to psychiatric wards for the rest of their lives.

Smallpox was eradicated from the Earth due to vaccination (pretty much, some strains still exist in high security virology labs, but the general population doesn't suffer from it because it was destroyed through vaccination programmes). That in itself is a some pretty thorough evidence that some vaccines at least work as they should. Many other serious diseases are now under control through vaccination.

If you have any proper, reputable peer reviewed evidence that vaccines cause any sort of disease then why not post that, instead of your own personal conspiracy theories? And don't Gish Gallop, just post the single best piece of research/study/meta-analysis you can find and we'll analyse and debate its scientific trustworthiness.

Who cares what you said, or how many times you said it?

What you and yours say is as often as not a dead match for what Sharyl Attkisson in her TEDx talk here:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

I've already said that I've listened intently to at least 100 presentations from real medical doctors and scientists who unhappy enough to torpedo their careers by speaking out.  And I've read a lot more.  In point of fact, it's getting obvious enough by this time that your rapidly expanding vaccination regime is fucking up a lot of people's immune systems and contributing to a cascade of problems.

Anyone who pays much attention to contentious scienctific debates in our time (vaccinations, GMOs, global climate change, etc) recognizes 'peer review' as a laughable circle-jerk which means little or nothing when corporate money is involved and corporate profits are on the line.

Do you have a particular problem that made you clip my rather common sense suggestion?"

I don't have the time right now to answer everything you have said. But in general, all the things that you say can be applied in just the opposite way.

The whole medical and university set-up is to promote making money. This includes hiding as much of the truth about how they are damaging people for profit, as well as limiting the cures for that same profit.

Consider cancer. The trophoblast theory of cancer that has been around for over 100 years, shows that everyone has cancer. It is a natural thing that is in everybody. When you add a weakening of the immune system, cancer steps out into the open.

So, what strengthens the immune system? Since the immune system is a thing of nature (doctors didn't invent it), treating the immune system with natural foods, etc., strengthens it so that it can control the cancer. Drugs merely weaken the immune system, so that the cancer can't be controlled, and so that the medical has more excuse to attempt their cures.

Modern medicine is a belief system. That's all... except that it is a false one.

The trophoblast theory of cancer is seldom heard. Yet it has never been proven wrong. The medical barely speaks of it if they do at all. No money in it. It's the same with vaccines.

If vaccines are any good, it's only in emergency situations, and there are other things that are better.

8)

Um OK, you post an article and then I helpfully show you how the article is misleading you. I actually did a small amount of research and showed the flaws.

Your answer is basically a total cop-out - "Oh but everything you said can be equally applied in the opposite way!". No, they can't, because my sources are from actual medical doctors and researchers, not from some dumb bitch with a doctorate in English, like yours was.

The rest of your post is simply hyperbole, claiming the "whole medical and university set-up is to promote making money." Well no, it does make money but it aso relies on peer-reviewed research of a good quality, unlike the websites you post articles from.

I already addressed the corruption of Big Pharma and agreed that it is a problem. That's why we look at good quality data and evidence rather than believing clickbait from bullshit sites designed to make money.

As for your cancer comments, you should know that one of the main reasons that cancer has become so prevalent is because humans are living longer and longer, giving cancer more time to develop. That's why you don't see many animals in their natural environments get cancer, because they die from other causes before cancer kills them. Modern medicine has increased the life expectancy by a huge amount, so cancers have obviously become a statistically higher killer. This is well known in the scientific community.


That's literally nonsense. Everything is a thing of nature, doesn't mean that drugs or chemical compounds aren't effective against illness. Newsflash:: All elements (and most compounds used in medicine) already exist in nature! There are very few purely synthetic drugs, and even those are synthesized from natural elements.

As for "modern medicine is a belief system", I find it hilarious that you are a super-evangelical Christian, believe in creation and that that the world is 6,000 years old, but can't see the importance of empirical medical research. I hope you don't plan on having children, or have any already... My heart bleeds for them.

LOL! You are promoting poison as a method of healing because it is a thing of nature? That's exactly the biggest thing the medical does.

8)

Big Pharma Shaking as Trump Appoints Top Vaccine Truth Advocate (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/210528-2017-01-11-big-pharma-shaking-as-trump-appoints-top-vaccine-truth-advocate.htm)


https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/693-0111090548-robert-kennedy.jpg (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/210528-2017-01-11-big-pharma-shaking-as-trump-appoints-top-vaccine-truth-advocate.htm)


Big Pharma Shaking as Trump Appoints Top Vaccine Truth Advocate
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FcssxFuboTM/hqdefault.jpg?custom=true&w=246&h=138&stc=true&jpg444=true&jpgq=90&sp=68&sigh=Hrh2eJ6Xmeyl73p_kt9dU2hSUZA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcssxFuboTM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcssxFuboTM)




Read more at http://wearechange.org/big-pharma-shaking-trump-appoints-top-vaccine-truth-advocate/.


8)

Answer me this: Why is the life expectancy of the majority of the world's population (at least in the most developed countries) at an all time high? If vaccines are deadly, wouldn't we be seeing a decrease in life expectancy?

Food for thought.

No, you just said "natural things are beneficial for the immune system because they are natural". I retorted by saying most drugs are natural, or produced with natural elements, and now you accuse me of "promoting poison as a method of healing"

So you agree that nature can produce poisons as well as beneficial medicine? How do you tell which natural things are beneficial are which are poisons? I guess you just browse naturalnews.com and believe whatever they tell you. Good luck soldier, you're gonna need it...

As a counter argument, antibiotics such as penicillin (originally derived from a natural mould) actually do weaken the immune system. But they're natural right, so they must be good! Nonsense.

The basic answer is hygiene and Christianity.    8)

Okay. We were both unclear. The point is, medicine is poison. If the medical is using poison to attempt to cure disease, then poison is not really poison. So, why do we call it poison?

Most people who die from cancer under medical supervision, die from the treatment rather than the cancer.

8)

Hey, the universe is natural. The universe is a good thing. How the medical uses it isn't.   

8)

What's killing Americans? Top 10 prescribed medications of 2016 give us a troublesome answer (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/210498-2017-01-11-whats-killing-americans-top-10-prescribed-medications-of-2016-give.htm)


https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics/693-0111073814-prescription-drug-abuse.jpg (http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/210498-2017-01-11-whats-killing-americans-top-10-prescribed-medications-of-2016-give.htm)




Read more at http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-01-11-whats-killing-americans-top-10-prescribed-medications-of-2016-give-us-a-troublesome-answer.html.


8)

Firstly, life expectancy for 'whites' (or 'white males', forgot which) in the U.S. has started it's decline so I remember reading a bit ago.  The 'scientific' explanation is that they 'have nothing to live for' so they are starting to die sooner.

Secondly, life expectancy increases attributable to avoidance of infectious disease map very well to improvements in sanitation and food supply.  This holds true for infections diseases for which there never was a vaccine such as scarlet fever.  Mapping the introduction of vaccination onto the mortality rate curve of many of these diseases seems to show no measurable effect whatsoever.  In other words, a lot of vaccines look suspiciously like pure snake-oil.  Not saying they are or are not.  I simply don't know but am not relying on the snake-oil salesman for 'truth', but you go right ahead.

Thirdly, it seems that the age which humans live to is not much different now than it ever has been.  That is to say, you'll find 80, 90, and 100 year old people in all societies.  Just not as many of them where risks and living conditions are more of a problem.  Back in the earlier times and other places childbirth and war were big killers but people who made it through that often lived to a similar age that some people do now.

I admit I didn't read the article, but this is all a little oversimplified (but with a little good research thrown in)

Yes but this doesn't account for individuals (generally older citizens who can't get much exercise), and the fact that there is conclusive evidence that statins are a preventitave measure against stroke/heart disease and other similar ailments in the older generation. Of course it would have been better if they led a more healthy life in their youth, but statins still are effective as a preventative measure.

Levothyroxine is also used to treat sufferers of thyroid cancer, some of which have had their thyroid gland removed (including my mother, who developed thyroid cancer at the age of around 60). It is an essential drug for people like my mother, as they don't produce thyroxin any more, which can lead to tiredness and depression, amongst other symptoms. It has helped her regain her normal quality of life, after a year or two of treatment. And she was very emotional and scared at the time, now she is full of energy and doing loads of activities etc - Levothyroxin probably saved her ife.

Can't comment on this as I don't know much about it. Bear in mind magnesium is generally in the form of a salt, when you say salt I assume you mean sodium chloride, not magnesium salt.
Again, I havent done much research on Omeprazole, only that it seems to help stomach ulcers. An important point with Omeprazole is that it inhibits certain enzymes (CYP2C19 and CYP3A4) that break down benzodiazepine drugs such as diazepam and alprazolam (Valium and Xanax). As such, it can be dangerous to take benzos if you are also talking Omeprazole = the effects could be overwhelming. Just a little harm reduction from your resident pharmacologist, protokol.


[/quote] Dont know anything about this one, but I'll certainly look it up. It does seem like a solution from a problem that should be tackled much earlier though, ie don't eat too much refined carbs, do some exercise and you won't get diabetes!! No, I won't read anything from that sorry excuse for a "news source" - it is quite simply (and fucking blatantly) a badly researched, misleading and generally shitty website. Look again how I FUCKING DESTROYED the article you linked. They are out to make money, nothing more nothing less. They don't care whether their readers live or die - they are charlatans and snake oil salesmen of the highest degree, and their only goal is $$$.

And what's actually a little bit sad, is that they prey on a demographic of people who are disillusioned with the general establishment, and think that spreading their (mis)information will actually change the world for the better.

They are fucking capitalist scum, the sooner you realize that, the more you will understand this confusing phenomenon of internet sites claiming a certain ideology, while secretly following another one. It's hypocritical and it makes me fucking sick.

 >:(

I suggest you spend half an hour or so perusing these graphical representations of the effects of vaccines on mankind. Feel free to criticise it after examining the data/sources, but please study it thoroughly. It might not apply to some of your ideas on vaccination (poisoning the population, dumbing them down, making them autistic or hyperactive, I don't know) but it certainly paints a picture of the benefits of vaccines on humanity as a whole.

https://ourworldindata.org/vaccination/ (https://ourworldindata.org/vaccination/)

Perusing the data, a few things strike me:

 - What a remarkably infinitesimal problem 'vaccine preventable disease deaths in the U.S. actually are even by these numbers.  15,000/300,000,000 = 0.00005.  Even if vaccines did work and didn't cause any health impacts, the cost/benefit of manufacturing, distribution, and forcing everyone at gunpoint to the clinic multiple times per year doesn't seem to be there.  That makes me extra suspicious that there is a different motive at work here.

 - Smells like it came from the same propaganda house who says that claim astronomical numbers of lives saved by flu shots.  Odd because the flu itself is almost never a fatal ailment.  Turns out that they estimated that 'maybe half' of the people who died had the flu or something idiotic like that.  The obvious truth is that old people who are near the end anyway are often tipped over the edge by something like the flu.

---

Here's another 'visualization.'  The 'snake oil' chart I'm thinking of from a different post.  From: https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

https://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/us-deaths-1900-1965.gif

---

Question for you.  Was not answered in the last thread:

Does it make sense to give every newborn Hep-B on the first day of life when the disease is contracted almost exclusively by un-safe sex and illegal drug use and the vaccine typically wears off by age 8 or so?  If not, why do you think it is done?

I am curious from where do you get this figure of 15,000? A single outbreak of smallpox (which was eradicated through vaccination) could result in the deaths of millions of individuals.

Well I need to go to bed now, and I'll have a proper look at your chart tomorrow. But a few things that strike me as questionable are:

A. This chart only looks at deaths in the US from 1900-1965 (a pretty small amount of time), it doesn't state when the typoid vaccine was introduced (I believe there is no vaccine for scarlet fever, so I'm not sure why it's plotted on the graph), and it also plots deaths against "per 100,000 people", making the lower end of the chart unreadable because there were nearly 200 million people living in the US in 1965. Meaning a figure of 1 death per 100,000 people = 2000 deaths in a population of 200 million. Quite significant.

If you look at other charts, for example regarding smallpox in Sweden, you can see a significant correlation of decreasing deaths when the vaccine was introduced:

http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ourworldindata_effect-of-vaccine-on-smallpox-%E2%80%93-sweden-fenner-henderson-arita-jezek-and-ladnyi-19880.png

Yes, this is plotting against per million inhabitants, but shows a stark decrease in the instance of smallpox after the introduction of the vaccine.

Another chart, this time a map, showing the eradication of smallpox across the entire world:

http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ourworldindata_the-eradication-of-smallpox-%E2%80%93-year-in-which-smallpox-ceased-to-be-endemic-in-each-country-%E2%80%93-max-roser.png

Vaccines destroyed smallpox in less than 100 years.

To answer your question (again, since I explained it to a degree in the snipped text) I skimmed the dude's Roush and Murphy chart of pre-vaccination preventable deaths and high-balled to be safe.

You are saying 'millions dead' from smallpox alone.  If we take US population (which is appropriate in context) and, say, a 2-year epidemic, we get something like 2M/700M 280/100,000.  This compares to 15/100,000 in the worst year in the U.S. which was around 1918.  To be more accurate, let's take 1962 just before measles vaccine was introduced.  Here we see 1/100,000

The long and the short of it is that you seem to have been massively terrorized by propaganda.  I would not rule out that people's immune systems have been so fucked up by over-use of vaccination that we do see historically high numbers for infection rates, but the answer to a problem is not more of the same problem.  At least that is not _my_ answer, but I also don't hold shares of Merck.

From where are you getting this 15/100,000 figure? Some 700,000 deaths occurred in the United States as a result of the flu epidemic. That corresponds to 700/100,000 and not 15/100,000.

The reason I went back and found this chart was because I thought your 1980-forward stuff from the first link was to narrow.

The plot I dug up is meant to call into question the 'fact' that vaccines are as effective as commonly claimed and deserve the 100% credit for disease reduction that their proponents love to communicate.  The reason why scarlet fever is there and is important is that there never was a vaccine for it yet the trajectory of the disease mirrors the others.  This lends strength to the contention that something other than vaccinations is at play.  Again, strongly hypothesized is sanitation and food availability.

As for the Swedish data, I'm not sure I would completely trust data from the 1700's.  Nor would I map Jenner's technology to what is modern.  I actually do think that a few vaccinations probably do pass the risk/reward test and make sense, and smallpox is likely one of these.  Perhaps and perhaps not on an ongoing basis.  In some cases it may make sense to vaccinate only when a near extinct disease is threatening to make a come-back among a given population.  None-the-less this doesn't conflict with the points I am trying to make.

---

Here's another question...not that similar ones have been answered or anything, but anyway:

If vaccination is very safe with negligible negative health impacts, why is it necessary to give product liability immunity to drug makers for vaccines in particular?  Can they not just price the (near-zero) incidents of harm into their product like everyone else?

Seems to me (and a lot of other people) that this liability immunity granted to select pharma product manufactures is contributing to a lower level of testing and quality control which is endangering a lot of people.  IMO, many many times more people than are threatened by this failure than by the very diseases that the product is supposed to provide (some) protection against.  To add insult to injury, the target diseases are in many cases laughably mild in the first place.  e.g., chickenpox and mumps both of which I've had and thus have lifetime reliable immunity to.  I would much rather have either of these two short-duration nuisance ailments than a lifetime of some debilitating auto-immune related malady and/or neurological damage.

---

As for the 1/100,000 death rate, no, I don't find that terribly significant.  There is other low-hanging fruit which can be addressed with more effect and fewer problems.  1965 was about the time they started putting seat-belts in cars.

The autism rate is supposedly up to around 1/50 (up from like 1/10,000 when I when I was a kid.)  Nobody is allowed to question vaccination as a contributing factor and, coincidentally, nobody can seem to figure out what is going on either.  Even if the rate increase stops, when integrated across the population we are talking about on the order of 6,000,000 people effected in the U.S.  6 million is about 3000 times the 2k which bothers you so much.  True, most autistic people are not 'dead', but in severe cases being dead is vastly preferable.  Or it would be to me.

Now you show your true face.

You behave like a narcissistic little dictator, who knows it all and likes to play god. It's disgusting.

It's unbearable to read your delusional belief in medical pseudo-science and open disrespect for individual freedom.

You are now on my ignore list.

Small pox wasn't eradicated by vaccine. It was on its way to dying out. The medical simply took advatage of this and made it look like the vaccine did it.

8)

Thanks for your well thought out reply


You make some valid points on the small time-frames of my data, and also on the trustworthiness of very old data from the 1700s. I agree with you that not all vaccines should be considered "equal", and that the risk/reward of certain vaccines shoud be taken into question. But I say this more from a point of view of the corruption of Big Pharma trying to make money, rather than any sort of health risk. I am not a fan of Big Pharma in general, as history has shown they are not a very reputable bunch!


I agree with your first points about product liability immunity, and I believe that again this is due to corruption in the pharmaceutical industry with the main purpose of making money. However there are stringent trials which pharmaceutical companies must perform before allowing their products to be used (of course these trials are not always properly performed, and companies sometimes withhold data that suggests their products are insufficiently active, eg Roche and Tamiflu that I mentioned earlier).

I don't agree with your opinion that "many many times more people than are threatened by this failure than by the very diseases that the product is supposed to provide (some) protection against." Because there doesn't seem to be any reliable data to support that claim. Of course it does depend on the severity of the disease the vaccine is preventing - You mention chicken pox and mumps, both of which I had as a child too.

While chicken pox is not particularly severe as you mentioned, mumps can be very severe if contracted as an adult - in fact a relative of mine in his 60s became very ill indeed after contracting mumps.

Interestingly the UK doesn't normally vaccinate against chicken pox (I believe the USA does), but we do have the MMR vaccine. To answer your other question about Hepatitis B vaccination, that isn't mandatory in the UK either.

"a lifetime of some debilitating auto-immune related malady and/or neurological damage." Again, I haven't seen solid evidence that this is a possibility.


My main problem with the graph was simply that it seemed to show cherry-picked data and the scale made it hard to read because it was /100,000 people. But I accept its validity.

Regarding your point about the autism rate, you're correct - the diagnoses have increased dramatically, as they have with many other neurological conditions such as ADHD. The hugely important point to make here though, is that increased diagnoses do not necessarily mean an increase in the number of conditions. There has been a huge amount of research and study into neurological disorders in the last 20 years, and doctors/psychiatrists can now recognize symptoms of these disorders and make a diagnosis. As I said earlier, in the past these people would have just been branded as "idiots" and sent on their way. Now, they can be diagnosed as on the autistic spectrum, which obviously increases the numbers of diagnoses.

So basically, there may be a correlation between the introduction of vaccines and the increase of diagnoses of neurological disorders, but this in no way proves causation. Not only that, but there is significant evidence that (at least with autism) there is no causation. Such as the meta-analysis i posted earlier.

You are absolutely allowed to question whatever you want as a contributing factor. You could hypothesize hundreds of things that were causing the increase in autism diagnoses, from too many cheeseburgers to the exhaust fumes of cars. But without solid studies showing causation, your claims have no validity.

Like I said, I am not a fan of Big Pharma, I understand that some of their practices are deplorable and corrupt, and their influence is especially worrying within the private healthcare system in places such as the USA. But that doesn't mean everything they do is dangerous.

 :D Calm down mate, I specifically said I didn't think the state should be arresting anyone, like some dictator.

I just said they shouldn't receive hand-outs from the state if they don't follow the state's rules, especially if those rules are backed up by what I believe to be solid evidence, that endangers the lives of other people.

A loose analogy would be not allowing people to drive on the road without a license, and if they do so they will be fined. Because they are putting other peoples lives at risk by not getting their licence. If they want, they could move to a country which doesn't require a licence (or where a licence is easier to obtain) and live there instead.

Of course, this analogy won't make sense unless you accept the overwhelming evidence that vaccines are beneficial.

Instead of personally attacking me, why don't you try criticising the actual evidence that I posted?

This is the most ridiculous post I have ever read in Bitcointalk. Do you really believe that smallpox could have been eradicated without the vaccination program? The last cases of smallpox were reported from regions where vaccination could not be performed.

That pinhead protokol doesn't have the intellect to incorporate such holistic analysis.


You repeat your same error from the AGW thread, in that you think a century is of any significance at all relative to the repeating cycles throughout all of recorded history.

Smallpox is not eradicated. It may be dormant and eventually will mutate and pounce again.

The benefit from some vaccinations may be worth it, but we can't know the costs. We don't know what impacts we are making. For example, by ruining human natural selection for surviving viruses, we may be preparing ourselves for a megadeath due to allowing many of the weak DNA to proliferate (procreate).


And you conveniently argue against the relevance of short periods of time when it suits your agenda. You are not objective.


Prove that jackass.

Explain how the Japanese on Okinawa live so long without cancer.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/7367/20130710/okinawa-diet-followers-average-life-span-116-years-eat-video.htm


Do you have an IQ of 105?

WTF is wrong with your brain.

As if vaccines are the only technological improvement over the past century which has impacted the quality of life of humans.  ::)

What about refrigeration.


Another Hitler wolf in "kind, caring, leftist" sheepskin.

These are the most dangerous virus on the planet and we need a forced eradication plan to remove them from the planet. Ignore is too Libertarian, hit him with his own philosophical insanity.

Luckily this kind of mental disease ultimately leads to an increased chance of self-eradication. It feels like a waste of energy to argue with people that are in a state of religious delusion about their almighty pseudo-science, constructing their own reality based on confirmation bias. Eventually, many of these people get hit by reality and their genes will slowly vanish from the gene pool.

If this is true then they should conduct a big and fast studies on this issue. If vaccines can really bring health issues then childrens are in risk of being sickly when they grow old due to this vaccines. If this claim is true or not then they should stop releasing vaccines until everything is proven. If it is proven to be safe then vaccination could be launch again but if there are no results yet all vaccination in the world should be suspended in the moment.

Do you really believe in all this BS? Just compare the lifespans from the countries where vaccination is wide-spread (such as Japan and Canada) to those in countries where the coverage is poor (such as Pakistan and Somalia). You will get the answer. 

Exactly!

Japan didn't really start getting vaccinated until after WW2, when American influence started taking over. Since then we haven't had any kamikaze pilots from Japan. But we still have Pakistani and Somalian suicide bombers.

Perhaps vaccinations have taken away the masculine boldness of Japs just like they have Americans. Of course, this is difficult to determine, since Japs didn't grow any hair on their chests prior to being vaccinated. Just the same...

 ;D

Isn't Japan below replacement levels (in addition to being the source of over half of the world's general weirdness)?  Gee, I wonder how that has happened?  At least their leadership has had the basic decency to be a little more careful with their schedules and somehow found it in themselves to tell the Gardasil eugenicists to go fuck themselves.  The society may survive yet...at least in sufficient numbers to at least design cars and excavators for me.

---

I was just thinking (while enjoying my Japanese excavator today) progressive tend to love them some buttfuckin'.  Even when they don't they probably have to do it in order to stay cool and trendy with their peers sometimes.  With all the tissue tearing and fecal matter and the like I'd bet that the incidents of negative health impacts from buttfucking exceed by a wide margin the 1/100,000-ish numbers we've been tossing about vis-a-vis 'vaccine preventable disease' problems.

I'm sure that none of the progressives who are hot to trot about mandating injections and withhold govt services from non-complaint individuals will have no problem at all when some new group of fundamentalists (Christian, Muslim, whatever) takes over and puts the boot on their neck.  Especially if it is demonstrable that buttfucking is a legitimately bigger threat to 'the collective' than mumps.  No doubt they would totally welcome a microchip implanted in their bunghole just to help keep tabs on any blunt intruders.

---

Speaking of bio-social engineering:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuigSuKqZqI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuigSuKqZqI)

Japan doesn't have any Mexican or Muslim minorities, so their population is declining. But in most of the developed nations, that is the case. The natives are declining in number, while the population of the immigrants are increasing. Even in the United States, among the Non-Hispanic white population there are almost equal number of births to deaths. But considering the fact that some 7% to 8% of the children born to white mothers are non-white, the population is actually declining.

Everyone decides to do vaccinations or not. Personally for me it is very unpleasant since childhood. I think they can only be used in very emergency cases.

Vaccination is good for the health but it is not scientifically proven that vaccinated people have a healthy and longer life compared to other persons. This topic needs a lot of research from the top doctors and medical scientists. I think every business should donate a little from their share to this cause as it will be a common success for everyone if we make it clear if vaccination helps for a better health life.

exactly we can't affirmed that those who already vaccinated have advantage with those who doesn't have, since i'm leaving in a third world country i seen more children coming from an A status lifestyle which vaccinated are always went to the hospital and got sick from time to time comparing for those children which never been vaccinated and leaves outside eating unhealthy foods.

Are you telling that countries accepting vaccines from America had lost their courage to fight. Its as if the vaccines has some kind of effect on the courage of the people. Thats a weird theory but nevertheless it could be possibly true. If you think of the countries that are loyal dogs to America, those are the countries where American made vaccines were distributed.

FBIAnon says that if all of the whistleblower information was released in one batch, the rest of the world would declare war on the U.S. immediately.  Thus, making use of the info it is a tricky operation even if run by protagonists who have decency and general good-will for humankind at heart.

Of course it is possible that the FBIAnon guy is a fraud or a troll, but it's also possible that he is not.  The deep state of the U.S. has had a fairly well documented, well funded, and intense interest in any possible technological means of manipulating human populations.  Also a boost via Operation Paperclip.

Now there is a lot of conflicting information about the harm and benefits of vaccinations. To begin with, you need to learn the scientific information about diseases, vaccinations yourself and then already make a decision and be responsible for the lives of your children.

Not when/where vaccinations are mandatory.  It would be pointless unless one can leave the country or figure out and navigate the buy-off which will likely be available to the elite.  Most people will just take the blue pill and cuddle up against the bosom of the civil authorities.  Things culminating in a leadership driven bloodbath which often target children seem to happen regularly with human civilizations, and especially when they have no worthy adversaries to go to war with (e.g., the Aztecs).

Of course, and it's very hard to find which is trustworthy source of information.
It's like with Bitcoin: would the banks fall in love with Bitcoin unless they can benefit from it?
In the same way such a big industry like the pharmaceutical one will not agree with the possibility such claims are for real.
Most of the reputable books and studies in medicine are done under the pharmaceutical companies' patronage.

So you can believe some unknown John Doe about the bad effects, or you can believe the reputable scientists that made some studies in some pharma company labs.
Or you can suspect John Doe he has some evil plans about the wold or pharma or you can blame the industry that profit is more important that the humans. (Because if vaccines are declared officially bad it means a ton of money to be spent to research for something better).

Right now there are journalists that try this and that, but again, it's hard to tell if they find the best info they could or just try to attract more views for their articles and get some extra pennies.

The topic of stimulation is truly inexhaustible. Especially if you take into account how much disgusting propaganda lies about vaccinations accumulated over 200 years, during which they systematically undermine people's health, destroying their immune system.

Proven vaccination is good, but you need to consider the fact that viruses are constantly mutating and it may not always be effective. Also, if a person has allergic reactions to the vaccine, then it is better not to put the vaccine.

Proven vaccination in its simple form might be acceptable, or even good at times. But the bad part is the people who control what goes into the vaccination. When they stick mercury in shots, there is a hint something might be wrong with the system.

On top of the above, while a vaccine might prove beneficial for the immediate problem, long term studies show that it can be detrimental for other things in other ways.

8)