Doctors agree with censored study that concludes unvaccinated children ...

[BADecker]

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.

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

[1714824075]

1714824075

[1714824075]

1714824075

[BADecker]

What's killing Americans? Top 10 prescribed medications of 2016 give us a troublesome answer

'Let food be thy medicine' is a saying attributed to Hippocrates, who is known as the Father of Modern Medicine. We would be well off to heed his advice, but by and large, we do not, for it is the Standard American Diet that is making us sick. A look at the most often prescribed medications reveals the most common health conditions we are being treated for. And these conditions reveal a problem with our diet, because our poor health is closely correlated with our poor food choices.

Our food supply has been adulterated by heavy processing, it's laden with chemical additives and pesticides, and it lacks the all-important mineral content, due to poor quality soil, after years of high-intensity agricultural practices. Is it any wonder that we are one of the sickest nations in the developed world?

You are what you eat

This truism is all too true, for if we eat healthy foods, we will be healthy. But if we eat unhealthy foods, we will be unhealthy. Here is a list of the top ten prescriptions in America in 2016 (from LowestMed.com), along with the associated health condition, the dietary culprit, and a healthier dietary approach.

1. Atorvastatin Calcium is prescribed for high cholesterol. The most recent research bucks conventional wisdom and attributes high cholesterol to refined carbohydrates, not fats. Substituting high quality fats and oils for the empty carbs is the solution.

2. Levothyroxine is used to treat hypothyroidism, or an underactive thyroid. Fluoride in our food and water is absorbed by the body in place of iodine. Iodine is woefully deficient in most people and is essential for healthy hormone production by the thyroid gland. Try to avoid ubiquitous fluoride and supplement iodine.

3. Lisinopril is used for high blood pressure, which is associated with heart attacks. Too much salt is blamed for high blood pressure, but low magnesium is most often overlooked.

4. Omeprazole treats reflux symptoms, which medical orthodoxy says is caused by too much stomach acid, whereas it is likely caused by too little production of hydrochloric acid. Make sure you get enough sodium chloride, or table salt in your diet.

5. Metformin is used to lower blood sugar for diabetes patients. Many physicians now blame a diet rich in refined carbohydrates for the onset of type 2 diabetes, and believe that it can be controlled solely through diet.

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.

[tvbcof]

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.

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.

[protokol]

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

What's killing Americans? Top 10 prescribed medications of 2016 give us a troublesome answer

'Let food be thy medicine' is a saying attributed to Hippocrates, who is known as the Father of Modern Medicine. We would be well off to heed his advice, but by and large, we do not, for it is the Standard American Diet that is making us sick. A look at the most often prescribed medications reveals the most common health conditions we are being treated for. And these conditions reveal a problem with our diet, because our poor health is closely correlated with our poor food choices.

Our food supply has been adulterated by heavy processing, it's laden with chemical additives and pesticides, and it lacks the all-important mineral content, due to poor quality soil, after years of high-intensity agricultural practices. Is it any wonder that we are one of the sickest nations in the developed world?

You are what you eat

This truism is all too true, for if we eat healthy foods, we will be healthy. But if we eat unhealthy foods, we will be unhealthy. Here is a list of the top ten prescriptions in America in 2016 (from LowestMed.com), along with the associated health condition, the dietary culprit, and a healthier dietary approach.

1. Atorvastatin Calcium is prescribed for high cholesterol. The most recent research bucks conventional wisdom and attributes high cholesterol to refined carbohydrates, not fats. Substituting high quality fats and oils for the empty carbs is the solution.

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.

2. Levothyroxine is used to treat hypothyroidism, or an underactive thyroid. Fluoride in our food and water is absorbed by the body in place of iodine. Iodine is woefully deficient in most people and is essential for healthy hormone production by the thyroid gland. Try to avoid ubiquitous fluoride and supplement iodine.

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.

3. Lisinopril is used for high blood pressure, which is associated with heart attacks. Too much salt is blamed for high blood pressure, but low magnesium is most often overlooked.

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.

4. Omeprazole treats reflux symptoms, which medical orthodoxy says is caused by too much stomach acid, whereas it is likely caused by too little production of hydrochloric acid. Make sure you get enough sodium chloride, or table salt in your diet.

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.

5. Metformin is used to lower blood sugar for diabetes patients. Many physicians now blame a diet rich in refined carbohydrates for the onset of type 2 diabetes, and believe that it can be controlled solely through diet.[/size]

[/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!!

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.

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.

 

[protokol]

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.

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 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/

[tvbcof]

...

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/

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/



---

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?

[Sithara007]

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.  

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.

[protokol]

...

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/

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/



---

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?

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:



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:



Vaccines destroyed smallpox in less than 100 years.

[tvbcof]

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.  

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.

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.

[Sithara007]

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

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.

[tvbcof]

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.
...

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.

[IIOII]

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.

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.

[BADecker]

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.  

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.

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.

[protokol]

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.
...

Thanks for your well thought out reply

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

[protokol]

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.

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.

  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?

[Sithara007]

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.

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.

[iamnotback]

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.

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

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.

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).

A. This chart only looks at deaths in the US from 1900-1965 (a pretty small amount of time),

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[IIOII]

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.

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.

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.

[Xester]

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.

[Sithara007]

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.