1. Dan Wilson

    Dan Wilson Senior Member

    When it comes to vaccinations, the general public is still exposed to strong supporters of conspiracy theories, misunderstandings, and general bunk concerning the practice. I'd like this thread to be open to discussion involving anything about vaccines. I'm not covering the autism idea in this post because it has been brought up in other threads and thoroughly debunked, but if you have any questions feel free to ask. Instead I'm going to focus on ideas suggested in the following documentary that claims vaccinations do not help and, instead, harm people who receive them. I will not cover every claim and I will discuss some things not in the film in order to make this post as comprehensive as possible.

    Claim: One of the first claims brought up and is then talked about through the whole video is that the diseases vaccines were made to prevent were already declining before the vaccine was introduced. They suggest that this means the vaccines were not actually the cause for the decline in disease.

    Fact: Let's take the first one they talk about, the whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine as an example. Dr. Isaac Golden presents us with a graph that shows a declining incidence rate of pertussis and an arrow to represent the introduction of the vaccine in 1948, which by this time in the graph the incidence rate is relatively low. There are a number of problems with this. Most importantly, the arrow is pointing to the wrong time of pertussis vaccine use. When vaccines became successful and widespread, many different vaccines were mixed together into a single shot for efficiency's sake. For example, the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine. The 1948 mark points to the introduction of the Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis (DTaP or DTP) vaccine. Regular pertussis vaccines, however, have been around since the 1920's when Louis W. Sauer^ created a successful vaccine. Others were successful and used the vaccines to help control outbreaks.

    http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v55/n2/full/pr200452a.html (http://archive.is/HfWmf)
    Dr. Viera Scheibner then presents another graph to claim the same thing about diphtheria. In this case, and many like it, the graph is deceptive in the fact that it shows a limited time span and, most importantly, is measuring the deaths attributed to that disease. This hides the true success of vaccines, as decreases in incidence rates are much more telling. To illustrate that with the examples I've listed, here are the data for pertussis and diphtheria incidence rates.

    http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting.html (http://archive.is/iFgXA)

    http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/vpd-mev/diphtheria-eng.php (http://archive.is/T4ByV)

    Another deceptive graph is the one presented about measles. Here are the real data.

    So the claim against vaccine effectiveness using these graphs turns out to be absolute bunk. Vaccines have been demonstrated to be hugely successful in reducing incidence of disease and even eradicating some nasty ones.

    Claim: Bronwyn Hancock, the narrator of the film, claims that immunized populations fare no better than non-immunized populations.

    Fact: Over the past few decades, especially with the emergence of anti-vaccination groups, there have been large groups of people who refuse to receive immunization. This unfortunate reality gives us the opportunity to address such a claim directly. In every case, immunized populations do, in fact, have lower incidence rates than non-immunized populations. One of the best examples I can think of is that of polio. Polio is close to eradication, but some countries still report relatively high incidence rates. These include countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Radical groups have claimed that polio vaccines are a conspiracy to infect Africans with HIV and this has caused many to forego vaccination. These theories have no basis and every batch of polio vaccine is tested for contamination. As a result, polio has spread among non-vaccinated populations.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/28.full (http://archive.is/vtWag)
    Similar stories can be found in the United States.

    http://www.popsci.com/science/artic...ak-centered-around-vaccine-skeptic-megachurch (http://archive.is/6TgLB)
    Claim: Dr. Robyn Crosford suggests that because scarlet fever does not have a vaccine and is also no longer a threat to the population, that means vaccines are not needed to defeat these other diseases.

    Fact: True, vaccines aren't always necessary to overcome disease and scarlet fever does not have any available vaccinations, but it is no longer a threat due to antibiotics. Vaccines aren't always the best and easiest solution to a disease. That is why vaccines are rigorously tested in clinical trials before being made available to the public. Sometimes vaccines won't work for a certain disease and other solutions will have to be found.

    Claim: A number of people in the film will claim that vaccines can cause the disease they are meant to prevent in the people receiving them.

    Fact: Modern vaccines do not cause disease. Vaccines work by priming the immune system. This happens because the vaccine introduces the body to pieces of the pathogen that causes disease. Once cells called macrophages consume the foreign material, they present it on the outside of their cell membrane sort of like a flag. This is called antigen presentation. Other cells will recognize these antigens and this will prime cells called B-cells to produce antibodies. Antibodies recognize that antigen very specifically, they almost never interact with anything else, and they help other cells in the immune system remove the threat. This process of priming the immune system can be done in different ways. There are three main kinds of vaccines to accomplish this.
    Attenuated: This is a weakened pathogen vaccine. This means the pathogen has been weakened to a state where the body can easily consume it and process its antigens. Attenuated vaccines have some advantages, but many were responsible for adverse side-effects in the early years of vaccine use, especially to immune-compromised patients. This is probably where many of today's misconceptions come from. Attenuated vaccines are still used in certain cases where their safety has been demonstrated, but have been discontinued where they have been shown to be risky.
    Killed: Killed vaccines, as the name suggests, contain pathogens that have been killed using either heat or chemical means. This means the pathogen can't replicate or function in the human body, but it's pieces will still be processed as foreign material by the immune system. Dr. Scheibner claims in the documentary that bacteria that cause illness by producing toxins will cause illness in killed vaccines because the toxin is not alive and can still cause disease. This is false, however, because bacteria that produce harmful toxins are not used in killed vaccines very often anymore. In the case where harmful toxins might be involved, the next vaccine type can be used.
    Particle: Particle vaccines take proteins that are unique to a pathogen and deliver them to the body. Every pathogen has a unique genome that produces unique proteins. We select certain proteins and use them in vaccines so that the body can easily process them. If a selected protein is toxic but makes for a good antigen, we can use inactive pieces of that protein called toxoids to elicit the same immune reopens without the toxic effects (the DTaP vaccine, for example).
    In order for pathogens to cause disease, they need to be able to adhere to a space in our body or attach to cells and then be allowed to grow. These methods of vaccine delivery do not allow for this to happen, nor do they allow for the successful activity of toxins. So vaccines will not cause the disease they are meant to prevent.

    Claim: Dr. Archie Kalokerinos claims that antibodies, the end product of vaccines, do not offer protection from pathogens. He claims that HIV is an example of this because those who are infected are diagnosed by screening for antibodies against the virus.

    Fact: It is true that antibodies against HIV in people infected with it are not protected against the disease. In fact, if you ever read about tropical viruses, many were ones that resulted in cases where those infected were diagnosed by testing for antibodies. Many of those diagnosed also died. So what's going on here? The thing to remember about us and pathogens is that is a war. The body has its defenses to hunt down and kill invaders and the invaders have their ways of infiltrating these defenses and taking out every cell they can get to. Both sides are constantly trying to best each other. Our immune systems are very good at dealing with some organisms and not so good at dealing with others. Some pathogens also have become extremely good at defeating our immune system. The example of HIV is actually very simple. HIV stands for human immunodeficiency virus. The virus does what its name suggests, it severely weakens the immune system. So even though there are antibodies against the virus, the immune system is too weak to do anything against the virus. Other factors go into it as well. Some viruses, including HIV and influenza, are extremely efficient at quickly infecting and replicating in human cells. The influenza virus of 1918-1919 could clear a tissue of its cells before white blood cells could even react, all the while releasing thousands of copies of itself per cell it destroys. Another factor is a virus's mutation rate. Out of thousands of viruses released per cell destroyed, there could be hundreds of different versions of one antigen. If the antigen the body uses to recognize the pathogen changes enough, the virus could escape detection. It is a war, and our defenses are never fool-proof against the world of microbes.

    Claim: Vaccines contain formaldehyde, which is extremely toxic to the body. A parent in the documentary claims that vaccines should not be administered because of this.

    Fact: The dosage makes the poison. Formaldehyde in vaccines is not present in very high quantities. The reason it is there is to neutralize the pathogen in attenuated vaccines and also to deactivate toxins. With a few injections of relatively low doses of formaldehyde, which we are exposed to in other ways naturally as well, there is no risk for formaldehyde in vaccines. The same goes for other substances that are claimed to be toxic in vaccines.

    http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm187810.htm (http://archive.is/IiBmW)

    Claim: The documentary and others who oppose vaccination commonly claim that early batches of the polio virus were contaminated with SV40, a monkey virus that can cause cancer in humans.

    Fact: It is true that early polio vaccine batches were contaminated with SV40. Polio can only replicate in cells, so monkey cells were used to get high enough numbers of the virus that vaccines could be made from. This accident resulted in spreading SV40 to millions of US residents between 1955 and 1963. The problem with the claim, however, is that there is no good evidence that the virus causes cancer.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=4FDAC67D663B49101FB866D4C8C74049.f03t01 (http://archive.is/U7gzC)
    Claim: This is not discussed in the documentary, but a common claim concerning flu vaccines is that they are dangerous because they cause Guillain-Barre Syndrome, which causes paralysis.

    Fact: This claim can be traced back to the 1976 swine flu scare. After the death of a young army recruit at Fort Dix, the scene was starting to look eerily like the start of the devastating 1918-1919 pandemic that killed hundreds of millions of people. Everyone was scared and a state of confusion and panic caused rash decisions to be made. Millions of people were quickly immunized against this new strain of flu virus and US President Gerald Ford and his administration encouraged the public to get immunized by stating that any complications caused by the vaccine would be fully compensated by the US government. Despite the fear, the virus flopped and did not spread from Fort Dix. In the aftermath, many people attributed their various ailments to the vaccine in order to receive compensation. Many people did actually contract Guillain-Barre Syndrome and some even died. Although there is debate among epidemiologists about the numbers, the general consensus is that Guillain-Barre Syndrome did seem to be in excess at the time. There is no evidence, however, that there is a link between Guillain-Barre Syndrome and any modern influenza vaccines.

    http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-1007_article.htm (http://archive.is/wwBaX)
    http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/gbs_qa.htm (http://archive.is/7VVMi)

    There are many myths about vaccines, but the fact is that they have been one of the most important tools for preventing disease over the past century. Diseases that have had vaccines developed for them are preventable, yet some countries are still held down but them. The example I gave earlier in the post about polio in Nigeria is a very real example of what can happen when myths and lies about the science that helped build the living standards we have today are spread and believed. I hope this thread helps dispel those myths and offers a resource for those looking to understand vaccines. Prevention really is the best medicine and that has made vaccines one of our most powerful weapons in our war with microbes.

    Other resources:
    http://www.historyofvaccines.org (http://archive.is/JlgnD)
    http://www.who.int/features/qa/84/en/ (http://archive.is/kKAYY)
    http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...f-contagious-disease-prevented/?emc=eta1&_r=0 (http://archive.is/V9VAj)
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13164 (http://archive.is/xzgbE)
    The Coming Plague, by Laurie Garret

    EDIT: Typos and a little more info on toxoid vaccines.
    Last edited: May 18, 2015
    • Winner Winner x 9
    • Informative Informative x 6
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    This nonsense is exactly what got me into debunking.. Thanks for posting Dan.. I'll be referring a couple friends of mine this way so they dont end up doing more harm than good to their kids.
  3. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    We take or accept the risk of death and/or bodily injury to travel in private autos all the time (and without much thought) but some of us strongly object to a death risk 262 times less likely when it comes to consenting to immunizations. Why? (see math and assumptions below)

    The reasons "Why?" are IMO rather intriguing . . . a few that come to mind are:

    1) The fear of getting some long term hidden consequences from the immunizations which are unknown presently but are irreversible in the future . . . long after the transient benefits of the immunizations are realized . . . i.e. . . . infertility, slow viruses, prions (spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs)), autoimmune sensitization, cross-species infection, allergies, etc. . . . things that are difficult or impossible to detect before administering the vaccines . . .

    2) an overall distrust of the medical establishment, governmental authority and their motives . . . our protection or their protection and benefit . . . profit driven motives emphasizing short term profit over longterm financial liabilities . . .

    3) some plot to depopulate the earth by reducing fertility and/or eliminating the weakest of the herd through selective mortality of subgroups . . .

    4) the ineffectiveness of the vaccines and likelihood you have targeted the most dangerous infectious process . . .
    Anything ingested, inhaled, absorbed or injected into the body have potential risks associated with them . . . people have hypersensitivities, allergies, and responses to even substances considered foods which are needed to sustain life . . . so when taking vaccines, medicines, ingesting foods . . . in the crudest way it is simply a numbers game . . . because to some predictable percentage of people, even if minuscule, there will be less than desirable outcomes to include even death. The question becomes when is this percentage of undesirable outcomes unacceptable and who gets to decide when that level is reached? Then the other question becomes . . . is the choice to participate or to reject participation allowable? And how much coercion is proper if the overall benefits of participation vastly outweigh the risks of rejecting participation?

    Obviously, people who trust their government and medical authority have little objections to vaccinations because they feel some protection from a dreaded disease or infection is acceptable . . . unless they or someone they are aware of has had significant adverse reactions to what they know or suspect was a vaccination or maybe have a compromised immune system or a history of hyperactivity to allergens . . .

    Most of us accept considerable risks every day and don't think much about it by getting in a private automobile or some form of public transportation . . . we know with considerable accuracy that a certain percentage of people will die each year because of that choice. . .
    Of the 2,423,712 deaths in 2007 in the US . . . 43,945 people died from auto accidents . . . or 1.81% of all deaths in a population of over 300,000,000 . . . so we weigh the benefits of auto transportation and most decide to take the risk . . . data on death rates due to immunizations are hard to come by but for example the cited article below indicates 32 deaths out of 57,000,000 persons vaccinated was experienced . . . a rate well below the risk of death by private auto exposure . . . so if we extrapolate the 32/ 57,000,000 death rate to X/300,000,000 we get 168 deaths assuming all 300,000,000 took the vaccines . . . or roughly 168 people could die from immunizations while 43,945 died from auto accidents . . . so auto related deaths are (43,945/168) or roughly 262 times more likely than death caused by immunizations . . . not precise but rough approximations which illustrate the general risks involved . . .

    Conclusion: We take the risk of death to travel in private autos all the time without much thought but object to a risk 262 times less likely when it comes to consenting to a vaccination . . .
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2014
  4. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    I think part of that is whether we feel in control or not - "everybody" thinks they are an above average driver and so they won't case an accident.......less than 24 hrs ago I managed a 360 at slow speed due to light rain and probably a bit of oil on the road - it was a rude wakeup call - fortunately nothing damaged except a tyre and rim that hit the curb.....but I wasn't far from a power pole!!

    But the point is that we are willing to take more risks if we believe we are in control and we have much higher fears of risks where we know we are not in control - eg from airline accidents or as is eth case here from vaccines - we dont' make het vaccine, we didn't research its effectiveness, we do not administer it.....and someone is telling us it is good for us...that ticks a lot of boxes for people.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    I agree but many of us are also just passengers in autos as well . . . but I guess we get use to the person behind the wheel and feel we have some input in that person's performance as well . . . o_O
  6. cosmic

    cosmic Senior Member

    @George B: Is there a way of presenting that analogy (post #3) without linking to anti-vaccination articles and organizations? It doesn't seem appropriate to quote promoters of vaccine myths unless the intention is to refute specific claims.
  7. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    It was the source of the only death rate I could locate . . . and even if exaggerated it is still so low as to be minuscule . . . Update: The source is now the CDC . . . http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/HPV/Index.html#monitor
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014
  8. cosmic

    cosmic Senior Member

    The problem is that the article is full of fertilizer -- they're publicizing their errant beliefs that vaccinations are dangerous. Even if you're having a rough time finding reliable mortality statistics from adverse reactions to make your comparison, I'd recommend omitting the anti-vax links. Even VAERS data would be preferable, despite its shortcomings.
  9. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    I cannot find reports of death from vaccines reported statistically by the CDC for public use . . . would love to have an authoritative source but I have yet to locate one . . . good luck if you are looking for one . . .
  10. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Hmmmm . . . I finally found adverse reactions for . . . papillomavirus recombinant vaccine


    So the death rate is 32 deaths in approximately 57,000,000 doses or one (1) death in 1.8 million doses versus over 44,000 auto deaths for 300,000,000 people/year . . . Or one (1) death out of 6,818 people in the US . . .

    Note: The causality of VAERS reported deaths and vaccinations is questioned by the CDC themselves . . .

    Last edited: Feb 11, 2014
  11. cosmic

    cosmic Senior Member

    Since the articles you cited involve the UK, perhaps the MHRA offers further information or statistics.

    In any case, I maintain it's not worth linking an anti-vaccination website rife with misinformation, not even to pluck numbers for your analogy -- again, unless you're going to debunk specific claims made. To me that's counterproductive to this thread's intent.
  12. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    That 40 death mortality rate is a little suspect.

    The Sunday times article is pay per view. The full text can be found here: http://www.whale.to/vaccine/fortydeaths.html

    EDIT: Yes, I know whale.to is dubious, but they can be trusted to cut and paste an article, can't they?
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014
  13. cosmic

    cosmic Senior Member

    I'd also tracked that down earlier. It's worth noting, additionally, that the author has periodically written contentious or dubious articles about vaccines and other subjects (alt-med).
  14. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    • Like Like x 1
  15. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    The data source has now been updated . . . it is only one vaccine but consider the rates similar to others:

    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014
  16. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    Those figures are no less suspect. The VEARS data does not show causality.

    Canada has the AEFI reporting system.

    At this point I'd dispute the premise that vaccines have caused any deaths. I'm not claiming they have not, I just haven't seen any evidence that they have.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014
  17. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    The data is considered appropriate because it has been normalized against normal background rates . . .

  18. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    Yes, no greater than background rates compared with other vaccines. VEARS and AEFI data does not show causality for any vaccine.

    VEARS and AEFI are reporting systems that track effects after someone gets a shot. If someone dies, it gets reported. That does not mean the death was caused by the vaccine. What they are saying is that death rate incidents after receiving a papilloma vaccine, are similar to death rates after receiving some other vaccine.

    In neither case can it be said that the death was cause by either vaccine.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014
  19. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Well . . . I don't know for sure because I don't know their rules of engagement but I would bet they review the deaths rather closely and compare them with normal death rates for the sex and ages . . . so they have a pretty good idea if these are associated with the vaccinations . . . but it is true there is no way anyone can be 100% sure of any cause of death . . .
  20. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    Well you are free to speculate. Just realize that it's speculation and the VEARS and AEFI data is not evidence that vaccines cause death.

    Do you have any evidence to back that up? I'm not saying you're wrong, it just sounds like you're speculating about what "they" think.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Well they have reported the deaths as adverse reactions . . . just like all the other categories so . . does that mean to you none of these categories are valid? So it would seem they (the CDC) have the responsibility and obligation to detail the validity of the reported events . . . otherwise they are indicting their own reporting data system . . . it isn't worth the effort to collected such worthless and misleading information . . .
  22. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    Death is reported as a possible adverse reaction. Have they reported vaccines cause death?

    Reaserchers collect data to find correlations. They use the correlations to build hypothesis. They test the hypothesis to form conclusions.

    Very few people take the short track from assumptions to conclusion.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. cosmic

    cosmic Senior Member

    Sure. Actually I was referring to the Times author, Sarah-Kate Templeton. Sorry that wasn't clear, I probably should've specified.

    I'd imagine most forum participants recognize whale.to as sketchy.
  24. cosmic

    cosmic Senior Member

    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    Here is a compilation of the deaths from the VAERS database of people who received an HPV vaccine for the dates covered by the study George linked to (Jun 06 through Dec 08). It's an Open Office spreadsheet.

    The database listed 31 deaths. Of note are columns S through U, the vaccination date, onset of symptoms date, and the number of days between the vaccination and onset of symptoms. Wouldn't an adverse reaction manifest within a few hours, at most within a few days? Only 4 deaths occurred within 2 days of the jab.

    Reading the symptom text and lab data columns it is evident the study never attempted to eliminate the vaccination as the cause of death because the actual cause of death can deduced from the information in the database.

    https://sites.google.com/site/chewtansy/msfn/VAERS deaths.ods
  26. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    I am unable to open this Link presently . . . however, death from any "cause" unless accompanied by a board of inquiry, autopsy, complete inpatient and outpatient records is questionable . . . in fact even then it can be questioned . . . however, in the US if a child (especially an infant) died within a Hospital the death is almost always reviewed by a Morbidity and Mortality Review Committee of senior medical staff to determine if there was any practice or liability issues regarding the care of the child based on cause of death . . . these are the same people who would be doing the reporting to the CDC etc . . . for example many hospitals use any death of a child occurring within their facility as a trigger for analysis . . . this is pushed by the minimum requirement by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Facilities to review the death of any full term infant under their Sentinel Event protocols . . . http://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/6/CAMH_2012_Update2_24_SE.pdf
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2014
  27. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    I would think so. But does that mean the jab caused the reaction? I'm sure this has happened to everyone at some point; You walk under a street light just as it goes out. It then turns back on when you're a short distance away.

    Spurious relationships need to be filtered out of the VEARS data. I'm not convinced that's been done.

    Because this issue is about vaccines, people are actually getting hurt by the bunk. There is a lot of dangerous bunk based on speculation and assumptions surrounding vaccines. Using speculation and assumptions to combat the bunk seems counterproductive to me.
  28. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Just how would you suggest the data reported be vetted and/or analyzed? Seems the CDC are the experts and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) made the observation that they suspected under reporting . . . they don't seem to have your concerns of causality.
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2014
  29. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    Yes, the CDC are the experts and determining causality is how they evaluate threats. As for how the experts at the CDC view the VEARS data...

    As I've been saying, the CDC does not attribute even a single death to vaccines using the VEARS data.

    The only question that remains is if you're going to redact the bunk you twice posted here on this forum and on GLP.
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2014
  30. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    . . .As I stated before and above I did not know what the rules of engagement for VARES was but only quoted their published statistics and JAMA's comments . . . the rates I calculated are simply those presented by them on Deaths . . . my whole point was it is minuscule compared to almost any other human endeavor where we have death rates reported to include but not limited to ground transportation . . . I will edit my Posts to include the following modifier. . .

    Note: The causality of VAERS reported deaths and vaccinations is questioned by the CDC themselves . . .
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Steve

    Steve Active Member

    The anti-vaccine movement from the well educated areas around SF could be partially responsible for a new possible outbreak of measles affecting people who have recently commuted on the Bart system. This is a case where bunk can cause real serious problems to the larger community promoted by people who should have known better.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  32. RealTruth

    RealTruth Member

  33. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    You are misinformed.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  34. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    Discouraging people from getting vaccinated can have serious life long consequences. If you're just trolling, please stop it and pick another subject.

    If you actually believe what you're saying then consider that Smallpox has killed 500 million people. Why didn't their immune systems make them stronger? Vaccines have eradicated the disease.


  35. RealTruth

    RealTruth Member

  36. Trigger Hippie

    Trigger Hippie Senior Member

    Outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases are on the rise. Here's a couple of graphs for Mumps and Whooping Cough.

    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Excuse me? So it's more mercury than you would get eating a can of tuna? So the words that talk about the difference between methyl and ethyl mercury and bio-accumulation - that's just made up words that mean nothing? Who do they discredit? If you can discredit someone by *actually proving what they say is empty waffle* then I guess they were just trying to discredit.

    Simple question - are what they said about mercury facts? Or empty words?

    And what in this fact-sheet would you dispute?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  38. Dan Wilson

    Dan Wilson Senior Member

    Your immune system is not perfect. It will not protect you against everything and there are plenty of weapons pathogens can use to defeat it, especially the nasty ones we routinely vaccinate against. I can't emphasize how much it is literally a war between us and the pathogens. I know a professor who gets this point across by yelling in his lectures about bacteria, "They will freaking eat you if they can!" and he is not joking.

    Vaccines are actually extremely inefficient if you're trying to pull a profit. One immunization with a booster shot is usually the most it takes for life long immunity. Not really a big money maker compared to some other more regular treatment that could be invented if the motive was to make money.

    Why is it unsupported? Why do you think thimerisol in vaccines (the few that still have them, that is) is a problem?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  39. RealTruth

    RealTruth Member

    Because the author's argument is no more credible than the article I sent, which is exactly My point. The article is an opinion (seemingly) with no clinical study evidence to support it. With respect to a booster shot, You're right, one is enough and not very profitable. I don't expect You will believe Me, but aside from perhaps a couple of colds in My childhood and chicken pocks good and early, I have never been sick and never had a shot. My immune system works beautifully. The more drugs We take, the weaker We become. Think of it like a wheel chair. If there was nothing wrong with Your legs but You chose to stop using them for long enough, eventually You will need the wheelchair, You're legs will stop developing muscles. Immune system is like a muscle, it needs exercise and it needs to develop naturally. No animals needed antibiotics or vaccinations before humans and We are supposed to be the 'supreme' beings. Making vaccinations mandatory in a country with over 300 million people is definitely going to be profitable for the pharmaceutical company making the vaccine. None of these shots were mandatory 20 years ago and health has gone down since, not up. Especially with respect to mental health; specifically ADHD and autism.
  40. RealTruth

    RealTruth Member

    Remember, the eternal quest for health care is really just the eternal quest for eternal life. We all came here to die. You can stretch it out as long as You want, but when it's Your time, it's Your time. No vaccine or miracle drug (yet) is going to let You live forever. ;)