RE: FaceBook removes all doubt: Vaccines are dangerous!
"People who are anti vaccine won't be happy until thousands of people start dropping dead from illnesses that use to be so prevalent in the past but were wiped out by vaccines."
I cannot count on my fingers and toes the errors and mistatements of fact this statement comprises. You are claiming that people concerned about vaccine safety desire pandemic. That's a despicable libel, and I utterly refute it.
You further expose your misunderstanding of history and the fact that in almost every case of epidemic disease the relevant problem was almost completely resolved prior to introduction of vaccines.
"I am convinced that if there was a world wide unknown deadly outbreak that was killing thousands of people and they found a vaccine these same people badmouthing vaccines would be the first one's lining up to get one."
Then you proceed to completely contradict yourself.
If you wish to disinform, continue to not speak the truth, malign good people, and to mistate fact.
I will keep that in mind when I consider your comments.
Same as I said to him and now I can even reassure both of you from an anti vaxxer herself, charts like these are misleading, one for the reason I stated to VC and this statement from the anti vaxxer:
It's important to realize that this problem is not limited to countries like Africa. Inactivated vaccines pose similar health risks in the Western world, including DTaP and hepatitis B vaccines. It's also important to understand that vaccine studies do not look for non-specific effects such as increased mortality.
For example, the specific effect of the measles vaccine is its ability to prevent measles. Non-specific effects include everything outside of that; good or bad. What this means is that a vaccine may effectively help prevent a disease, and is therefore considered a success — even though the non-specific effect could be a higher mortality rate. Very few vaccines have ever been studied to actually ascertain non-specific effects such as mortality rate.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/04/03/aluminum-vaccine-health-effects.aspx
Believers I have given up arguing with online include vaxxers, warmerists, vegans, flat earthers, libtards, and fluoridationists - been there, done that, can't be arsed anymore...
http://www.frot.co.nz/design/sifty/conspiracies/
I wasn't responding to that angle of the debate. Science is an ever involving process, your prior chart brings into question that very fact (this one to but lets stick to the other one for time being as I don't need more stuff to research right now) that it is misleading to try and prove unscientific date against scientific data. In other words, as I responded to VC's chart provided, it is wholly inaccurate scientifically to state people back in the 1800's were dying of a specific cause as the science was not there to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. One strong case in point was scarlette fever, it cannot be conclusively confirmed that outside of breaking out with a red rash that all scarlette fever deaths were accurately accounted for as there was no way to test back then if those who did not break out with a rash deaths were attributed to scarlette fever. I could probably take your chart, research it and conclusively come to the same conclusion about some illnesses.
Since the only science necessary to document mortality of these diseases is whether or not someone died or suffered permanent injury from these causes, that level of sciencific understanding was undeniably competent to provide solid proof of those metrics.
It's not rocket science.
Hardly.
I am frankly amazed that you post the above response and feel it invalidates the factual and demonstrable reality that vaccines have contributed but little to the eradication of common childhood diseases.
I have long noted your seeming inability to grasp statistical information, as you may recall from our discussions of child sex trafficking and abuse. What his post pointed out was the orders of magnitude more impact of hygiene and better treatment technology over vaccination in reducing mortality of epidemic disease across the board.
We actually strongly agree that vaccination is far less beneficial than propaganda purports, but you seem to feel we somehow do not agree. I cannot fathom this.
The lack of value seem in your response is the consideration of scarlette fever, now commonly referred to as strep throat. There is no vaccination for it but it's just as prevalent today as it was back then, no amount of hygiene is going to save you from getting it....only the fact that the bacterium was isolated at one time to determine it's structure and an dose of antibiotics is going to help that bit of an argument. You can never stand to be wrong about anything, that's hardly my problem.
The fact is that the death toll from all the diseases under discussion was resolved just as it has been for scarlet fever, prior to the introduction of vaccines. You are wedded to supporting vaccines regardless of any facts whatsoever, and simply deny, deride, and deflect every fact and evidence your position is nothing but shilling for Big Pharma.
You present zero relevant facts, and add nothing of substance to the discussion. All that comes from you on any subject regarding science is blatant ignorance elevated to the sacred.
I do not owe you respect for deliberate ignorance, and I will not pretend to.
Sure buddy and I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.
Toxic strain of strep causing scarlet fever in Britain
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2019/09/11/Toxic-strain-of-strep-causing-scarlet-fever-in-Britain/3361568176541/
written: Sept 11, 2019
A new, more toxic strain of strep A bacteria is causing an outbreak of scarlet fever among British children, researchers report.
This is the count just for kids in two countries. Read the article on how it mutates into different forms. Of course you'll deny that "back in the day" it never mutated, each variation capable of affecting/attacking different body parts...which if it attacked the heart and the person died even opening up the person to have a "looksy" they still weren't capable of having the science available to have told them that the strep (scarelette fever) was the initial cause that led to the death. That's why "your chart" was misleading. I wasn't arguing pro's and con's of vaccines I was arguing your chart was misleading.
I am still looking at a lot of stuff concerning vaccines, it's in depth as there is so much stuff out there. When I get into "in depth" stuff I have to be in the mood for a good challenge, mix that with this isn't the only site I blog on and it's going to take me a bit. But one thing for sure I am pretty convinced of is that Spinach when compared to the level of aluminium in vaccines is pretty dangerous stuff and that "yes" if eaten in large enough quantities doctors have made claims it can over one's lifetime accumulate in the brain. Yet I don't see you on a "anti spinach" crusade against not only the government food chart promoting healthy leafy greens but all the health advocates trotting the benefits of eating spinach while ignoring the dangers....and believe me it goes way beyond spinach. What I am seeing is that in the overall long haul in a lifetime you accumulate fives times or greater the amount of aluminum through your diet then you ever will through vaccines and the "super charged" shot theory doesn't quite hit it if one chooses a diet high in foods containing aluminum. Basically by the time I am done I am far more apt to say "you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't" when it comes to deciding whether to be vaccinated as just about everything one eats that has baking soda in it has aluminium in it....so whether it's a "supposed" healthy diet or one based on junk food people are just plain screwed.
Nothing in that article, nor your comment, showed that in any way. Doctors today do know it's Scarlet fever making folks sick just as they did when those charts were created, and despite these new strains evolving, the rate of death and permanent injury remains low because of improved treatment - not vaccines.
You go ahead and compare eating spinach and infants suffering toxic metals being injected directly into their blood. If you do not grasp how introducing minerals in the digestive tract where mechanisms have evolved over billions of years to handle them is different than injecting them directly into our blood, which is a novel 'unnatural' mechanism to our bodies, then I cannot be of further assistance to you.
You simply ignore reason, so reasonable arguments cannot contribute to your understanding. There is no vaccine for Scarlet fever today, and there never has been, and the fact that incidence of Scarlet fever and Measles remain similarly controlled reveals vaccines have almost no impact on Measles, because they do have NO impact on Scarlet fever.
The only thing that impacts Scarlet fever is hygiene and treatment, and those same impacts control Measles, not the vaccine. This is what the charts reveal, and they do not mislead. You just misunderstand.
Boy are you confused. The chart wasn't made back then, it was made based on what the person wrote to whoever's name was listed at the bottom, the queen or some shit. You can argue all day long but you don't have any idea what you are saying. Besides spinach and baked goods aluminum is just as prevalent in baby formula's and is found in mothers breast milk, as aluminum is found everywhere on earth, in some highly industrialized area's it even more prevalent. That may actually explain why scientist have looked at it as a possible link to Alzheimer's out in California where they have the most documented case increases of it, they have a high amount of pollution, within that pollution there is more aluminum than in places that are not industrialized. An adult has 30 to 40 mg of aluminum in their bodies, maybe, speculative because it would be based on what kind of exposure people have to aluminum, 1 to 2 mg of that would be attributed to vaccines in their lifetimes...depending upon how many vaccines they received and if they continue on later in life getting flu shots then that amount could go up out of the 40 to 50 mg. The rest all comes from food, containers, environment and air pollution. This is all preliminary for me as I am not done looking at everything, up to and including how it may or may not played into chronic fatigue syndrome as vaccines are injected into muscle.
Overall though I don't think that aluminum is really your issue here. If you were really that concerned you'd already done some research and asked yourself the very questions I am asking myself, especially after reading that scientist are studying the whole relationship of aluminum overall in any possible health connections as enough of it could find it's way into one's brain. If you did do all that I'd think that by now you'd not only be preaching about vaccines but warning people not to drink beer, pop out of aluminum cans, to grow their own gardens (not that that will eliminate aluminum out of your food as the earth is infiltrated with it) but at least if you can your own vegetables in canning glass instead of buy vegetables in aluminum cans that also will minimize your exposure. The conclusion I come to isn't should I be studying, debating the health effects of aluminum one way or another with you but come to grips with the fact that what's really bothering you is the fact that the government mandates vaccines. You simply can't stand any government interference in your life. I am not saying that's a bad thing but you really should live up to the honesty of it all. Sure would say me a lot of time as in the end, as I stated before, if things continue down this track the finally conclusion I am going to come to is that you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't.
Well said - unironically.
Thanks!
Not really, look at my reply to him.
There's nothing libel about it. Right now they can stand confident they are protected by the herd. Take that protection away and they'll be singing another tune.
History is not on your side in that one. There's no way you are going to explain away thousands of deaths a year before the introduction of a vaccine. What they really need to do is get volunteers who'd like to prove the whole scientific community wrong on vaccine, put those people on an island with people infected with measles or any other virus and lets see what unfolds out for them. Let's see how fast they are to jump to prove science wrong.
This statement is pejorative and libelous. You're basically accusing people of desiring genocide. You may not be concerned over injecting heavy metal, human fetal tissue, or all sorts of unidentified nanoparticles into children, but you should be, and characterizing folks that are as genocidal maniacs should be beneath you.
As you can see below, I am not wrong about the bulk of control of diseases for which vaccines have eventuated pre existing the advent of vaccines. Feel driven to counter this data. Search high and low for contrary information. In looking at this chart you should keep in mind that one of these diseases still has no vaccine, yet it is all but eradicated anyway.
I want you to be convinced of this fact, and failing to prove it's false will do that if it can be done.
I really hate to do this to you dude but here's the rundown. The study done by Charles T Pearce was a chart comparison that vaccines had not slowed down the death rate and that people were still dying at increasing rates....not that they were dying exclusively at the hands of the stated illnesses in the chart. His primary argument was that he thought vaccines may have actually compromised people's immune systems thereby they couldn't fight off other diseases. Which a lot of those disease's they had no idea what they actually were....
Scarlett fever ran rampant, discovered in 1685 but it is a bacterium not a virus, there is no Scarlett fever vaccine, Scarlett Fever wasn't cured until penicillin was discovered in 1928.
There was no was they knew measles was measles as it wasn't discovered until the 1930's by John F. Enders...so before that date in time there was no diagnosis and no measles vaccines.
They couldn't have known anyone had whooping cough at it wasn't discovered until 1906 and the vaccines against it were weak as it is also caused by a bacterium, it is still persistent to this day even though in 1949 there was a vaccine that was more potent in fighting it.
Diphtheria wasn't discovered until 1888 and in 1890 they produced a vaccine that worked it wasn't until in the 1920's when the vaccine's use became wide spread did they see a significant drop in cases.
So you see it wasn't even that the vaccines suppressed the immune system, these people just got other serious diseases and died.
You seem not to understand the chart. Do you see where the vaccines are introduced? These diseass were all almost totally under control by the time the vaccines were introduced. That was my point. Vaccines did not do most of the job. They actually almost had no effect compared to the effects we had already achieved.
Scarlett Fever is a particularly good example of this, and why it's on the chart.
But Scarlett Fever was almost completely eradicated by 1927. Penicillin did not reduce Scarlett Fever deaths even remotely as much as better hygience already had.
These diseases were not eradicated by vaccines, but by better treatment and living conditions, and that's what this chart shows.
Do you just make stuff up? You're claiming the first case of Whooping Cough was1906. You know that's false.
I am observing that you are utterly going to ignore facts and reality and stick to your story. There's no point in discussing it then. No one will be proved wrong except you when you stick to your story despite it being false.
Won't hurt me none, and I'm not responsible for you. Good luck with that.
No, it was the first time in was isolated in 1906, before 1906 it was labeled whooping cough as that is what happened to people who contracted the bacterium, after the confirmation (or isolation) of the bacterium it became labelled Pertussis.
You really have no clue what scarlett fever really is do you? You have no idea it's not eradicated as much as you'd like to think.....it's strep throat, something people get to this very day, something which some people react to by also showing signs of red blotchy bumps on their bodies. Yes it's true...thousands of people today get scarlett fever and it can be just as deadly as it was in the yester years.
You really need to look at the report mentioned in the chart. Look up the guys name and read it. They couldn't even have kept records on those mentioned in the chart as statically back then someone getting strep throat who didn't break out in bumps may have never been diagnosis as having scarlett fever...so they can't go back and say someone who was listed as coughing and high fever was scarlett fever because there was no way to confirm the bacterium in the body at the time...so minus the red bumps they'd never known.
What this guy said was that with the invent (of minimal vaccines back then) that people's deaths weren't declining, he tried to attribute it to the vaccines causing a immunity problem so people couldn't fend off illnesses....but that wasn't true, what was true was that in the future they'd finally found the science that helped them isolate the bacterium or virus that was killing people. If what he was saying were held to be true then that would be like saying that because someone got a vaccine they'd never die of something else as the body should have been strong enough to fend it off...we know that's hog wash.
You can never stand being proven wrong but aren't you the guy who posted this:
Yeah, I book marked that. This is exactly what that is except it deals with illness vs climate change. Someone took what this guy said and attached labels of illnesses to it to further their anti vaccine agenda.
Now before you come back at me at least take the time to go read what this guys report was and see he doesn't mention anything other than the rates of death unattributed to any various causes. I gave you that much consideration you should have no problem doing the same.
I am glad you support Heller and agree with his assessment of climate science and political propaganda on the matter. You seem to fail to grasp that both vaccination and privatization of Earth's carbon are aspects of globalism.
You have indeed got the vaccination issue backwards. Just as AGW alarmists misrepresent relevant issues to facilitate their ultimate goal - which ordinary people do not understand - of privatization of Earth's carbon, Vaccine advocates mirror that propaganda to facilitate direct introduction of every possible genetic, toxic, psychoactive and medical intervention into civilians conceivable. You can compare the governmental mechanisms, enemedia propaganda, and indoctrination that has been undertaken on both issues and those exact same elements of disinformation and collectivation is impossible to miss.
Just as Heller's review of the evidence reveals that insuperable disinformation is how AGW alarmism is advanced, the chart's that @frot and I both posted reveal that same fact regarding vaccines.