The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
PeterB - Original
Infectious disease mortality declined dramatically prior to
availability of most vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads,"
by R. Beaglehole and R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST,
of the decline in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 could be
attributed to measures introduced for the control of these diseases.
Whether vaccine was responsible for even 1% of those declines is not
known. This is a startling fact to consider. That vaccines were
developed too late to have a measurable impact on overall disease
mortality during the twentieth century even as death rates from
infectious diseases fell by more than 95%, is astounding. The
published sciences shows that vaccine has not only failed to
accomplish what its proponents have claimed, but something else did.
And if the success of drug development for the treatment of various
diseases in general has been rather mixed during our lifetimes, the
history of vaccine development and application has been irrefutably
tragic. For instance, a string of vaccine failures during earlier
periods of population wide experimentation (a practice that continues
to this today) ultimately took the lives of at least two hundred
thousand people worldwide. Today, vaccines appear safer, but in the
absence of properly acquired safety data demonstrating this,
widespread use of vaccine violates the Precautionary Principle of
ethical scientific conduct. The Precautionary Principle states that
the burden of proof for any intervention (medical or otherwise) is the
responsibility of those promoting such interventions. It is also
important to understand that rates of infection, unlike measles
mortality, were never reliably assessed and were, in fact,
dramatically under reported. According to Alfred S. Evans and Richard
A. Kaslow in their book, "Viral Infections of Humans," incidence of
measles were under-reported by at least a factor of ten. So say the
authors: "...prior to introduction of measles vaccine, about 400,000
cases of measles were reported in the United States every year, but 4
million children were born and essentially all of them ultimately
developed measles antibody that could only have been acquired as the
result of infection. Thus, the mean true number of cases per year was
about 4 million." So, the infection rate was ten times higher than is
commonly reported, meaning the true mortality rate prior to vaccine
was just one tenth what is claimed by the drug makers. So the
diseases for which some vaccines were eventually developed have been
far less dangerous than is commonly known. The basis for vaccine
development has been mostly theoretical science in the form of
antibody titres, community surveys and historical fallacies. Whereas
artificial immunization may inoculate a narrow band of phenotypes, it
is not equivalent to immunity and works unpredictably. At least as
important, in the absence of meaningful safety data, use of population-
wide vaccine represents a risk to public health.
1) Among 30 countries with childhood vaccination programs, the one
with the highest mortality rate for children under 5yrs of age is the
country with the largest number of childhood vaccines. That country
is the USA.
2) Childhood mortality rates in countries with the LEAST number of
vaccines in their early immunization schedules are those with the
LOWEST childhood mortality rates.
[ref. http://www.generationrescue.org/documents/SPECIAL%20REPORT%20AUTISM%202.pdf]
Peter B
"PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:64011464-56c0-405f...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
==============================================================
Here is a sample of the twisted for you, Petey the Idiot with reduced
reading comprehension due to homopathetics.
" Whereas artificial immunization may inoculate a narrow band of
phenotypes, it
is not equivalent to immunity and works unpredictably."
To make it not so grudgingly honest it should have been written like
this if the author were honest.
" Whereas artificial immunization does inoculate a narrow band of
phenotypes, it
is not equivalent to total public immunity and therefore seems to works
unpredictably. "
You see, that author was afraid of writing the things you do as he did
not want to appear as a blatant fool and find himself hanging off a
scientific ledge with no safety net. However he carefully crafted his
words to appeal to scientific idiots as yourself. Seeing that you are
intellectually dishonest by choice you'll never get it and will most
likely die in your ignorance.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:64011464-56c0-405f...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
There are problems with your rewrite. Your text suggests that
immunity only fails where inoculation itself is not successful, but
that is false. Inoculation is a variable of clinical measurement that
varies by vaccine and whose correlation to immunity is later
determined by health outcomes. Even successful inoculation (as
measured by standardized antibody titre) can fail to immunize. Your
reference to vaccine failing to provide "total public immunity" is
thus a separate point. My point was that, in a given individual, the
effect of vaccine is so variable that the objective of disease
resistance can't be assumed.
Peter B
================================================
Astounding, you totally amaze me consistently with your haughtly
presumptive ignorance. You got all that out of my rewrite? Let me make
it extremely simple for you still based on the original statement.
"Since artificial immunization really innoculate only say 10% of the
people treated it appears to work unpredictably, however it does work."
It can then be expanded on for legitimate research as to why the
remaining 90% appeared to be unaffected.
The original point being that the author admits that it works, something
you are not willing to concede due to your falsely based agenda.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:4eae2fd8-baf9-4c2a...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
So far, the only person demonstrating ignorance about vaccine is you.
> You got all that out of my rewrite?
By giving you credit for understanding the implications of your own
word choices, however I realize I was being generous. You haven't a
clue what you are talking about.
> Let me
> make it extremely simple for you still based on the original
> statement.
Simple? You should be good at that.
> "Since artificial immunization really innoculate only say 10% of the
> people treated it appears to work unpredictably, however it does
> work."
You believe it works based on historical fallacies that can't be
supported with published science. You refuse to see that severe
illness from infectious disease was mitigated before most vaccines
existed. Nothing will shake your faith in vaccine because you need to
believe in it, no matter what.
> It can then be expanded on for legitimate research as to why the
> remaining 90% appeared to be unaffected.
The answer is known. We are not genetically evolved to be
artificially immunized.
> The original point being that the author admits that it works, something
> you are not willing to concede due to your falsely based agenda.
What author are you referring to?
> > You see, that author was afraid of writing the things you do as he did
> > not want to appear as a blatant fool and find himself hanging off a
> > scientific ledge with no safety net. However he carefully crafted his
> > words to appeal to scientific idiots as yourself. Seeing that you are
> > intellectually dishonest by choice you'll never get it and will most
> > likely die in your ignorance.
The ravings of a pharmnut loon don't get much better than that.
PeterB - Original
The timeline of vaccine introduction and impact can be seen
graphically at http://www.vaccinationdebate.com/web1.html. Infectious
disease mortality declined dramatically prior to availability of most
vaccine (See "Public Health at the Crossroads," by R. Beaglehole and
R. Bonita, pg 43) such that only 3.5%, AT MOST, of the decline in
disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 could be attributed to
measures introduced for the control of these diseases. Whether
vaccine was responsible for even 1% of those declines is not known.
The graphs show that declines in severe illness leading to death prior
to use of vaccine was profound. In one case, those declines occurred
without vaccine present at all, further demonstrating the McKinlay
finding cited by Beaglehole and Bonita. If the vast majority of
declines in infectious disease mortality occurred before most vaccines
were available, the trend in declining severity of these illnesses
would naturally have continued past introduction of vaccine. And that
is exactly what happened. The purported benefits of vaccine in
reducing rates of infection, or in conferring meaningful resistance to
disease, are therefore a fallacy built on these pre-existing declines
in the severity of those very diseases. Against a backdrop of limited
safety data and a history of serious, often fatal, vaccine side
effects,(1) the realization that vaccines are based on myth is
compelling.
It would seem obvious to most that public health policy should fully
assess the risk of any medical intervention and it's potential for
unintended consequences, yet this has rarely been the case. A lack of
published science on both vaccine effectiveness and safety has left
considerable doubt as to whether artificial immunization can safely
inoculate or accomplish real, as opposed to theoretical, disease
resistance. Whereas the success of drug development for the treatment
of various diseases in general has been rather mixed when measuring
real health outcomes, the history of vaccine development has been
almost absurdly tragic.(1) For instance, a string of vaccine failures
during earlier periods of population wide experimentation (a practice
that continues to this day) ultimately took the lives of at least two
hundred thousand people worldwide. Today, vaccines are regarded as
relatively safe, but in the absence of proper study demonstrating
this, ethical scientific conduct should discourage their use. The
premise for this argument in modern scientific circles is the
Precautionary Principle, which states that any intervention (medical
or otherwise) must be proven safe by those advocating its use.
Remarkably, the vaccine makers have managed to acquire waivers of
liability protecting them from legal recourse if and when the public
is harmed by vaccines. In the absence of valid safety data, such an
arrangement is immoral.
It is interesting to note that rates of infection, unlike measles
mortality, were never reliably assessed and were, in fact,
dramatically under reported to health agencies. According to Alfred
S. Evans and Richard A. Kaslow in their book, "Viral Infections of
Humans," incidence of measles were under-reported by at least a factor
of ten. So say the authors, "...prior to introduction of measles
vaccine, about 400,000 cases of measles were reported in the United
States every year, but 4 million children were born and essentially
all of them ultimately developed measles antibody that could only have
been acquired as the result of infection. Thus, the mean true number
of cases per year was about 4 million." So, the infection rate was
ten times higher than was generally reported, meaning the true
mortality rate prior to vaccine was just one tenth what is commonly
believed. It can be argued that vaccine research is based almost
entirely on theoretical science in the form of antibody titres,
community surveys and historical fallacies. Whereas artificial
immunization may inoculate a narrow band of phenotypes, it is not
equivalent to immunity and works unpredictably. In the absence of
meaningful safety data, therefore, vaccine remains outside the
boundaries of "evidence based medicine."
Note that, among 30 countries with childhood vaccination programs, the
one with the highest mortality rate for children under 5yrs of age is
the country with the largest number of childhood vaccines. That
country is the USA. Not surprisingly, childhood mortality rates in
countries with the LEAST number of vaccines in their early
immunization schedules are those with the LOWEST childhood mortality
rates.
[ref. http://www.generationrescue.org/documents/SPECIAL%20REPORT%20AUTISM%202.pdf]
(1) "Smallpox Vaccine: Does it Work?" published by Holistic Pediatric
Association.
"During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when smallpox
epidemics ran rampant, the introduction of smallpox vaccination was
often followed by an increased incidence of the disease. Many vaccine
critics accused the smallpox vaccine of precipitating these
epidemics. A disastrous smallpox epidemic occurred in England during
the period 1871-1873 at a time when the compulsory smallpox
vaccination law had resulted in nearly universal coverage. A Royal
Commission was appointed in 1889 to investigate the history of
vaccination in the United Kingdom. Evidence mounted that smallpox
epidemics increased dramatically after 1854, the year the compulsory
vaccination law went into effect. In the London epidemic of 1857-1859,
there were more than 14,000 deaths; in the 1863-1865 outbreak 20,000
deaths; and from 1871 to 1873 all of Europe was swept by the worst
smallpox epidemic in recorded history. In England and Wales alone,
45,000 people died of smallpox at a time when, according to official
estimates, 97 percent of the population had been vaccinated.
"When Japan started compulsory vaccination against smallpox in 1872
the disease steadily increased each year. In 1892 more than 165,000
cases occurred with 30,000 deaths in a completely vaccinated
population. During the same time period Australia had no compulsory
vaccination laws, and only three deaths occurred from smallpox over a
15-year period.
"Germany adopted a compulsory vaccination law in 1834, and rigorously
enforced re-vaccinations. Yet during the period 1871-1872 there were
125,000 deaths from smallpox. In Berlin itself 17,000 cases of
smallpox occurred among the vaccinated population, of whom 2,240 were
under ten years of age, and of these vaccinated children 736 died.
"In the Philippines, global public health measures were instituted
when the United States began its occupation to establish a self-
reliant government in the early 1900s. The incidence of smallpox
steadily declined and the compulsory vaccine campaign was credited
with this dramatic reduction. However, in the years 1917 to 1919, the
Philippines experienced the worst epidemic of smallpox in the
country's history with over 160,000 cases and over 70,000 deaths in a
completely vaccinated population. Over 43,000 deaths from smallpox
occurred in 1919 alone. The entire population of the Philippines at
the time was only 11 million.
"Vaccine failures of this magnitude may have several causes. The
vaccine used could have been defective. During that period it was
difficult to verify what the vaccine actually contained. The vaccine
could have been contaminated with smallpox virus and actually caused
epidemics. Or vaccine critics may have been correct in asserting that
Jenner's cowpox vaccine, which is essentially the same vaccine used
today, simply did not work to prevent smallpox."
Copyright 2009 Holistic Pediatric Association
spicpussy
RAY] Syndrome SURPRISE? "
Uh, but we don't wish to put a crimp in your mobility ... just a few
thoughts ...
------------------------
"Is there a history lesson from the swine flu of '76?"
"Scientists look closely for side effects of vaccine after earlier
version caused outbreak of rare form of paralysis"
By David Brown
Saturday, November 28, 2009
AS MORE AND MORE PEOPLE receive the H1N1 shot, an earlier vaccine is
casting a mysterious shadow over the attempt to immunize 200 million
people in the next few months.
A vaccine made in 1976 in response to a different strain of H1N1
influenza led to an outbreak of a rare form of paralysis. Of the 43
million people who were vaccinated, about 400 developed Guillain-Barre
syndrome (GBS), and 25 died.
Whether an equally unexpected surprise might be lurking in this year's
swine flu shot is a big -- although not publicly acknowledged --
question hanging over the current immunization effort. That
possibility is why the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
routinely reports, as it did Wednesday, on whether any notable side
effects to the new vaccine have been discovered. (None have.)
Unlike today's bug, the 1976 virus never took off from where it
originated at an army base in New Jersey. With nothing to be gained
from vaccination, the widespread campaign was halted after less than
three months.
For the 15 years after the "swine flu affair," scientists sought to
nail down whether and how much the 1976 vaccine increased a person's
risk of GBS. Almost nothing, however, was done to figure out how and
why the flu shot had that effect. It's an oversight some public health
officials are coming to regret.
"We should have made an exhaustive attempt to understand what happened
from a biological standpoint," said Michael T. Osterholm, a physician
who heads the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
Both the 1976 strain and the new H1N1 strain are closely related to
viruses carried by pigs, making some wonder whether that "swinishness"
makes their vaccines more likely to cause unusual effects.
"That is the right question to ask," said Peter Palese, an influenza
virologist at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. "And I would
like to say that no one really knows."
Researchers stopped looking back at 1976, Osterholm said, when there
were no subsequent problems with flu vaccines. "After we had a couple
of seasons under our belt when there was no unusual risk to regular
flu vaccines, we just let it go," he said.
Today's H1N1 vaccine is made, tested and administered the same way the
seasonal flu vaccine is. There's no reason to think it's any more
dangerous than the regular flu shot, whose risk of serious side
effects is essentially zero.
But that was true of the 1976 vaccine, too.
A spike in cases?
Named after two French physicians who described it in 1916, Guillain-
Barre [GEE-yan bah-RAY] syndrome causes weakness and tingling that
starts in the legs, but over weeks can affect most of the body's
muscles. The symptoms occur because the insulation on the outside of
nerve fibers breaks down, damaging the normal conduction of impulses.
In normal times, GBS occurs at a rate of roughly 2 cases per 100,000
people per year. Although only about 5 percent die, up to a third
spend time in an intensive care unit on a ventilator before they get
better. Nearly a third still have some weakness three years later.
After the 1976 vaccination campaign was halted on Dec. 16 of that
year, much work went into figuring out whether the increase in GBS
cases was real, or just a random upward blip.
Careful counting in defined populations -- most important, the entire
states of Minnesota and Michigan -- proved beyond doubt that it was
real: The risk of developing the condition rose four- to seven-fold in
the six weeks after getting the swine flu shot. The number of cases
attributable to the vaccine ranged from 5 to 12 per million people
vaccinated.
Studies of vaccines before they go on the market have too few people
in them to uncover adverse events occurring at such very low
frequency. That's why the GBS risk was not detected in the testing of
the 1976 vaccine -- and why it would not be caught in this year's
testing, either.
Researchers looked for spikes in GBS among people vaccinated for flu
in subsequent seasons and did not find any. The only exceptions were
1992-93 and 1993-94. When those two seasons were combined, people
getting flu shots had a slightly higher risk of GBS -- about 1 extra
case per million. The conclusion was that 1976 was a fluke, unlikely
to happen again.
Comparing the vaccines
There's some evidence that the 1976 vaccine may have triggered GBS
through a mechanism known as molecular mimicry.
About two-thirds of cases of GBS arise after an intestinal or
respiratory infection (including flu). The biggest cause is a
bacterium responsible for food-borne illness, Campylobacter jejuni.
Campylobacter can stimulate the immune system to make antibodies
against a nerve-sheath substance called ganglioside, and that
presumably leads to the condition.
However, not all people with the syndrome have nerve-attacking
antibodies, and millions of people get Campylobacter infections
without getting GBS. So clearly there are unknown factors -- some
almost certainly genetic -- involved in the disease. The 1976 vaccine
may have triggered GBS in much the way that Campylobater does. The
evidence comes from experiments done by Irving Nachamkin, a
microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, and published last
year.
Nachamkin had access to a few unopened vials of the 1976 vaccine,
which he tested for the presence of Campylobacter bacteria. He found
none, putting to rest the theory that the 1976 GBS cases were the
consequence of contaminated vaccine. He then injected the vaccine into
mice. All developed antibodies against GM1, a form of ganglioside.
"We were just as surprised as anyone when we found this," Nachamkin
said. "The real question is: Is it relevant to Guillain-Barre
syndrome?"
What's confusing is that animals injected with flu vaccines from 1991
and 2004 also developed the anti-GM1 antibodies ( as did some animals
infected with the even more distantly related H5N1 bird flu strain).
Furthermore, none developed muscle weakness. Researchers at CDC are
hunting down blood samples from people who got the 1976 vaccine to see
if they contain antibodies to ganglioside, or hold any other hints as
to what might have made that flu shot have that rare side effect.
Today, both the federal government's epidemiologists and pretty much
every neurologist in America have eyes wide open for cases of GBS.
As of last week, six cases of GBS in people who had gotten the H1N1
vaccine had been reported to the federal government's Vaccine Adverse
Event Reporting System. (Four more are under investigation.) The six
people with confirmed cases live in Maryland, Virginia, New York,
Connecticut, Florida and Illinois. In each case, the person came down
with neurological symptoms within two days being vaccinated -- almost
certainly too soon to be a consequence of the vaccine.
"At this point, we are not seeing any evidence there is an increase in
Guillain-Barre syndrome," said James J. Sejvar, the physician leading
CDC's surveillance for it.
A survey by the Harvard School of Public Health earlier in the fall
found that about half of American adults have no plans to get the
pandemic flu vaccine. Only one-third said they thought it was "very
safe" for most people.
Even if there were to be a slight increase in GBS, some public health
officials believe it would still be worth getting vaccinated.
"I think the numbers of people who would be saved from serious illness
or death would be far greater," said Palese.
The emerging picture of the 2009 pandemic seems to bear out that
hunch.
For every 100,000 people vaccinated, the 1976 vaccine was responsible
for just under 1 case of GBS. A CDC analysis this month revealed that
out of every 100,000 people who come down with the pandemic flu, 18
die from it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/27/AR200911270=
3248.html
Peter B
The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
A post that represents your mind. Read below.