The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving Medicine
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 and in conferring meaningful resistance to
disease are based almost completely on pre-existing declines in the
severity of those very diseases. This has occurred against a backdrop
of limited safety data and a history of serious, often fatal, vaccine
side effects.(1)
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
Jan Drew
> The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> The timeline of vaccine introduction and impact can be seen
Peter when you put brackets a link it will not take you to it.
You have to leave the brackets off.
PeterB - Original
Jan, thank you for that info. You also reminded me that this link has
moved to another domain, which is now: http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html
HNY and be well!
Peter Parry
<p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
If it is really the truth why do you continue to post patently false
statements to support it?
>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.
What they wrote was -
"Various explanations have been advanced for the decline in mortality
rates. which gathered speed in nineteenth century Europe. McKeown
proposed that steady improvements in nutrition beginning in the
eighteenth century, together with improvements in water supply and
sanitation, an increase in the general standard of living following
[he Industrial Revolution, and a reduction in birth rates propelled
the health transition. The development of effective medical measures
was too late to make a major contribution to the mortality decline in
Europe and other western countries. For example, it has been estimated
that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the
United States of America between 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to
medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases. On the
other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
care services, were of major importance....
The more recent decline in mortality in poorer countries has some
parallels with nineteenth-century Europe. For example, the dramatic
gains in China in the last four decades were associated with major
improvements in food supply {despite occasional devastating famines)
as well as public health campaigns directed at the control of
infectious diseases; literacy, especially for females, has also been
of major importance.
The most recent declines in mortality however, have been influenced
greatly by public health and medical care advances. For example,
smallpox, a major scourge of humankind for centuries, has been
eradicated, "
In the late 1800's there were a number of major killers accounting for
many deaths, particularly in infants. Poor nutrition, squalid
conditions and in particular poor water were major factors. In 1831
31,000 people in the UK died of Cholera, Typhus regularly killed
16,000 per year (double that in hot dry summer years). in 1840 50,000
succumbed to measles and whooping cough. No one doubts that prior to
the start of the second world war social and public health
improvements were by far the greatest influence on the well being of
the population. The work of civil engineers such as Bazalgette had a
far greater impact than any other measure.
By the end of WW2 however the civil engineering aspects of disease
mitigation were reaching the end of the road in the west and poor
housing and nutrition were no longer significant in many western
countries. In the UK wartime rationing had led to one of the best fed
populations ever but diseases such as Polio, measles, whooping cough
and mumps remained common and were not going to be reduced
significantly by social or public health measures. The major decline
in mortality in the west caused by social and economic influences upon
health and disease took place before 1930, after that time measures
such as vaccination had a far more profound effect.
The very valid point Beaglehole and Bonita make of course is that
there are still many parts of the world where social and public health
measures have the potential to improve life often at relatively small
cost. They do not, and never have, proposed that medical improvements
were either insignificant or unnecessary, you should read the whole
book.
>Whether
>vaccine was responsible for even 1% of those declines is not known.
Seek and ye shall find, there is ample evidence out there to the
contrary.
Your figure is meaningless. No one questions that massive
improvements in public health were made prior to the 1930's by social
and public health measures. No one doubts that in that time the
effect of public health improvement dwarfed that of medical advances.
However, beyond that time the picture changes dramatically.
For example in Rabies the death rate without vaccination is as near as
makes no difference 100%. With vaccination given pre-exposure and
immediately after suspected exposure it is nearly zero. There is no
other effective treatment.
The number of Hib meningitis cases in children under 5 years in the
USA was fairly steady at about 20 per 100,000 from 1980 until 1988
when Hib conjugate vaccine was introduced. By 1991 it had dropped to
about 3 cases per 100,000. During that time period there was no
significant alteration in standards of living or social health.
In the Gambia the rate of Hib meningitis in children prior to 1992
when the first vaccination against it started had been fairly constant
for decades at about 220 cases per 100,000. By 1998 it was about 5
per 100,000. In the same time there were no significant social
changes.
Polio affected 350,000 children worldwide in 1980, by 2006 that was
down to 800 because of vaccination. Since then it has increased again
and in 2008 was 1,655 because the mad mullahs of northern Nigeria say
that Polio vaccination is a plot by the USA to spread Aids and
infertility and are killing public health officials involved in
administering it. I wonder if any read Whale to get support for their
views??
>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.
Have any of the people misquoting their work ever read that book?
> 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.
It would? The control of rabid animals would have meant Rabies became
less severe?
>And that is exactly what happened.
No it didn't
Jan Drew
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're welcome, and same to you.
Jan Drew
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> If it is really the truth why do you continue to post patently false
> statements to support it?
>
> >The timeline of vaccine introduction and impact can be seen
Prove it.
Jason
<4480ba32-d76d-4d94...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, Jan
Drew <jdrew...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 6:14=EF=BF=BDpm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> >
> > <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> > >The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
> >
> > If it is really the truth why do you continue to post patently false
> > statements to support it?
> >
> > >The timeline of vaccine introduction and impact can be seen
> > >graphically athttp://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. =EF=BF=BD
> >
> > What they wrote was -
> >
> > "Various explanations have been advanced for the decline in mortality
> > rates. which gathered speed in nineteenth century Europe. =EF=BF=BDMcKeow=
> n
> > proposed that steady improvements in nutrition beginning in the
> > eighteenth century, together with improvements in water supply and
> > sanitation, an increase in the general standard of living following
> > [he Industrial Revolution, and a reduction in birth rates propelled
> > the health transition. The development of effective medical measures
> > was too late to make a major contribution to the mortality decline in
> > Europe and other western countries. For example, it has been estimated
> > that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the
> > United States of America between 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to
> > medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases. On the
> > other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
> > vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
> > care services, were of major importance....
> >
> > The more recent decline in mortality in poorer countries has some
> > parallels with nineteenth-century Europe. For example, the dramatic
> > gains in China in the last four decades were associated with major
> > improvements in food supply {despite occasional devastating famines)
> > as well as public health campaigns directed at the control of
> > infectious diseases; literacy, especially for females, has also been
> > of major importance.
> >
> > The most recent declines in mortality however, have been influenced
> > greatly by public health and medical care advances. =EF=BF=BDFor example,
> > smallpox, a major scourge of humankind for centuries, has been
> > eradicated, "
> >
> > In the late 1800's there were a number of major killers accounting for
> > many deaths, particularly in infants. =EF=BF=BDPoor nutrition, squalid
> > conditions and in particular poor water were major factors. =EF=BF=BDIn 1=
> 831
> > 31,000 people in the UK died of Cholera, Typhus regularly killed
> > 16,000 per year (double that in hot dry summer years). =EF=BF=BDin 1840 5=
> 0,000
> > succumbed to measles and whooping cough. =EF=BF=BDNo one doubts that prio=
> r to
> > the start of the second world war social and public health
> > improvements were by far the greatest influence on the well being of
> > the population. The work of civil engineers such as Bazalgette had a
> > far greater impact than any other measure.
> >
> > By the end of WW2 however the civil engineering aspects of disease
> > mitigation were reaching the end of the road in the west and poor
> > housing and nutrition were no longer significant in many western
> > countries. =EF=BF=BDIn the UK wartime rationing had led to one of the bes=
> t fed
> > populations ever but diseases such as Polio, measles, whooping cough
> > and mumps remained common and were not going to be reduced
> > significantly by social or public health measures. =EF=BF=BDThe major dec=
> line
> > in mortality in the west caused by social and economic influences upon
> > health and disease took place before 1930, after that time measures
> > such as vaccination had a far more profound effect.
> >
> > The very valid point Beaglehole and =EF=BF=BDBonita make of course is tha=
> t
> > there are still many parts of the world where social and public health
> > measures have the potential to improve life often at relatively small
> > cost. =EF=BF=BDThey do not, and never have, proposed that medical improve=
> ments
> > were either insignificant or unnecessary, you should read the whole
> > book.
> >
> > >Whether
> > >vaccine was responsible for even 1% of those declines is not known.
> >
> > Seek and ye shall find, there is ample evidence out there to the
> > contrary.
> >
> > Your figure is meaningless. =EF=BF=BDNo one questions that massive
> > improvements in public health were made prior to the 1930's by social
> > and public health measures. =EF=BF=BDNo one doubts that in that time the
> > effect of public health improvement dwarfed that of medical advances.
> > However, beyond that time the picture changes dramatically. =EF=BF=BD
> >
> > For example in Rabies the death rate without vaccination is as near as
> > makes no difference 100%. =EF=BF=BDWith vaccination given pre-exposure an=
> d
> > immediately after suspected exposure it is nearly zero. =EF=BF=BDThere is=
> no
> > other effective treatment.
> >
> > The number of Hib meningitis cases in children under 5 years in the
> > USA was fairly steady at about 20 per 100,000 from 1980 until 1988
> > when Hib conjugate vaccine was introduced. =EF=BF=BDBy 1991 it had droppe=
> d to
> > about 3 cases per 100,000. =EF=BF=BDDuring that time period there was no
> > significant =EF=BF=BDalteration in standards of living or social health.
> >
> > In the Gambia the rate of Hib meningitis in children prior to 1992
> > when the first vaccination against it started had been fairly constant
> > for decades at about 220 cases per 100,000. =EF=BF=BDBy 1998 it was about=
> 5
> > per 100,000. =EF=BF=BDIn the same time there were no significant social
> > changes.
> >
> > Polio affected 350,000 children worldwide in 1980, by 2006 that was
> > down to 800 because of vaccination. =EF=BF=BDSince then it has increased =
> again
> > and in 2008 was 1,655 because the mad mullahs of northern Nigeria say
> > that Polio vaccination is a plot by the USA to spread Aids and
> > infertility and are killing public health officials involved in
> > administering it. =EF=BF=BDI wonder if any read Whale to get support for =
> their
> > views??
> >
> > >The graphs show that declines in severe illness leading to death prior
> > >to use of vaccine was profound. =EF=BF=BDIn one case, those declines occ=
> urred
> > >without vaccine present at all, further demonstrating the McKinlay
> > >finding cited by Beaglehole and Bonita.
> >
> > Have any of the people misquoting their work ever read that book?
> >
> > > 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. =EF=BF=BD
> >
> > It would? =EF=BF=BDThe control of rabid animals would have meant Rabies b=
> ecame
> > less severe?
> >
> > >And that is exactly what happened. =EF=BF=BD
> >
> > No it didn't
>
> Prove it.
Perhaps I would be in agreement with the enemies of vaccines if I had NOT
had an aunt that had Polio. As a young child, I saw what a victim of polio
had to deal with on a daily basis. I think that it is wonderful that
people in this generation that have had a vaccine for polio do NOT have to
be concerned with getting such a terrible disease. I doubt that any of the
enemies of vaccines have known a family member or close friend that have
had polio--otherwise, they would NOT be an enemy of vaccines. On the other
hand, vaccines that have not been tested in the way that they should have
been tested should not be given to anyone. I have read that they vaccine
for swine flu has NOT been tested in the way that vaccines should be
tested and it is for that reason that none of the members of my family
will be getting the vaccine for swine flu.
jason
Mark Probert
> In article
> <4480ba32-d76d-4d94-bb07-3c1e29a74...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, Jan
That is incorrect. The process is identical as to ones used in years
past.
Peter B
"PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd3828c3-a6cd-4299...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
By the reasoning you have chosen to follow, without scientific facits I
might add, we should then ignore everyone in the AIDS community. Let
them die off, watch the cases disappear and say, "see? We don't need no
stinking vaccinations"
We should also stop trying to develope vaccinations for cancers that are
virus driven and let them all die off also.
We should also allow you and others to tout your anti-vac propaganda
only after you have written/signed a document denying any all medical
care for you and all your family in close contact with you in the event
they get the flu, virus activated disease, whatever. That way if you
cause the death of another because of your beliefs then you and yours
will be subjected to the same thing.
There is currently an upsurge in old diseases due to the influx of
illegal aliens to America, as well as high traffic across borders.
Simple things like riding public transit systems will subject you to
diseases all but eradicted from the USA. You can wash your hands and
take showers frequently but that will not prevent you from getting
polio, tuberculosis and other such diseases. Please enjoy your remaining
life.
Peter Parry
<jdrew...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Jan 16, 6:14?pm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>> > 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. ?
>>
>> It would? ?The control of rabid animals would have meant Rabies became
>> less severe?
>>
>> >And that is exactly what happened. ?
>>
>> No it didn't
>
>Prove it.
In Finland the public health aspects of standard of living, nutrition
and measles rates had no major changes between 1960 and 1975.
Approximately 15,000 cases of measles occurred annually. Between 1975
and 1982 MMR vaccination became widespread. Between 1997 and 1998 no
cases of measles were found in Finland. Between 2001 and 2007 2 cases
were reported. (I don't have data for 1999 and 2000).
In 1981 there were 66,000 cases of Polio reported worldwide, In 1998
about 3,000. In the same period there was no significant change in
many countries standard of living.
Between 1991 and 1995 approximately 80,000 cases of chickenpox
occurred every year in the USA, In 1995 a vaccine was licensed and
between 2003 and 2007 approximately 15,000 cases were reported. There
was no significant change in living conditions during that time.
Jason
> > Perhaps I would be in agreement with the enemies of vaccines if I had NOT
> o
> > had to deal with on a daily basis. I think that it is wonderful that
> o
> > be concerned with getting such a terrible disease. I doubt that any of th=
> e
> > enemies of vaccines have known a family member or close friend that have
> r
> > hand, vaccines that have not been tested in the way that they should have
> > been tested should not be given to anyone. I have read that they vaccine
> > for swine flu has NOT been tested in the way that vaccines should be
> > tested and it is for that reason that none of the members of my family
> > will be getting the vaccine for swine flu.
>
> That is incorrect. The process is identical as to ones used in years
> past.
I conducted a quick google search for "Swine flu vaccine not properly
tested" and found the following:
Swine flu vaccine has not been tested.
Aug 7, 2009 ... Neither will the possible side effects be known on
pregnant women or young
children as Dr Marie Paul Kieny, director of vaccine research at ...
http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/swine-flu-vaccine-has-not-been-tested/
- 43k - Cached - Similar pages
Half of GPs refuse swine flu vaccine over testing fears | Mail Online
Aug 25, 2009 ... Up to half of family doctors do not want to be vaccinated
against swine flu
because they believe the jab has not been tested enough.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208716/Half-GPs-refuse-swine-flu-vaccine-testing-fears.html
- Similar pages
Swine flu vaccine will not be fully tested before use - mirror.co.uk
Jul 23, 2009 ... Desperate health chiefs are to start handing out the new
swine flu vaccine
before full human trials are carried out.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/07/23/guinea-piggies-115875-21541092/
- 106k - Cached - Similar pages
To vaccinate or not? Some wary on H1N1 choice - CNN.com
Oct 9, 2009 ... "Be knowledgeable, though, that the H1N1 swine flu vaccine
is ... the swine flu
vaccine because she believes it has not been tested enough. ...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/09/h1n1.vaccine.skepticism/ - 81k -
Cached - Similar pages
Health Officials Admit Fast Tracked H1N1 Vaccines Will Not Be Tested....
They scared people to death over no deaths or even confirmed swine flu cases,
then gave them a vaccine which was not tested for safety (they tested another
...
http://www.infowars.com/health-officials-admit-fast-tracked-h1n1-vaccines-will-not-be-tested-for-safety/
- 140k - Cached - Similar pages
Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts assert ...
Oct 19, 2009 ... Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts
assert ... Hardly, and
especially not compared with the dangers of the H1N1 flu virus. ... authorities
and others familiar with how swine flu vaccine is being made, ...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-flu-vaccine-making-19-oct19,0,3212579.story
- 141k - Cached - Similar pages
First Swine Flu Shots Will Not Be Safety Tested - AGE OF AUTISM
By Ginger Taylor On Friday, the National Biodefense Science Board met in
emergency session to work on issues surrounding the H1N1 flu pandemic.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/07/first-swine-flu-shots-will-not-be-safety-tested.html
- 74k - Cached - Similar pages
Mark Probert
> > > Perhaps I would be in agreement with the enemies of vaccines if I had NOT
> > > had an aunt that had Polio. As a young child, I saw what a victim of poli=
> > o
> > > had to deal with on a daily basis. I think that it is wonderful that
> > > people in this generation that have had a vaccine for polio do NOT have t=
> > o
> > > be concerned with getting such a terrible disease. I doubt that any of th=
> > e
> > > enemies of vaccines have known a family member or close friend that have
> > > had polio--otherwise, they would NOT be an enemy of vaccines. On the othe=
> > r
> > > hand, vaccines that have not been tested in the way that they should have
> > > been tested should not be given to anyone. I have read that they vaccine
> > > for swine flu has NOT been tested in the way that vaccines should be
> > > tested and it is for that reason that none of the members of my family
> > > will be getting the vaccine for swine flu.
>
> > That is incorrect. The process is identical as to ones used in years
> > past.
>
> I conducted a quick google search for "Swine flu vaccine not properly
> tested" and found the following:
>
>
Snipo
>
Snip
>
Snip
>
Snip
>
> Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts assert ...
> Oct 19, 2009 ... Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts
> assert ... Hardly, and
> especially not compared with the dangers of the H1N1 flu virus. ... authorities
> and others familiar with how swine flu vaccine is being made, ...http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-flu-vaccine-making-19-oct19,...
> - 141k - Cached - Similar pages
Snip
I removed everything that is from either a known anti-vaccination
source, e.g. Age of Autism Cesspoop, a newspaper that had consistently
demonstrated utter credulousness when propagating the Wakefield
fiasco, etc.
What I left supports my comment.
Now, please come back with something that is factual.
Jan Drew
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's a claim. Now. prove it.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:dd3828c3-a6cd-4299...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> By the reasoning you have chosen to follow, without scientific facits I
> might add, we should then ignore everyone in the AIDS community.
We are already ignoring them by ascribing to HIV a disease (AIDS) for
which it is simply another opportunistic infection.
> Let
> them die off, watch the cases disappear and say, "see? We don't need no
> stinking vaccinations"
What you know about vaccine could be fit into a thimble with enough
room left over for a mac truck. You proved that by your inability to
cite a single study proving your bogus claims.
> We should also stop trying to develope vaccinations for cancers that are
> virus driven and let them all die off also.
Do point to any data in the medical literature showing a real decrease
in population-level rates of cancer resulting from use of vaccines.
I'll wait.
> We should also allow you and others to tout your anti-vac propaganda
> only after you have written/signed a document denying any all medical
> care for you and all your family in close contact with you in the event
> they get the flu, virus activated disease, whatever. That way if you
> cause the death of another because of your beliefs then you and yours
> will be subjected to the same thing.
Your belief in "herd immunity" is touching. Let us know when you find
any proof of it.
> There is currently an upsurge in old diseases due to the influx of
> illegal aliens to America, as well as high traffic across borders.
> Simple things like riding public transit systems will subject you to
> diseases all but eradicted from the USA.
You make the false assumption that exposure is equal to infection just
as you assume inoculation is equal to immunity. Our response to
infection is spectral because individual biochemistry, genetics, and
health are variable. Vaccine can not, and does not, predictably
compensate for natural immunity that is less than optimal.
> You can wash your hands and
> take showers frequently but that will not prevent you from getting
> polio, tuberculosis and other such diseases.
Nor will vaccine do so predictably or safely, as tens of thousands
have learned.
> Please enjoy your remaining life.
I will.
Jan Drew
>
> - Show quoted text -
Still waiting for you to prove it. The burden of proof is yours.
You made the claim.
Jan Drew
Mark S Probert snips because he has no proof.
>
> > Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts assert ...
> > Oct 19, 2009 ... Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts
> > assert ... Hardly, and
> > especially not compared with the dangers of the H1N1 flu virus. ... authorities
> > and others familiar with how swine flu vaccine is being made, ...http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-flu-vaccine-making-19-oct19,...
> > - 141k - Cached - Similar pages
I can't seem to find the page you wanted.
>
> Snip
>
> I removed everything that is from either a known anti-vaccination
> source, e.g. Age of Autism Cesspoop, a newspaper that had consistently
> demonstrated utter credulousness when propagating the Wakefield
> fiasco, etc.
>
> What I left supports my comment.
>
> Now, please come back with something that is factual.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What you snip I restore.
And Age of Ausitm is NOT Cesspoop.
I conducted a quick google search for "Swine flu vaccine not properly
tested" and found the following:
Swine flu vaccine has not been tested.
Aug 7, 2009 ... Neither will the possible side effects be known on
pregnant women or young
children as Dr Marie Paul Kieny, director of vaccine research at ...
http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/swine-flu-vaccine-has-not-b...
- 43k - Cached - Similar pages
Half of GPs refuse swine flu vaccine over testing fears | Mail Online
Aug 25, 2009 ... Up to half of family doctors do not want to be
vaccinated
against swine flu
because they believe the jab has not been tested enough.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208716/Half-GPs-refuse-swine...
- Similar pages
Swine flu vaccine will not be fully tested before use - mirror.co.uk
Jul 23, 2009 ... Desperate health chiefs are to start handing out the
new
swine flu vaccine
before full human trials are carried out.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/07/23/guinea-piggies-11...
- 106k - Cached - Similar pages
To vaccinate or not? Some wary on H1N1 choice - CNN.com
Oct 9, 2009 ... "Be knowledgeable, though, that the H1N1 swine flu
vaccine
is ... the swine flu
vaccine because she believes it has not been tested enough. ...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/09/h1n1.vaccine.skepticism/ - 81k -
Cached - Similar pages
Health Officials Admit Fast Tracked H1N1 Vaccines Will Not Be
Tested....
They scared people to death over no deaths or even confirmed swine flu
cases,
then gave them a vaccine which was not tested for safety (they tested
another
...
http://www.infowars.com/health-officials-admit-fast-tracked-h1n1-vacc...
- 140k - Cached - Similar pages
Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts assert ...
Oct 19, 2009 ... Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts
assert ... Hardly, and
especially not compared with the dangers of the H1N1 flu virus. ...
authorities
and others familiar with how swine flu vaccine is being made, ...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-flu-vaccine-making-19-oct19,...
- 141k - Cached - Similar pages
First Swine Flu Shots Will Not Be Safety Tested - AGE OF AUTISM
By Ginger Taylor On Friday, the National Biodefense Science Board met
in
emergency session to work on issues surrounding the H1N1 flu
pandemic.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/07/first-swine-flu-shots-will-not-be-...
- 74k - Cached - Similar pages
Peter B
On Jan 18, 12:45 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:dd3828c3-a6cd-4299...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> By the reasoning you have chosen to follow, without scientific facits
> I
> might add, we should then ignore everyone in the AIDS community.
We are already ignoring them by ascribing to HIV a disease (AIDS) for
which it is simply another opportunistic infection.
===================================================
So Homopathetics are on the avante garde and ignoring them already?
> Let
> them die off, watch the cases disappear and say, "see? We don't need
> no
> stinking vaccinations"
What you know about vaccine could be fit into a thimble with enough
room left over for a mac truck. You proved that by your inability to
cite a single study proving your bogus claims.
==================================================
repetitive bogus jibbery
> We should also stop trying to develope vaccinations for cancers that
> are
> virus driven and let them all die off also.
Do point to any data in the medical literature showing a real decrease
in population-level rates of cancer resulting from use of vaccines.
I'll wait.
=================================================
If you reread what I wrote then you just might understand why I call you
stupid and ignorant at times like this.
Stupid, Reread what I wrote.
> We should also allow you and others to tout your anti-vac propaganda
> only after you have written/signed a document denying any all medical
> care for you and all your family in close contact with you in the
> event
> they get the flu, virus activated disease, whatever. That way if you
> cause the death of another because of your beliefs then you and yours
> will be subjected to the same thing.
Your belief in "herd immunity" is touching. Let us know when you find
any proof of it.
=================================================
And that comment has to do with what?
> There is currently an upsurge in old diseases due to the influx of
> illegal aliens to America, as well as high traffic across borders.
> Simple things like riding public transit systems will subject you to
> diseases all but eradicted from the USA.
You make the false assumption that exposure is equal to infection just
as you assume inoculation is equal to immunity. Our response to
infection is spectral because individual biochemistry, genetics, and
health are variable. Vaccine can not, and does not, predictably
compensate for natural immunity that is less than optimal.
=================================================
Well, Stupid, that had absolutely zero to do with what I wrote above.
> You can wash your hands and
> take showers frequently but that will not prevent you from getting
> polio, tuberculosis and other such diseases.
Nor will vaccine do so predictably or safely, as tens of thousands
have learned.
================================================
Only Stupid people such as yourself would draw such a conclusion. I
won't even bother pointing to proof since you will ignore it choosing
rather to be stupid and follow the pathetic way of life. Let me point
out to you that all homopathetics die, and most die sooner than later.
> Please enjoy your remaining life.
I will.
===============================================
Good, there isn't much left if you are honest.
PeterB - Original
> "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e9d433d0-009a-4b17...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 18, 12:45 am, "Peter B" <origin...@frag.com> wrote:
>
> > "PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:dd3828c3-a6cd-4299...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> > By the reasoning you have chosen to follow, without scientific facits
> > I
> > might add, we should then ignore everyone in the AIDS community.
>
> We are already ignoring them by ascribing to HIV a disease (AIDS) for
> which it is simply another opportunistic infection.
> ===================================================
> So Homopathetics are on the avante garde and ignoring them already?
Sorry, I don't recognize that reference. If you want to be addressed
like an adult, learn to act like one.
> > Let them die off, watch the cases disappear and say, "see? We don't need
> > no stinking vaccinations"
>
> What you know about vaccine could be fit into a thimble with enough
> room left over for a mac truck. You proved that by your inability to
> cite a single study proving your bogus claims.
> ==================================================
> repetitive bogus jibbery
No, I'm pointing out that your beliefs are based on fallacy.
> > We should also stop trying to develope vaccinations for cancers that
> > are virus driven and let them all die off also.
>
> Do point to any data in the medical literature showing a real decrease
> in population-level rates of cancer resulting from use of vaccines.
> I'll wait.
> =================================================
> If you reread what I wrote then you just might understand why I call you
> stupid and ignorant at times like this.
Meaning you cannot cite any such data, so again your support of
unproven "interventions" is just noise.
> Stupid, Reread what I wrote.
>
> > We should also allow you and others to tout your anti-vac propaganda
> > only after you have written/signed a document denying any all medical
> > care for you and all your family in close contact with you in the event
> > they get the flu, virus activated disease, whatever. That way if you
> > cause the death of another because of your beliefs then you and yours
> > will be subjected to the same thing.
>
> Your belief in "herd immunity" is touching. Let us know when you find
> any proof of it.
> =================================================
> And that comment has to do with what?
Your unproven PRO-VAC claims.
> > There is currently an upsurge in old diseases due to the influx of
> > illegal aliens to America, as well as high traffic across borders.
> > Simple things like riding public transit systems will subject you to
> > diseases all but eradicted from the USA.
>
> You make the false assumption that exposure is equal to infection just
> as you assume inoculation is equal to immunity. Our response to
> infection is spectral because individual biochemistry, genetics, and
> health are variable. Vaccine can not, and does not, predictably
> compensate for natural immunity that is less than optimal.
> =================================================
> Well, Stupid, that had absolutely zero to do with what I wrote above.
You said there is an "upsurge in old diseases due to the influx of
illegal aliens to America..." If not vaccine, what intervention do
you suggest?
> > You can wash your hands and
> > take showers frequently but that will not prevent you from getting
> > polio, tuberculosis and other such diseases.
>
> Nor will vaccine do so predictably or safely, as tens of thousands
> have learned.
> ================================================
> Only Stupid people such as yourself would draw such a conclusion.
Yet when challenged to defend your belief that vaccines are effective
and safe using citable examples of published science, you run away.
Typical pharmnut loon behavior.
> I won't even bother pointing to proof since you will ignore it choosing
> rather to be stupid and follow the pathetic way of life.
You won't bother pointing to proof because there isn't any to point
to, otherwise you would.
PeterB - Original
>
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> If it is really the truth why do you continue to post patently false
> statements to support it?
I quote the cited text describing the minor impact of vaccine during
the period noted. If you believe I have made a false statement, what
specifically are you referring to?
> >The timeline of vaccine introduction and impact can be seen
> >graphically athttp://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.
>
> What they wrote was -
>
> "Various explanations have been advanced for the decline in mortality
> rates. which gathered speed in nineteenth century Europe. McKeown
> proposed that steady improvements in nutrition beginning in the
> eighteenth century, together with improvements in water supply and
> sanitation, an increase in the general standard of living following
> [he Industrial Revolution, and a reduction in birth rates propelled
> the health transition. The development of effective medical measures
> was too late to make a major contribution to the mortality decline in
> Europe and other western countries. For example, it has been estimated
> that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the
> United States of America between 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to
> medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases. On the
> other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
> vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
> care services, were of major importance....
And this proves what I said, that the impact of vaccine during the
period noted was not more (and quote possibly less) than 3.5%. The
importance of this is that it is the ONLY published measurement of
vaccine impact on such a meaningful scale found in the medical
literature. If you have a comparable citation (not just a repository
of articles), I would love to see it.
> The more recent decline in mortality in poorer countries has some
> parallels with nineteenth-century Europe. For example, the dramatic
> gains in China in the last four decades were associated with major
> improvements in food supply {despite occasional devastating famines)
> as well as public health campaigns directed at the control of
> infectious diseases; literacy, especially for females, has also been
> of major importance.
First, "public health campaigns directed at the control of infectious
disease..." is not confined to the use of vaccine. Second, the
comment does not void the earlier reference to the small impact of
vaccine during a period which saw massive declines in the severity of
viral illness.
> The most recent declines in mortality however, have been influenced
> greatly by public health and medical care advances. For example,
> smallpox, a major scourge of humankind for centuries, has been
> eradicated, "
Again, this comment refers to a variety of public health advances and
is not confined to a particular prophylaxis, although vaccination,
antibiotics, and protocols like quarantine are included.
I have previously posted the following quote by Dr. Tom Mack,
University of Southern California, at Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s (CDC) whose stated at the "Public Forum on Smallpox:
"...If people are worried about endemic smallpox, it disappeared from
this country not because of our mass herd immunity. It disappeared
because of our economic development. And that's why it disappeared
from Europe and many other countries, and it will not be sustained
here, even if there were several importations, I'm sure. It's not
from universal vaccination..." The transcript of Mack's delivery is
available at "Friends of Freedom International" where it and thousands
of other such articles of a scientific nature are archived. You can
also find his bio and a list publication credits at USC's website.
> In the late 1800's there were a number of major killers accounting for
> many deaths, particularly in infants. Poor nutrition, squalid
> conditions and in particular poor water were major factors. In 1831
> 31,000 people in the UK died of Cholera, Typhus regularly killed
> 16,000 per year (double that in hot dry summer years). in 1840 50,000
> succumbed to measles and whooping cough. No one doubts that prior to
> the start of the second world war social and public health
> improvements were by far the greatest influence on the well being of
> the population. The work of civil engineers such as Bazalgette had a
> far greater impact than any other measure.
>
> By the end of WW2 however the civil engineering aspects of disease
> mitigation were reaching the end of the road in the west and poor
> housing and nutrition were no longer significant in many western
> countries.
That is not a scientifically supported statement, and in fact is
contradicted by the available science. See my response to Peter Moron
in the thread titled "Placebo Prescriptions May Be More Common Than
You Think..." for a discussion of WHO data on widespread nutrient
insufficiency. Note that nutrient-related illnesses are not confined
to frank deficiency, though these are more common in third world
nations.
Jason
<d4d3591c-377b-4838...@x6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Mark
Probert <mark.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 18, 10:57=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > Perhaps I would be in agreement with the enemies of vaccines if I had=
> NOT
> > > > had an aunt that had Polio. As a young child, I saw what a victim of =
> poli=3D
> > > o
> > > > had to deal with on a daily basis. I think that it is wonderful that
> > > > people in this generation that have had a vaccine for polio do NOT ha=
> ve t=3D
> > > o
> > > > be concerned with getting such a terrible disease. I doubt that any o=
> f th=3D
> > > e
> > > > enemies of vaccines have known a family member or close friend that h=
> ave
> > > > had polio--otherwise, they would NOT be an enemy of vaccines. On the =
> othe=3D
> > > r
> > > > hand, vaccines that have not been tested in the way that they should =
> have
> > > > been tested should not be given to anyone. I have read that they vacc=
> ine
> > > > for swine flu has NOT been tested in the way that vaccines should be
> > > > tested and it is for that reason that none of the members of my famil=
> y
> > > > will be getting the vaccine for swine flu.
> >
> > > That is incorrect. The process is identical as to ones used in years
> > > past.
> >
> > I conducted a quick google search for "Swine flu vaccine not properly
> > tested" and found the following:
> >
> Snip
> >
> Snipo
> >
>
> Snip
> >
> Snip
> >
> Snip
> >
> > Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts assert ...
> > Oct 19, 2009 ... Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts
> > assert ... Hardly, and
> > especially not compared with the dangers of the H1N1 flu virus. ... autho=
> rities
> > and others familiar with how swine flu vaccine is being made, ...http://w=
> ww.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-flu-vaccine-making-19-oct19,...
> > - 141k - Cached - Similar pages
> Snip
>
> I removed everything that is from either a known anti-vaccination
> source, e.g. Age of Autism Cesspoop, a newspaper that had consistently
> demonstrated utter credulousness when propagating the Wakefield
> fiasco, etc.
>
> What I left supports my comment.
>
> Now, please come back with something that is factual.
If you choose to take a vaccine that has NOT been properly tested, please do so.
Mark Probert
Since you do not believe the reality that vaccines have been properly
tested, please avoid them.
Please allow Darwin to do his deed, and PLEASE, do not propagate your
seed until after Darwin has taken care of you.
Jason
<b019aab1-6088-4cf6...@x6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Mark
Probert <mark.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 3:00=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <d4d3591c-377b-4838-a7b3-b3fc30b1e...@x6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 18, 10:57=3DA0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > Perhaps I would be in agreement with the enemies of vaccines if I=
> had=3D
> > > =A0NOT
> > > > > > had an aunt that had Polio. As a young child, I saw what a victim=
> of =3D
> > > poli=3D3D
> > > > > o
> > > > > > had to deal with on a daily basis. I think that it is wonderful t=
> hat
> > > > > > people in this generation that have had a vaccine for polio do NO=
> T ha=3D
> > > ve t=3D3D
> > > > > o
> > > > > > be concerned with getting such a terrible disease. I doubt that a=
> ny o=3D
> > > f th=3D3D
> > > > > e
> > > > > > enemies of vaccines have known a family member or close friend th=
> at h=3D
> > > ave
> > > > > > had polio--otherwise, they would NOT be an enemy of vaccines. On =
> the =3D
> > > othe=3D3D
> > > > > r
> > > > > > hand, vaccines that have not been tested in the way that they sho=
> uld =3D
> > > have
> > > > > > been tested should not be given to anyone. I have read that they =
> vacc=3D
> > > ine
> > > > > > for swine flu has NOT been tested in the way that vaccines should=
> be
> > > > > > tested and it is for that reason that none of the members of my f=
> amil=3D
> > > y
> > > > > > will be getting the vaccine for swine flu.
> >
> > > > > That is incorrect. The process is identical as to ones used in year=
> s
> > > > > past.
> >
> > > > I conducted a quick google search for "Swine flu vaccine not properly
> > > > tested" and found the following:
> >
> > > Snip
> >
> > > Snipo
> >
> > > Snip
> >
> > > Snip
> >
> > > Snip
> >
> > > > Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts assert ...
> > > > Oct 19, 2009 ... Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts
> > > > assert ... Hardly, and
> > > > especially not compared with the dangers of the H1N1 flu virus. ... a=
> utho=3D
> > > rities
> > > > and others familiar with how swine flu vaccine is being made, ...http=
> ://w=3D
> > > ww.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-flu-vaccine-making-19-oct19,...
> > > > - 141k - Cached - Similar pages
> > > Snip
> >
> > > I removed everything that is from either a known anti-vaccination
> > > source, e.g. Age of Autism Cesspoop, a newspaper that had consistently
> > > demonstrated utter credulousness when propagating the Wakefield
> > > fiasco, etc.
> >
> > > What I left supports my comment.
> >
> > > Now, please come back with something that is factual.
> >
> > If you choose to take a vaccine that has NOT been properly tested, please=
> do so.-
>
> Since you do not believe the reality that vaccines have been properly
> tested, please avoid them.
>
> Please allow Darwin to do his deed, and PLEASE, do not propagate your
> seed until after Darwin has taken care of you.
About half the GP doctors refuse to take the vaccine because it has NOT
been properly tested. I will do the same thing they -- which is to refuse
to take the vaccine. I will let you and others can be the lab rats that
test the vaccine.
Mark Probert
How sad that so many GPs are not properly informed. BTW, care to PROVE
that statement?
. I will do the same thing they -- which is to refuse
> to take the vaccine. I will let you and others can be the lab rats that
> test the vaccine.-
Damn that Darwin, he is too selective.
PeterB - Original
Your refusal to cite any proof supporting your claims using the excuse
that I would discredit it just proves you have no proof.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/f569f86c8ed22f4e
Jason
<f7b96d5e-06be-4d78...@36g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>, Mark
Probert <mark.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 4:47=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > In article
> > <b019aab1-6088-4cf6-a5e0-bea5e00bc...@x6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 20, 3:00=3DA0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <d4d3591c-377b-4838-a7b3-b3fc30b1e...@x6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, M=
> ark
> >
> > > > Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 18, 10:57=3D3DA0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > > > Perhaps I would be in agreement with the enemies of vaccines =
> if I=3D
> > > =A0had=3D3D
> > > > > =3DA0NOT
> > > > > > > > had an aunt that had Polio. As a young child, I saw what a vi=
> ctim=3D
> > > =A0of =3D3D
> > > > > poli=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > o
> > > > > > > > had to deal with on a daily basis. I think that it is wonderf=
> ul t=3D
> > > hat
> > > > > > > > people in this generation that have had a vaccine for polio d=
> o NO=3D
> > > T ha=3D3D
> > > > > ve t=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > o
> > > > > > > > be concerned with getting such a terrible disease. I doubt th=
> at a=3D
> > > ny o=3D3D
> > > > > f th=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > e
> > > > > > > > enemies of vaccines have known a family member or close frien=
> d th=3D
> > > at h=3D3D
> > > > > ave
> > > > > > > > had polio--otherwise, they would NOT be an enemy of vaccines.=
> On =3D
> > > the =3D3D
> > > > > othe=3D3D3D
> > > > > > > r
> > > > > > > > hand, vaccines that have not been tested in the way that they=
> sho=3D
> > > uld =3D3D
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > been tested should not be given to anyone. I have read that t=
> hey =3D
> > > vacc=3D3D
> > > > > ine
> > > > > > > > for swine flu has NOT been tested in the way that vaccines sh=
> ould=3D
> > > =A0be
> > > > > > > > tested and it is for that reason that none of the members of =
> my f=3D
> > > amil=3D3D
> > > > > y
> > > > > > > > will be getting the vaccine for swine flu.
> >
> > > > > > > That is incorrect. The process is identical as to ones used in =
> year=3D
> > > s
> > > > > > > past.
> >
> > > > > > I conducted a quick google search for "Swine flu vaccine not prop=
> erly
> > > > > > tested" and found the following:
> >
> > > > > Snip
> >
> > > > > Snipo
> >
> > > > > Snip
> >
> > > > > Snip
> >
> > > > > Snip
> >
> > > > > > Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts assert ...
> > > > > > Oct 19, 2009 ... Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, exp=
> erts
> > > > > > assert ... Hardly, and
> > > > > > especially not compared with the dangers of the H1N1 flu virus. .=
> .. a=3D
> > > utho=3D3D
> > > > > rities
> > > > > > and others familiar with how swine flu vaccine is being made, ...=
> http=3D
> > > ://w=3D3D
> > > > > ww.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-flu-vaccine-making-19-oct19,...
> > > > > > - 141k - Cached - Similar pages
> > > > > Snip
> >
> > > > > I removed everything that is from either a known anti-vaccination
> > > > > source, e.g. Age of Autism Cesspoop, a newspaper that had consisten=
> tly
> > > > > demonstrated utter credulousness when propagating the Wakefield
> > > > > fiasco, etc.
> >
> > > > > What I left supports my comment.
> >
> > > > > Now, please come back with something that is factual.
> >
> > > > If you choose to take a vaccine that has NOT been properly tested, pl=
> ease=3D
> > > =A0do so.-
> >
> > > Since you do not believe the reality that vaccines have been properly
> > > tested, please avoid them.
> >
> > > Please allow Darwin to do his deed, and PLEASE, do not propagate your
> > > seed until after Darwin has taken care of you.
> >
> > About half the GP doctors refuse to take the vaccine because it has NOT
> > been properly tested
>
> How sad that so many GPs are not properly informed. BTW, care to PROVE
> that statement?
http://nationalexpositor.com/News/1682.html
Healthcare workers revolt against vaccination while government plans mass
immunization programmes -
InfoWars - Two separate polls of GPs in Britain have revealed that one in
two doctors have severe reservations over the safety of the forthcoming
H1N1 flu vaccine, raising serious questions over the government's planned
mass vaccination programme.
A poll of doctors for Pulse magazine found that 49% would reject the
vaccine with 9% still undecided.
56 of the 115 GPs surveyed said they did not intend to receive the jab,
according to the UK's leading medical weekly publication for health
professionals.
A second poll conducted by GP magazine reveals that Up to 60% of GPs have
severe doubts over the proposed vaccine. Of 216 GPs surveyed, 29% say they
will outright refuse to be vaccinated, while a further 29% remain unsure.
Only 41% of doctors said they would definitely take the shot.
Of those who said they would not take the shot, 71% said they were
concerned that the vaccine had "not been through sufficient trials to
guarantee its safety". Over half, 50.4%, said they "believe that swine flu
is too mild to justify taking the vaccine".
The Department of Health sought to dismiss the results, declaring that the
small number of responders to the surveys was not reflective of the
opinions of all doctors.
However, these figures also dovetail with those from a much larger Nursing
Times magazine poll, that revealed 30% of all NHS nurses said they would
refuse to be immunized, with another 33% saying they were unsure.
Of the 30% of nurses who said they would refuse to be vaccinated, 60% said
the reason was due to fears about the safety of the vaccine, following
revelations that the shots will contain mercury and squalene and have also
been linked with the killer nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Another
31% said they would refuse the vaccine because they did not consider the
risk from swine flu to be great enough.
The government has promised to vaccinate all health workers before
Christmas at the latest, to deal with what it has described as the "second
wave" of swine flu.
The vaccine is being rushed through safety procedures while the government
has provided pharmaceutical companies with blanket immunity from lawsuits
arriving out of the vaccine causing deaths and injuries.
Richard Hoey, editor of Pulse told the Daily Mail "The view among many
doctors is that the Government hasn't yet made its case for why such a
huge vaccination programme needs to be rushed in for what seems to be an
unusually mild illness."
Yet another new study, published in the Canadian journal Emerging Health
Threats, found that the public also has grave reservations over the
forthcoming vaccination campaign.
Parents and health-care workers are reluctant to be immunized or vaccinate
their children against a pandemic virus for fear that a drug would be
brought to market with insufficient testing, reports the Globe and Mail.
The study, which used a number of focus groups to establish the likely
response of different people to a vaccine, concluded that people who
believe alternative therapies and a good diet are a better option than
vaccines need to be "won over".
It is highly disturbing that one in two doctors have concerns over the
safety of vaccines while the shots are being actively tested on members of
the public, including children.
Since it is now clear that the majority of the population will refuse to
take the vaccine, it seems that the government�s only option will be to
institute a mandatory program backed by force, or to drop plans for mass
vaccination altogether.
Mark Probert
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Mark Probert
I never claimed that. I pointed out that you torture logic, misstate
what is written, quote mine, use idiotsyncratic terminology, and all
of your other ruses, makes it a waste of time.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/f569f86c8ed22f4e
>
>
>
> > Please allow Darwin to do his deed, and PLEASE, do not propagate your
Mark Probert
Interesting. Is this free reading material given to people in diarrhea
wards so they can pass the time? Substituting conspiracy crap for
facts. It proves NOTHING.
Here is something from the CDC :
"The 2009 H1N1 vaccine is made the same way as seasonal flu vaccines.
Millions of seasonal flu vaccines have been given safely. Millions of
people have also safely received the 2009 H1N1 vaccine."
The rest of the crap I deleted, since, it is crap. It proves nothing
about safety of the vaccine. We now know that the disease is a killer,
targeting kids and caused substantial numbers of deaths and
hospitalizations.,
You do not have to take it. I hope you don't.
I have, and the only reaction I had was laughing hysterically as
sceintific know-nothings like you.
PeterB - Original
>
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> >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.
===== part 2 of response to Peter Parry =====
> The very valid point Beaglehole and Bonita make of course is that
> there are still many parts of the world where social and public health
> measures have the potential to improve life often at relatively small
> cost. They do not, and never have, proposed that medical improvements
> were either insignificant or unnecessary...
Where did I say they did? I pointed to the percentage of impact cited
by them in order to expose the myth that vaccine was responsible for
the vast decline in severity of infectious illness during most of the
20th century.
>, you should read the whole book.
Perhaps you should, as only a few portions are devoted to infectious
disease. I feel certain you had never heard of this book until
reading my original citation of it several years ago in the
newsgroup.
> >Whether
> >vaccine was responsible for even 1% of those declines is not known.
>
> Seek and ye shall find, there is ample evidence out there to the
> contrary.
If that was true, you would cite the evidence instead of whining about
the evidence now in front of you.
> Your figure is meaningless.
No, it isn't. The citation provided states that the impact of
measures introduced for the control of infectious disease during most
of the 20th century was, AT MOST, just 3.5%. That means it could have
been .5%, or even less.
> No one questions that massive
> improvements in public health were made prior to the 1930's by social
> and public health measures.
You are forgetting that food fortification programs in the USA,
Britain, and other countries began much later and greatly reduced
rates of death by measles, incidence of pellagra, rickets, anaemia,
xerophthalmia, goiter, birth defects, low IQ, and other maladies.
Importantly, according to a WHO report, "Subclinical vitamin A
deficiency is also associated with an increased risk of child
mortality, especially from diarrhoea and measles. A meta-analysis
demonstrated that high dose vitamin A supplementation can reduce
mortality from measles by as much as 50%. Another analysis found that
improvement of vitamin A status, whether by supplementation or
fortification, decreased all-cause mortality in children aged between
6 months and 5 years by 23%..." Vaccine cannot begin to approach what
vitamin A, all by itself, can do to save lives.
> No one doubts that in that time the
> effect of public health improvement dwarfed that of medical advances.
> However, beyond that time the picture changes dramatically.
Not really. If I'm wrong, what published science are you relying on
to arrive at your opinion?
> For example in Rabies the death rate without vaccination is as near as
> makes no difference 100%. With vaccination given pre-exposure and
> immediately after suspected exposure it is nearly zero. There is no
> other effective treatment.
Unfortunately, we can't extrapolate from this more easily controlled
lyssavirus to other viruses and other vaccines due to differences
between those organisms and the fact they are evolving.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15896401
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-rabies-evolution.html
> The number of Hib meningitis cases in children under 5 years in the
> USA was fairly steady at about 20 per 100,000 from 1980 until 1988
> when Hib conjugate vaccine was introduced. By 1991 it had dropped to
> about 3 cases per 100,000. During that time period there was no
> significant alteration in standards of living or social health.
As far as you know or were able to measure. But for argument sake,
let's say the vaccine changes how the disease expresses (or even its
severity), that does not address the issue of vaccine safety or the
potential for vaccine to trigger new diseases or illness.
> In the Gambia the rate of Hib meningitis in children prior to 1992
> when the first vaccination against it started had been fairly constant
> for decades at about 220 cases per 100,000. By 1998 it was about 5
> per 100,000. In the same time there were no significant social
> changes.
Again, your "analysis" is a gross oversimplification.
> Polio affected 350,000 children worldwide in 1980, by 2006 that was
> down to 800 because of vaccination. Since then it has increased again
> and in 2008 was 1,655 because the mad mullahs of northern Nigeria say
> that Polio vaccination is a plot by the USA to spread Aids and
> infertility and are killing public health officials involved in
> administering it. I wonder if any read Whale to get support for their
> views??
Changes in disease sequelae classification with regard to polio in
particular has been explained here many times. I suggest you check
the archives.
> >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.
>
> Have any of the people misquoting their work ever read that book?
You are free to cite any published science you feel supports your
alternate view that vaccines are safe and effective. So far, you
haven't done that.
> > 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.
>
> It would? The control of rabid animals would have meant Rabies became
> less severe?
Such a macro change would have reduced incidence but not the severity
of case infection. The historical evidence cited shows that severe
illness from exposure to infectious disease declined in the absence of
vaccine and so naturally the decline continued past vaccine
introduction.
> >And that is exactly what happened.
>
> No it didn't
No Data + No Science = No Proof of Claim.
Mark Probert
>
> No Data + No Science = No Proof of Claim.
That is your formula for success.
Jan Drew
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://advancedscientifichealth.blogspot.com/2007/02/vaccines-are-not-safe.html
==
I conducted a quick google search for "Swine flu vaccine not properly
tested" and found the following:
Swine flu vaccine has not been tested.
Aug 7, 2009 ... Neither will the possible side effects be known on
pregnant women or young
children as Dr Marie Paul Kieny, director of vaccine research at ...
http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2009/08/07/swine-flu-vaccine-has-not-b...
- 43k - Cached - Similar pages
Half of GPs refuse swine flu vaccine over testing fears | Mail Online
Aug 25, 2009 ... Up to half of family doctors do not want to be
vaccinated
against swine flu
because they believe the jab has not been tested enough.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208716/Half-GPs-refuse-swine...
- Similar pages
Swine flu vaccine will not be fully tested before use - mirror.co.uk
Jul 23, 2009 ... Desperate health chiefs are to start handing out the
new
swine flu vaccine
before full human trials are carried out.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/07/23/guinea-piggies-11...
- 106k - Cached - Similar pages
To vaccinate or not? Some wary on H1N1 choice - CNN.com
Oct 9, 2009 ... "Be knowledgeable, though, that the H1N1 swine flu
vaccine
is ... the swine flu
vaccine because she believes it has not been tested enough. ...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/09/h1n1.vaccine.skepticism/ - 81k -
Cached - Similar pages
Health Officials Admit Fast Tracked H1N1 Vaccines Will Not Be
Tested....
They scared people to death over no deaths or even confirmed swine
flu
cases,
then gave them a vaccine which was not tested for safety (they tested
another
...
http://www.infowars.com/health-officials-admit-fast-tracked-h1n1-vacc...
- 140k - Cached - Similar pages
Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts assert ...
Oct 19, 2009 ... Swine flu vaccines are safe and time-tested, experts
assert ... Hardly, and
especially not compared with the dangers of the H1N1 flu virus. ...
authorities
and others familiar with how swine flu vaccine is being made, ...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-flu-vaccine-making-19-oct19,...
- 141k - Cached - Similar pages
First Swine Flu Shots Will Not Be Safety Tested - AGE OF AUTISM
By Ginger Taylor On Friday, the National Biodefense Science Board met
in
emergency session to work on issues surrounding the H1N1 flu
pandemic.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/07/first-swine-flu-shots-will-not-be-...
Jan Drew
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's proof. Mark S Probert has none.
Jan Drew
Then, what are you wasting your time? Have an insane need to agrue,
disbarred lawyer.
Jan Drew
The CDC is organized medicine. Sadly, Makey believes these liars, who
have a vested interest in vacines.
>
> "The 2009 H1N1 vaccine is made the same way as seasonal flu vaccines.
> Millions of seasonal flu vaccines have been given safely. Millions of
> people have also safely received the 2009 H1N1 vaccine."
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5405872n&tag=contentMain;conte
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message860035/pg1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBcUQXNIMEk
>
> The rest of the crap I deleted, since, it is crap. It proves nothing
> about safety of the vaccine. We now know that the disease is a killer,
> targeting kids and caused substantial numbers of deaths and
> hospitalizations.,
>
> You do not have to take it. I hope you don't.
>
> I have, and the only reaction I had was laughing hysterically as
> sceintific know-nothings like you.- Hide quoted text -
PeterB - Original
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> >The timeline of vaccine introduction and impact can be seen
> >graphically athttp://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
==== part 2 of response to Peter Parry ====
> The very valid point Beaglehole and =A0Bonita make of course is that
> there are still many parts of the world where social and public health
> measures have the potential to improve life often at relatively small
> cost. =A0They do not, and never have, proposed that medical improvements
> Your figure is meaningless.
> makes no difference 100%. =A0With vaccination given pre-exposure and
> immediately after suspected exposure it is nearly zero. =A0There is no
> other effective treatment.
Unfortunately, we can't extrapolate from this more easily controlled
lyssavirus to other viruses and other vaccines due to differences
between those organisms and the fact they are evolving.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15896401
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-rabies-evolution.htm=l
> The number of Hib meningitis cases in children under 5 years in the
> USA was fairly steady at about 20 per 100,000 from 1980 until 1988
> when Hib conjugate vaccine was introduced. =A0By 1991 it had dropped to
> about 3 cases per 100,000. =A0During that time period there was no
> significant =A0alteration in standards of living or social health.
As far as you know or were able to measure. But for argument sake,
let's say the vaccine changes how the disease expresses (or even its
severity), that does not address the issue of vaccine safety or the
potential for vaccine to trigger new diseases or illness.
> In the Gambia the rate of Hib meningitis in children prior to 1992
> when the first vaccination against it started had been fairly constant
> for decades at about 220 cases per 100,000. =A0By 1998 it was about 5
> per 100,000. =A0In the same time there were no significant social
> changes.
Again, your "analysis" is a gross oversimplification.
> Polio affected 350,000 children worldwide in 1980, by 2006 that was
> down to 800 because of vaccination. =A0Since then it has increased again
> and in 2008 was 1,655 because the mad mullahs of northern Nigeria say
> that Polio vaccination is a plot by the USA to spread Aids and
> infertility and are killing public health officials involved in
> administering it. =A0I wonder if any read Whale to get support for their
> views??
Changes in disease sequelae classification with regard to polio in
particular has been explained here many times. I suggest you check
the archives.
> >The graphs show that declines in severe illness leading to death prior
> >to use of vaccine was profound. =A0In one case, those declines occurred
> >without vaccine present at all, further demonstrating the McKinlay
> >finding cited by Beaglehole and Bonita.
>
> Have any of the people misquoting their work ever read that book?
You are free to cite any published science you feel supports your
alternate view that vaccines are safe and effective. So far, you
haven't done that.
> > 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. =A0
>
> It would? =A0The control of rabid animals would have meant Rabies became
Peter Parry
<p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 16, 6:14�pm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>>
>> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> >The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>>
>> If it is really the truth why do you continue to post patently false
>> statements to support it?
>
>I quote the cited text describing the minor impact of vaccine during
>the period noted. If you believe I have made a false statement, what
>specifically are you referring to?
The fact that the book quoted neither supported nor made that
statement.
What was said was :-
"For example, it has been estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the
total decline in mortality in the United States of America between
1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the
major infectious diseases.
On the other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
care services, were of major importance...."
Notice vaccination is not treated as a "medical measure" (treatment of
the disease) but a public health intervention. The statement that
"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. �" is wrong and not supported by the reference you
rely upon. Indeed quite the opposite is true as the book says "
targeted public health Interventions including vaccination, personal
hygiene campaigns, and improved child health care services, were of
major importance"
>And this proves what I said, that the impact of vaccine during the
>period noted was not more (and quote possibly less) than 3.5%.
Quite the opposite, you have misread the reference. What it said was
"On the other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
care services, were of major importance...."
Improvements in the _treatment_ of these diseases in the time
specified had far less impact than the improvements in _prevention_
(including vaccination). Vaccination is part of the 96.5%, not the
3.5%.
>The
>importance of this is that it is the ONLY published measurement of
>vaccine impact on such a meaningful scale found in the medical
>literature. If you have a comparable citation (not just a repository
>of articles), I would love to see it.
As the book states that improvements in public health (including
vaccination) was responsible for 96.5% of the improvement in public
health that seems quite satisfactory and in line with other studies.
>First, "public health campaigns directed at the control of infectious
>disease..." is not confined to the use of vaccine.
Of course not, but you have produced no evidence to say what part it
might have played. The only thing we know for sure is that your
statement that "the impact of vaccine during the
period noted was not more (and quote possibly less) than 3.5%." is
completely fallacious.
>Second, the
>comment does not void the earlier reference to the small impact of
>vaccine during a period which saw massive declines in the severity of
>viral illness.
You have misread the reference. It made no such claim.
>> The most recent declines in mortality however, have been influenced
>> greatly by public health and medical care advances. �For example,
>> smallpox, a major scourge of humankind for centuries, has been
>> eradicated, "
>
>Again, this comment refers to a variety of public health advances and
>is not confined to a particular prophylaxis,
Of course not, there was a combination of many measures which
_together_ worked.
>I have previously posted the following quote by Dr. Tom Mack,
> The transcript of Mack's delivery is
>available at "Friends of Freedom International" where it and thousands
>of other such articles of a scientific nature are archived.
That site appears to be trying to rival Whale, if you have a url for
the article it would be appreciated as the site appears to have no
search facility.
>> By the end of WW2 however the civil engineering aspects of disease
>> mitigation were reaching the end of the road in the west and poor
>> housing and nutrition were no longer significant in many western
>> countries. �
>
>That is not a scientifically supported statement,
Merely one supported by history.
PeterB - Original
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:08:09 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 6:14 pm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> >> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >> >The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> >> If it is really the truth why do you continue to post patently false
> >> statements to support it?
>
> >I quote the cited text describing the minor impact of vaccine during
> >the period noted. If you believe I have made a false statement, what
> >specifically are you referring to?
>
> The fact that the book quoted neither supported nor made that
> statement.
To anyone with the slightest bit of reading comprehension, that is
exactly what it says.
> What was said was :-
>
> "For example, it has been estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the
> total decline in mortality in the United States of America between
> 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the
> major infectious diseases.
And vaccine, while not prevalent during that period, had certainly
been introduced for the major infectious diseases. In fact, vaccine
was THE medical measure introduced **soley** for that purpose. Prima
facie.
> On the other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
> vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
> care services, were of major importance...."
>
> Notice vaccination is not treated as a "medical measure" (treatment of
> the disease) but a public health intervention....
I might have just called that an implausible stretch, but your
argument is a logical fallacy. If it was not referring to ANY measure
(including vaccine) in place for the intervention of infectious
diseases, then why didn't vaccine contribute something meaningful in
terms of reducing mortality during those 75 years? My point still
stands that the vast majority of improvement in severe infectious
illness occurred without medical measures aimed at those diseases.
Period.
> The statement that
> "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. " is wrong and not supported by the reference you
> rely upon.
Read the entire sentence again. "For example, it has been estimated
that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the
United States of America between 1900 and 1975 could be ascribed to
medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases." You
may not like what it says, but there it is. Neither vaccines nor any
other measure introduced for the infectious diseases was responsible
for 96.5% of the decline in disease-related mortality during the
period noted. Case closed.
> Indeed quite the opposite is true as the book says "
> targeted public health Interventions including vaccination, personal
> hygiene campaigns, and improved child health care services, were of
> major importance"
The opposite of what? A logical argument (not yours) might be to say
the authors believe a 3.5% decline in mortality resulting from use of
vaccine is of "major importance." Characterize that 3.5% (or less)
however you like. Just because the authors believe in the importance
of vaccine in combination with these other approaches does not change
the fact that 96.5% of the total decline in mortality in the USA
during the period noted occurred without medical measures introduced
for the major infectious diseases. If you were not so wed to the
idea that vaccines had a greater impact than they did, you would
understand that.
> >The importance of this is that it is the ONLY published measurement of
> >vaccine impact on such a meaningful scale found in the medical
> >literature. If you have a comparable citation (not just a repository
> >of articles), I would love to see it.
>
> As the book states that improvements in public health (including
> vaccination) was responsible for 96.5% of the improvement in public
> health that seems quite satisfactory and in line with other studies.
You are reading into the text what you would like for it to say, but
their reference to McKeown in the preceding paragraphs proves you
wrong. Their comment about the 3.5% was made in the context of
McKeown's observation that most medical advances had not yet occurred
when public health was dramatically improving. It's quite impossible
that 96.% of the declines in disease-related mortality occurred
because of vaccine or any other medical measures because they were
largely non existent. Your ambiguous attempt at a paraphrase is quite
misleading, to say the least.
> >First, "public health campaigns directed at the control of infectious
> >disease..." is not confined to the use of vaccine.
>
> Of course not, but you have produced no evidence to say what part it
> might have played.
Sure I did. The citation tells us that vaccine contributed something
less than 3.5% to disease-related declines in mortality during most of
the 20th century. Probably less than 1% since vaccine was not the
only medical measure introduced for the infectious diseases.
> The only thing we know for sure is that your
> statement that "the impact of vaccine during the
> period noted was not more (and quote possibly less) than 3.5%." is
> completely fallacious.
The citation is clear that this was the maximum impact of medical
measures introduced for the infectious diseases, of which vaccine was
primary. You can spin and dance and whine about it all day long, but
that's what it says.
> >> The most recent declines in mortality however, have been influenced
> >> greatly by public health and medical care advances. For example,
> >> smallpox, a major scourge of humankind for centuries, has been
> >> eradicated, "
>
> >Again, this comment refers to a variety of public health advances and
> >is not confined to a particular prophylaxis,
>
> Of course not, there was a combination of many measures which
> _together_ worked.
But no science quantifying those impacts individually, which explains
Dr. Mack's comment below.
> >I have previously posted the following quote by Dr. Tom Mack,
> > The transcript of Mack's delivery is
> >available at "Friends of Freedom International" where it and thousands
> >of other such articles of a scientific nature are archived.
>
> That site appears to be trying to rival Whale, if you have a url for
> the article it would be appreciated as the site appears to have no
> search facility.
FOFI is easily accessible on the web. If you don't like the website,
call Tom yourself (don't bother asking him about me) and he'll confirm
what's there.
> >> By the end of WW2 however the civil engineering aspects of disease
> >> mitigation were reaching the end of the road in the west and poor
> >> housing and nutrition were no longer significant in many western
> >> countries.
>
> >That is not a scientifically supported statement,
>
> Merely one supported by history.
Not the part about nutrition, which is still not at optimal levels
even in the developed world.
Peter Parry
<p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 16, 6:14�pm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> The very valid point Beaglehole and �Bonita make of course is that
>> there are still many parts of the world where social and public health
>> measures have the potential to improve life often at relatively small
>> cost. �They do not, and never have, proposed that medical improvements
>> were either insignificant or unnecessary...
>
>Where did I say they did? I pointed to the percentage of impact cited
>by them in order to expose the myth that vaccine was responsible for
>the vast decline in severity of infectious illness during most of the
>20th century.
As explained in Pt1 - you have misread the book.
>> Your figure is meaningless. �
>No, it isn't. The citation provided states that the impact of
>measures introduced for the control of infectious disease during most
>of the 20th century was, AT MOST, just 3.5%. That means it could have
>been .5%, or even less.
That is not what was said at all. It said that measures introduced
for the control of infectious disease during most of the 20th century
was, AT MOST, just 96.5%. You are hopelessly muddling up the public
health measures, including vaccination, with medical _treatments_ for
disease.
>You are forgetting that food fortification programs in the USA,
>Britain, and other countries began much later and greatly reduced
>rates of death by measles, incidence of pellagra, rickets, anaemia,
>xerophthalmia, goiter, birth defects, low IQ, and other maladies.
Much later than when? They were certainly in place during WW2 but had
little or no effect upon measles or any other infectious diseases.
>Importantly, according to a WHO report, "Subclinical vitamin A
>deficiency is also associated with an increased risk of child
>mortality, especially from diarrhoea and measles. A meta-analysis
>demonstrated that high dose vitamin A supplementation can reduce
>mortality from measles by as much as 50%.
That has been known for a long time and vitamin A as part of the
treatment for measles is common. It doesn't make vitamin A by itself
an effective prophylactic against measles, it isn't.
>Another analysis found that
>improvement of vitamin A status, whether by supplementation or
>fortification, decreased all-cause mortality in children aged between
>6 months and 5 years by 23%..."
Actually it didn't, what it found was that "...improving the vitamin A
status of children aged 6 months to 5 years reduced mortality by about
23% in populations _with at least low prevalence of clinical signs of
vitamin A deficiency_"..."One important finding was that the effect
upon mortality was not dependent upon very high-potency dosing". In
other words with populations with adequate vitamin A intake from their
diet adding more does no good.
(Vitamin A supplementation and child morbidity and mortality in
developing countries George H. Beaton, Reynaldo Martorell, Kristan A.
Aronson, Barry Edmonston, George McCabe. A. Catharine Ross and Bart
Harvey)
>Vaccine cannot begin to approach what vitamin A, all by itself, can do to save lives.
On the contrary, it can comfortably exceed it. However, it is
irrelevant. This isn't a competition to choose one from many. You
can do several things together. Doing one does not stop you doing
another as well.
>> For example in Rabies the death rate without vaccination is as near as
>> makes no difference 100%. �With vaccination given pre-exposure and
>> immediately after suspected exposure it is nearly zero. �There is no
>> other effective treatment.
>Unfortunately, we can't extrapolate from this more easily controlled
>lyssavirus to other viruses and other vaccines due to differences
>between those organisms and the fact they are evolving.
>
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15896401
>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-rabies-evolution.html
All viruses evolve. There is nothing unique in this respect about
Rabies.
>> The number of Hib meningitis cases in children under 5 years in the
>> USA was fairly steady at about 20 per 100,000 from 1980 until 1988
>> when Hib conjugate vaccine was introduced. �By 1991 it had dropped to
>> about 3 cases per 100,000. �During that time period there was no
>> significant �alteration in standards of living or social health.
>As far as you know or were able to measure. But for argument sake,
>let's say the vaccine changes how the disease expresses (or even its
>severity), that does not address the issue of vaccine safety or the
>potential for vaccine to trigger new diseases or illness.
The sky might also fall on our heads or John's cosmic leylines might
bite our bum. Both are nearly as likely as it is that an improbable
scenario unsupported by a credible hypothesis or epidemiology is
likely to come about.
>> In the Gambia the rate of Hib meningitis in children prior to 1992
>> when the first vaccination against it started had been fairly constant
>> for decades at about 220 cases per 100,000. �By 1998 it was about 5
>> per 100,000. �In the same time there were no significant social
>> changes.
>
>Again, your "analysis" is a gross oversimplification.
It is? Would you care to explain?
>> Polio affected 350,000 children worldwide in 1980, by 2006 that was
>> down to 800 because of vaccination. �Since then it has increased again
>> and in 2008 was 1,655 because the mad mullahs of northern Nigeria say
>> that Polio vaccination is a plot by the USA to spread Aids and
>> infertility and are killing public health officials involved in
>> administering it. �I wonder if any read Whale to get support for their
>> views??
>
>Changes in disease sequelae classification with regard to polio in
>particular has been explained here many times.
No it hasn't. Some plainly daft theory that every doctor and nurse in
the world dealing with Polio was suddenly affected by one of John's
cosmic mind control experiments and suddenly started calling Polio
something else was propounded. That isn't evidence.
>> > the trend in declining severity of these illnesses
>> >would naturally have continued past introduction of vaccine. �
>>
>> It would? �The control of rabid animals would have meant Rabies became
>> less severe?
>Such a macro change would have reduced incidence but not the severity
>of case infection. The historical evidence cited shows that severe
>illness from exposure to infectious disease declined in the absence of
>vaccine and so naturally the decline continued past vaccine
>introduction.
Ah, "naturally", must be right then. Actually what happened was that
many diseases spread by water or air were markedly reduced by changes
in housing and living standards. The levels of infection then
stabilised at lower levels than before but they certainly were not
heading towards zero. Smallpox was not eliminated by better
sanitation.
Peter Parry
<p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 22, 2:19�pm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:08:09 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>> "For example, it has been estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the
>> total decline in mortality in the United States of America between
>> 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the
>> major infectious diseases.
>
>And vaccine, while not prevalent during that period, had certainly
>been introduced for the major infectious diseases. In fact, vaccine
>was THE medical measure introduced **soley** for that purpose.
It wasn't. but that is unimportant. In the book you quote to support
your hypothesis it is clear that precisely the opposite to your
interpretation is what was being said.
>> On the other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
>> vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
>> care services, were of major importance...."
>> Notice vaccination is not treated as a "medical measure" (treatment of
>> the disease) but a public health intervention....
>I might have just called that an implausible stretch,
You might, to most people I suggest it is pretty clear because it is
explicitly stated:- "On the other hand, targeted public health
Interventions including vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and
improved child health care services, were of major importance...."
>but your argument is a logical fallacy.
It is simply a factual statement that the content of a book you are
trying to claim says one thing plainly says quite another.
> If it was not referring to ANY measure
>(including vaccine) in place for the intervention of infectious
>diseases, then why didn't vaccine contribute something meaningful in
>terms of reducing mortality during those 75 years?
It did, as I have pointed out from 1930 onwards vaccine played a far
greater role as vaccines developed further and the gains from
improvements in social conditions became less significant.
>My point still stands that the vast majority of improvement in severe infectious
>illness occurred without medical measures aimed at those diseases.
Vaccination is a public health measure, not a medical measure.
>> �The statement that
>> "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. �" is wrong and not supported by the reference you
>> rely upon. �
>Read the entire sentence again. "For example, it has been estimated
>that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the
>United States of America between 1900 and 1975 could be ascribed to
>medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases."
I'm afraid I can do nothing about your deficient command of English.
In the book quoted (and the report referenced) "medical measures" are
treatment for the disease "Public health measures" are preventative
measures including vaccination. It is quite clear if you quote fully
rather than selectively.
Here, again, is the bit you keep omitting. "On the other hand,
targeted public health Interventions including vaccination, personal
hygiene campaigns, and improved child healthcare services, were of
major importance...."
>> That site appears to be trying to rival Whale, if you have a url for
>> the article it would be appreciated as the site appears to have no
>> search facility.
>
>FOFI is easily accessible on the web.
Oh, I found the site, I just can't find anything on it about the
speech you quoted, hence my asking for your assistance as I presume
you know the exact url for the document.
>> Merely one supported by history.
>
>Not the part about nutrition, which is still not at optimal levels
>even in the developed world.
Only if you define "optimal" in some unproven nutricutical way.
Peter B
"PeterB - Original" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec2f5489-4ebc-48b9...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 2:19 pm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:08:09 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> the article it would be appreciated as the site appears to have no
> search facility.
FOFI is easily accessible on the web. If you don't like the website,
call Tom yourself (don't bother asking him about me) and he'll confirm
what's there.
=================================================
Typical of you, he asked quite pleasantly for your help, or the link you
used.
You refused and furthermore injected your overinflated ego into it and
were worried lest he ask the author of the site about you. <snorf>
He waxed you in this thread and your pitiful attempts at obfuscation
failed miserably.
PeterB - Original
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:40:17 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 22, 2:19 pm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:08:09 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> >> "For example, it has been estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the
> >> total decline in mortality in the United States of America between
> >> 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the
> >> major infectious diseases.
>
> >And vaccine, while not prevalent during that period, had certainly
> >been introduced for the major infectious diseases. In fact, vaccine
> >was THE medical measure introduced **soley** for that purpose.
>
> It wasn't. but that is unimportant. In the book you quote to support
> your hypothesis it is clear that precisely the opposite to your
> interpretation is what was being said.
You may not like what it says, but there it is. Neither vaccines nor
any other measure introduced for the infectious diseases was
responsible for 96.5% of the decline in disease-related mortality
during the period noted. If I'm wrong, what "medical measures" beside
vaccine do you claim failed to have more than a 3.5% impact to the
declines in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975?
> >> On the other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
> >> vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
> >> care services, were of major importance...."
> >> Notice vaccination is not treated as a "medical measure" (treatment of
> >> the disease) but a public health intervention....
>
> >I might have just called that an implausible stretch,
>
> You might, to most people I suggest it is pretty clear because it is
> explicitly stated:- "On the other hand, targeted public health
> Interventions including vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and
> improved child health care services, were of major importance...."
The medical literature does not identify "medical measure" as a proper
term, so its use is interchangeable with "public health intervention"
and refers to vaccine, quarantine, or any other medical protocol. As
evidence, see the JAMA article at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/302/7/795
and its use of the term "medical intervention" when discussing
vaccine. As for your view that something less than a 3.5% decline in
mortality resulting from use of vaccine is of "major importance," that
is purely a characterization and you are welcome to it. For your
comment to have any particular meaning, you will need to cite evidence
quantifying the individual contributions of these various health
measures, and how they have impacted rates of morbidity and mortality
historically. There is no such data presented in the cited text or it
would have been noted in my original discussion. The fact remains
that 96.5% of the total decline in mortality in the USA during the
period noted occurred without medical measures introduced for the
major infectious diseases, whether you feel that was of "major
importance" or not.
> >but your argument is a logical fallacy.
>
> It is simply a factual statement that the content of a book you are
> trying to claim says one thing plainly says quite another.
You have cited nothing contradicting the facts presented. You express
the view that a 3.5% impact to death rates was of "major importance,"
then suggest that a greater impact to public health must have
followed. Your claims are not substantiated by any data presented in
the text cited by me and you have not cited any published science of
your own. It appears you have no argument.
> > If it was not referring to ANY measure
> >(including vaccine) in place for the intervention of infectious
> >diseases, then why didn't vaccine contribute something meaningful in
> >terms of reducing mortality during those 75 years?
>
> It did, as I have pointed out from 1930 onwards vaccine played a far
> greater role as vaccines developed further and the gains from
> improvements in social conditions became less significant.
Pure conjecture without evidence to support your thesis.
> >My point still stands that the vast majority of improvement in severe infectious
> >illness occurred without medical measures aimed at those diseases.
>
> Vaccination is a public health measure, not a medical measure.
I'm sure you woujld agree that the term "medical measure" and "medical
intervention" are interchangeable? You will find that term used in a
discussion of vaccine in the JAMA article at http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/302/7/795.
And again, what "medical measures" do you suppose the authors are
referring to in their comment about the 3.5% decline in rates of
mortality?
> >> The statement that
> >> "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. " is wrong and not supported by the reference you
> >> rely upon.
>
> >Read the entire sentence again. "For example, it has been estimated
> >that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the
> >United States of America between 1900 and 1975 could be ascribed to
> >medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases."
>
> I'm afraid I can do nothing about your deficient command of English.
I quote them directly because it makes it clear you have no argument.
You can spin and dance and whine all you won't, or throw an insult,
that won't change the fact you have no evidence quantifying the
individual impact of vaccine.
> In the book quoted (and the report referenced) "medical measures" are
> treatment for the disease "Public health measures" are preventative
> measures including vaccination. It is quite clear if you quote fully
> rather than selectively.
No, that's just your imagination working hard to find an argument. I
doubt you will do so, but please state for us exactly what, in a
hundred words or less, you believe **IS** true about vaccine. Pretend
you are doing a presentation for a group of skeptics and you need to
persuade them of the virtues of vaccine. Give us maybe 4 or 5 bullet
points. Can you do it?
> Here, again, is the bit you keep omitting. "On the other hand,
> targeted public health Interventions including vaccination, personal
> hygiene campaigns, and improved child healthcare services, were of
> major importance...."
It's perfectly fine to cite a portion of text characterizing the
importance of public health measures in aggregate, but that is hardly
information. The evidence that 96.5% of the decline in disease-
related mortality from 1900 to 1975 occurred without medical measures
(which includes vaccine) introduced for the major infectious diseases,
is quite remarkable. It means that NON-medical measures were of much
greater importance to the decline in the severity of these deadly
diseases over a period of many decades. This is why, in the same
chapter, the authors are also discussing McKeown.
> >> That site appears to be trying to rival Whale, if you have a url for
> >> the article it would be appreciated as the site appears to have no
> >> search facility.
>
> >FOFI is easily accessible on the web.
>
> Oh, I found the site, I just can't find anything on it about the
> speech you quoted, hence my asking for your assistance as I presume
> you know the exact url for the document.
Go to http://www.friendsoffreedominternational.org. The search box is
on the right. Type the word "smallpox" into the box. Look for the
article dated Jan 2, 2003. It's about half way down the page.
> >> Merely one supported by history.
>
> >Not the part about nutrition, which is still not at optimal levels
> >even in the developed world.
>
> Only if you define "optimal" in some unproven nutricutical way.
You obviously don't research these important issues. Visit WHO on the
web and you'll find hundreds of citations in the medical literature on
insufficient nutrient status in literally billions of people in every
part of the world. Let me know if you need help finding the search
box.
Peter Parry
<p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 22, 5:08�pm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:40:17 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>You may not like what it says, but there it is.
Indeed it is, and I do like it.
>Neither vaccines nor
>any other measure introduced for the infectious diseases was
>responsible for 96.5% of the decline in disease-related mortality
>during the period noted.
As has been explained to you and is explicitly stated in the book you
quote "targeted public health Interventions including vaccination,
personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child healthcare services,
were of major importance". Note the inclusion of "public health
Interventions including vaccination"
No one disputes that in the period up to the 1930's (in affluent
countries) the greatest gains in overall health of the population were
obtained through improvements in sanitation, diet and housing. That
does not mean that other gains were either insignificant nor
unnecessary. Post the 1930's in the western world the balance of gain
moved away from housing, sanitation and diet as advantages to be
gained from them had largely been achieved. Now of course in the USA
in particular a new problem, of too much food rather than too little,
is again becoming a public health concern.
> If I'm wrong, what "medical measures" beside
>vaccine do you claim failed to have more than a 3.5% impact to the
>declines in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975?
In that book vaccination is clearly not included in "medical measures"
but explained separately in the next sentence where it is included in
public health measures. The medical measures which had a small impact
on disease up until the early 1900's were the rudimentary treatments
for the diseases.
>> You might, to most people I suggest it is pretty clear because it is
>> explicitly stated:- "On the other hand, targeted public health
>> Interventions including vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and
>> improved child health care services, were of major importance...."
>The medical literature does not identify "medical measure" as a proper
>term, so its use is interchangeable with "public health intervention"
Not in the way it is used in the book you are attempting to use as
your authority. In that it clearly defines vaccination as a public
health measure and states so - "targeted public health Interventions
including vaccination...".
>The fact remains
>that 96.5% of the total decline in mortality in the USA during the
>period noted occurred without medical measures introduced for the
>major infectious diseases, whether you feel that was of "major
>importance" or not.
You keep missing out that vaccination is quite explicitly included in
the 96.5% of effective measures. That medical _treatment_ for
infectious illness prior to the early 1900's was largely ineffective
is not in question. The introduction of antibiotics was the single
greatest medical advance in the treatment of these illnesses and that
wasn't due for a few decades more.
>> It is simply a factual statement that the content of a book you are
>> trying to claim says one thing plainly says quite another.
>
>You have cited nothing contradicting the facts presented.
You haven't presented any facts, only a plain misunderstanding of what
the book you rely on said.
>You express the view that a 3.5% impact to death rates was of "major importance,"
I expressed no such view. What I have repeatedly said, and what you
seem unwilling to understand, is that in the book you are relying
upon, and by selection bias misquoting, it quite plainly includes
vaccination in the group of public health activities which achieved
the greatest gains. You are wrongly attributing it to the smaller
group.
" it has been estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the
total decline in mortality in the United States of America between
1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the
major infectious diseases. On the other hand, targeted public health
Interventions including vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and
improved child health care services, were of major importance...."
It is obvious that in this book vaccination has been included in
"targeted public health Interventions", not in "medical interventions"
>> >Read the entire sentence again. �"For example, it has been estimated
>> >that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the
>> >United States of America between 1900 and 1975 could be ascribed to
>> >medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases." �
Try reading the next sentence with it:-
" it has been estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the
total decline in mortality in the United States of America between
1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the
major infectious diseases. On the other hand, targeted public health
Interventions including vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and
improved child health care services, were of major importance...."
Which bit of "On the other hand, targeted public health Interventions
including vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child
health care services, were of major importance" are you having trouble
understanding?
>occurred without medical measures (which includes vaccine)
It didn't say that, it clearly and unambiguously states quite the
opposite that it includes vaccination in "public health" measures.
That other books and other authorities in other places do differently
is irrelevant. In the book you are quoting to support your case it
specifically includes vaccination as a public health measure rather
than a medical intervention.
> It means that NON-medical measures were of much
>greater importance to the decline in the severity of these deadly
>diseases over a period of many decades.
Of course they were. In the 70 years after the Second Industrial
Revolution there were huge improvements in sanitation, diet and living
conditions and these had a major impact on disease. No one denies
that.
>> Oh, I found the site, I just can't find anything on it about the
>> speech you quoted, hence my asking for your assistance as I presume
>> you know the exact url for the document.
>
>Go to http://www.friendsoffreedominternational.org. The search box is
>on the right. Type the word "smallpox" into the box. Look for the
>article dated Jan 2, 2003. It's about half way down the page.
Thank you for that assistance.
The document quoted appears to be a partial extract from a speech
discussing the possible responses to a smallpox outbreak in the USA
caused deliberately. He is making the point (that I suspect few
would dispute) that it would be imprudent to try to vaccinate the
whole population of the USA against the possibility of such an attack
as with modern living standards and no vectors the chances of rapid
spread of the disease were it introduced are very small.
A more effective solution would be to wait until an outbreak
occurred, treat those affected and bring in vaccinated staff to treat
people at home rather than gather them together in hospitals.
"Availability of protected personnel to me is vastly important, ...
And I would suggest that older and foreign MD's who were previously
vaccinated ought to be given priority. "
"Vaccinating those expected to implement control, those known exposed
to a case or an exposed person, those not so exposed but at risk of
work place exposure, and members of the community at large. With
respect to the first, I think this is very essential that there be
designated individuals who are vaccinated in advance,..Now I was asked
to speak about post-exposure vaccination a few minutes ago. There's
not much to say about it. I can give you the little bit of data that I
have. It isn't very good data. I expect that post-exposure vaccination
does make a difference. I don't know exactly, on a day-specific basis,
how that difference changes. I would certainly want to be vaccinated
myself, and I would want to vaccinate my relatives. "
It is all perfectly sound stuff. If the risk is containable you don't
vaccinate 300million people with the consequence that some will die of
vaccination when the risk of catching the disease to most is
negligible. Of those that do catch it, some will indubitably die but
hopefully less than would from vaccinating the whole country which
would expect to lead to about 300 deaths (smallpox vaccination is the
most dangerous immunisation of recent times).
He makes the point you quoted out of context that, in the USA, it
would not be possible today for endemic smallpox to return as a
consequence of bio terrorism as the social conditions are not
conducive to it. He rightly says that in dealing with such a
terrorist incident vaccination, especially of a large proportion of
the population, is a side issue when compared with the major one of
health surveillance for early detection of an outbreak.
Quite what relevance you think this has to the role of vaccination in
eradicating Smallpox escapes me as it is simply discussing the
specific consequences of someone deliberately re-introducing it to the
USA. His view of vaccination is pretty clear "I would certainly want
to be vaccinated myself, and I would want to vaccinate my relatives."
>You obviously don't research these important issues. Visit WHO on the
>web and you'll find hundreds of citations in the medical literature on
>insufficient nutrient status in literally billions of people in every
>part of the world.
You seem to be conflating several issues. That much of the worlds
population is malnourished is obvious. That resolving the reasons for
that by improving agriculture increasing living standards and reducing
birth rates is equally obvious. I'm not sure of the relevance to
vaccination though.
The One True Zhen Jue
> The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> graphically athttp://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
> disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 could be attributed to
> vaccine was responsible for even 1% of those declines is not known.
> without vaccine present at all, further demonstrating the McKinlay
> declines in infectious disease mortality occurred before most vaccines
> would naturally have continued past introduction of vaccine. And that
> is exactly what happened. The purported benefits of vaccine in
> reducing rates of infection and in conferring meaningful resistance to
> disease are based almost completely on pre-existing declines in the
> severity of those very diseases. This has occurred against a backdrop
> of limited safety data and a history of serious, often fatal, vaccine
> side effects.(1)
>
> 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%2...]
>
> (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
According to the 2008 report on toxicology you cited as proof of the
safety of diet supplements, there were ZERO deaths from vaccines that
year. Check out page 140 and let me us know how it feels to realize
that vaccination is as safe as supplementation; at least according to
your source.
PeterB - Original
> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:03:20 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 22, 5:08 pm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:40:17 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> >You may not like what it says, but there it is.
>
> Indeed it is, and I do like it.
>
> >Neither vaccines nor
> >any other measure introduced for the infectious diseases was
> >responsible for 96.5% of the decline in disease-related mortality
> >during the period noted.
>
> As has been explained to you and is explicitly stated in the book you
> quote "targeted public health Interventions including vaccination,
> personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child healthcare services,
> were of major importance". Note the inclusion of "public health
> Interventions including vaccination"
No one said otherwise. Only YOU have claimed that a portion of the
text *excludes* vaccine as a "measure introduced for the major
infectious diseases," a most ridiculous (and easily disproved) claim.
For one, the McKinlay study cited covered the period 1900 to 1975, the
same period during which most modern major vaccines were developed and
deployed. Second, the term "medical measure" is not a proper term, as
you falsely claim, and the JAMA article cited by me -- using the term
"medical intervention" in a discussion of vaccine -- proves it. Thus,
the term "public health intervention" does not exclude "medical
measures introduced for the major infectious diseases...," nor do the
authors in the cited text suggest anything of the sort.
> No one disputes that in the period up to the 1930's...
I've been meaning to point out the logical fallacy of your reference
to the 1930s, as the McKinlay study does not end during that decade,
but continues to 1975, by which time most major modern vaccines were
already developed and in use. Nothing you say based on this false
premise has ANY relevance whatsoever to either this citation or my
discussion. Bottom line, vaccines did not save untold millions of
lives during the 20th century, and nothing your argue to the contrary
proves otherwise.
> > If I'm wrong, what "medical measures" beside
> >vaccine do you claim failed to have more than a 3.5% impact to the
> >declines in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975?
> The medical measures which had a small impact
> on disease up until the early 1900's were the rudimentary treatments
> for the diseases.
First, we are not talking about "up until the early 1900's," but to
the period 1900 to 1975. You repeatedly lose focus on the text of the
citation being discussed. Second, your reference to "rudimentary
treatments" and the author's reference to "medical measures introduced
for the major infectious diseases" clearly shows how desperate you are
to cling to your belief that vaccines are excluded from part of their
discussion. If your objective is to simply say that vaccines were of
major importance to public health, I am fine with you believing that,
I am even fine with Beaglehole believing that. I would never have
cited their work at all if the point had not been made that 96.5% of
the decline in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 had nothing
to do with vaccine or any other measure introduced for the infectious
diseases.
> >> You might, to most people I suggest it is pretty clear because it is
> >> explicitly stated:- "On the other hand, targeted public health
> >> Interventions including vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and
> >> improved child health care services, were of major importance...."
>
> >The medical literature does not identify "medical measure" as a proper
> >term, so its use is interchangeable with "public health intervention"
>
> Not in the way it is used in the book you are attempting to use as
> your authority.
Nonsense. I have already proved the fallacy of your claim using a
JAMA citation, which you conveniently ignored and snipped.
> In that it clearly defines vaccination as a public
> health measure and states so - "targeted public health Interventions
> including vaccination...".
Logical fallacy. I did not dispute that vaccine is a "public health
measure," what I disputed (and disproved) if that "public health
measure" does not exclude "measures introduced for the major
infectious diseases..."
> >The fact remains
> >that 96.5% of the total decline in mortality in the USA during the
> >period noted occurred without medical measures introduced for the
> >major infectious diseases, whether you feel that was of "major
> >importance" or not.
>
> You keep missing out that vaccination is quite explicitly included in
> the 96.5% of effective measures.
No, it isn't, and your false premise for that baseless claim has been
disproved.
> That medical _treatment_ for
> infectious illness prior to the early 1900's was largely ineffective
> is not in question.
No one has said anything at all about the pre-1900's other than you.
I suggest you read the book before continuing to comment on my
discussion of it.
> The introduction of antibiotics was the single
> greatest medical advance in the treatment of these illnesses and that
> wasn't due for a few decades more.
See above.
> >Go tohttp://www.friendsoffreedominternational.org. The search box is
> >on the right. Type the word "smallpox" into the box. Look for the
> >article dated Jan 2, 2003. It's about half way down the page.
>
> Thank you for that assistance.
......
> He makes the point you quoted out of context that, in the USA, it
> would not be possible today for endemic smallpox to return as a
> consequence of bio terrorism as the social conditions are not
> conducive to it.
His reference to the historical defeat of smallpox (which you snipped)
does not depend on the various methods of disease importation
addressed by him. Restoring what he said: "...If people are worried
about endemic smallpox, it disappeared from this country not because
of our mass herd immunity. It disappeared because of our economic
development. And that's why it disappeared from Europe and many other
countries, and it will not be sustained here, even if there were
several importations, I'm sure. It's not from universal
vaccination."
> Quite what relevance you think this has to the role of vaccination in
> eradicating Smallpox escapes me...
His statement that it didn't, or did you forget to read that part
before you deleted it?
> His view of vaccination is pretty clear "I would certainly want
> to be vaccinated myself, and I would want to vaccinate my relatives."
I never said he doesn't believe that vaccine can afford some measure
of protection, I said he doesn't believe that vaccine was responsible
for eradicating smallpox. His statement quoted above is proof of
that.
> >You obviously don't research these important issues. Visit WHO on the
> >web and you'll find hundreds of citations in the medical literature on
> >insufficient nutrient status in literally billions of people in every
> >part of the world.
>
> You seem to be conflating several issues. That much of the worlds
> population is malnourished is obvious. That resolving the reasons for
> that by improving agriculture increasing living standards and reducing
> birth rates is equally obvious. I'm not sure of the relevance to
> vaccination though.
Too bad you don't get it. Vitamin A insufficiency alone increases the
mortality risk of infection by measles and malaria. Vaccine cannot
compensate for that because antibody production is just one layer of
immune response.
PeterB - Original
wrote:
According to VAERS, the official vaccine event reporting agency,
"Underreporting is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance
systems, including VAERS. The term "underreporting" refers to the fact
that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual
adverse events." Since vaccines are usually given in a healthcare
facility, reports of such incidents will be filed by a healthcare
professional to VAERS, rather than a local poison control center.
AAPCC (also a passive reporting agency) tells me that they would
catalog such reports (if received at all) generically as a drug or
pharmaceutical event, so using them as a resource for vaccine events
makes no sense.
> Check out page 140 and let me us know how it feels to realize
> that vaccination is as safe as supplementation; at least according to
> your source.
As I've pointed out before, the value of AAPCC data is to see the
relative differences between the prevalence of "at home" exposures,
specifically for medications and supplements, since both are as likely
to be reported by consumers. Unfortunately, based on my original
interview of AAPCC, the bias inherent in their methodology means that
the number of events attributed to supplements are undeservedly
amplified while at the same time the number of events that are
medication related are undeservedly reduced. Thus, the absolute
values reported to AAPCC for these two categories of exposure are not
likely to be particularly accurate.
> athttp://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2008annualreport.pdf.
Peter Parry
<p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 23, 8:31�am, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>> >Neither vaccines nor
>> >any other measure introduced for the infectious diseases was
>> >responsible for 96.5% of the decline in disease-related mortality
>> >during the period noted.
>>
>> As has been explained to you and is explicitly stated in the book you
>> quote "targeted public health Interventions including vaccination,
>> personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child healthcare services,
>> were of major importance". �Note the inclusion of "public health
>> Interventions including vaccination"
>
>No one said otherwise.
So are you now claiming the book included vaccination in both the 3.5%
and the 96.5%? Quaint.
>Only YOU have claimed that a portion of the
>text *excludes* vaccine as a "measure introduced for the major
>infectious diseases,"
As it is explicitly included in the public health measures accounting
for 96.5% it is either excluded from the other or, for some
inexplicable reason, included there as well. What is plain is that
your assertion that vaccination is only in the 3.5% is quite obviously
wrong as the book you are relying on says differently.
>For one, the McKinlay study cited covered the period 1900 to 1975, the
>same period during which most modern major vaccines were developed and
>deployed.
We are talking about what is said in the book you are relying upon.
>Second, the term "medical measure" is not a proper term, as
>you falsely claim, and the JAMA article cited by me -- using the term
>"medical intervention" in a discussion of vaccine -- proves it.
I'm not at all sure what the relevance of another article, at a
different time in a different publication is to the quite plain
wording you are fallaciously relying upon .
>Thus, the term "public health intervention" does not exclude "medical
>measures introduced for the major infectious diseases...," nor do the
>authors in the cited text suggest anything of the sort.
So things appear twice?
>> No one disputes that in the period up to the 1930's...
>
>I've been meaning to point out the logical fallacy of your reference
>to the 1930s, as the McKinlay study does not end during that decade,
>but continues to 1975, by which time most major modern vaccines were
>already developed and in use.
Your fallacy is to assume linear interpretation. During the period
from the mid 1880's to the 1980's the greatest growth in health was
initially from public health measures as I have explained. In the
latter part it wasn't as the gains to be obtained had largely been
achieved. It isn't difficult. Are you after the truth or do you want
to cherry pick only dates which support your misconceptions?
>Nothing you say based on this false
>premise has ANY relevance whatsoever to either this citation or my
>discussion. Bottom line, vaccines did not save untold millions of
>lives during the 20th century, and nothing your argue to the contrary
>proves otherwise.
To those with minds closed and welded shut I'm afraid you are right.
>> The medical measures which had a small impact
>> on disease up until the early 1900's were the rudimentary �treatments
>> for the diseases.
>First, we are not talking about "up until the early 1900's," but to
>the period 1900 to 1975.
Don't be silly all the time. During the period from 1900 to 1975
there were two distinct phases. In the early 1900's public health
measures still had the greatest impact. From 1930/40 onwards the
returns from them diminished as living standards grew. At the same
time the growth in antibiotics and vaccination meant that from 1930
onwards medical advances started to predominate. So from 1900 to 1930
public health measures had a significant impact and medical treatments
far less so. From 1950 to 1980 public health measures had a
negligible impact as there were (in the west) few gains to be made but
medicine made significant advances. The balance shifted.
>You repeatedly lose focus on the text of the citation being discussed.
It is important to understand what it says and not what you wish it
had said.
>Second, your reference to "rudimentary
>treatments" and the author's reference to "medical measures introduced
>for the major infectious diseases" clearly shows how desperate you are
>to cling to your belief that vaccines are excluded from part of their
>discussion.
The authors quite plainly say they are. I am prepared to take their
word for it.
>I am even fine with Beaglehole believing that. I would never have
>cited their work at all if the point had not been made that 96.5% of
>the decline in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 had nothing
>to do with vaccine or any other measure introduced for the infectious
>diseases.
Quite plainly that isn't what they said. No matter how you squirm you
cannot fit -
" it has been estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the
total decline in mortality in the United States of America between
1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the
major infectious diseases. On the other hand, targeted public health
Interventions including vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and
improved child health care services, were of major importance...."
into your misinterpretation. (Unless you also want to put "targeted
public health Interventions, personal hygiene campaigns, and
improved child health care services" into your 3.5% which doesn't
leave a lot to fill the 96.5%)
>> Not in the way it is used in the book you are attempting to use as
>> your authority. �
>
>Nonsense. I have already proved the fallacy of your claim using a
>JAMA citation, which you conveniently ignored and snipped.
What has a JAMA article years later got to do with the plain and
simple statements in the book?
>> In that it clearly defines vaccination as a public
>> health measure and states so - �"targeted public health Interventions
>> including vaccination...". �
>
>Logical fallacy. I did not dispute that vaccine is a "public health
>measure," what I disputed (and disproved) if that "public health
>measure" does not exclude "measures introduced for the major
>infectious diseases..."
So vaccination is included in both the 3.5% and 96.5% and you have no
idea how it influences either?
>> He makes the point you quoted out of context that, in the USA, it
>> would not be possible today for endemic smallpox to return as a
>> consequence of bio terrorism as the social conditions are not
>> conducive to it.
>His reference to the historical defeat of smallpox (which you snipped)
He made no such reference.
>does not depend on the various methods of disease importation
>addressed by him. Restoring what he said: "...If people are worried
>about endemic smallpox, it disappeared from this country not because
>of our mass herd immunity. It disappeared because of our economic
>development. And that's why it disappeared from Europe and many other
>countries, and it will not be sustained here, even if there were
>several importations, I'm sure. It's not from universal
>vaccination."
That is referring to _endemic_ smallpox, you defeat the endemic
disease and create conditions where it cannot easily return. That
does not mean the conditions eliminated it and that is not what he
said.
>> His view of vaccination is pretty clear "I would certainly want
>> to be vaccinated myself, and I would want to vaccinate my relatives."
>I never said he doesn't believe that vaccine can afford some measure
>of protection, I said he doesn't believe that vaccine was responsible
>for eradicating smallpox.
He did not say that as in many nations where it was eradicated the
changes in living conditions which occurred in the west had not (and
mostly still have not) taken place.
>His statement quoted above is proof of that.
It is nothing of the sort.
>> You seem to be conflating several issues. �That much of the worlds
>> population is malnourished is obvious. �That resolving the reasons for
>> that by improving agriculture increasing living standards and reducing
>> birth rates is equally obvious. �I'm not sure of the relevance to
>> vaccination though.
>
>Too bad you don't get it. Vitamin A insufficiency alone increases the
>mortality risk of infection by measles and malaria.
Hence the importance of improving agriculture, increasing living
standards and reducing birth rates. As the research you misquoted
earlier found "One important finding was that the effect
upon mortality was not dependent upon very high-potency dosing".
Produce good living standards and a sound diet and you have a major
impact on illness. Giving people with an adequate diet vitamin D
pills does nothing other than inflate the coffers of the multi-million
dollar nutricutical companies. It is better to establish a good and
sustainable diet than it is to offload vitamin pills onto under
developed countries.
The One True Zhen Jue
> On Jan 23, 12:45 pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 16, 4:11 pm, PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Truth About Vaccine as a Life-Saving "Medicine"
>
> likely to be particularly accurate.> http://www.aapcc.org/dnn/Portals/0/2008annualreport.pdf
The quesiton is very simple. You accept the report's finding that
there were zero deaths from dietary supplements. Do you also accept
the finding that there were also zero deaths from vaccines?
Obviously, you don't. You can't accept a world where that is true,
much less be internally consistent regarding your view of the cited
report's validity.
In other words, your policy toward this report is the same as
everything else. You agree with it when it agrees with you;
otherwise, it's part of some pro-pharma spin-machine.
Now, for those interested in the facts, how 'bout that stat regarding
zero vaccine deaths in 2008? Why isn't John mentioning that and why
is it making Peterb babble insanely?
Mark Probert
PeterB does not need any stimulation to babble. He does it every time
his fingers hit the keyboard.
Jan Drew
wrote:
<snip>
Andrew Kingoff is a well known and proven liar.Like Mark S Probert
he is a Jew.
Jan Drew
This thread is not about Peter B Original.
Make a note of it.
Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
<anip>
> On Jan 23, 4:28�pm, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_King...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
<snip>
PeterB - Original
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 11:34:59 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 23, 8:31 am, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> >> >Neither vaccines nor
> >> >any other measure introduced for the infectious diseases was
> >> >responsible for 96.5% of the decline in disease-related mortality
> >> >during the period noted.
>
> >> As has been explained to you and is explicitly stated in the book you
> >> quote "targeted public health Interventions including vaccination,
> >> personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child healthcare services,
> >> were of major importance". Note the inclusion of "public health
> >> Interventions including vaccination"
>
> >No one said otherwise.
>
> So are you now claiming the book included vaccination in both the 3.5%
> and the 96.5%? Quaint.
The authors did. To the extent that vaccines had been developed and
utilized between 1900 and 1975, to that extent vaccines must have
played some role (though minor in terms of their impact on mortality),
in overall public health trends. It's true that many vaccines were
not available until after the 1930s, which is why I said earlier that
declines in the severity of infectious diseases (best measured by
declines in mortality) occurred mostly in their absence, however the
period for this citation was 1900 to 1975, so vaccines cannot be
entirely excluded. In fact, their introduction and use makes it
impossible to sequester their impact from the total impact ascribed to
all measures combined, which also includes multi-variates like the
ones McKeown (and I) have said were predominant. The author's view
that various health measures (including vaccine) were of major
importance refers not to the 96.5% of declines in disease-related
mortality already excluded from the impact of "measures introduced for
the major infectious diseases," but to the impact of vaccine (in
combination with other measures) on rates of infection, prognosis, and
overall quality of care. But note that NONE of those individual
measures have an estimated percentage of impact ascribed to them on
the basis of any study or data whatsoever. This is why Beaglehole is
referring to rates of mortality in discussing the 3.5% in relation to
measures introduced for the major infectious diseases on the one hand,
and to overall improvements in public health when discussing the
"major importance" of all measures in aggregate. I don't believe
you'll understand this given your history of bias against a more
realistic view of the accomplishments of vaccine, but this should at
least give you some food for thought.
> >Only YOU have claimed that a portion of the
> >text *excludes* vaccine as a "measure introduced for the major
> >infectious diseases,"
>
> >For one, the McKinlay study cited covered the period 1900 to 1975, the
> >same period during which most modern major vaccines were developed and
> >deployed.
>
> We are talking about what is said in the book you are relying upon.
So you didn't realize that Beaglehole himself was citing the McKinlay
study for its finding? That explains all your references to the
1930s, your faulty premises, and non sequiturs. I see now why you've
been so hopelessly lost and resorting to semantics to make your
case.
> >Second, the term "medical measure" is not a proper term, as
> >you falsely claim, and the JAMA article cited by me -- using the term
> >"medical intervention" in a discussion of vaccine -- proves it.
>
> I'm not at all sure what the relevance of another article, at a
> different time in a different publication is to the quite plain
> wording you are fallaciously relying upon .
You aren't sure because you know I proved the absurdity of your
argument with one of the first cites I got my hands on. The plain
wording of the Beaglehole citation does not demonstrate or acknowledge
any such wording convention and does not support your logical
fallacies.
> >> No one disputes that in the period up to the 1930's...
>
> >I've been meaning to point out the logical fallacy of your reference
> >to the 1930s, as the McKinlay study does not end during that decade,
> >but continues to 1975, by which time most major modern vaccines were
> >already developed and in use.
>
> Your fallacy is to assume linear interpretation. During the period
> from the mid 1880's to the 1980's...
So you are now changing your comment about the 1930s to the 1980s? I
will bear with you only a little longer, as it is clear you are not
engaging in an honest exchange and resort to never ending non
sequiturs in an effort to discredit what Beaglehole is merely
reporting. I note that you did not respond to my request that you
tell us exactly what you yourself believe is true about the historical
and measurable impact of vaccine on public health. From this point
on, I will boilerplate my response to your most glaring logical errors
and hope readers aren't further confused by these ridiculous word
games you like to play.
> During the period from 1900 to 1975
> there were two distinct phases. In the early 1900's public health
> measures still had the greatest impact. From 1930/40 onwards the
> returns from them diminished as living standards grew. At the same
> time the growth in antibiotics and vaccination meant that from 1930
> onwards medical advances started to predominate.
It's fine that you believe all of that, and some of it is true enough,
but you have no way to substantiate these more narrow time frames
because the effects of various health measures have never been
individually quantified. All we have is a big observational window in
which all these variables were present at once during most of the
twentieth century, which is why even the McKinlay finding (the one you
were unaware of despite it being the premise for Beaglehole's
discussion) was part of a larger discussion about the ideas and work
of McKeown. Yes, the advent of antibiotics made a big difference in
modern healthcare, and yes, vaccines probably have affected rates of
infection to some extent, but we have no way to know how much and the
fact that so many of these diseases were already in retreat (often
long before such measure came into play) is the elephant in your
living room.
> So from 1900 to 1930
> public health measures had a significant impact and medical treatments
> far less so. From 1950 to 1980 public health measures had a
> negligible impact as there were (in the west) few gains to be made but
> medicine made significant advances. The balance shifted.
That's a really bad example of wishful thinking on your part. For
instance, the popularization of vitamin C could be credited with
dramatically improving rates of heart disease during the 1970s, and
the data on vitamin C and heart disease certainly make that possible,
but since I have no way to quantify that without historical study,
it's just a guess and so I leave it unsaid. Same with your comment
above, it's pure conjecture, since I can just as easily claim that
popularization of nutrition beginning in the 1960s is the reason for
improving public health in some area or another.
> >You repeatedly lose focus on the text of the citation being discussed.
>
> It is important to understand what it says and not what you wish it
> had said.
You are the one teasing exceptions, exclusions, and mythical
conventions out of the text that isn't there. I would suggest you
take a course in reading the scientific literature, and I'm serious
about that.
> >Second, your reference to "rudimentary
> >treatments" and the author's reference to "medical measures introduced
> >for the major infectious diseases" clearly shows how desperate you are
> >to cling to your belief that vaccines are excluded from part of their
> >discussion.
>
> The authors quite plainly say they are. I am prepared to take their
> word for it.
You have an active imagination.
> >I am even fine with Beaglehole believing that. I would never have
> >cited their work at all if the point had not been made that 96.5% of
> >the decline in disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 had nothing
> >to do with vaccine or any other measure introduced for the infectious
> >diseases.
>
> Quite plainly that isn't what they said. No matter how you squirm you
> cannot fit -
>
> " it has been estimated that, at most, only 3.5% of the
> total decline in mortality in the United States of America between
> 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the
> major infectious diseases. On the other hand, targeted public health
> Interventions including vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and
> improved child health care services, were of major importance...."
>
> into your misinterpretation. (Unless you also want to put "targeted
> public health Interventions, personal hygiene campaigns, and
> improved child health care services" into your 3.5% which doesn't
> leave a lot to fill the 96.5%)
This again is based on your false premise that the authors are
segregating the various health measures, when they are in fact
discussing ALL health measures for their *overall* impact to public
health. They might have done as you say if they could have quantified
health measures for their individual contributions to public health,
but that was not the case. Since the 96.5% is (only) referring to
declines in mortality, neither the authors nor the reader are
compelled to "fill up the 96.5%," instead they are commenting on
public health measures in very broad terms, quite clear if you
consider the overall context, for which reference to McKeown is a
key.
> >> Not in the way it is used in the book you are attempting to use as
> >> your authority.
>
> >Nonsense. I have already proved the fallacy of your claim using a
> >JAMA citation, which you conveniently ignored and snipped.
>
> What has a JAMA article years later got to do with the plain and
> simple statements in the book?
It disproves your silly argument that the term "medical measures" or
"medical intervention" cannot be used in reference to vaccine or is
not equivalent to "medical measures introduced for the major
infectious diseases." The fact that Beaglehole's book and the JAMA
article are 5yrs apart in publication date means nothing unless you
are claiming that some convention in terminology changed during that
time. We both know that didn't happen.
> >> In that it clearly defines vaccination as a public
> >> health measure and states so - "targeted public health Interventions
> >> including vaccination...".
>
> >Logical fallacy. I did not dispute that vaccine is a "public health
> >measure," what I disputed (and disproved) is that "public health
> >measure" does not exclude "measures introduced for the major
> >infectious diseases..."
>
> So vaccination is included in both the 3.5% and 96.5% and you have no
> idea how it influences either?
To one degree or another, vaccines were in play for most of the 75
years discussed in the citation. Consistent with that finding, all we
know based on the information presented is that vaccines were not
responsible for more than 3.5% of the decline in disease-related
mortality between 1900 and 1975. That means 96.5% of those declines
occurred without *any* contribution from measures introduced for the
major infectious diseases at all.
> >> He makes the point you quoted out of context that, in the USA, it
> >> would not be possible today for endemic smallpox to return as a
> >> consequence of bio terrorism as the social conditions are not
> >> conducive to it.
>
> >His reference to the historical defeat of smallpox (which you snipped)
>
> He made no such reference.
In referring to the defeat of smallpox in Europe and other nations as
a result of economic development, it is.
> >does not depend on the various methods of disease importation
> >addressed by him. Restoring what he said: "...If people are worried
> >about endemic smallpox, it disappeared from this country not because
> >of our mass herd immunity. It disappeared because of our economic
> >development. And that's why it disappeared from Europe and many other
> >countries, and it will not be sustained here, even if there were
> >several importations, I'm sure. It's not from universal
> >vaccination."
>
> That is referring to _endemic_ smallpox, you defeat the endemic
> disease and create conditions where it cannot easily return.
Note that "herd immunity," a reference to inoculation, is not credited
with doing that.
> That
> does not mean the conditions eliminated it and that is not what he
> said.
Did he not say that "economic development," rather than "universal
vaccination," had been responsible for the disappearance of smallpox?
A simple Yes or No will do.
> >> His view of vaccination is pretty clear "I would certainly want
> >> to be vaccinated myself, and I would want to vaccinate my relatives."
>
> >I never said he doesn't believe that vaccine can afford some measure
> >of protection, I said he doesn't believe that vaccine was responsible
> >for eradicating smallpox.
>
> He did not say that...
He did, when referring to the disappearance of smallpox, he said it
didn't happen because of universal vaccination. It's the last 5 words
of the cited quote.
> >His statement quoted above is proof of that.
>
> It is nothing of the sort.
>
> >> You seem to be conflating several issues. That much of the worlds
> >> population is malnourished is obvious. That resolving the reasons for
> >> that by improving agriculture increasing living standards and reducing
> >> birth rates is equally obvious. I'm not sure of the relevance to
> >> vaccination though.
>
> >Too bad you don't get it. Vitamin A insufficiency alone increases the
> >mortality risk of infection by measles and malaria.
>
> Hence the importance of improving agriculture, increasing living
> standards and reducing birth rates. As the research you misquoted
> earlier found "One important finding was that the effect
> upon mortality was not dependent upon very high-potency dosing".
> Produce good living standards and a sound diet and you have a major
> impact on illness. Giving people with an adequate diet vitamin D
> pills does nothing other than inflate the coffers of the multi-million
> dollar nutricutical companies. It is better to establish a good and
> sustainable diet than it is to offload vitamin pills onto under
> developed countries.
I knew you would sooner or later get around to why you are really
here. Thank you for showing your true colors by attacking natural
medicine, at least you admit you are here to defend the profits of the
vaccine makers. Well, here's a shocker. I agree with you that pills
are not the final answer, but the fact remains that supplemental
nutrition (also cited in the WHO data) can be used to save lives and
improve public health. And there is no reason NOT to provide such
natural aid in light of the remarkable benefits that can be derived
from them. I would be perfectly agreeable to some multi-party
consortium launching its own manufacturing facility in order to carry
this out so that any profits could be fed back into public health.
PeterB - Original
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:21:38 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 16, 6:14 pm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> >> The very valid point Beaglehole and Bonita make of course is that
> >> there are still many parts of the world where social and public health
> >> measures have the potential to improve life often at relatively small
> >> cost. They do not, and never have, proposed that medical improvements
> >> were either insignificant or unnecessary...
>
> >Where did I say they did? I pointed to the percentage of impact cited
> >by them in order to expose the myth that vaccine was responsible for
> >the vast decline in severity of infectious illness during most of the
> >20th century.
>
> As explained in Pt1 - you have misread the book.
As you did not realize the McKinlay study was the source of the
Beaglehole citation, you are once again overestimating your own grasp
of the material. And because everything below is just a rehash of
everything above and below in earlier exchanges, I am clipping the
remainder of this post for the sake of brevity and to preserve some
semblance of the purpose of the thread in discussing the material
cited. I am adding a few of my latest responses to your many logical
fallacies because I don't see any point in repeating what has already
been said. Some of your comments are included.
====================+++++++++======================
To the extent that vaccines had been developed and utilized between
1900 and 1975, to that extent vaccines must have played some role
(though minor in terms of their impact on mortality), in overall
public health trends. It's true that many vaccines were not available
until after the 1930s, which is why I said earlier that declines in
the severity of infectious diseases (best measured by declines in
mortality) occurred mostly in their absence, however the period for
this citation was 1900 to 1975, so vaccines cannot be entirely
excluded. In fact, their introduction and use makes it impossible to
sequester their impact from the total impact ascribed to all measures
combined, which also includes multi-variates like the ones McKeown
(and I) have said were predominant. The author's view that various
health measures (including vaccine) were of major importance refers
not to the 96.5% of declines in disease-related mortality already
excluded from the impact of "measures introduced for the major
infectious diseases," but to the impact of vaccine (in combination
with other measures) on rates of infection, prognosis, and overall
quality of care. But note that NONE of those individual
measures have an estimated percentage of impact ascribed to them on
the basis of any study or data whatsoever. This is why Beaglehole is
referring to rates of mortality in discussing the 3.5% in relation to
measures introduced for the major infectious diseases on the one hand,
and to overall improvements in public health when discussing the
"major importance" of all measures in aggregate. I don't believe
you'll understand this given your history of bias against a more
realistic view of the accomplishments of vaccine, but this should at
least give you some food for thought.
> During the period from 1900 to 1975
Your comments are based on this false premise that the authors are
segregating the various health measures, when they are in fact
discussing ALL health measures for their *overall* impact to public
health. They might have done as you say if they could have quantified
health measures for their individual contributions to public health,
but that was not the case. Since the 96.5% is (only) referring to
declines in mortality, neither the authors nor the reader are
compelled to "fill up the 96.5%," instead they are commenting on
public health measures in very broad terms, addressing not only
mortality rates but also the issue of morbidity, quite clear if you
consider the overall context, for which reference to McKeown is key.
mainframetech
>
>
>
>
>
> Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 6:14=EF=BF=BDpm, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:11:47 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> > > statements to support it?
>
> > > >graphically athttp://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
> > > >disease-related mortality from 1900 to 1975 could be attributed to
> > > >measures introduced for the control of these diseases. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > > What they wrote was -
>
> > > "Various explanations have been advanced for the decline in mortality
> > > rates. which gathered speed in nineteenth century Europe. =EF=BF=BDMcKeow=
> > n
> > > proposed that steady improvements in nutrition beginning in the
> > > eighteenth century, together with improvements in water supply and
> > > sanitation, an increase in the general standard of living following
> > > [he Industrial Revolution, and a reduction in birth rates propelled
> > > the health transition. The development of effective medical measures
> > > was too late to make a major contribution to the mortality decline in
> > > Europe and other western countries. For example, it has been estimated
> > > that, at most, only 3.5% of the total decline in mortality in the
> > > United States of America between 1900 and 1973 could be ascribed to
> > > other hand, targeted public health Interventions including
> > > vaccination, personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health
> > > care services, were of major importance....
>
> > > parallels with nineteenth-century Europe. For example, the dramatic
> > > gains in China in the last four decades were associated with major
> > > improvements in food supply {despite occasional devastating famines)
> > > as well as public health campaigns directed at the control of
> > > infectious diseases; literacy, especially for females, has also been
> > > of major importance.
>
> > > The most recent declines in mortality however, have been influenced
> > > smallpox, a major scourge of humankind for centuries, has been
> > > eradicated, "
>
> > > many deaths, particularly in infants. =EF=BF=BDPoor nutrition, squalid
> > > conditions and in particular poor water were major factors. =EF=BF=BDIn 1=
> > 831
> > > 31,000 people in the UK died of Cholera, Typhus regularly killed
> > > 16,000 per year (double that in hot dry summer years). =EF=BF=BDin 1840 5=
> > 0,000
> > > succumbed to measles and whooping cough. =EF=BF=BDNo one doubts that prio=
> > r to
> > > the start of the second world war social and public health
> > > improvements were by far the greatest influence on the well being of
> > > the population. The work of civil engineers such as Bazalgette had a
> > > far greater impact than any other measure.
>
> > > By the end of WW2 however the civil engineering aspects of disease
> > > mitigation were reaching the end of the road in the west and poor
> > > housing and nutrition were no longer significant in many western
> > t fed
> > > populations ever but diseases such as Polio, measles, whooping cough
> > > and mumps remained common and were not going to be reduced
> > > significantly by social or public health measures. =EF=BF=BDThe major dec=
> > line
> > > in mortality in the west caused by social and economic influences upon
> > > health and disease took place before 1930, after that time measures
> > > such as vaccination had a far more profound effect.
>
> > > The very valid point Beaglehole and =EF=BF=BDBonita make of course is tha=
> > t
> > > there are still many parts of the world where social and public health
> > > measures have the potential to improve life often at relatively small
> > ments
> > > were either insignificant or unnecessary, you should read the whole
> > > book.
>
> > > >Whether
> > > >vaccine was responsible for even 1% of those declines is not known.
>
> > > contrary.
>
> > > improvements in public health were made prior to the 1930's by social
> > > effect of public health improvement dwarfed that of medical advances.
>
> > > For example in Rabies the death rate without vaccination is as near as
> > d
> > > immediately after suspected exposure it is nearly zero. =EF=BF=BDThere is=
> > no
> > > other effective treatment.
>
> > > The number of Hib meningitis cases in children under 5 years in the
> > > USA was fairly steady at about 20 per 100,000 from 1980 until 1988
> > d to
> > > about 3 cases per 100,000. =EF=BF=BDDuring that time period there was no
> > > significant =EF=BF=BDalteration in standards of living or social health.
>
> > > In the Gambia the rate of Hib meningitis in children prior to 1992
> > > when the first vaccination against it started had been fairly constant
> > 5
> > > per 100,000. =EF=BF=BDIn the same time there were no significant social
> > > changes.
>
> > > Polio affected 350,000 children worldwide in 1980, by 2006 that was
> > again
> > > and in 2008 was 1,655 because the mad mullahs of northern Nigeria say
> > > that Polio vaccination is a plot by the USA to spread Aids and
> > > infertility and are killing public health officials involved in
> > their
> > > views??
>
> > > >The graphs show that declines in severe illness leading to death prior
> > urred
> > > >without vaccine present at all, further demonstrating the McKinlay
> > > >finding cited by Beaglehole and Bonita.
>
>
> > > >declines in infectious disease mortality occurred before most vaccines
> > > >were available, the trend in declining severity of these illnesses
>
> > > It would? =EF=BF=BDThe control of rabid animals would have meant Rabies b=
> > ecame
> > > less severe?
>
> > > >And that is exactly what happened. =EF=BF=BD
>
> > > No it didn't
>
> > Prove it.
>
> Perhaps I would be in agreement with the enemies of vaccines if I had NOT
> had an aunt that had Polio. As a young child, I saw what a victim of polio
> had to deal with on a daily basis. I think that it is wonderful that
> people in this generation that have had a vaccine for polio do NOT have to
> be concerned with getting such a terrible disease. I doubt that any of the
> enemies of vaccines have known a family member or close friend that have
> had polio--otherwise, they would NOT be an enemy of vaccines. On the other
> hand, vaccines that have not been tested in the way that they should have
> been tested should not be given to anyone. I have read that they vaccine
> for swine flu has NOT been tested in the way that vaccines should be
> tested and it is for that reason that none of the members of my family
> will be getting the vaccine for swine flu.
> jason- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can certainly agree that a polio vaccine was a great thing.
However, the point we're at now is that the drug companies are hungry
for ever more income, and vaccines produce it for them. It has caused
their greed to go wild by inventing vaccines for every little thing
they can. Soon we can expect a vaccine for flaky dandruff, and you
can be sure that politicians will be given huge donations to their
campaigns to make the vaccine mandatory, as has been tried recently.
And who was behind changing the parameters used by WHO to describe
what a 'pandemic' is? That change made 'Swine Flu' a pandemic and
gave politicians reason to buy vaccine and push it on everyone.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115719
Now that the virus has been shown to have harmed less people than
the seasonal flu, I'm sure we'll be seeing politicians and others
backpedalling to explain the huge outlay of money to the drug
companies for an unnecessary vaccine that may also cause harm. Here's
a link to a CBS story where they found that the CDC lied to make it
look like more people were hurt by the flu than actually had been:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5405872n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
And here's a link mentioning that Harvard looked into it and found
that the Swine Flu effects had been overblown:
It's easy enough to figure out who might have been behind such
shenanigans, just follow the money. Who profits mightily?
Good Luck,
Chris
mainframetech
> past.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark Probert,
Interesting post. Would you be saying that the drug companies are
using the same formula they used back when the vaccine was giving
Guillaine-Barrre Syndrome (GBS) to people and ruining some lives as
well? Just think of the money they saved by doing that, and think of
the numbers of people that are going to be damaged ths time with the
greater numbers being vaccinated.
That might explain the news article in the UK that 600 neurologists
received letters from the government that they should be on the
lookout for GSB among those vaccinated. It made quite stir when folks
found out about it. Here's the link:
Of course, this time the drug companies have paid off the
politicians to give them immunity to being sued for hurting folks with
their vaccine. Actually, if anyone is hurt by a vaccine, the American
people will pay for it through the government. Another profitable
move. Some executive got a million dollar bonus for that one.
Good Luck,
Chris
Peter B
"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1bfc2362-4b34-4893...@g1g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Of course, this time the drug companies have paid off the
politicians to give them immunity to being sued for hurting folks with
their vaccine. Actually, if anyone is hurt by a vaccine, the American
people will pay for it through the government. Another profitable
move. Some executive got a million dollar bonus for that one.
Chris
===================================================
Chris, people such as yourself were ignorant of the damages of flu,
other diseases, and various remedies.
When they saw people dying from the flu the decided it was wiser to take
the vaccines, some knowingly taking the inherent risk some unknowingly.
You do that self same risk every day from meal to meal, you take your
chance on dying, being crippled in one form or another or just simply
living from one moment to the next.
Anyhow, the unknowing sued out of their ignorance and hurt, the knowing
also took advantage of suing as a way of blameshifting and/or cashing in
on the lawsuits or the unknowing. In any event the manufacturers because
of the inherent ancillary costs despite their best testing decided it
was not worthwhile to remain in business as the losses offset the
profits and basically forced them to subsidize at their total expense
the entire USA vaccine programs. Knowing what the likelihood of future
costs and their inability to pay the employees to produce the vaccines
and also pay for collateral damage they decided to withdraw those
products from the marketplace and let the government know that.
The government now had a choice, let them depart in peace and just let
the Americans suffer the consequences and deal with the deaths and
misery of loved ones or pay for the collateral damage for the greater
good of the American public.
Thank God they did not opt for your choice, live and let die.