Anti-vax

[Giliell]

... shot with vaccines, right?

Probably :lol:
Some people won't get a joke if it's doing a lapdance in front of them...

The only reason could be because you can say that I am compromising "herd immunity." I would simply ask for some SCIENCE behind it. You know...something a REASONED person would do.

Like the eradication of smallpox and more or less polio thanx to vaccines?
The fact that measles, common in my childhood which isn't that far back, are now almost absent and where outbreaks usually happen due to people not being vaccinated?
The fact that mortality in old age homes and hospitals during the flue season drops significantly if the staff are vaccinated?
Herd immunity means that disseases have less chances of spreading through the population.
Not everybody CAN be vaccinated (yes, there are medical reasons why people shouldn't be vaccinated) and not everybody will build up resistence (so-called non-responders). Some disseases are most dangerous to babies and infants before they reached the age at which they can be vaccinated, measles are a good example. Those people, who shouldn't be vaccinated or who cannot be yet vaccinated, are also those who'll suffer most from the dissease itself. The only way to protect those who are most vulnerable is to prevent the dissease from reaching them at all. And the best way to do that is to build up a good herd-immunity.

I strongly recommend the Atheist Experience on that topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-UtZrZzxTU
I especially recommend part three at about 5:40 when she talks about the results of the Hep A vaccination in Texas.

Your general rejection of modern medicine doesn't seem to be based on science and reason, for example your rejection of antibiotics as such. Although I agree that that antibiotics are over-used and therefore gradually deprived of their effectiveness, a lot of us are owing our lives to them. If you've ever been down with streptococcus B, seen your legs swelling to treetrunks, spilling puss over your bedsheets where you're lying down with a fever and then being up and about again within two days after being administered antibiotics, you might think differently.
Of course it might also be a faith healing of any god randomly handing out miracles...

And as I said, you can reject any vaccine you want as an adult. You can go bungee-jumping, too, or drive stock-car races. I don#t mind how you kill yourself. But if your rejection of modern medicine is endangering children, society has to step in.

 

[paradigm667]

If you meant that "shot on sight" comment as a joke I'm sorry for making a fuss about it. I read it as a serious comment basically, and I didn't think it was funny personally, but if it was a joke, I do apologize.

As far as the herd immunity comment I made, I asked for some science behind it that proves it works. I understand the underlying assumptions made by the proponents of this practice, but what I am interested in is the science that proves the hypothesis of herd immunity proves to hold true in reality. It does in fact, seem to contradict the practice of vaccinating, as, if you are vaccinated you are said to be immune, such that you would be unaffected by coming into contact with a diseased person, or germ. And yet, herd immunity posits that getting a vaccine is not enough. One must also have their neighbors vaccinated to ensure that the disease doesn't spread to them. These two notions seem quite diametrically opposed.

But nevertheless, what I asked for was the science that proves it to be a viable practice which has been proved to work, and documented. What I got was just a bunch of statements with no sources or references or proofs.

One of the major problems in taking for granted the practice of vaccination as the reason for the massive decline in infectious disease, is that there was a massive decline in these diseases beginning decades before any vaccine was ever introduced to the populous. In many cases you have a 90% decline of these infectious diseases before the vaccine was even implemented. I have a hard time accepting the notion that I am a conspiracy theorist for pointing out this simple fact.

How does one account for the massive decline in Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Measles way before any vaccine was introduced?

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/All Measles Deaths by Population 1901-95 - logarithmic.pdf
(Note scale is logarithmic)

How about measles?

US Deaths:
1901 11,956
1906- 10,837
1911- 7615
1916- 7926
1921- 4919
1926- 3994
1931- 2957
1936- 1238
1941- 1013
1946- 469
1951- 268
1956- 203
1961- 162
1966- 44
1971-75 17 <----- Vaccine introduced

(Source: International Morbidity Statistics, pp. 163-189, 313)



Anyhow, I'm not anti-science at all. I'm not religious at all. To assume I agree with faith healing or something is to drastically misrepresent my views.

I AM AN THEIST. I AM A STUDENT OF MEDICINE. I STUDY MOLECULAR CELL BIOLOGY, NUTRITION, ANATOMY AND PHYSIO, ETC.

To put vaccination in with these fields of study is to do a great injustice to science. Vaccination is something that has taken credit for the decline in disease, when in fact the true credit should go to:
-Improved sanitation measures
-Better nutrition availability
-Clean water and water treatment plants
-Reduced poverty
and so on...

In fact in areas of the world where these standards were implemented, and NO vaccine was introduced, the same decline in disease occurred in the populations regardless of vaccines.

Similarly, diseases like Typhoid, Tuberculosis, and Scarlet Fever, which never had any vaccine for them declined at the same rate, and where already drastically in decline before the use of antibiotics was introduced.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, nor am I anti science. If it was 1970 right now and I said that the central dogma (DNA->RNA->Protein) is not correct I would be laughed at, and called "unscientific." Our understandings of the world around us changes all the time. This is science.

I find it funny how, most of the people with whom I discuss these issues, actually know quite a bit less than I would have ever expected, and yet their certainty about these issues can be described quite honestly, as faith based. They simply BELIEVE the explanations they are given for things like the decline in infectious disease. Rarely do they understand even basic concepts of physiology, or historical data pertinent to the discussion.

Like I said before though, people are free to do what they will. I have never, nor will I ever, submit the notion that people MUST not vaccinate themselves or MUST do one thing over another. I think the point about children, who do not have their own capacity to make informed decisions, is very relevant to this topic. In that context, yes, if vaccines did work, and did provide immunity, then it would be in the collective's interest to mandate or at least pressure others to do what is fair for their child.
However, there is ample reason to suggest not vaccinating children, EVEN IF one believes that vaccines work. Namely, the progression of diseases in children that are in well nourished, properly sanitized environments RARELY progresses to serious levels and almost never results in death, as opposed to the same diseases when present in children in impoverished conditions.

I have questions about certain practices as well. Such as giving a child a Hep B vaccine at birth, when this is a sexually transmitted disease, which the medical community agrees is something that one only runs the risk of contracting after puberty. With whooping cough, the ratio of deaths from the adverse vaccine reactions vs. deaths from the disease in the unvaccinated, is something on the scale of 94 to 1. And that is adjusting for the considerable large numbers of persons who are vaccinated as compared to unvaccinated. If the ratio was even 1.1 to 1, it would make sense to cease vaccinating. It is 94 to 1 though. Just common sense alone would dictate that we take the precautionary measure of going with the less risky alternative.

 

[Giliell]

As far as the herd immunity comment I made, I asked for some science behind it that proves it works. I understand the underlying assumptions made by the proponents of this practice, but what I am interested in is the science that proves the hypothesis of herd immunity proves to hold true in reality. It does in fact, seem to contradict the practice of vaccinating, as, if you are vaccinated you are said to be immune, such that you would be unaffected by coming into contact with a diseased person, or germ. And yet, herd immunity posits that getting a vaccine is not enough. One must also have their neighbors vaccinated to ensure that the disease doesn't spread to them. These two notions seem quite diametrically opposed.

Ehm, actually, no
First of all, a vaccination should protect yourself against a dissease, so far so good.
Herd immunity protects those who cannot be vaccinated or don't build up immunity. Simply because a dissease cannot be spread that easily through a population.

For any proof, I can link you a German medical magazine about the lower death rates in old age homes, but I s'pose ther'd be a language barrier.
Yep, a lot of disseases can be prevented by other means.
You can pretty well protect yourself from AIDS using condoms, yet if there was an effective vaccine, wouldn't you prefer that additional protection?

The measles-numbers you have seem to differ from those I have.
Source: Wiki Germany (I know, I know, not the most scientific source I can come up with)

I have questions about certain practices as well. Such as giving a child a Hep B vaccine at birth, when this is a sexually transmitted disease, which the medical community agrees is something that one only runs the risk of contracting after puberty.

To my knowledge (at least about the practise in Germany), the Hep B is only administered directly after birth if the mother is Hepo B positive. Because it's not only contracted through sexual intercourse, but through blood contact and also body fluids. It can be transmitted from mother to child during birth, that's why those babies are vaccinated.
Other ways of contraction are via urin (plumbers should be vaccinated) , even salvia and of course blood. You can contract it from using someone's nailclipper or a child from biting an infected adult (don't laugh, children can't evaluate what they are doing, getting bitten by a toddler so bad you're bleeding and the child has a small wound in the mouth is not uncommon, especially when they are teething).

With whooping cough, the ratio of deaths from the adverse vaccine reactions vs. deaths from the disease in the unvaccinated, is something on the scale of 94 to 1. And that is adjusting for the considerable large numbers of persons who are vaccinated as compared to unvaccinated. If the ratio was even 1.1 to 1, it would make sense to cease vaccinating. It is 94 to 1 though. Just common sense alone would dictate that we take the precautionary measure of going with the less risky alternative.

Again, the numbers I have are different.
Complications with whomping cough:
cramp attacs: 2-4%, that's at it's best 1 in 50
deaths: 1 in thousand

Complications with the modern vaccine:
cramps: 1 in 16.000
deaths: not listed (and those are the numbers I got from a German anti-vaccination site)

 

[Aught3]

Hey, I fixed your diphtheria chart.

Note: this is not a log scale.

On second thoughts since you screwed up so much I should have double checked the mortality numbers, oh well.

 

[paradigm667]

Herd immunity protects those who cannot be vaccinated or don't build up immunity. Simply because a dissease cannot be spread that easily through a population.

I understand your reasoning here. And it makes sense, if you suppose vaccination actually works. But it doesn't. And my point is that, there is no demonstrable evidence that there is any proof that such a thing as "herd immunity" is real. But beyond this, for those who cannot be vaccinated, get them vaccinated; don't make me get vaccinated because I find that is a violation of my rights as a human being. Do you think this is absurd of me? Or do I have this right?

You can pretty well protect yourself from AIDS using condoms, yet if there was an effective vaccine, wouldn't you prefer that additional protection?

Absolutely. Show me one vaccine in history that actually works and I will use it. I have not seen such a vaccine. This is why I am not surprised when I look around and see the occasional unvaccinated family or child only to find they have never had any of the diseases that the vaccines were supposed to provide them immunity to. They also tend to not be sick or have any asthma.

Yep, a lot of disseases can be prevented by other means.

I think we can both agree on this indeed. And what better prevention than common sense, where there is no side effects involved. We put too much stock in the presence of antibodies equating and translating to health. We believe that if we vaccinate, and then find antibodies in the person's blood after vaccination that this means they are going to resist disease. But there is no correlation there.

For instance, when we hear of studies of unvaccinated populations being more prone to sickness, there are two ways this is done. The first way is by comparing unvaccinated children from areas of the world like South India which are impoverished and there is lack of sanitation there. OR we take populations that have been vaccinated in the past who no longer have any antibodies in their systems to the vaccine and we simply call them "unvaccinated" because there is no detectable antibody levels in their body, but it is NOT because they are unvaccinated. It's all very interesting, and I think you would be shocked to know some of the statistical manipulation that occurs in this realm.

The measles-numbers you have seem to differ from those I have.
Source: Wiki Germany (I know, I know, not the most scientific source I can come up with)

See, this is why I love debating this stuff. Do you see the window you have. It's only from 1950 - 2001. It almost makes it appear as if measles was RISING until the vaccine was implemented. But lets zoom out a bit. And not only that. Your stats are of "infektionen" or infections...in other words just the incidence. The graphs I cite are for deaths.

http://www.whale.to/m/measle1.gif

http://www.whale.to/b/UK-Measles-1838-1978.gif

People that promote the idea that vaccination is what led to measles being reduced so drastically have to rely on such ridiculous data. I think after you examine your own data you will recognize that there is something seriously fishy there.
-First of all we are interested in deaths from measles.
-Second of all we need to have a wider viewing window (not 1950 to present, but rather more like 1900 or 1850 o present for proper perspective).
-Third, the fact that we have an apparent drop in measles incidence right after the vaccine is more or less indicative of the common practice of the medical establishment to simply reclassify any new cases of measles as something other than measles. If you study smallpox or polio, as I have, you will undoubtedly realize this same trend. Which is probably why George Bernard Shaw himself wrote:

"During the last considerable epidemic at the turn of the century, I was a member of the Health Committee of London Borough Council, and I learned how the credit of vaccination is kept up statistically by diagnosing all the revaccinated cases (of smallpox) as pustular eczema, varioloid or what not---except smallpox."

Just something to consider. But, I hope you are starting to realize that I am by no means some faith-based, alternative medicine touting idiot. I am interested in REALITY.

To my knowledge (at least about the practise in Germany), the Hep B is only administered directly after birth if the mother is Hepo B positive. Because it's not only contracted through sexual intercourse, but through blood contact and also body fluids. It can be transmitted from mother to child during birth, that's why those babies are vaccinated.

I wish indeed the USA followed the German program in this case, because I am most ashamed to inform you that indeed, we do vaccinate all newborns regardless of mother's Heb B status.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2009/09_0-6yrs_schedule_pr.pdf
As you can see, if recommends Heb B at birth. And then again at 2 months.
If the mother is Heb B antibody positive, then there are further injections, of course. I am very ashamed of any medical practice that vaccinates a child before they even have a chance to develop an immune system. Children are very vulnerable in terms of their immune system in the first precious few years of life.
How odd it is that when I say something like "we ought to not vaccinate children until at least 2 years of age" I am looked at like I'm crazy.

You explain to me why we need to vaccinate a newborn for a disease which is supposed to be sexually transmitted? I think it's crazy. If that means I am unscientific, so be it. I wouldn't do it to my child. I'm not stopping anyone from doing it to theirs. But I will speak my mind about the fact that I think it's crazy. But I'm not going to be blowing up hospitals like those crazy pro-lifers who blow up abortion clinics.

Again, the numbers I have are different.

Indeed, I would be curious if those are global, local or country figures.

Nevertheless here are some peer reviewed articles which demonstrate the ineffectiveness of the DTaP vaccine:

Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 179, April 1999; 915-923. "Temporal trends in the population structure of bordetella pertussis during 1949-1996 in a highly vaccinated population "Despite the introduction of large-scale pertussis vaccination in 1953 and high vaccination coverage, pertussis is still an endemic disease in The Netherlands, with epidemic outbreaks occurring every 3-5 years." One factor that might contribute to this is the ability of pertussis strains to adapt to vaccine-induced immunity, causing new strains of pertussis to re-emerge in this well-vaccinated population.

"Severity of whooping cough in England before and after the decline in pertussis immunisation" (Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 59, no. 2, February 1984, pp. 162-5): "Since the decline of pertussis immunisation, hospital admission and death rates from whooping cough have fallen unexpectedly"¦ The severity of attacks and the complication rates in children [who were] admitted to hospital were virtually unchanged."

"Vaccination against whooping-cough. Efficacy versus risks" (The Lancet, vol. 1, January 29, 1977, pp. 234-7): Calculations based on the mortality of whooping-cough before 1957 predict accurately the subsequent decline and the present low mortality"¦ Incidence [is] unaffected either by small-scale vaccination beginning about 1948 or by nationwide vaccination beginning in 1957"¦ No protection is demonstrable in infants."

This title alone should be sufficient:
D. C. Christie, et al., "The 1993 Epidemic of Pertussis in Cincinnati: Resurgence of Disease in a Highly Immunized Population of Children," New England Journal of Medicine (July 7, 1994), pp. 16-20.

MMWR November 05, 1993 / 42(43);840-841,847 Diphtheria Outbreak -- Russian Federation, 1990-1993
Despite high levels of vaccination coverage against diphtheria, an ongoing outbreak of diphtheria has affected parts of the Russian Federation since 1990 (1); as of August 31, 1993, 12,865 cases had been reported. This report summarizes epidemiologic information about this outbreak for January 1990- August 1993, and is based on reports from public health officials in the Russian Federation.

Within the report is also says: "an estimated 90% of children were fully vaccinated with four or more doses of diphtheria toxoid by the time they entered school."

 

[paradigm667]

Hey, I fixed your diphtheria chart.

Well, here's a quote from a pro-vaccination website:

When did diphtheria vaccine become available?
The first inactivated toxin, or toxoid, against diphtheria was developed around 1921, but it was not widely used until the 1930s. In the 1940s, diphtheria toxoid was combined with pertussis vaccine and tetanus toxoid to make the combination DTP vaccine.


Even if I grant you the notion that the vaccine was introduced in 1920 and EVERYONE got it (which would be false, in fact not even close to the truth), you would still have to explain what happened between 1850-1920....

Instead of pointing arrows at the line at various points throughout the decline and assume it must have been the vaccine, you could have just as easily pointed a bunch of arrows at the line for improvements in sanitation, water treatment, and sewer systems.

I love the arrogance though. I used to have that same arrogance towards anyone that didn't repeat to me what I wanted to hear. I have since apologized to as many of the people who I was arrogant towards in the past.

 

[Aught3]

Even if I grant you the notion that the vaccine was introduced in 1920 and EVERYONE got it (which would be false, in fact not even close to the truth), you would still have to explain...blah, blah, blah

First lets stick with diphtheria for a bit and not try to mix it up with scarlet fever, whooping cough and/or measles - m'kay? The chart that you posted only shows deaths and only shows up to 1900. Antitoxin for diphtheria (which help prevent death from infection) was developed in the 1890's by several people. For proof take a look at who won the Nobel prize for medicine in 1901 and for what.

you could have just as easily pointed a bunch of arrows at the line for improvements in sanitation, water treatment, and sewer systems.

Ok, when did those improvements occur?

MMWR November 05, 1993 / 42(43);840-841,847 Diphtheria Outbreak -- Russian Federation, 1990-1993
Despite high levels of vaccination coverage against diphtheria, an ongoing outbreak of diphtheria has affected parts of the Russian Federation since 1990 (1); as of August 31, 1993, 12,865 cases had been reported. This report summarizes epidemiologic information about this outbreak for January 1990- August 1993, and is based on reports from public health officials in the Russian Federation.

Within the report is also says: "an estimated 90% of children were fully vaccinated with four or more doses of diphtheria toxoid by the time they entered school."

What you've conveniently left out is that although the cumulative incidence of diphtheria was higher among 5-9 yo the cases of severe infection and death were highest amongst the adult population. The adult population in Russia was not adequately protected from diphtheria and this resulted in the sustained disease outbreak. An effort to re-vaccinate (or boost) adults was successful in stopping the diphtheria outbreak. Vitek, C.R., Brisgalov, S.P., Bragina, V.Y., Zhilyakov, A.M., Bisgard, K.M., Brennan, M., Kravtsova, O.N., (...), Strebel, P.M.
Epidemiology of epidemic diphtheria in three regions, Russia, 1994-1996
(1999) European Journal of Epidemiology, 15 (1), pp. 75-83. Cited 14 times.
doi: 10.1023/A:1007558601804

 

[paradigm667]

Aught3,

I think perhaps I may have instigated some animosity by referring to you as being arrogant. It was just how your response appeared to me. And I only said that because it reminded me that I too get that way with people when I think they are wrong at times.

But you did something I thought was unfair. Namely, you misquoted me.

I originally said one thing, but when you quoted me you quoted me thusly:

"Even if I grant you the notion that the vaccine was introduced in 1920 and EVERYONE got it (which would be false, in fact not even close to the truth), you would still have to explain...blah, blah, blah"

What's with "blah, blah, blah" at the end there? If you are going to respond to me, at least quote me honestly and don't paint me to be some idiot just because you assume I must be completely off my rocker. I didn't say "blah, blah, blah." What I said was...You still have to account for the drastic drop in the disease from 1850 through 1920. That's not "blah, blah, blah." That's a legitimate point I think. If you have an answer for it, then please state it. You don't have to ad lib to my quote so as to make me appear to be asking absolutely ridiculous questions.

I wouldn't do the same to you.

Now, as far as the Nobel Prize is concerned, this is great, but isn't in and of itself proof of anything. If the initial toxoid developed was efficacious such that the disease was brought down to zero, there is no need to cite any such Nobel Prize. Just point me to the data. The slope of the steady and sustained decline from 1850 to 1900 and beyond never had any sharp drops that one would expect from vaccination being implemented, and working.
If there was no vaccine, how do we know the disease wouldn't have done the exact same thing the other diseases did which there was no vaccine for: decline at a steady, sustained pace?

Ok, when did those improvements occur?

All throughout the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's. And we see disease rates drop accordingly. Both the ones that had vaccines, the ones that didn't and so on...

What you've conveniently left out is that although the cumulative incidence of diphtheria was higher among 5-9 yo the cases of severe infection and death were highest amongst the adult population. The adult population in Russia was not adequately protected from diphtheria and this resulted in the sustained disease outbreak. An effort to re-vaccinate (or boost) adults was successful in stopping the diphtheria outbreak.

Right. Got the stats on that?

 

[Aught3]

"Blah, blah, blah" was for moving the goalposts. Your diphtheria graph only goes out to 1900 and shows deaths from the disease dropping. You asked for an explanation. I noted that the antitoxin for diphtheria was developed in 1890 likely leading to a decrease in the morbidity of this disease. You then asked for an explanation of why incidence dropped from 1850-1900 (how do we know it did, btw?) shifting the goalposts. It takes a lot more than the charge of arrogance to annoy me but wilfully promoting inaccuracies about vaccines is one of the things that can do it.

You claimed the diphtheria vaccine was introduced in 1949 want to retract that?

All throughout the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's. And we see disease rates drop accordingly. Both the ones that had vaccines, the ones that didn't and so on...

Any chance some of these improvements occurred in Russia? And yet there was still an outbreak of diphtheria, couldn't possibly be anything to do with the lack of vaccination in the adult population, could it?

The stats are in my source, have a read then we can discuss it.

 

[paradigm667]

You then asked for an explanation of why incidence dropped from 1850-1900 (how do we know it did, btw?) shifting the goalposts.

I didn't shift any such posts. They were always back there. You should have looked farther back to be sure there wasn't already a declining trend before 1900 for the antitoxin. I was responding to the notion that the vaccine introduced in the middle of the 1900's could not have been responsible for the dramatic decline beforehand, as that would have been a case of the cause coming after the effect, which, as we all know, is impossible.

If you decided to say "well, here's why I think 1900-1950 had a decline," then a reasonable thing would be for you to make sure that the antitoxin was accompanied by a significant alteration in the trend of the disease, which it wasn't. You failed to recognize and contextualize the timeframe of the antitoxin, so I simply reminded you that the antitoxin STILL doesn't explain anything.

Furthermore, let me read from a book that was written by a guy who is an MD, as well as, a VERY pro-vaccine advocate:

"Diphtheria arrived in the American colonies in the eighteenth century, reaching epidemic proportions about 1735. Often whole families died in a few weeks. In the US diphtheria is now nonexistent. However, as late as 1890, some communities had 196 cases per 100,000 with 130 deaths. Preschool and school age children were mostly affected, but infants less than six months old appeared to be protected by maternal antibodies.
Beginning in 1900, diphtheria deaths showed a dramatic, progressive drop to as low as fifteen per 100,000. This was before the vaccines of the 1940's. The decrease in deaths may have been in part due to better treatment, including tracheotomy and antitoxin, but other common infectious disease showed a similar, unexplained decrease. In spite of the vaccine, there have been epidemics of diphtheria."

Mind you this is from a VERY pro vaccine guy. Not my words. He does believe that the vaccine is of benefit, but there are his own words.

You claimed the diphtheria vaccine was introduced in 1949 want to retract that?

No. What, do you think I was just making that up or something? The very book I just quoted from a pro vaccine individual even states the vaccines came out in the 1940's. It doesn't matter when the vaccine was DEVELOPED. It matters when it was put into use en masse. If I have antibiotics in 1923 but I don't give them out to the public en masse until 1937...I don't get to take credit for decline in infections from 1920-1930. Right?

Any chance some of these improvements occurred in Russia? And yet there was still an outbreak of diphtheria, couldn't possibly be anything to do with the lack of vaccination in the adult population, could it?

And how we get to discuss my favorite topic: NUTRITION.
What do you know about nutrition and diphtheria? I know a decent amount. Lets see if you can figure out why Russia may have had an issue...

 

[Giliell]

But beyond this, for those who cannot be vaccinated, get them vaccinated;

Sorry, but what meaning of "cannot" did I actually miss?
Cannot means cannot, it's not possible for several reasons, like being too young (like with measles) or already being ill/weak.

don't make me get vaccinated because I find that is a violation of my rights as a human being. Do you think this is absurd of me? Or do I have this right?

As an adult human being? more or less, yes. I don't care what you die of. But I'm not sure how I would react if my new-born baby died of a meningoccocal pneumonia it contracted from you.
And I don't think that parents have the right to decide that for their children, just as they don't have the right to transport them without a seatbelt.

Absolutely. Show me one vaccine in history that actually works and I will use it. I have not seen such a vaccine. This is why I am not surprised when I look around and see the occasional unvaccinated family or child only to find they have never had any of the diseases that the vaccines were supposed to provide them immunity to. They also tend to not be sick or have any asthma.

Ehm, like almost any vaccine? Smallpox? Polio? Flu shots? Hep A (did you watch the video I linked you about Hep A in Texas? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vCQtsZq8J4)
The lst sentence I'll simply dismiss as claim without evidence.
Especially for asthma and allergies you should have a look at those numbers in Germany before and after 1990. In the GDR (Eastern Germany), vaccination was obligatory, in the GFR (Western Germany) not. Yet allergies and asthma were much more common in the GFR with lower vaccination rates and started to rise dramatically in the former GDR after 1990, when vaccination rates actually dropped.
No, I won't claim that vaccination prevents you from allergies. It seems more like they're two totally independent things.

People that promote the idea that vaccination is what led to measles being reduced so drastically have to rely on such ridiculous data. I think after you examine your own data you will recognize that there is something seriously fishy there.

Yes, I recognize that you're moving the goalpost and compare apples to oranges.

-First of all we are interested in deaths from measles

No, we're not.
The number of death per thousand infections says absolutely nothing about the effect of vaccines.
First of all, a vaccine is totally useless once a person is infected. The decline in death rates is due to other medical advance.
The number says nothing about how many people actually GOT that dissease, which is all vaccination is about: Not getting the dissease in the first place.

-Third, the fact that we have an apparent drop in measles incidence right after the vaccine is more or less indicative of the common practice of the medical establishment to simply reclassify any new cases of measles as something other than measles.

That typically belongs to the conspiracy theory section. You're talking about GB Shaw here, who's been dead even before my mum was born. I'm talking about recent data...

How odd it is that when I say something like "we ought to not vaccinate children until at least 2 years of age" I am looked at like I'm crazy.

Not odd at all, you'd get that same look from me.

You explain to me why we need to vaccinate a newborn for a disease which is supposed to be sexually transmitted?

Hm, did you actually read what I wrote about how Hep B is transmitted? MOST BODY LIQUIDS. My own mum contracted it in the 1980's working in a medical lab. Unless of course you dismiss that and claim instead that she's been fooling around...

Now, whomping cough is one of those vaccinations that are least effective, no doubt (yet I'll also dismiss data from 1977, two years before I was born and I didn't even get a vaccination against it). Still it seems to reduce the severity of outbreaks and the effects.

 

[Aught3]

I didn't shift any such posts. They were always back there. You should have looked farther back to be sure there wasn't already a declining trend before 1900 for the antitoxin.

I have looked and can't find any data further back than 1900. You're welcome to provide some though so I can have a look at the trend. I'm not denying that improved patient care and sanitation don't play a role, but I am claiming that medicine is responsible for a good portion of the reduction in cases.

The decrease in deaths may have been in part due to better treatment, including tracheotomy and antitoxin

Well I agree with this. Since we can't run the 'experiment' again let's simply note that the better treatments coincide with a reduction in diphtheria and move on. As I said previously I'm just focusing on diphtheria at the moment not a whole bunch of stuff that you throw out from Dr Anonymous in his unnamed book.

No. What, do you think I was just making that up or something? The very book I just quoted from a pro vaccine individual even states the vaccines came out in the 1940's. It doesn't matter when the vaccine was DEVELOPED. It matters when it was put into use en masse.

Yeah, I do think you are making this up, or at least presenting the data in the least honest way possible. The modern vaccine may not have been put into use until the 1940s but other treatments that prevent mortality were widely available. Heard of the 1925 serum run to Nome? Nome is an Alaskan town that ran out of diphtheria medication right before winter arrived. At almost the same time an outbreak of diphtheria occurred (in spite of the improvements to sanitation and diet you will note). The doctor put in an urgent request for more medicine which was apparently abundant enough for 1.1 million units to be sent to the small town. Sled dogs took the medicine through dangerous conditions and the town was saved, thanks to the diphtheria antitoxin.

First of all, a vaccine is totally useless once a person is infected. ... The number says nothing about how many people actually GOT that dissease, which is all vaccination is about: Not getting the dissease in the first place.

That's not true for all vaccines, some are designed to prevent the negative effects after infection. However, it is true for measles so your point still stands

 

[paradigm667]

You know,

In general, I do not even mind most of what you guys are saying. As long as I have my right to do as I will, and you keep yours I am fine. BUT, the one thing that, I won't even lie, just thinking about it right now it scares the living shit out of me...is the idea that I should be mandated what to do to my body because of something that can hypothetically happen to your child or something...that just scares the shit out of me.


We are worried about injecting other people to protect your babies, but you don't seem to worry about the fact that there is Aluminium Hydroxide in the vaccines you are giving these children, or Mercury. Or the fact that the flu shot is now being given to children from 6 months on, even though there is not ONE bit of data that proves the flu shots work for children or adults.
61% of doctors don't even get the flu shot. http://naturalmedicine.suite101.com/article.cfm/60_percent_of_doctors_dont_get_a_flu_shot
25% of nurses in the Netherlands will refuse the swine flu shot. http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/dutch-news/About-25-percent-nurses-refuse-swine-flu-vaccine_54975.html

We are worried about others getting the "herd immunity" up, instead of the fact that children's formula milk may be poisoning them:
http://www.naturalnews.com/019338.html

or that there is MSG in their baby food. http://www.healthy-holistic-living.com/msg.html



Don't worry about it though...I have seen people like you change your tune OVERNIGHT. Ohh my goodness does it happen fast. All that has to happen, is it has to hit home for you.

Don't worry. The rates of autism and developmental disorders ain't decreasing. Don't think so for a moment. Not when they are projecting at least a handful more vaccines to be added to the mandated schedule in the coming years. Not with the increasing flu shots including this upcoming "epidemic."

I really hope nothing happens to you guys if you choose to take the swine flu shots this season. I would recommend not to.

Do you know that the safety tests for this swine flu vaccine is done on the vaccines without any adjuvents or preservatives in them, and the timeframe of side effects is only a few days...
Then when it is released for mass consumption, the vaccine has the AlOH adjuvent added to it, and the preservatives, etc...and not only that, almost all the vaccine makers were able to completely void themselves of all responsibility of any adverse reactions to the vaccine or vaccine injury compensation (many of them in fact said they would not produce the vaccine unless they were given complete immunity from potential law suits), and this can be done because it is categorized as a level 6 pandemic. There is no level 6 threat. Not like what the public thinks. Level 6 simply means it was "found" on multiple continents around the world and thus "level 6" is it...

I can tell you right now, knowing what is in these vaccines, knowing how the immune system works, knowing the fact that there is no safety trial on this vaccine and so on....you would have to kill me before you injected me with this vaccine...
I stand back in awe when I see people willing, in fact desperate, to get vaccinated. They must watch lots of TV. I can tell there is probably already the drumming up of the whole game already "there may not be enough for everyone this season"...etc etc...

Anyways,
what a happy world we live in.

And what amazing science we have. Driven by profit motive, and nothing more. How can you people believe anything a corporation tells you? LOL.

 

[Talono]

Or the fact that the flu shot is now being given to children from 6 months on, even though there is not ONE bit of data that proves the flu shots work for children or adults.

I love it when people say that. It totally destroys their credibility and makes it easy for me.


For inactivated influenza vaccine:

"Overall, in years when the vaccine and circulating viruses are well-matched, influenza vaccines can be expected to reduce laboratory-confirmed influenza by approximately 70% to 90% in healthy adults <65 years of age. Several studies have also found reductions in febrile illness, influenza-related work absenteeism, antibiotic use, and doctor visits.

In years when the vaccine strains are not well matched to circulating strains, vaccine effectiveness can be variably reduced. For example, in a study among persons 50-64 years during the 2003-04 season, when the vaccine strains were not optimally matched, inactivated influenza vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed influenza was 60% among persons without high-risk conditions, and 48% among those with high risk conditions, but it was 90% against laboratory-confirmed influenza hospitalization (Herrera, et al Vaccine 2006)."

For live attenuated influenza vaccine:

"A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial among 1,602 healthy children initially aged 15--71 months assessed the efficacy of trivalent LAIV against culture-confirmed influenza during two seasons (Belshe et al., N Engl J Med 1998;338:1405,12. Belshe et al, J Pediatr 2000;136:168--75). In season one, when vaccine and circulating virus strains were well-matched, efficacy in preventing confirmed illness from influenza was 93% for participants who received 2 doses of LAIV. In season two, when the A (H3N2) component was not well-matched between vaccine and circulating virus strains, efficacy was 86% overall."

"A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial among 4,561 healthy working adults aged 18--64 years assessed multiple endpoints, including reductions in self-reported respiratory tract illness without laboratory confirmation, absenteeism, healthcare visits, and medication use during peak and total influenza outbreak periods (Nichol et al., JAMA 1999;282:137--44). The study was conducted during the 1997--98 influenza season, when the vaccine and circulating A (H3N2) strains were not well-matched. Vaccination was associated with reductions in severe febrile illnesses of 19%, and febrile upper respiratory tract illnesses of 24%.

Vaccination was also associated with fewer days of illness, fewer days of work lost, fewer days with healthcare provider visits, and reduced use of prescription antibiotics and over-the-counter medications. Among a subset of 3,637 healthy adults aged 18--49 years, LAIV recipients (n = 2,411) had 26% fewer febrile upper-respiratory illness episodes; 27% fewer lost work days as a result of febrile upper respiratory illness; and 18%--37% fewer days of healthcare provider visits caused by febrile illness, compared with placebo recipients (n = 1,226). Days of antibiotic use were reduced by 41%--45% in this age subset.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled challenge study among 92 healthy adults (LAIV, n = 29; placebo, n = 31; inactivated influenza vaccine, n = 32) aged 18--41 years assessed the efficacy of both LAIV and inactivated vaccine (Treanor et al., Vaccine 1999;18:899--906.). The overall efficacy of LAIV and inactivated influenza vaccine in preventing laboratory-documented influenza from all three influenza strains combined was 85% and 71%, respectively. This was on the basis of experimental challenge by viruses to which study participants were susceptible before vaccination. The difference in efficacy between the two vaccines was not statistically significant. "


http://www.cdc.gov/FLU/PROFESSIONALS/VACCINATION/effectivenessqa.htm

 

[paradigm667]

I love it when people say that. It totally destroys their credibility and makes it easy for me.

And I love it when people blindly quote prepackaged articles that "prove" the flu shot works and trust that they were legitimate studies.



The NIH and Cochrane Group have independently come to the conclusion that flu vaccine is not effective in the elderly.

NIH Findings: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/health/main674098.shtml

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061026/flushot_report_061026/20061026?hub=Health

The flu vaccine will not prevent you from getting the flu, but if you do get one of the strains you were vaccinated for, you'll have the flu for 4 hours less than you would have without the flu shot. Yes, I said 4 hours. The Cochrane group even looks at sub-groups such as children under two and asthmatics and found the flu vaccine to be as effective as placebo. ie not effective.

And, please if you still want to get a flu vaccine, insist on the mercury-free version. You have to be 550 pounds to excrete the 25 micrograms of mercury in a mercury-containing flu shot. Where does the rest of it go? Your brain, liver, and kidneys.

Do you people understand? MERCURY plays no role in the body. It terminates microtubule synthesis. It thus will damage our neurons. There are studies that prove this for sure. In fact there is even a video where you can watch the effect of it on the brain cells:





Another influenza season is beginning, and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will strongly urge Americans to get a flu shot. In fact, the CDC mounts a well-orchestrated campaign each season to generate interest and demand for flu shots.
But a recent study published in the October issue of the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine found that vaccinating young children against the flu appeared to have no impact on flu-related hospitalizations or doctor visits during two recent flu seasons.

At first glance, the data did suggest that children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years derived some protection from vaccination in these years. But after adjusting for potentially relevant variables, the researchers concluded that "significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting" examined.
Additionally, a Group Health study found that flu shots do not protect elderly people against developing pneumonia -- the primary cause of death resulting as a complication of the flu. Others have questioned whether there is any mortality benefit with influenza vaccination. Vaccination coverage among the elderly increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 65 percent now, but there has been no decrease in deaths from influenza or pneumonia.



What you don't realize when you cite those studies is that they are bogus. They cheat. They compare people at different times of the year, or different age groups, etc. If someone gets a flu shot, comes down with pneumonia the next day, that's "coincidence" and doesn't get listed as an adverse effect. If you actually worked in the medical field and were around these people and saw them day in day out, you would know what most nurses do: those who get the flu shot, are not any healthier than those who do not.

When they measure "time away from work" they only take into consideration if it was from the flu. If it is from pneumonia, or from some other kind of adverse reaction (which are numerous) it simply doesn't get counted.

But bravo to you for copying and pasting without actually understanding how the numbers and figures are derived. You see, you think are you are so well informed. You're not. You're given bogus papers to cite and since you never look into them, you just assume they must be legit.

I remember I had a similar discussion with someone while Vioxx was still on the market. I was citing evidence that the drug was probably killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of people. The person I was arguing with citing some bogus study that made itself look like it was honestly derived. Then came the lawsuit. Then came the recall, even though the makers of Vioxx knew it was killing people months before they ever pulled it. And they were still peddling flawed studies trying to trick people, like the one I was talking with.

Bravo for copy and pasting friend.

Chimps can be trained to do such things. Matter of fact, chimps are even more capable than us in certain ways:



Anyways, enjoy the mercury this fall/winter. I guess some people just can't think for themselves. But I'm glad you "love it when people say that. It totally destroys their credibility..."
LMFAO.

Yeah, that's it. I've destroyed MY credibility. Right. Because I'm the one who uses his head. lol.

Indeed.

Adieu

 

[Aught3]

Anyone else notice the big switch from diphtheria and measles to the 'flu? And how does MSG relate to vaccines?

Even if I believed your claims that the 'flu vaccine is dangerous, that has no bearing whatsoever on the safety of other vaccines. Take the diphtheria toxoid shot for example, it's one of the oldest and safest vaccines around.

Paradigm, you've got a severe case of confirmation bias. There is no way you read all the studies Talono cited, looked into their methodology, and found severe problems in each and every one. Rejecting evidence because it does not fit in with your preconceived ideas is not a good sign.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Adieu

That's the nicest thing you can do for us, taking your anti-science and anti-reason attitude, and your paranoid conspiracy theories, and just saying goodbye.

Of course, I'm half-convinced that you're just one of the countless anti-reason folks who have come here and left or been banned for various reasons.

 

[Giliell]

That's not true for all vaccines, some are designed to prevent the negative effects after infection. However, it is true for measles so your point still stands

Totally guilty of over-generalizing. :lol: I should have remembered the emergency tetanus-shot I was given once.
Still, the point is that a vaccine is there in the first place to keep you from contracting it in the first place, so the relevant numbers are those about the total numbers of infections.

Don't worry. The rates of autism and developmental disorders ain't decreasing. Don't think so for a moment. Not when they are projecting at least a handful more vaccines to be added to the mandated schedule in the coming years.

Ok, since we've arrived at the good old autism claim I'll stop any serious discussion with you.
You simply deny any facts presented to you, don't seem to read anything people post, keep constantly moving the goalposts and change subject every time anybody presents anything you don't like...

 

[paradigm667]

Anyone else notice the big switch from diphtheria and measles to the 'flu? And how does MSG relate to vaccines?

What switch? You prove to me diphtheria was eliminated by the toxoid or the shot. When we have other diseases similar in nature (bacterial) which were also showing the same exact trends of decline with the advent of sanitation and improved nutrition, but no vaccines for those, you conveniently leave those out.
I'm not switching the subject, anymore than you're not willing to broaden the scope of the discussion.

And how does MSG relate to vaccines? Glad you asked. Many vaccines actually have MSG in them. http://www.truthinlabeling.org/Vaccines.html

This is a substance we don't even want to eat, let alone inject it or snort it allowing it to bypass the digestive system. Nice. How "scientific" we are to take these vaccines.

Even if I believed your claims that the 'flu vaccine is dangerous, that has no bearing whatsoever on the safety of other vaccines. Take the diphtheria toxoid shot for example, it's one of the oldest and safest vaccines around.

See that's the thing, you shouldn't BELIEVE anything I say. I don't function that way. I don't believe anything any specific person says until it can be explained and my questions answered such that I UNDERSTAND what is going on.
I don't go to a researcher and ask "are vaccines good and do they work" I say "can you explain to me why it is you have concluded that they work." And then I go from there asking follow ups until I am adequately informed, not brain washed.

Don't get me wrong. Plenty of people on the "anti-vaccine" side are church going, god fearing idiots. But that doesn't invalidate their claims about the vaccine. It just means I'm not going to blindly believe everything they say just because they are anti-vaccine. The claims that are made by these advocacy groups are very serious, very well researched, and there IS no agenda (like to turn us all into Jesus worshippers). You just have to deal with the occasional comment like "god never intended to vaccinate." I cringe at those kinds of comments and roll my eyes, but those are not the arguments that these folks use. They are just some of these folks' point of views.

If the only argument to not vaccinate was because it's not "natural" or something that's complete bullshit and I would never be in any way shape or form in support of this. But to look at the data, and not only that, to actually SEE and get to know the real life people that have had their family's lives ruined because of some stupid vaccine, it's difficult to just look them in the eye and say "there is no supported scientific data linking autism to vaccines."
I know a few families who had their kids vaccinated and literally they had perfectly healthy kids one day, they got the vaccine, and within 24 hours it was irreparable damage.

It's not fun. It's not "better diagnosis," alright. Even if you think that vaccines are necessary and beneficial, it's very difficult to support the increase of vaccines to the point it is today where we are given a total of over 70 vaccines by the age of 18. Twenty or more injections, THOUSANDS of micrograms of aluminum and hundreds of mercury.

I can promise if one of you guys had a child and that child was injected, and then came down with autism the next day and never recovered, you would not be so quick to dismiss this as "ridiculous conspiracy theory."


And yeah, the toxoid is "one of the oldest and safest around." Right, and how would you know this considering:

Immunosuppressive therapies, including irradiation, antimetabolites, alkylating agents, cytotoxic drugs and corticosteroids (used in greater than physiologic doses), may reduce the immune response to DECAVAC vaccine.
No safety and immunogenicity data are available regarding concomitant administration of DECAVAC vaccine with other US licensed vaccines.

No studies have been performed with DECAVAC vaccine to evaluate carcinogenicity, mutagenic potential, or impact on fertility.

Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with DECAVAC vaccine. It is also not known whether DECAVAC vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity.

It is not known whether DECAVAC vaccine is excreted in human milk. Because many drugs are excreted in human milk, caution should be exercised when DECAVAC vaccine is administered to a nursing woman.

DECAVAC vaccine is not approved for use in infants and children younger than 7 years of age. Safety and effectiveness of DECAVAC vaccine in this age group have not been established.

The clinical study that evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of the tetanus and diphtheria toxoids contained in DECAVAC vaccine did not include sufficient numbers of subjects aged 65 years and over to determine whether they respond differently than younger subjects.

ADVERSE REACTIONS
Because clinical trials are conducted under widely varying conditions, adverse reaction rates observed in the clinical trials of a vaccine cannot be directly compared to rates in the clinical trials of another vaccine and may not reflect the rates observed in practice. The adverse reaction information from clinical trials does, however, provide a basis for identifying the adverse events that appear to be related to vaccine use and for approximating rates.


Data from Post-Marketing Experience
The following adverse events have been spontaneously reported during the post-marketing use of Td manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur Inc. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to vaccination. The following adverse events were included based on severity, frequency of reporting or the strength of causal association to DECAVAC vaccine.
Blood and lymphatic system disorders
Lymphadenopathy.
Immune system disorders
Allergic reactions (such as rash, urticaria, pruritus, and face edema), including anaphylactoid reactions.
Nervous system disorders
Headache, paresthesia, dizziness, syncope, and convulsions.
Gastrointestinal disorders
Nausea, vomiting.
Musculoskeletal, connective tissue and bone disorders
Myalgia, arthralgia, pain in extremities, musculoskeletal stiffness.
General disorders and administration site conditions
Injection site reactions (including swelling, redness, warmth, induration, cellulitis, and nodules).
Pyrexia, chills, pain, malaise, asthenia, fatigue, edema peripheral.



...Sounds fine to me. Sign me up!
If that's "one of the safest around" I would like to suggest that our definitions of "safe" are probably statistically significantly different.

You guys amaze me.

Paradigm, you've got a severe case of confirmation bias. There is no way you read all the studies Talono cited, looked into their methodology, and found severe problems in each and every one. Rejecting evidence because it does not fit in with your preconceived ideas is not a good sign.

No, I'm really not in possession of any such bias. I didn't read all the citations posted because I have read META ANALYSES of similar such reports and what you find is that there is a trend present in the reports that "prove" the vaccines work for flu. And they follow the same trend of lies and cheating with statistics.

That's the nicest thing you can do for us, taking your anti-science and anti-reason attitude, and your paranoid conspiracy theories, and just saying goodbye.

Is that the answer then? Label me anti-science, even though my degree is in science, and then tell me I am anti-reason, even though I am posting very reasonable arguments, and then wish me to just leave?
Is that how one refutes a creationist? No. Not at all. Why? Because it is so easy to refute them.
I'm not relying on idiocy and my belief in some imaginary god here. In fact, dare I say this...I'm ONE OF YOU for the most part. I just disagree with some aspects of what some disciplines in science suggest. But I have REASON for it. It's not because I want to believe one way or another.

The bottom line: health doesn't come in a vial that you inject into your skin. Edward Jenner never had any results, the most recent HPV vaccine is no different. The flu shots do not work. I know so many people who get the flu shots and every year they get the flu. And they continue to go back to get their annual shot. What they say is that "well, I may have got the flu, but it would have been much longer if I hadn't."
Sounds like idiocy to me. But OK. Whatever. LOL. Just don't call me anti-science because I refuse shots and I remain incredibly healthy. I have not had a flu in 2.5 years, since I got off processed foods, started sleeping better and getting more sun exposure. Vitamin D levels are one of the best predictors of onset of illness like flu or cold. Beyond the 30 degree line of latitude (basically anywhere north of Boston, MA...there are 5 months out of the year where people there cannot synthesize vitamin D even if they are butt naked in the sun. Evolutionarily this would have been alleviated because during the summer months, as we would have more abundance of vegetation and food available, we would build up fat reserves, while getting sunlight, and during the wintertime we would have the fat reserves with vitamin D stored in them from the summer (as well as in the liver) which would last us through the winter. But people do not do this these days.
We tend to keep our body fat constant, rather than allow it to adapt to the climate and seasonal changes as it normally would be beneficial for us.
Also Vitamin D is a huge booster of Glutathione in the body which acts as not only an antioxidant, but a chelator. And the effect it has on flu and cold prevention is enormous. But see, this isn't information you find at the CDC or the WHO. And so you are left with the impression that something as simple as sunlight cannot possibly work better than the almighty vaccine.

But alas this info is in the peer reviewed lit. In fact, I would recommend you all to check out the Vitamin D council's website. Amazing info there and it's all basically just article after article of amazing research and summaries that basically prove one thing: GET SOME SUN. But it's incredibly scholarly and rigorous.

It's amazing how people need to be told to do the most simple things these days (sleep more, eat unprocessed mostly raw foods, get sunlight, be happy and exercise a little) and instead they don't do ANY of these things and instead believe some vaccine or some chemotherapy will do miracles for them. You tell me who is faith based.

We have been evolving on this planet for millions of years. Not ONCE in our Earth's history has another species cooked its food. Not once has another species been living under artificial light all its life. Not once has a species done all these things and when we get disease we think it's because we are not getting enough vaccines! Or enough chemo? LOL.

Of course, I'm half-convinced that you're just one of the countless anti-reason folks who have come here and left or been banned for various reasons.

No I'm really not. I like ZOMGitscriss's youtube videos and I saw her recommend this forum so I dropped in. I actually wanted to talk about Pat Condell and Hitchens, and Bill Maher and many issues that I'm sure we would be in agreement about, but I saw an anti-vax post and over 90% were pro-vax and so I started chatting. If you want me to leave just for having a different opinion I will.

That's not very friendly, but that's cool if that's the consensus. I have nothing against any of you. But like I said, I was really shocked and indeed frightened by the notion that one of you suggested people who do not get their mandated vaccines are a threat to public health.

Even though I don't agree with that and I think it's scary for anyone to say that, I do not have any animosity against anyone here. But if disagreeing with you guys is a crime, then I do suppose I am guilty.

If you check my IP or whatever it is you check to see if I am some troll that got banned long ago or something ( i don't even know how long this forum has been in existence ) you will find that I indeed have never been here before just a few days ago.

Believe me, you say go, I will.
I don't have anything against anyone. But I do have my own conclusions I have drawn. Last I checked, as long as you give other people legitimate reasons for your conclusions, that is not a crime to be of a different mind. It is only when it is something unprovable like "god told me to believe this" or something. Then there are some problems. I agree. But that ain't me.

So yeah, gimme the word...I didn't even realize I would be unwelcome just because I share different views on a few issues, but if that's the case I suppose I should go. Gimme the word...

 

[paradigm667]

I cannot offer studies and what not on vax. However, from personal experance, I have not meet one person who was vax-ed for anything and got autism or anything of the sort.

Yeah I know other people that do have personal experience with vaccines and do either have kids with autism or know others who do. At what point do we go from "well, it hasn't happened to my family" to "well, whether or not I am affected by it, a fellow human being is and something should be done"?

Paradigm, is that link in your sig to 'the zeitgeist'?

Yeah, I am currently in support of the Zeitgeist Movement. I think the current way we are living is based on cyclical consumption, polluting of our environment, taxing people for as much as possible, and we are all subjected to the ridiculously useless monetary system as it is today where basically it is no different than a giant ponzi scheme. I very much hope that more people check into this movement and at least watch the documentary Zeitgeist Addendum before discounting it.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&oi=video_result&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D7065205277695921912&ei=naaESoyUCYHktAO4rpmpCQ&usg=AFQjCNEBobQK1iVwRSenZw1DGSj-MU8GVQ&sig2=rxcFPRtkJpjX9J8xQV2G-w

EDIT: Paradigm, don't leave. That's just lame.

Well, I certainly would like to stay. I don't think anyone likes being told to leave. But at the same time if that is the general consensus here, and I am not welcome it only makes sense to leave right? I'm not stubborn and arrogant such that I will impose my presence where I am not wanted to be.