Vaccines Debate

[Stu]

.

http://www.naturalnews.com/042864_measles_outbreak_mumps_vaccines_scientific_fraud.html#


Vaccine fraud exposed: Measles and mumps making a huge comeback because vaccines are designed to fail, say Merck virologists

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042864_m...vaccines_scientific_fraud.html##ixzz2yy1aklVf

Disclaimer: I am not an opponent of the theory of inoculation. Nor am I opposed to science. What I am opposed to is fraudulent science, and that's what this article is all about.

Measles and mumps are making a huge comeback in the United States, but doctors and journalists all make the same critical error in understanding why. They blame "parents who don't vaccinate their kids" as the cause, but the real cause -- as revealed by whistleblowing scientists working for top vaccine manufacturers -- is that measles and mumps vaccines are designed to fail from the start.

Scientific fraud, it turns out, is an inherent part of the vaccine industry.

How do we know? Because whistleblowers who worked in the industry have found the courage to speak out and tell the truth. These people are the Edward Snowdens of the vaccine industry.

Merck falsified its mumps vaccine efficacy results, say former employees

Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test results to fabricate a "95% efficacy rate" say former Merck virologists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski in their shocking False Claims Act document.

As I wrote last year, " In order to do this, Merck spiked the blood test with animal antibodies in order to artificially inflate the appearance of immune system antibodies."

From the False Claims Act complaint:

Merck also added animal antibodies to blood samples to achieve more favorable test results, though it knew that the human immune system would never produce such antibodies, and that the antibodies created a laboratory testing scenario that "did not in any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real life ... virus neutralization in vaccinated people," according to the complaint.

Merck, of course, denies the claims, just like all the drug companies deny ever engaging in bribery, or using children for medical experiments, or ghostwriting "scientific" studies that get published in science journals, or conspiring to suppress competing generic drugs and so on. Yet, as history has shown, all the top drug companies are routinely engaged in widespread criminal behavior, including conspiracy, fraud, bribery and more.

Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski are simply telling us what we already suspected: that Merck falsifies the efficacy of their vaccines in order to make them appear to be working when they actually aren't. Why would a drug company do such a thing? Consider the fact that Merck has both motive and opportunity.

Why drug companies design vaccines to fail

The vaccination dogma is so deeply embedded in the minds of doctors, journalists and the public, that any time a communicable disease starts to spread, everybody immediately leaps to the false conclusion that "more vaccines are needed." This is very nearly a Pavlovian reaction in the minds of the brainwashed masses. "Spread of disease = lack of vaccines."

Thus, the spread of disease actually boosts vaccine sales. Epidemics are a "marketing tool" to create demand for a profitable product that people can be convinced to purchase over and over again, year after year, whether it works or not.

And how do you create that demand? You engineer an epidemic by making sure your own vaccine products don't work. Fear drives people to get vaccinated, so fear is used as the primary marketing tool.

But why hasn't the con been exposed yet? Why haven't scientists announced that most of the children afflicted with measles and mumps are the very same children who were vaccinated? One study showed that 97 percent of children afflicted with mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps.

In 2010, a mumps outbreak spread in New Jersey, and 77 percent of children afflicted with mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps.

The same is true with measles. Most measles outbreaks spread among those who have been vaccinated against measles.

When a swine flu outbreak swept through Britain in 2010, it turns out that 70 percent of those infected had already been vaccinated against swine flu.

Far from protecting people from disease outbreaks, vaccines often promote the pandemic they claim to prevent.

Vaccines are ASSUMED to work, not proven to work

Why does the industry keep getting away with this fraud? The answer is because nobody ever compares infection rates of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people. They all just ASSUME vaccines work because that is the dogma of modern medicine. Assumption becomes "fact" in the minds of brainwashed medical experts.

This is one of the tenants of the fraud-based medical system: Vaccines are assumed to work 100% of the time, without exception, and anyone who questions this is immediately branded a heretic. There is no tolerance whatsoever for any critical thinking or scientific inquiry when it comes to vaccines. And God forbid if you bring up the issue of mercury in vaccines, as the vaccine industry apparently believes that mercury magically becomes non-toxic when used in vaccines and injected into the body.

Thus, vaccines that fail (due to low efficacy) are never detected or even questioned. The fraud continues right under our noses. So a vaccine company can easily put a mumps or measles vaccine into circulation that is designed to fail while actually weakening the immune system from the mercury, formaldehyde, MSG and aluminum that are still used in vaccines today.

This actually causes an increase in the spread of these diseases, resulting in more alarmist media stories about the "spread of measles and mumps" which then results in more parents rushing to CVS pharmacies to get their children injected with yet another useless vaccine.

How's that for an insidious profit model?

But it's even worse than that. While some vaccines are simply designed to fail, other vaccines are designed to cause outbreaks of disease.

Some vaccines are actively spiked with live viruses to cause pandemics

As Natural News previously exposed, the vaccine industry was caught shipping live viruses to vaccine manufacturers of flu vaccines in 18 countries.

This was done by none other than Baxter International, Inc. one of the top suppliers of "weakened" flu virus material for use in vaccines. Except in this case, they weren't weakened. Vaccines made with this material simply gave people the flu!

In the realm of desktop computing, many people believe that anti-virus companies write and release viruses in order to cause fear and boost demand for their products. It's an incredibly effective way to sell more products. All you have to do is pay a group of hackers a couple of million dollars to keep writing viruses that get covered in the mainstream media. The scarier the story, the more people buy anti-virus software. I happen to know firsthand that McAfee uses dishonest scare tactics to sell their security software services, claiming your website is infected when it actually isn't.

Vaccine companies, it turns out, use the same tactic. From time to time, they allow live viruses into the flu shots, thereby spreading influenza and causing the very kind of fear and panic that drives people into pharmacies to buy more vaccines.

The WHO and CDC are all part of it too, stirring up irrational fear and panic like they did with the H5N1 virus a few years ago. It turns out that WHO panel members receive kickbacks from drug companies to engineer these anti-science scare stories.

During the swine flu pandemic, it was revealed that 5 of the 15 members of a WHO advisory panel had financial ties to the very same drug companies who would financially benefit from the pandemic. That's called "conflict of interest" in any other industry, yet for some reason it is fully tolerated in the fraudulent vaccine industry.

In 2010, an outstanding article by Dr. Gary Null explained much of this in excruciating detail. Read that article here on Natural News.

The deeper you dig into the vaccine industry and its longstanding practice of scientific fraud, misrepresentation, fear mongering and "medical false flags," the more you realize just what a total con the vaccine industry has become.

Read more:
http://www.naturalnews.com/029124_flu_vaccin...
http://www.naturalnews.com/036328_Merck_mump...

Click here for an example of the mainstream media blindly blaming a lack of vaccines for the recent rise in measles and mumps.

Click here to read the full False Claims Act filed by former Merck virologists.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/042864_m...vaccines_scientific_fraud.html##ixzz2yy1h65Rs
​

​

 

[Stu]

.

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/timeless/courts-quietly-confirm-mmr-vaccine-causes-autism/

July 27, 2013

Courts quietly confirm MMR Vaccine causes Autism

July 27, 2013. Austin. After decades of passionate debate, parents probably missed the repeated admissions by drug companies and governments alike that vaccines do in fact cause autism. For concerned parents seeking the truth, it’s worth remembering that the exact same people who own the world’s drug companies also own America’s news outlets. Finding propaganda-free information has been difficult, until now.


Share

Dr. Andrew Wakefield and family at a recent demonstration. Image courtesy of the Vaccine Resistance Movement.​

Subscribe to Whiteout Press. It's FREE and you can unsubscribe at any time. Just 5 emails per month.






*(Update: 8/6/13) Scroll down for a post-article, reader-submitted rebuttal of the claims and findings made by the individuals and organizations quoted within this article. Passionate reader comments have been pouring in over the past week, both in support of and oppossition to the sentiments expressed below. In the interest of bringing our readers all sides of every story, scroll down to view the reader-submitted comment that seemed to echo and sum up the comments of dozens of other readers. For the record, reader emails were 3 to 1 in support of the article. But Whiteout Press isn't here to support or oppose vaccines. We're here to bring readers the news that's blacked-out, covered-up and censored. We're passionate and sincere in that effort, something our subscribers are appreciative of. In the spirit of that goal, we hope the inclusion of the reader comment at the end of this article proves to be a small token of evidence that our motives are in fact sincere. - Whiteout Press.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield
At the center of the fifteen-year controversy is Dr. Andrew Wakefield of Austin, Texas. It was Dr. Wakefield that first publicized the link between stomach disorders and autism, and taking the findings one step further, the link between stomach disorders, autism and the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine.

---

---

For that discovery way back in 1996, and a subsequent research paper published by the doctor in 1998, Andrew Wakefield has found himself the victim of a world-wide smear campaign by drug corporations, governments and media companies. And while Dr. Wakefield has been persecuted and prosecuted to the extent of being unable to legally practice medicine because of his discovery, he has instead become a best-selling author, the founder of the Strategic Autism Initiative, and the Director of the Autism Media Channel.
But in recent months, courts, governments and vaccine manufacturers have quietly conceded the fact that the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine most likely does cause autism and stomach diseases. Pharmaceutical companies have even gone so far as to pay out massive monetary awards, totaling in the millions, to the victims in an attempt to compensate them for damages and to buy their silence.
Grassroots outcry
It was a regular reader named Kathleen that brought this ongoing story to our attention here at Whiteout Press. When asked what her connection to the vaccine-autism battle was, the young reader replied, “I just researched it for a school project a while back and then I stayed on top of it, until I couldn't stand it anymore. I'm not a parent, nor do I belong to any organization - a mere outside observer.”
This reader isn’t alone. The news that vaccines cause autism has spread across the US despite a coordinated media black-out. She takes her concerns one step further explaining, “All I want is to see this information where the public can access it. I've looked everywhere, and no one gives this dire Wakefield situation even ONE small mention.” She goes on to give us another motivation for her activism, “In Washington State, where I'm from, vaccines have become mandatory for school children, which is very frightening!”
Landmark rulings
In December 2012, two landmark decisions were announced that confirmed Dr. Wakefield’s original concern that there is a link between the MMR vaccine, autism and stomach disorders. The news went mostly unreported, but independent outlets like The Liberty Beacon finally began publishing the groundbreaking news.
The website wrote last month, ‘In a recently published December 13, 2012 vaccine court ruling, hundreds of thousands of dollars were awarded to Ryan Mojabi, whose parents described how “MMR vaccinations” caused a “severe and debilitating injury to his brain, diagnosed as Autism Spectrum Disorder (‘ASD’).”’
The Liberty Beacon went on to describe the second court ruling that month, as well as similar previous verdicts writing, ‘Later the same month, the government suffered a second major defeat when young Emily Moller from Houston won compensation following vaccine-related brain injury that, once again, involved MMR and resulted in autism. The cases follow similar successful petitions in the Italian and US courts (including Hannah Poling, Bailey Banks, Misty Hyatt, Kienan Freeman, Valentino Bocca, and Julia Grimes) in which the governments conceded or the court ruled that vaccines had caused brain injury. In turn, this injury led to an ASD diagnosis. MMR vaccine was the common denominator in these cases.’

---

---

The report echoes the exact same sentiment that our reader conveyed — Dr. Wakefield has had his career and reputation destroyed over the past 15 years, but has just been vindicated. The account reports, ‘While repeated studies from around the world confirmed Wakefield’s bowel disease in autistic children and his position that safety studies of the MMR are inadequate, Dr. Wakefield ’s career has been destroyed by false allegations. Despite this he continues to work tirelessly to help solve the autism catastrophe.’
The article from The Liberty Beacon closes with a direct quote from Dr. Wakefield himself to the independent grassroots outlet, “There can be very little doubt that vaccines can and do cause autism. In these children, the evidence for an adverse reaction involving brain injury following the MMR that progresses to an autism diagnosis is compelling. It’s now a question of the body count. The parents’ story was right all along. Governments must stop playing with words while children continue to be damaged. My hope is that recognition of the intestinal disease in these children will lead to the relief of their suffering. This is long, long overdue.”
Wakefield attacked again
Since the world has slowly become aware of the dangers of the MMR vaccine, parents around the globe have refused to get their children vaccinated. Earlier this year, the UK government singled out Dr. Wakefield and blamed him for the rising number of measles outbreaks in the country. In an April 2013 interview, he responded publicly.
The website TheRefusers.com published both the video, as well as the written transcript, of Dr. Wakefield’s public response. Below are some excerpts of the doctor’s remarks:
“The important thing to say is that back in 1996-1997 I was made aware of children developing autism, regressive autism, following exposure in many cases to the measles mumps rubella vaccine. Such was my concern about the safety of that vaccine that I went back and reviewed every safety study, every pre-licensing study of the MMR vaccine and other measles-containing vaccines before they were put into children and after. And I was appalled with the quality of that science. It really was totally below par and that has been reiterated by other authoritative sources since.
All I could do as a parent was to say, ‘what would I do for my child?’ That was the only honest answer I could give. My position on that has not changed. So, what happened subsequently? At that time the single measles vaccines were available freely on the National Health Service. Otherwise, I would not have suggested that option. So parents, if they were legitimately concerned about the safety of MMR could go and get the single vaccines. Six months later, the British government unilaterally withdrew the importation license for the single vaccines, therefore depriving parents of having these on the NHS; depriving parents who had legitimate concerns about the safety of MMR from a choice; denying them the opportunity to protect their children in the way that they saw fit.

---

"The news shouldn't be left wing or right wing, conservative or liberal. It should be the news. It should be independent" - Mark Wachtler, Whiteout Press founder
​

---

And I was astonished by this and I said to Dr Elizabeth Miller of the Health Protection Agency, ‘why would you do this, if your principal concern is to protect children from serious infectious disease? Why would you remove an option from parents who are legitimately concerned about the safety of MMR?’ And her answer was extraordinary. She said to me, ‘if we allow parents the option of single vaccines, it would destroy our MMR program.’ In other words, her principal concern seemed to be full protection of the MMR program and not protection of children.”
Dr. Wakefield himself reiterates the final conclusion of the courts in various countries, but censored by the world’s media outlets saying:
“Now this question has been answered not by me, but by the courts, by the vaccine courts in Italy and in the United States of America where it appears that many children over the last thirty years have been awarded millions of dollars for the fact that they have been brain-damaged by MMR vaccine and other vaccines and that brain damage has led to autism. That is a fact.”
Special thanks to Whiteout Press reader Kathleen and the two above-linked websites.

*(Update 8/6/13) Below is a reader-submitted comment, summing up many comments emailed to us over the past week. As always, thank you for your feedback.
From Whiteout Press reader Chrys:
1. Both cases were unpublished which means that no-one has full access to what the court decided.

2. In the case of Ryan Mojabi, the court ruled that (on the preponderance of evidence - ie more than 50 per cent likely) the vaccine caused Ryan's encephalopathy - not autism. As David Kirby reports in the Huffington post, "Whether ... Ryan's ... vaccine-induced brain disease led to ASD [Autism Spectrum Disorder] is unknown. The concession document is under seal.

3. In the case of Emily Moller, according to David Kirby, "HHS [The US Department of Health and Human Services] did not admit that vaccination caused encephalopathy or autism, but merely decided not to dedicate more resources to defending the case."

4. Although it is true that the HHS underwrites autism treatments for children in its vaccine-injury programme, it has "never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination."

For clarification. The jury is out on whether encephalopathy 'causes' autism. Most children with autism have never had encephalopathy according to the CDC.

The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence on the considerable amount of research into a purported link between vaccines and autism shows no such link exists. The preponderance of evidence required to make such a finding in a scientific study is considerably more than the 51%:50% preponderance required in the 'vaccine court'.

Notably, a study by the Danish Medical Research Council in 2002 followed more than 500,000 children over 7 years and found no association between MMR and autism. The study was reported in the reputable New England Journal of Medicine. The only study, published in a credible, peer-reviewed, medical journal which has purported to have found a link between MMR and autism is Dr Andrew Wakefield's. Wakefield's findings could not be replicated by other researchers - a prime requirement to establish 'proof' in science.

An investigation showed Wakefield had an undisclosed financial interest in proving a link between MMR and autism. Two of his co-authors withdrew their support for his study's interpretations. Wakefield was found to have undertaken his research on children without ethical approval. An investigation by the British Medical Council into Wakefield's autism research found: "three dozen charges proved, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children." (Wikipedia).

The Lancet fully retracted Wakefield's 1998 paper. Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register in May 2010, having been found guilty of dishonestly falsifying his research in the interests of financial gain.

No-one argues that vaccination does not pose *some* risk. However, considering the millions of vaccines administered each year, serious adverse reactions are extremely rare (less than 1 out of a million doses). Conversely, there is a high risk of children suffering encephalopathy from high temperatures if they contract the diseases the MMR vaccine prevents. According to the CDC, one child in every 1000 with measles will develop encephalopathy - consider this against less than 1 in a million for MMR.
*Whiteout Press appreciates our readers and their opinions and feedback.

Related Whiteout Press articles:
Secret Government Experiments on the American People

CDC pulls Tainted Polio Vaccine Report, denies any Victims
Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits
Doctors slam Big Pharma for price-gouging Cancer Patients
Big Pharma getting rich on US Defense Budget

 

[Stu]

.

Had your 3 month old had a vaccine by that point? If you had been following the schedule he would have done

They might have been totally fine had they not been immunised...you will not know so you cannot make a comparison

The vaccines have had side effects for many people

Schedule for a baby born today in the state of quebec:

You should anticipate the following vaccinations for your child:

2 months old

• DTaP-HB-IPV-Hib: Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough, Polio, Hib, Hepatitis B
• Pneu-C-13: Pneumococcal disease
• Rot: Rotavirus

4 months old

• DTaP-HB-IPV-Hib: Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough, Polio, Hib, Hepatitis B
• Pneu-C-13: Pneumococcal disease
• Rot: Rotavirus

6 months old

• DTaP-IPV-Hib: Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough, Polio, Hib
• *Influenza: The flu

12 months old

• Men-C: Meningococcal disease
• **MMR: Measles, Mumps, Rubella
• Pneu-C-13: Pneumococcal disease

18 months old

• DTaP-HB-IPV-Hib: Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough, Polio, Hib, Hepatitis B
• **MMR-Var: Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella

4-6 years

• Tdap-IPV: Diphtheria, Tetanus, Whooping Cough, Polio

 

[Stu]

.

Who do you think owns national geographic?

Leaked emails from the CDC have proven a link with autism

I posted a clip above which shows the vaccine producers own literature listing autism as one of the possible side effects

More on swine flu fear mongering:

[video=youtube;0znfRy1LLvk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0znfRy1LLvk[/video]

 

[Stu]

.

[video=youtube;XU8nSn5Ezd8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU8nSn5Ezd8[/video]

 

[Stu]

.

[video=youtube;lBYUXFBze4Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBYUXFBze4Y[/video]

 

[Stu]

.

[video=youtube;YxfgqsZ8BV0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxfgqsZ8BV0[/video]

 

[Stu]

.

[video=youtube;VVsgiHkY6WY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVsgiHkY6WY[/video]

 

[Stu]

.

Absolutely there have been many cases of narcolepsy resulting from vaccines

What people need to realise is that the corporations and the politicians they bribe do not give a damn about them or their children

The health professionals are often just doing what they are told to do by the people above them in the system

The only people who can protect our children is ourselves

[video=youtube;jHe1jGI9UyQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHe1jGI9UyQ[/video]

 

[muir]

There are risks for children to be vaccinated against highly communicable diseases.

yes indeed there are and if you do it then you are DEFINATELY exposing your child to risk

There are also risks for children to contract and die of the same diseases.

Unlikely if they have a strong and healthy immune system

they may catch a disease and then beat it and by doing so they build their immune system...they have evolved to do that

The one that seems to scare people is measles but its not exactly ebola and what wakefield said was that he felt the combined MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine was overloading the immune systems of children. he advised taking rhe vaccines seperately and that was enough for him to be demonised

mumps and rubella aren't going to kill you and measles scares people because it can have complications. But individual measles shots are available but i wouldn't even use those

The prudent course for a parent is to live in a community with a high rate of vaccination participation and not get your children vaccinated.

Not really as vaccinated children don;t have immunity and often start the spread of diseases

if you had looked at the posts i posted you would see that it is not vaccination that has improved public health

That way you can relie on the other parents having taken the risk of thier kids falling ill due to the vaccinations and not have to worry about you kids getting the communicable diseases.

No there is always a risk of getting ill for both vacinated kids and unvaccinated kids because the vaccines don't work but at least the unvaccinated children won't have had their immune system sabotaged and will stand a better chance of health

 

[Stu]

There are risks for children to be vaccinated against highly communicable diseases.

yes indeed there are and if you do it then you are DEFINATELY exposing your child to risk

No, there are risks because life is full of risks especially when medicine is involved, there are no sure things in this world.

There are also risks for children to contract and die of the same diseases.

Unlikely if they have a strong and healthy immune system

No, history is replete with cases of millions who have died of diseases that we now have virtually wiped out.

they may catch a disease and then beat it and by doing so they build their immune system...they have evolved to do that

or, more likely they will die

The one that seems to scare people is measles but its not exactly ebola and what wakefield

a proven charlatan

said was that he felt the combined MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine was overloading the immune systems of children. he advised taking rhe vaccines seperately and that was enough for him to be demonised

mumps and rubella aren't going to kill you and measles scares people because it can have complications. But individual measles shots are available but i wouldn't even use those

There are also risks for children to contract and die of the same diseases.

Not really as vaccinated children don;t have immunity and often start the spread of diseases

That is not true, no matter how many times you say it.

if you had looked at the posts i posted you would see that it is not vaccination that has improved public health

you mean the posts that are peppered with misinformation....The prudent course for a parent is to live in a community with a high rate of vaccination participation and not get your children vaccinated. That way you can rely on the other parents having taken the risk of their kids falling ill due to the vaccinations and not have to worry about you kids getting the communicable diseases.

.

.

 

[muir]

. ''Originally Posted by muir

''Originally Posted by stu

There are risks for children to be vaccinated against highly communicable diseases.



yes indeed there are and if you do it then you are DEFINATELY exposing your child to risk
''Originally Posted by stu

No, there are risks because life is full of risks especially when medicine is involved, there are no sure things in this world.

There are also risks for children to contract and die of the same diseases.



Unlikely if they have a strong and healthy immune system

''Originally Posted by stu

No, history is replete with cases of millions who have died of diseases that we now have virtually wiped out.



they may catch a disease and then beat it and by doing so they build their immune system...they have evolved to do that

''Originally Posted by stu

or, more likely they will die



The one that seems to scare people is measles but its not exactly ebola and what wakefield ''Originally Posted by stu

a proven charlatan



said was that he felt the combined MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine was overloading the immune systems of children. he advised taking rhe vaccines seperately and that was enough for him to be demonised

mumps and rubella aren't going to kill you and measles scares people because it can have complications. But individual measles shots are available but i wouldn't even use those

''Originally Posted by stu

There are also risks for children to contract and die of the same diseases.



Not really as vaccinated children don;t have immunity and often start the spread of diseases

''Originally Posted by stu

That is not true, no matter how many times you say it.



if you had looked at the posts i posted you would see that it is not vaccination that has improved public health

Originally Posted by stu
you mean the posts that are peppered with misinformation....The prudent course for a parent is to live in a community with a high rate of vaccination participation and not get your children vaccinated. That way you can rely on the other parents having taken the risk of their kids falling ill due to the vaccinations and not have to worry about you kids getting the communicable diseases.

You are like a parrot for the big pharma missinfo agents peddling the same hakneyed lies that are now being undermined

Go listen to the experts i posted info by and they will tell you what has really made a difference to public health

Also what are people going to 'die' from 'rubella'?

1 in 68 babies in US now born with autism....how many people got autism from a bout of rubella?

 

[Stu]

You are like a parrot

as opposed to your perfection of parroting

for the big pharma missinfo agents

buisness is corruptable by nature and needs constant attention, that is a given

peddling the same hakneyed lies that are now being undermined

you say they are lying and everyone who does not call them liars are lying, where does that leave us?

Go listen to the experts

read "fanatics"

i posted

read "spammed"

info

read "propoganda"

by and they will tell

read "blather"

you what has really

um, really?

made a difference to public health

hand washing is important, but what happend to 90% of the native American population in the decades before Columbus' arrival? They died of infectious diseases.

And another thing, why is it that you, a European, are constantly talking about American stats, American public health, American Politics? don't you have the internet over there?

 

[muir]

as opposed to your perfection of parroting

buisness is corruptable by nature and needs constant attention, that is a given


you say they are lying and everyone who does not call them liars are lying, where does that leave us?


read "fanatics"


read "spammed"


read "propoganda"


read "blather"


um, really?



hand washing is important, but what happend to 90% of the native American population in the decades before Columbus' arrival? They died of infectious diseases.

It's not just about 'hand washing' it is also about clean water, clean food, quality housing, proper sewage systems, quality of housing, public sanitation, availability of food etc

STOP IGNORING THE DATA AND LOOK AT THE CHARTS BELOW

Not all of them died of diseases a lot died of famine and violence and stressors that run down the immune system like havign your land invaded and your culture and food sources destroyed

However those diseases were new to those people because those lands had been in isolation but people are not in isolation anymore and thousands of planes take people around the world daily exposing them to each other

None of the things people are vaccinated against are new or in the case of viruses they mutate anyway

And another thing, why is it that you, a European, are constantly talking about American stats, American public health, American Politics? don't you have the internet over there?

The same people who run the US run the UK and what happens in the US happens here, so its all linked

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/decline1.html

Disease decline before introduction of immunisation​

Graph showing disease decline (Australia) before introduction of vaccines​

"The decline in infectious diseases in developed countries had nothing to do with vaccinations, but with the decline in poverty and hunger."--Dr Buchwald, M.D.
"Up to 90% of the total decline in the death rate of children between 1860-1965 because of whooping cough, scarlet fever, diptheria, and measles occured before the introduction of immunisations and antibiotics."---Dr Archie Kalokerinos, M.D.

Table 1: Deaths of Children Under 15 Years (England & Wales)

​

Table I--shows that in England and Wales there was a 90 percent decline in child mortality from the combined infectious diseases of scarlet fever, diptheria, whooping cough, and measles in the period of 1850 to 1940. The first vaccine made available was for diptheria in the early 40's, whereas the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine became available in the early 50's and the measles vaccine in the late 60's (no vaccine was provided for scarlet fever).[SUP]55[/SUP]

Table II: Whooping Cough (England & Wales)​

Table II--indicates that in England and Wales the annual death rate of children (under age 15) from whooping cough declined by roughly 98.5 percent in the period covering 1868 to 1953, after which the pertussis vaccine became generally available.[SUP]56[/SUP]

Table III: Measles (England & Wales)

​

Table III--shows that in England and Wales the annual death rate of children (under age 15) from measles declined from over 1,100 per million in the mid-neneteenth century, to a level of virtually 0, by the mid 1960's.[SUP]57[/SUP]

Table IV: Smallpox (England & Wales)

​

Table IV--reveals that in England and Wales there was a continuing decline in the annual death rate from smallpox, with a reduction in mortality of roughly 300 per million to virtually 0, taking place in the 60 year period following the middle of the last century. This table further illustrates that the progressive rate of decline was severely disrupted--with a roughly 275 percent increase in mortality from the disease--occurring immediately after smallpox vaccination laws were enforced.[SUP]58[/SUP]

Table V: Infant Mortality Rate (Australia)​

Table V--Indicates that in Australia, approximately two thirds of the total decline in infant deaths from all childhood infectious diseases, in the period covering 1881 to 1971, occurred before the introduction of mass immunization offorts.[SUP]59[/SUP]

Table VI: Declining Death Rates (US)

​

Table VI--reveals that in the United States--without benefit of any vaccine--the tuberculosis mortality rate underwent a drop of roughly 96 percent in the first 60 years of this century; and that in a little short of the same time span (although the effectiveness of the vaccine has been seriously questioned by reputed scientists) mortality from typhoid vanished.[SUP]60[/SUP]

Table Vll: Declining Death Rates (England)

​

Table VII--shows that in England death rates from respiratory tuberculosis underwent a roughly 87 percent decline in the period beginning 1855 and ending in 1947, when antibiotics first came into wide use; and a further decline approximating 93 percent by 1953, preceedin the introduction of the BCG vaccine.[SUP]61[/SUP]

Table Vlll: Number of Countries Reporting Smallpox

​

Table VIII--reveals, in the 17 year period preceeding the WHO Smallpox Eradication Program, a progressive drop to nearly one half, in the number of countries reporting smallpox morbidity.[SUP]62[/SUP]

Table IX: Acute Rheumatic Fever Death Rates (Britain)

​

Table IX--indicates that in Britain, the annual death rate from rheumatic fever underwent a decline approximating 86 percent in the period covering 1850 to 1946, before penicillin had become available.[SUP]63[/SUP]

Table X: Scarlet Fever Death Rate (England & Wales)

​

Table X--reveals that in the period of 1865 to 1935, before sulfonamides had become available in England and Wales, the annual death rate from scarlet fever declined by approximately 96 percent.[SUP]64[/SUP]

​

 

[muir]

Part 2

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/decline1.html

Table XI: Diphtheria (Nigeria)

Table XI--shows that following a significant increase in the diptheria morbidity rate which Peaked in 1977, the disease underwent two years of rapid natural decline--equivalent to 73.5 percent--in the number of cases, with such decline occurring prior to the immplementation of EPI in 1979. This decline pattern continued during implementation of EPI to 1980, after which--by 1982--the incidence of diptheria exhibited a major increase of nearly 30 fold.[SUP]65[/SUP]

​

Table XII: Whooping Cough (Nigeria)

​

Table XII--shows that a significant increase in the whooping cough morbidity rate (1973 to 1974), was followed by a sharp natural decline from 1974 to 1975 equivalent to 91 percent. The very slight incline which followed up to 1979--when EPI was introduced--still posed an 86.5 percent lower morbidity level than in 1974. Post EPI data indicate a short lived slight decline, followed by an increase in morbidity of 34 percent over the ensuring two years.[SUP]66[/SUP]

​

Table XIII: Poliomyelitis (Dominican Republic)

​

Table XIII--reveals that in the period of 1980 to mid 1983--before implementation of EPI the poliomyelitis morbidity rate underwent a natural decline equivalent to 98.5 percent to wheat is practically an eradication level of only 1 per million. EPI was followed by a continuing natural decline to zero, however the incidence of poliomyelitis then underwent a minor increase for two years, and gradually returned to a zero level in 1980.[SUP]67[/SUP]

​

Table XIV: Measles (Dominican Republic)

​

Table XIV--indicates that in the period of 1980 to late 1985--before implementation of EPI the measles morbidity rate underwent a natural decline equivalent to 88 percent. Upon introduction of EPI in late 1985, the natural decline continued for a brief period, halted and then measles more than doubled from its 1986 and 1987 levels.[SUP]68[/SUP]

​

Table XV: Diphtheria (Dominican Republic)

​

Table XV--shows that in the period of 1978 to mid 1985--before implementation of EPI--the diptheria morbidity rate underwent a natural decline equivalent to 81.5 percent. Upon introduction of EPI in mid 1985, the natural decline continued for a brief period, and then by 1987 the diptheria case rate more than doubled from its 1986 level. The disease than returned to its natural rate of decline, proceeding to a very low level in 1989.[SUP]69[/SUP]

​

Table XVI: Pertussis (Dominican Republic)

​

Table XVI--reveals that in the period of 1978 to mid 1985--before implementation of EPI the pertussis (whooping cough) morbidity rate underwent a natural decline equivalent to 84.5 percent. Upon introduction of EPI in mid 1985, there was a slight rise and then return to the earlier natural decline pattern reaching its lowest level by 1988. However, by 1989 the pertussis morbidity rate nearly tripled from its 1988 level.[SUP]70[/SUP]

​

Table XVII: Tetanus (Dominican Republic)

​

Table XVII--indicates that in the period of 1979 to mid 1985--before implementation of EPI the tetanus morbidity rate underwent a natural decline equivalent to 74 percent. Upon introduction of EPI in mid 1985, the natural rate of decline continued for a brief period to 1986. However, by 1988 the incidence of tetanus had more than tripled from its 1986 level, and then by 1988 returned to its earlier natural decline pattern, reaching a level in 1989 still higher than its 1986 level.[SUP]71[/SUP]

​

Table XVIII: Neonatal Tetanus (Dominican Republic)

​

Table XVIII--shows that in the period of 1978 to the end of 1985--before the implementation of EPI (tetanus toxoid for expectant mothers)--the neonatal tetanus morbidity rate underwent a natural decline equivalent to 98.5 percent. Upon introduction of EPI in late 1985, the natural rate of decline continued for a brief period to 1987. However by 1988 the incidence of neonatal tetanus had increased by nearly five fold over its 1987 rate, and then by 1989 declined to a level still higher than it was in 1986.[SUP]72[/SUP]

Source : Obomsawin, Ph.D, Raymond

 

[dogman6126]

Well, I had a long response to this typed out, and then my browser crashed. I'm going to give the short version.

You ask for respect and yet you pay none

I don't ask for respect, I ask for fairness. Your rejection of my view based on my age is called ageism, and has similar roots to racism and sexism. Your false sense of self-importance betrays you.

I have provided plenty of evidence and will continue to do so

You can continue to ignore that evidence if you wish but i am telling you a day is approaching where it will be undeniable to everyone that vaccines cause considerable harm of many kinds to children that far outweigh the supposed benefits

The only arguments you've given that vaccines are toxic are all based on arguments from false authorities and a few about thermisol and aluminum. I (and others) have shot down your arguments about thermisol and aluminum, and your arguments from authority are baseless and otherwise unreliable. Untill you can establish better arguments, meaning actually arguing for yourself rather than playing the parrot of antivaccers then you have no leg to stand on.

There are also arguments that i have posted that show that vaccines aren't the cause of improvements of health and yet you ignore these too

I have not addressed them because they are irrelevant to the point of vaccine toxicity. Those arguments try to establish that vaccines are otherwise pointless. The arguments you use are completely wrong, and I can address them if you wish. I will do so in my next post because you just asked sooo nicely.....

There's really no point spending any more time discussing with you directly as you have proven yourself unreasonable (unable to reason with); my view is that your unreasonableness is founded upon a large amount of arrogance on your part

Arrogance? You have yet to even offer a response to my points beyond parroting. Whether or not that means you don't understand your own arguments or you just don't want to offer a counter is an open question.

Yes age is a factor here because when you have been dealing with the information i have for over 2 decades then you will understand this better

Now this is something I do know about. Your talking about epistemology here muir. Theory of knowledge and justification. Actually one of my specialties in philosophy. Just dealing with more information or dealing with information longer does not entail that you have a better grasp on the information or that your claim is more reliable. This is beyond obvious when you recognize the number of psychological biases and differences across people. This holds no ground in dismissing my claims simply because I am younger or have "less experience"
This is right up my ally muir. I dare you to challenge this claim...

Intelligence can be there at any age (although the brain is still developing...yours will continue to develop into your early twenties for example) but experience is another factor not to be ignored and experience also includes the amount of information someone has been exposed to

It is my belief (i know it really rather than believe it) that i know a great many things that you do not because i have dedicated myself to learning them

I'm not going to resort to some pseudo-d*** measuring with you muir. You are trying to establish yourself as an authority here, when you really are far from such a thing. And even if you did, you would STILL have to pose an argument rather than constantly quote.
The point is that you cannot dismiss someone's claims because they are young on risk of irrationality. You need something far more substantial than that.

You are invalidating that experience i have (through the arrogance of youth) whilst claiming that i should listen to you lol

I didn't even make a reference to age or experience until now. What I HAVE been invalidating are your arguments. I don't care in the least how old or young you are. The fact that you do, and are in fact taking my dispute with your arguments as an attack on your experience, then you are further demonstrating your complete lack of an ability to put together an intelligible argument here.

I have heard you.....

But I doubt you've even given me fair thought. Seems that way considering your resorting to denying my arguments based on my age.

I debated with you over flouride in which you were proven wrong

This is literally not true. Do you even know what the word "prove" means? What happened was you quoted a video that referenced a scientist currently preforming research. She claims that fluoride has cumulative effects from buildup, but she has yet to establish her claim. Until she does, it's an open question. You have only established the possibility of fluoride based effects on the human body. Further, one must then establish that those effects are negative, and then that those effects are pertinent. Meaning that you don't need to eat 10 bottles of toothpaste a day before the effect is a problem.
Even her arguments suggested the effects were minimal and mostly relevant on those susceptible rather than the majority of the population. Her paper was to advanced in bio-chemistry and phenomenology for me to be able to dispute a priori. You didn't prove anything. You just stumbled upon an interesting possibility that has yet to be established. Even the affirmation of many of her points would not support your claims of fluoride toxicity.

I debated with you over wifi and you were proven wrong

I don't even know how you reached this conclusion. You didn't even offer a counter argument to my points about wifi. You didn't explain how wifi, being of such limited energy can accomplish what visible light and infrared radiation cannot (even though they are of significantly higher energy). Your claims about the nature of wifi radiation is baseless even on a 7th grade science level.

Now i am debating with you over vaccines and you are being proven wrong (inside whistleblowers are telling you you are wrong as are the actual inserts of the vaccines themselves as well as independent studies)

I suppose you really don't know the meaning of the word "proven". The only arguments you have left are your arguments from false-authorities, and ad hominem attacks against me. I have shot down all your other arguments as you've presented them. While an authority argument is an interesting talking point, it is far from proof. To deny this risks blatant irrationality.

Now i have been through this process with more people then you would believe; you are just the latest left brain heavy person who has come to the forum to try and school me only to find out their pre-conceived notions about the world are wrong and you won't be the last. Each one was as convinced of their intellectual prowess as you are

But intellect is not intelligence. Intellect is left brain thinking, intelligence is the ability to balance left and right brains and until you do that you are like a horse with blinkers on its eyes....all you can see is what the left brain decodes for you

Your still on this left brain - right brain thing? Dude, its literally pseudoscience it has no more basis in reality than the old study of phrenology. It's literally just people saying "oh, this sounds cool. Let's go with that". The entire field of modern psychology recognizes this. Are you going to try to say you know better than the entire field of psychology?
Further, I'm not reliant on some "intellectual prowess". If my arguments are wrong, then you should be able to explain why they are wrong. If your arguments are wrong, I should be able to explain why they are wrong. I have done exactly that. You haven't even attempted that on my arguments beyond parroting "whistle blowers", false authorities, and whatever pseudo-journalist garage bloggers whom agree with you and whose articles you can get your hands on.

I'm not saying this to insult you, i am saying to you that the process of awakening to your full intelligence is part of growing up and is a process we are all going through.

Oh please. Your earlier calling myself and matt (among others) XNTJs is a clear attempt at an insult from you. You're not fooling anyone muir. All your demonstrating is your limited understanding in yet another field of psychology.

The problem with left brain thinking is that the system DELIBERATELY encourages left brain thinking as a form of social control and to create an administrative class to administer the system

because left brain thinking people are rewarded by the system they develop a sense that they are somehow elite and superior and they express an arrogance that derives from that, which i am seeing in you and your proud claims.

Please. Point out where my claims are wrong. I beg you.
And I want to see direct quotes.

But what i am telling you is that you are not seeing the full picture

This is going to upset you because you want to believe with your left brain that you have all the answers

The real learning comes when a person can humble themself enough to accept that they don't have all the answers; only then do you gain entry to the temple of learning.

I have admitted several times that I could be wrong about vaccine safety. I haven't even heard you say the same once, and here you are saying that I need to accept that I "don't have all the answers"? That's called hypocrisy bud.

And at the moment you are sitting on the doorstep, pronouncing to the world your worthiness to be permitted entry to the temple little knowing that the left brain institution (university) you are going to is but an ante-chamber, not the main hall (i passed through those antechambers years ago)

But of course you will deny this and proclaim that I am being aloof because from your blinkered view you cannot see what i can see (with my benefit of experience)

Your trying to be persuasive rather than argumentative, and its failing muir. All your doing is demonstrating your bigoted, elitist, and egotistical self and world views.
I'm not saying this to insult you, but when you reject my points because I'm young, suppose that I am limited by some pseudoscientific claim about the brain, claim yourself as necessarily superior for your extended experience and supposed whole brain capacity, and deny that you have even the possibility of being wrong, then these are some of the traits you are demonstrating.

 

[dogman6126]

Unlikely if they have a strong and healthy immune system

they may catch a disease and then beat it and by doing so they build their immune system...they have evolved to do that

But the key is that they catch the disease. That opens them to risk. Vaccines are an attempt to train the immune system without being exposed to the risks of the actual disease.

The one that seems to scare people is measles but its not exactly ebola and what wakefield said was that he felt the combined MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine was overloading the immune systems of children. he advised taking rhe vaccines seperately and that was enough for him to be demonized

http://2020science.org/2015/02/04/measles-mortality-rates-2008-2011-outbreak-france/
This strain of measles talked about had:

4.5 deaths per 10,000 documented cases

Number of cases of measles last year in the United States was about 650
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html

Number of deaths last year was 0

In the mid 1900's, surveys reported 95% of the population had been infected with measles at some point in their lives.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6878996

the population of the united states is about 320 million
https://www.google.com/#q=united+states+population

To be conservative, let's check what happens when 75% the population get's infected with that strain of measles with this kind of virulence.
75% of us population = 240 million. Given a death rate of 2 per 10,000 (again, to be conservative) then that means 48,000 deaths over that generation.
Again, last 10 years, 0 deaths. over a generation, 48,000 deaths CONSERVATIVELY

notice that on an extreme conservative, we increase infection rates of measles from 600 in a year with a large number of outbreaks to (given average lifetime of 70 years) about 3.5 million per year. That's working with the 75%. We bump that up to the full 95%, and you move to nearly 4.5 million infections per year. And that's not even accounting for population growth rates.

mumps and rubella aren't going to kill you and measles scares people because it can have complications. But individual measles shots are available but i wouldn't even use those

Erm, mumps and rubella DO have complications that can be just as severe as measles.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mumps/basics/complications/con-20019914
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/rubella/basics/complications/con-20020067

Not really as vaccinated children don;t have immunity and often start the spread of diseases

Some vaccinated children probably have caught the measles. The CDC admits,

One dose of MMR vaccine is about 93% effective at preventing measles if exposed to the virus, and two doses are about 97% effective

. In other words, if everyone got the ideal measles vaccine, then a population of 22,267 people exposed to the measles virus would produce 668 vaccine positive infections. The same number recorded in last year's out break. However, 668 infections is CONSIDERABLY better than all of those 22,000 getting infected (assuming they had no previous infection).
Your statement is inaccurate because an extremely large majority of vaccinated children DO have immunity, and if they don't then they are no different than those that were unvaccinated. Therefore, they have approximately an equal chance of starting an outbreak as an unvaccinated child.

No there is always a risk of getting ill for both vacinated kids and unvaccinated kids because the vaccines don't work but at least the unvaccinated children won't have had their immune system sabotaged and will stand a better chance of health

Large majority of the time they do work, and vaccines don't sabotage immune systems. You have not been able to justify that claim, and burden of proof is on you to prove that they do (because you are supposing something unlikely).

 

[dogman6126]

Not all of them died of diseases a lot died of famine and violence and stressors that run down the immune system like havign your land invaded and your culture and food sources destroyed

The disease hit years before the European settlers came to north America. There was no stress of having the land invaded.


Had to delete a lot of the quote because of to many images for a post

Table Vlll: Number of Countries Reporting Smallpox

[/B][/SIZE][/CENTER]
Table VIII--reveals, in the 17 year period preceeding the WHO Smallpox Eradication Program, a progressive drop to nearly one half, in the number of countries reporting smallpox morbidity.[SUP]62[/SUP]

Table IX: Acute Rheumatic Fever Death Rates (Britain)

​

Table IX--indicates that in Britain, the annual death rate from rheumatic fever underwent a decline approximating 86 percent in the period covering 1850 to 1946, before penicillin had become available.[SUP]63[/SUP]

Table X: Scarlet Fever Death Rate (England & Wales)

​

Table X--reveals that in the period of 1865 to 1935, before sulfonamides had become available in England and Wales, the annual death rate from scarlet fever declined by approximately 96 percent.[SUP]64[/SUP]

​

So here's your talk about vaccines playing no role based on the data in these graphs.
The truth is these graphs are extremely misleading. Notice they are comparing death rates per year, and even then, they are cherry picking their data. When you are only considering death rates, then clearly as our medical sciences and hygiene practices improve, we can survive infection better. Remember back when a flu could very easily spell death. However, vaccines aren't designed to stop people from dying of diseases. They are designed to stop people from becoming infected with diseases. That then helps prevent them from dying from disease. Further, you can clearly see the cherry picking of data on these graphs when you realize their data points are wherever there is literally a point. My favorite graph is:

Table IX: Acute Rheumatic Fever Death Rates (Britain)
[/B]

[/SIZE][/CENTER]

Table IX--indicates that in Britain, the annual death rate from rheumatic fever underwent a decline approximating 86 percent in the period covering 1850 to 1946, before penicillin had become available.[SUP]63[/SUP]

​

They literally used 3 data points spanning 120 years......That is beyond ridiculous. Notice each and every graph here is guilty of the same thing. The next graph uses 15 data points for a 70 year period.....nice.


I don't know how to create graphs from this data, and I can't find a where to even get the data, but here is an example where someone made a graph for measles for Canada. Same results that your graphs show for measles (and other diseases)

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/w...-fc9563df9da03103d3a150ba278d6531-Measles.jpg

Notice the same really nice consistent decrease in death rates. However, this graph, like your other graphs muir, perfectly demonstrate what's called cherry picking. Look at the same data statistic, but with more data points included.



Mortality rates fluctuate significantly by year. There are no smooth curves unless you cherry pick your data.

Now this graph still grants the decrease in death rates before the introduction of vaccines, but watch what happens when you look at number of cases rather than number of deaths.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/w...956fb0a237d89a55ad29f51fabb-measlescanada.jpg

notice the drop of cases wasn't significant until after the vaccine.


Now I will be the first to admit that these graphs are not much better, considerably so because of the 10 year gap in the data
But they do help to demonstrate the way that data manipulation can really screw up your perception.


now I'll compare back with the UK.
Look at this graph that looks at number of measles cases:

http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Measles Graph.png

As you can see, number of cases fluctuated significantly by year, but after the vaccine was introduced, there was a very noticeable drop off.
There's no denying that improved hygiene improved the health of people significantly, but there's also no denying that vaccines further improved. Unless you can account for a significant improvement to hygiene in the year 1967 that would have gone out to all households, that was minimally used in the proceeding years.

https://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/measlesmortalityusa1971-75_1.jpg

this graph again shows a noticeable impact by vaccines. The number of deaths after the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963 dropped by a factor of 10, while the number of average cases also dropped by a factor of 10. In other words, only about a tenth of previous cases and deaths were occurring after the 5 year introduction of the vaccine to the public.
This graph was used on an antivaxer page, that's why the red line was there, but that red line makes a false assumption. It was attempting to show that given the previous trend, then the number of cases by 2010 would be the same as it is in reality. But they only used a linear regression, and epidemiology doesn't work like that. Its a lot more likely that as hygiene improved, then the rates of infection and death would reach a new equilibrium, and most likely not being completely irradiated.

Diseases spread when people are infected contaminate the environment for other people to get sick. If a set of people can't get sick from that disease, which vaccines do accomplish, then its clear that they are no longer a factor in spreading the disease. less can become infected. They also have no risk of deadly complications.



If you want to use data tables muir, please don't use tables that have 30 and 40 year gaps in its data collection...​

 

[dogman6126]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]
I must admit that your claim with the graphs is one of your more compelling arguments. Although, that doesn't really mean much. It's still not a strong enough argument against vaccine practicality. The points raised in that discussion are very interesting, but the numbers still show death and infection averages after vaccine introduction that are factors of 10 lesser than before. This demonstrates that vaccines are not a primary contributor from dark age infection rates, but that they still contribute in an effective way. Bringing tallies to near 0 on several diseases.

However, the data analysis is still very bad on the part of the person you cited, and unreliable overall. Further, it does not speak at all towards vaccine toxicity. Only towards their practicality. They still support the claim that vaccines are a practical endeavor, just not as much as what some pro vaccine people might claim.

 

[Curious IxTP]

Vaccines made me autismal.