[Tenubracon]

awake_eagle, on 27 March 2012 - 03:29 PM, said:

That is your interpretation, fact is there has never been any scientific proof that vaccines provide immunity against a specific virus, in fact there is plenty of evidence of people who were vaccinated and still got sick with the virus that they were supposed to be immune against.

Again, I give you small pox. Not literally, of course, it's been eradicated.

[Tenubracon]

awake_eagle, on 27 March 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

High dosages of a virus are not a natural event, therefore that observation is completely meaningless.

Really? High dosages of viruses never occur naturally?

[The Eagle]

Tenubracon, on 27 March 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

Again, I give you small pox. Not literally, of course, it's been eradicated.

Do you have any conclusive proof that small pox has been eradicated by vaccines?
I remember seeing studies showing that the incidence of small pox was already fading way before the vaccine was introduced, most likely due to increased hygiene and other environmental factors.

[The Eagle]

Tenubracon, on 27 March 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Really? High dosages of viruses never occur naturally?

You tell me if you know otherwise.

[Tenubracon]

awake_eagle, on 27 March 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

You tell me if you know otherwise.

You made the claim, how about you back it up?

[The Eagle]

Tenubracon, on 27 March 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

You made the claim, how about you back it up?

Don't play stupid, you started talking about high doses of viruses, so show me evidence where they happen in real life (at the levels used in the experiment).

And you haven't given me conclusive proof that small pox has been eradicated by vaccines yet either.

This post has been edited by awake_eagle: 27 March 2012 - 03:42 PM

[Tenubracon]

awake_eagle, on 27 March 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Do you have any conclusive proof that small pox has been eradicated by vaccines?
I remember seeing studies showing that the incidence of small pox was already fading way before the vaccine was introduced, most likely due to increased hygiene and other environmental factors.

Well yes, that would make sense. Containment of infected individuals was another major strategy that helped to reduce infections. However, the extinction of the virus in the wild happened in exact symmetry with the vaccination program. You can call that coincidence if you like, but the WHO seem pretty happy to make the explicit connection between the elimination of the two events.

[Bloo Loo]

Tenubracon, on 27 March 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

Many people have never had measles, polio, rubella and a whole host of other nasties, either. That's because of vaccination. Even if one child isn't vacciniated, he/she is protected through herd immuinity, where the lack of available hosts stops a disease spreading. The increasing anti-vaccination nonsense reduces the uptake of vaccinations, which in turn reduces herd immunity, making it much more likely that children whose parents don't get them vaccininated will catch these diseases. Measles is no fun, and can be fatal, so why take the chance?

Ok, so what do you make of the claim made by many theorists that vaccines are often introduced at the end of the "epidemic", if that is the right term, and success is as much due to the herd causing the disease to reduce in numbers infected with the BIO firms taking the credit that their vaccine is the real cure they claim it is.

Im sure some vaccines work, but we dont need hundreds as it appears US kids are getting/

[The Eagle]

Tenubracon, on 27 March 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

WHO seem pretty happy to make the explicit connection between the elimination of the two events.

It should be clear to anyone these days (at least since the swine flu debacle) that the WHO is a 'marketing' organisation of global big pharma, so the WHO certainly cannot be taken seriously anymore by anyone with at least half a brain.


---

This post has been edited by awake_eagle: 27 March 2012 - 03:53 PM

[Game_Over]

The Demented Budgie strikes again!

[Tenubracon]

awake_eagle, on 27 March 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

Don't play stupid, you started talking about high doses of viruses, so show me evidence where they happen in real life (at the levels used in the experiment).

And you haven't given me conclusive proof that small pox has been eradicated by vaccines yet either.

No, you mentioned that high dosages don't appear in nature, I wondered why you thought that. I thought perhaps that you had some information you'd like to share, but if not fine.

A simple google will take you to the WHO site, which describes the eradication of small pox.

[Tenubracon]

awake_eagle, on 27 March 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

It should be clear to anyone these days (at least since the swine flu debacle) that the WHO is a 'marketing' organisation of global big pharma, so the WHO certainly cannot be taken seriously anymore by anyone with at least half a brain.


---

Ah, I wondered when BIG PHARMA would show up. OK, if you aren't interested in evidence based medicine, there's not really much more to say from my side.

[The Eagle]

Tenubracon, on 27 March 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Ah, I wondered when BIG PHARMA would show up. OK, if you aren't interested in evidence based medicine, there's not really much more to say from my side.

'Big pharma' is just a short form for for saying the largest and globally dominant pharmaceutical companies, withdrawing from this debate because that term 'irritates' you is just a cheap excuse.

Anyway, show me the evidence! You still haven't provided any for the statements made so far in this thread (just like the WHO)!

What you call 'evidence based medicine' is often based on circumstantial evidence or even outright fabricated evidence (big pharma can't afford a flop after all), not hard proof.


---

This post has been edited by awake_eagle: 27 March 2012 - 04:33 PM

[Tenubracon]

Bloo Loo, on 27 March 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

Ok, so what do you make of the claim made by many theorists that vaccines are often introduced at the end of the "epidemic", if that is the right term, and success is as much due to the herd causing the disease to reduce in numbers infected with the BIO firms taking the credit that their vaccine is the real cure they claim it is.

Im sure some vaccines work, but we dont need hundreds as it appears US kids are getting/

If you could provide a link, Bloo, I might be better placed to comment.
Off the top of my head, if vaccinations have no effect, you'd expect populations with high vaccination rates to behave in the same way as those with low vaccination rates: in both populations, you'd get outbreaks of the disease (say, measles), which would peak, then fade away. But this only happens in populations with low vaccination rates. In populations with high vacciniation rates, you don't get outbreaks, or a least only very few small ones. This is because vacciniation prevents individuals from getting infected in the first place, so the outbreak never occurs.

[The Eagle]

Tenubracon, on 27 March 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

But this only happens in populations with low vaccination rates. In populations with high vacciniation rates, you don't get outbreaks, or a least only very few small ones

Another statement without any proof to back it up, it's funny that in the same post you ask BlooLoo for evidence...