Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

One For The Anti-Vaccine Wingnuts..


fluffy666

Recommended Posts

That is intriguing. The device wasnt focused on measuring frequency was it?

I don't particularly want to say much more about it, sorry. If, as I suspect from your phrasing, you are referring to the Ofgem EDRP smart-metering trials then "no it wasn't them."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't particularly want to say much more about it, sorry. If, as I suspect from your phrasing, you are referring to the Ofgem EDRP smart-metering trials then "no it wasn't them."

no, I am thinking of some new devices being punted out as frequency meters that " transforms electrical appliances like fridges, air-conditioners and heaters into smart devices that respond to changes on the national grid to improve its efficiency and save carbon, energy and money."

I am not convinced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this one is particuarly good, and refers to the NEJM 1985 Corpus Christi measles outbreak graph you linked to.

The DH provides plenty of graphs such as are in the Green Book referred to above which portray an actual acceleration in the decline in the number of *reported* cases of a disease after the introduction of the vaccine.

However when you look into the subject a little more deeply there are many facts that all tend to undermine the significance of this apparent “evidence”. These include the following:

1) There was no corresponding acceleration in the decline in death rates,

2) The diagnostic guidelines given to doctors were supplemented with “No history of vaccination” when the vaccines were introduced. Even without these written guidelines, doctors are taught that vaccines are effective. The result is that upon seeing an illness in a child who has been vaccinated “against” it, doctors have been observed to conclude that the disease must be a different disease, so the case of the disease is not reported.

For example whooping cough gets called “croup” when it occurs in vaccinated children, and diphtheria gets called such names as “epiglotitis”, or, as in this case, described in “Raising a Vaccine Free Child”, by Wendy Lydall (2005, pg 68),

‘Her aunt had nursed diphtheria cases in Britain in the 1950s, and she said that her niece had the typical symptoms of diphtheria. The girl was flown by helicopter to a bigger hospital in Auckland, where they took a swab from her throat and confirmed diphtheria. When they learned that the girl was fully immunised, one of the doctors said to the mother, "Then it can’t be diphtheria." They changed the diagnosis to bacterial tracheitis.’

So the teaching of doctors that vaccination will reduce number of cases *reported* of a disease is a self-fulfilling prophecy, regardless of how many cases there are in reality.

3) With some diseases, even the diagnostic criteria were changed (coincidentally?) when the vaccine was introduced (or not long after). Polio is a classic example of this. The vaccine firstly was introduced after a significant decline of polio in the early '50s (UK peaks were in '47 and '50, vaccine introduced in '56; US peaks in '48 and '52, introduced '55; Australia peak in '53, introduced '56). The vaccine was then actually found to cause more paralysis(1,2), so, soon after its introduction, the diagnostic criteria were made much stricter. The criteria now required paralysis to occur, which is rare, and the paralysis to last over 60 days, which is rarer still. They also required the virus to be detectable in the faeces 48 hours apart. (The guidelines also now had added to them: "No history of immunisation".) As the recorded cases of "polio" continued to decline, there was a significant increase in cases of "cerebral palsy" (a broad term which covers it well), "aseptic (viral) meningitis", "Guillain-Barré syndrome"(3,4), "lower motor neuron disease", "infective polyneuritis", "symmetrical paralysis" and other names. Usually no diagnosis is ever given – when paralysis occurs the doctor tells the parent that it will not last, and since there is no longer any interference, such as calipers or iron lungs (which were found to be counterproductive), this prognosis is usually correct.

4) Doctors, who base their diagnosis on symptoms, can be misled by the distortion of the symptoms due to derailment of the immune system by vaccination (due largely to the procedure bypassing the primary defences in the skin and mucous membranes). Results can include, for example, vaccinated children not getting the proper rash when they get measles. Consequently doctors are less likely to correctly identify the virus or bacteria that is present in such individuals.

5) It is well documented that doctors grossly under-report cases. Under-reporting has been found to be up to 24,000 times (5), and applies far more to vaccinated c/f unvaccinated individuals (6). Given this massive under-reporting, figures are very vulnerable to pressure on GPs from health departments to report every case they see during particular periods, which of course are the periods in which vaccination coverage is down (Health Department says something along the lines of: “We need to monitor cases carefully, because we fear that the low vaccination compliance will lead to an outbreak.”), e.g. in the UK after the publicity in the 1970s about the DPT vaccine causing brain damage and recently the MMR causing autism.

6) The apparent impact of vaccines on the number of reported cases varies often quite significantly from one country to another. For example a greater decline in reported number of cases with increased vaccine use has been reported in communist countries such as Hungary, East Germany and Poland than in other countries (Gangarosa et al, The Lancet, Jan 1998). There is no reason that the vaccine would be more effective on children living under a communist regime than a non-communist regime, so clearly government figures of cases are unreliable in reflecting the true trend, because they can be influenced by politics. Indeed Hungary recently admitted (as also reported in the Lancet) that all statistics during the communist era were falsified; including mortality figures. The fact that there are also inconsistencies between “democratic” countries tells us that political influences are affecting the figures in these countries too. Confirming this we have found that WHO figures differ suspiciously from figures published in peer-reviewed medical journals and other sources, e.g. in respect to the infant mortality trend in Japan after the minimum vaccination age was raised and lowered .

7) In outbreaks of diseases, figures often indicate that the percentage of cases vaccinated are as high, sometimes even higher than the vaccine uptake levels in the community, e.g.

• 87% of cases of whooping cough in South Australia from 1990 to 1996 were fully vaccinated (according to questionnaires to parents) (7),

• In an epidemic of whooping cough in Sweden in 1978, the percentage of cases fully vaccinated was found to be least as high as the population compliance rate of 84%, so the government discontinued whooping cough vaccination (8).

In fact epidemics of measles, mumps, whooping cough, etc, “even” occur in populations which are at least 98% (some 100%) vaccinated (9,10), and even where the compliance is less, there have been many outbreaks where only the vaccinated caught the diseases. Examples include Illinois 1984 (100% cases vaccinated) (11), Hobbs, New Mexico 1985 (12), Corpus Christi 1985 (school outbreaks of measles - 100% cases were vaccinated - the 1% who were unvaccinated did not contract it) (13), Cincinatti 1993 (100% cases vaccinated), North Idaho 1997 (100% cases vaccinated). More examples are cited in “Vaccination – A Parent’s Dilemma” by Greg Beattie (1997, available from The Informed Parent). So the so-called “herd immunity” principle (the claim that with 95% coverage, outbreaks will be prevented) clearly does not hold, and is only devised as an excuse when outbreaks still occur in populations where compliance level is less than 95%, and as a method of getting the public to pressure the non-conformers to fall in line.

8) Sometimes the vaccination programs are begun/ended at peak/trough times of the natural 3-4 year disease cycles (possibly deliberately on some occasions), with the inevitable wane/wax phase of the cycle being falsely attributed to vaccination/lack of vaccination, and

9) These disease cycles, caused by the number of susceptibles gradually increasing over time, and decreasing again when outbreaks occur, have not increased in length with the use of vaccines.

It may be interesting to note that until recently when a vaccine was first introduced usually only one dose was expected to be enough to do the job. However because it failed, another dose was added to the schedule. It still failed, so another was added. So we are now in Australia up to the sixth dose of the whooping cough vaccine for current adolescents, and the fully vaccinated still get whooping cough.

In fact one area in Australia in June 2000 (the Hunter Valley) was proudly boasting that it had the highest vaccination coverage in the state, second highest in the country. No sooner had this boast been published than there was a big nationwide news story that there was a big outbreak of whooping cough in the Hunter Valley. A couple of years later there was another story - diabetes epidemic in the Hunter Valley. (Why aren't we surprised? we thought.)

If one studies individual articles in medical journals, there are many different unscientific methods researchers use to conclude effectiveness, other than those already covered above. The medical literature is highly contaminated with such unscientific conclusions. According to the British Medical Journal (“The Poverty of Medical Evidence”, May 10, 1991), “only 1% of articles in medical journals are scientifically sound.” I have a big list of those methods, but I think what I have included above is enough for one Rapid Response.

We are still, after many decades, waiting for a randomised, double- blind placebo-controlled trial establishing that vaccines are effective, but the pharmaceutical industry, the main provider of research funds (in fact it has now more blatantly taken over the research), will not do it, and amazingly justifies this by saying that to do it they would have to deny the vaccine to the control group, which is supposedly unfair to those people. Thus we are just given a circular argument.

I hope this helps to put the subject in a new light.

The reason, by the way, that those adolescents are getting mumps is not that they were protected when younger by vaccination and the vaccine has now worn off. The fact is that they were never protected (except when they were infants, by transplacentally transmitted immunity). On the contrary, the derailing effect of vaccination causes a problem that even after subsequently developing the disease naturally the vaccinated person often *still* is not immune - i.e. rather than immunise, vaccines can prevent immunity from developing. (Vaccine-induced antibodies and immunity are totally different things.) Anyway the explanation and evidence for the fact that vaccines actually increase susceptibility needs too much text for this Rapid Response.

The first point is particularly pertinent considering Fluffy linked to a graph on wiki showing the decline in incidences of measles after vaccination. Funny how these pro-vaccine charts never show the historic trend.

0707275measleslog.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this one is particuarly good, and refers to the NEJM 1985 Corpus Christi measles outbreak graph you linked to.

The first point is particularly pertinent considering Fluffy linked to a graph on wiki showing the decline in incidences of measles after vaccination. Funny how these pro-vaccine charts never show the historic trend.

Some interesting points made about reporting in some of the letters, in particular the anecdote about the diptheria case in New Zealand - even though the lab tests indicated diptheria, it couldn't be diptheria as the child had been vaccinated!

I had a bad case of whooping cough in the 1970s at age 8, although I had been vaccinated for it. My mother was informed by the GP at the time that since I had been vaccinated most doctors would be loath to diagnose it, but whooping cough it was. I was out of action for nearly 3 months. It now seems to be recognised that there are vaccine resistant strains of the disease, but back then a lot of GPs thought processes were "vaccinated against = cannot be", so I suspect pertussis was under reported after the introduction of the vaccine. Had mumps at the age of 6 too, though had been vaccinated for that as well. Of course, one could always argue that the sympotms would have been worse had I not been vaccinated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, vaccines are (often at least) bad news. Trawling up Wakefield again and again is akin to a straw man argument.

Facts:

Most of the diseases vaccinated against are almost certainly harmless to a fit and healthy child. Children who have contracted measles have lower instances of respiratory and other diseases.

Many vaccines trigger a mild, moderate or severe fever in infants - it's in the leaflets. Some suffer convulsions. Now most will 'recover' form the poisioning of viral matter, and toxic preservatives, but any small child suffering a significant toxic shock could suffer a more permanent problem. The NHS maintain a web page detailing what to do if you have been disabled by 'perfectly safe, nothing to worry about' vaccines. Indeed in our circle of aquaintances TWO people have family members disabled by vaccines. There is a conspiracy of silence on this because the truth would cause 'panic' or lack of take-up. And you can't have a lack of 'take up'.

Vaccines do not always protect against the disease anyway, so to be effective you have to treat the population like cattle and compel them - hence officials always taking about making them compulsory. This is totalitarian stuff.

Many diseases that are protected against were in rapid decline long before vaccination. Better diet, hygiene and housing saw rates of TB fall to a a tiny fraction of its peak BEFORE vaccines. The same is true for measles and many other diseases, so the vaccine lobby takes credit for increases in the standard of living!

Vaccine science is like global warming science - once an idea is declared gospel it can never be challenged. There is really thin evidence that HPV cause cervical cancer yet a mass vaccination programme was launched just the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first point is particularly pertinent considering Fluffy linked to a graph on wiki showing the decline in incidences of measles after vaccination. Funny how these pro-vaccine charts never show the historic trend.

Well, the graph you show gives mortality. Mortality from measles is nutrition-dependent from >25% is a highly malnourished and stressed population to circa 0.3% in a well-nourished population with access to antibiotics. Apparently the anti-vax brigade find a well-established mortality rate of ~1 in 330 preferable to some ill-defined 'risk' from vaccines.

For some reason it is plotted on a logarithmic trend, which is a bit bizzare. This makes it much harder to see any breaks in the slope; you can roughly see that the deaths flatline in the postwar period at circa 100/year, dropping to 10/year with the single vaccine (1968) and 0-1/year with MMR (1988). Obviously these deaths would be accompanied by at least 10 times the number of severe cases requiring hospitalization.

As far as the outbreaks in vaccinated populations go, that exactly as you would expect - no vaccination offers 100% protection. If, for example, you vaccinate 99% of a population with a 95% effective vaccine, then expose everyone to a pathogen, then you'd expect 5 cases of vaccinated individuals catching the illness and 1 unvaccinated case. Or 83% of those who catch the illness are vaccinated, which looks convincing unless you have experience of how to lie with statistics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised by that. My recollection of measles was of a fairly mild disease, and the excitement of a couple of days off school. German measles (which I had more than once) even milder.

My mother warned of mumps (which I never had) as more serious, and told of how her brother had nearly died of whooping cough - against which my generation were vaccinated.

As someone who was born in 1960 I'm sure I was given all the vaccines that were being provided yet I still got Whooping Cough when I was 26.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, vaccines are (often at least) bad news. Trawling up Wakefield again and again is akin to a straw man argument.

So, you admit he was acting fraudulently and there is no MMR-Autism link?

Facts:.

Most of the diseases vaccinated against are almost certainly harmless to a fit and healthy child. Children who have contracted measles have lower instances of respiratory and other diseases..

Apart from those who die or get crippled by the diseases. Sheesh, the numbers are out there! Simply refusing to believe that things can go wrong is just plain stupid.

Many vaccines trigger a mild, moderate or severe fever in infants - it's in the leaflets. Some suffer convulsions.

At extremely low rates, and with no evidence of long term harm. Unlike actually contracting the illnesses.

Now most will 'recover' form the poisioning of viral matter, and toxic preservatives

But what are the chances of surviving the uncontrolled transfer of a couple of hundred types of bacteria and viruses together with who knows what chemicals that happens when, for instance, your child skins a knee? Or is that somehow 'different'?

The NHS maintain a web page detailing what to do if you have been disabled by 'perfectly safe, nothing to worry about' vaccines. Indeed in our circle of aquaintances TWO people have family members disabled by vaccines.

How was this proven? It's very convenient to blame any developmental problem on vaccines.

There is a conspiracy of silence on this because the truth would cause 'panic' or lack of take-up. And you can't have a lack of 'take up'. Vaccines do not always protect against the disease anyway, so to be effective you have to treat the population like cattle and compel them - hence officials always taking about making them compulsory. This is totalitarian stuff.

Yes. I mean, that silly rule about wearing seat belts is completely totalitarian as well - and it could kill you under some special circumstances.

Many diseases that are protected against were in rapid decline long before vaccination. Better diet, hygiene and housing saw rates of TB fall to a a tiny fraction of its peak BEFORE vaccines. The same is true for measles and many other diseases, so the vaccine lobby takes credit for increases in the standard of living!.

And several thousand lives saved, at a minimum. But this has already been dealt with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.