Bedrock Of Vaccination Theory Crumbles As Science Reveals Antibodies Not Necessary To Fight Viruses

[aussieboy]

http://www.naturalnews.com/035371_vaccine_theory_antibodies_viruses.html

Great: yet another explanation of how vaccines have exerted their well-proven beneficial effects on public health.

Shot themselves in the foot a bit with this one.

[aussieboy]

Again, there is not a single study proving conclusively that herd immunity is real. That graph (providing it isn't manipulated which given that the source is the WHO it could well be) isn't evidence of anything, there are way too many other factors that can and do have influenced the incidence of an pertussis.

As the saying goes:

Don't trust any statistic that you didn't fake yourself.

IMHO, the ar5se fell out of your credibility the moment you posted that http://preventdiseas..._vaccines.shtml article.

[The Eagle]

There isn't enough data in the article to calculate the success rate. If you honestly claim that the article states a 0% success rate, then that is delusion.

This is more than enough data:

Of the 132 patients under age 18, 81 percent were up to date on recommended whooping cough shots and eight percent had never been vaccinated. The other 11 percent had received at least one shot, but not the complete series.

You surely agree that 81%+11% is not far off the pertussis vaccination rate of children in the general population (it might be 85% or 90% or 95% but that's close enough) and 8% is not far off the rate of not vaccinated children in the general population.

In other words the distribution of children that got sick matches fairly well the distribution of vaccined/non-vaccined children in the general population.

This inevitably means that the vaccine has no effect on the likelyhood to fall ill with pertussis when there is an outbreak in the area.

Even the article admits this (albeit not as explicitly as I have put it here).

[aussieboy]

There is also a remarkable correlation between the use of DDT and BHC insecticides, and the polio epidemics of the 50's.

And an equally remarkable lack of causation.

I recall there was a lot of equine hybrid puppetry around in the 50s. Perhaps Muffin the Mule was a polio vector. Or smoking Strand cigarettes. Or footballers wearing baggy shorts. Or skiffle music. Or going steady with Peggy-Sue whilst drinking a malt sodie pop.

[The Eagle]

From the same article you are selectively picking from;

During a whooping cough outbreak in California in 2010, immunized children between eight and 12 years old were more likely to catch the bacterial disease than kids of other ages, suggesting that the childhood vaccine wears off as kids get older, according to new research.

At most suggesting that an earlier booster jab is needed.

That is their startling new discovery from this event (imagine that, the pertussis vaccine has been in use for decades and they didn't even know this, so much for well researched proven vaccines)! They explicitly say this and the consequence that a booster jab would help is just an optimistic guess (as you would expect from a MSM), not a proven conclusion. Read the article again, you clearly missed this.

[The Eagle]

IMHO, the ar5se fell out of your credibility the moment you posted that http://preventdiseas..._vaccines.shtml article.

If you base your conclusions on the credibility of the messenger then your approach is broken. You should check the credibility of the articles I quote (which grantedly are not all at the same level but that article does contain some verifiable facts) and the facts contained in those articles, not take my word for anything.

[The Eagle]

And an equally remarkable lack of causation.

Correlation/causation are very hard (if not impossible) to prove in most cases, so I would not take them as proof of anything. Thing is, it's the vaccine supporters who always love to use correlation as proof that vaccines work, which tells you that they don't have better proof (otherwise why use correlation which isn't real proof)?

[Kurt Barlow]

This is more than enough data:

You surely agree that 81%+11% is not far off the pertussis vaccination rate of children in the general population (it might be 85% or 90% or 95% but that's close enough) and 8% is not far off the rate of not vaccinated children in the general population.

In other words the distribution of children that got sick matches fairly well the distribution of vaccined/non-vaccined children in the general population.

This inevitably means that the vaccine has no effect on the likelyhood to fall ill with pertussis when there is an outbreak in the area.

Even the article admits this (albeit not as explicitly as I have put it here).

I would imagine in the setting that study was carried out near on 100% of children are immunised against WC. Those children you describe are an outlier - they are the unfortunate kids who despite being vaccinated did not develop immunity. Sot hey represent the 1-2% you are focussing on and not the 98% who haven't suffered from Whooping cough as a result of vaccination.

I'd suggest you go back and look at Blizzards chart correlating immunisation rates against prevalence although I dare say you will respond that that is just WHO / Big Pharma propaganda...

[Kurt Barlow]

Correlation/causation are very hard (if not impossible) to prove in most cases, so I would not take them as proof of anything. Thing is, it's the vaccine supporters who always love to use correlation as proof that vaccines work, which tells you that they don't have better proof (otherwise why use correlation which isn't real proof)?

Really? You no doubt dispute Richard Dolls work in the 1960's correlating tobacco smoking with lung cancer (which also showed traffic fumes at the time were not a significant contributing factor although they had been suspect).

While on the subject of correlation - how about asbestos and mesothelioma?

[aussieboy]

Correlation/causation are very hard (if not impossible) to prove in most cases, so I would not take them as proof of anything. Thing is, it's the vaccine supporters who always love to use correlation as proof that vaccines work, which tells you that they don't have better proof (otherwise why use correlation which isn't real proof)?

Rather than trying to start at first principles, probably a good idea to see what's out there already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford-Hill_criteria

As for what you as an individual would take as proof, painful experience talking to the antiMMRistas of Wandsworth, who seemed unable to understand the 1/vaccination rate vs measles outbreak relationship even when shown to them on a bloody graph, clearly indicates to me that nothing will change your mind on this issue so I'm not going to waste any effort trying.

[erranta]

I've never had a flu jab but haven't suffered a flu or a cold worthy of the name since I started taking shed loads of Vitamin D in the winter months

which proves just as much as your anecdote

Harvard University Mason Alumni Network, HUMAN for Global Development. ... Welcome to HUMAN for Global Development, a Harvard Alumni Association

Alumni of the Mason Program—which this year celebrates its 50th anniversary— offer testimonials to the power of their Mason Fellows experience,

How the immune system is affected by toxins, what they are, and why we need to ... Dr. Elson Haas lists toxic minerals as being aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, lead

Aluminum - in excess, toxic and destroys immune system.

With the strong association between aluminum, excitotoxins, aluminum fluoride

Aluminium is able to remain as an irritant in tissues and disturb the immune system

Aluminum has long been used as an adjuvant in vaccines because of its well-known strong stimulatory effects on the immune system.

These adjuvants are composed of such things as aluminum compounds, MSG etc

60 % of the immune system may be exhausted by multiple mass vaccines

Aspart-ame destroys the immune system and central nervous system

Why do our beloved leaders insist we have Xtra Aluminium added to our water?

Over stimulating our immune systems (to kill people off early - with new releases of virus strains?)

[The Eagle]

I would imagine in the setting that study was carried out near on 100% of children are immunised against WC.

Wrong. The pertussis vaccination rate of pupils in elementary schools in San Rafael (Marin county, CA) was 93% in 2010.

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/2010IZRateTable.pdf

Therefore they match almost precisely (even more than I thought) the percentage of children that got sick despite being vaccinated (92%).

Those children you describe are an outlier - they are the unfortunate kids who despite being vaccinated did not develop immunity. Sot hey represent the 1-2% you are focussing on and not the 98% who haven't suffered from Whooping cough as a result of vaccination.

That is complete nonsense, that's now how statistics works. According to your reasoning 100% of the non vaccinated should have been sick (which clearly weren't otherwise their percentage among all sick children should have been much bigger).

Even the results of the study confirm my reasoning and contradict your very peculiar understanding of statistics.

---

[corevalue]

And an equally remarkable lack of causation.

I recall there was a lot of equine hybrid puppetry around in the 50s. Perhaps Muffin the Mule was a polio vector. Or smoking Strand cigarettes. Or footballers wearing baggy shorts. Or skiffle music. Or going steady with Peggy-Sue whilst drinking a malt sodie pop.

Strawman. Muffin the mule was never shown to cause CNS damage. DDT, on the other hand,

AGENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PERMANENT FUNCTIONAL LESIONS

Acetyl pyridine

DDT

Mercury

Manganese

Neurotoxicity

[Kurt Barlow]

Wrong. The pertussis vaccination rate of pupils in elementary schools in San Rafael (Marin county, CA) was 93% in 2010.

http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/immunize/Documents/2010IZRateTable.pdf

Therefore they match almost precisely (even more than I thought) the percentage of children that got sick despite being vaccinated (92%).

That is complete nonsense, that's now how statistics works. According to your reasoning 100% of the non vaccinated should have been sick (which clearly weren't otherwise their percentage among all sick children should have been much bigger).

Even the results of the study confirm my reasoning and contradict your very peculiar understanding of statistics.

---

This chart says it all. Of course a troofer like you will just dismiss it as falsified manipulated data by WHO etc Go back to the St Johns Wort, Wolfbane, eye of newt or whatever it is you propose as the latest Kingscureall

[Kurt Barlow]

Strawman. Muffin the mule was never shown to cause CNS damage. DDT, on the other hand,

Neurotoxicity

Aspartame and Formaldehyde can be added to those lists.

[corevalue]

Anecdote is indeed not evidence, but then I was not offering it as such. Of course, what does demonstrate the efficacy of vaccines is extensive trials they are subjected to before they are approved.

They could be added to the list of possible agents to cause polio, but dismissed pretty quickly because they don't have the same strong correlation that DDT has. I'm playing the devils advocate here: Polio is an odd case, it was next to impossible to infect primates with the "agent", except by direct injection of serum into the brain. There has been a change in he way Polio is diagnosed, nowadays, the diaagnosis tends to be viral meningitis (which is descriptive of the symptoms, rather than the aetiology). As for correlation between DDT and polio, it is fairly strong, don't you think?

Seems I've replied to the wrong post, at least it appears in order

[Bloo Loo]

This chart says it all. Of course a troofer like you will just dismiss it as falsified manipulated data by WHO etc Go back to the St Johns Wort, Wolfbane, eye of newt or whatever it is you propose as the latest Kingscureall

interesting chart.

can you tell us more about the data sets....for example, are there data sets where the vaccination is NOT given?

[Byron]

They could be added to the list of possible agents to cause polio, but dismissed pretty quickly because they don't have the same strong correlation that DDT has. I'm playing the devils advocate here: Polio is an odd case, it was next to impossible to infect primates with the "agent", except by direct injection of serum into the brain. There has been a change in he way Polio is diagnosed, nowadays, the diaagnosis tends to be viral meningitis (which is descriptive of the symptoms, rather than the aetiology). As for correlation between DDT and polio, it is fairly strong, don't you think?

Seems I've replied to the wrong post, at least it appears in order

You would need to attach the take up of the Salk vaccine to that graph. Not saying you are not correct, but the reduction in DDT exposure and the take up of the vaccine might parallel each other.

[Kurt Barlow]

interesting chart.

can you tell us more about the data sets....for example, are there data sets where the vaccination is NOT given?

Funnily enough where the vacine isn't routinely given (Sub Saharan Africa) prevalence of WP is sky high. Furthermore when immunisation rates fall prevalence increases.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9652634

I would hazard a guess that this evidence alone is enough to make a reasoned judgment that immunisation is worthwhile.

[Bloo Loo]

Funnily enough where the vacine isn't routinely given (Sub Saharan Africa) prevalence of WP is sky high. Furthermore when immunisation rates fall prevalence increases.

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/9652634

I would hazard a guess that this evidence alone is enough to make a reasoned judgment that immunisation is worthwhile.

much obliged..

here is a quote from your link..."Given the safety and cost-effectiveness of whole-cell pertussis vaccines, our study shows that, far from being obsolete, these vaccines continue to have an important role in global immunisation."

my highlight.

from my memory, some American children are getting multiple vaccinations...I cant remember the number, but its a lot according to the anti vaccine people...so maybe there is a case for pertussis vaccine...but all the others?

and why the reclassification of symptoms?....that could wipe out polio with a stroke of the pen......