|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Because they are, to the extent that they save way more(way way way more) people than they harm.
If you get your science from youtube, then you are officially an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So the studies that they refer to are bogus?
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=xA4jdWWH_FY&feature=related
Just because it's on youtube?
Brilliant!
Perhaps this article is more your speed...?
http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/node/43
�Safety studies on vaccinations are limited to short time periods only: several days to several weeks,� Buttram wrote in 2002. �There are no long-term (months or years) safety studies on any vaccination or immunization. For this reason, there are valid grounds for suspecting that many delayed-type vaccine reactions may be taking place unrecognized as to their true nature.�
Further on the topic of studies, Catherine J.M. Diodati is a recognized expert in the field of vaccinations and biomedical ethics, and writing for Canadian Chiropractor she noted that the adverse reactions to vaccinations are not recorded long-term and in fact systemic effects are often dismissed as being coincidental.
�In other words,� Diodati writes. �it is often the case that, although the conclusions of many studies support the vaccine�s safety and efficacy, the data and the methodology do not support the conclusions.� |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO is right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
�Safety studies on vaccinations are limited to short time periods only: several days to several weeks,� Buttram wrote in 2002.
|
well since you used youtube I'll use wiki
| Quote: |
| Vaccine trials may take months or years to complete, since a sufficient time period must elapse for the subjects to react to the vaccine and develop the required antibodies. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_trial
But go ahead and skip any vaccines you or your child needs. Then when the herd protection you hide in breaks down and you start going blind and deaf come back here and share the experience.
Vaccines are a risk as much as any form of medicine. How many people die from reactions to penicillin every year? 33per month in the US. Should we ban it?
| Quote: |
| �There are no long-term (months or years) safety studies on any vaccination or immunization. For this reason, there are valid grounds for suspecting that many delayed-type vaccine reactions may be taking place unrecognized as to their true nature.� |
Oh the horror!! (regarding the absence of any evidence in that statement) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Smallpox.
| Quote: |
| During the 20th century, it is estimated that smallpox was responsible for 300�500 million deaths |
| Quote: |
| The disease killed an estimated 400,000 Europeans each year during the 18th century (including five reigning monarchs), and was responsible for a third of all blindness.[3] Between 20 and 60% of all those infected�and over 80% of infected children�died from the disease. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
I find it pretty sad, when people free only a few generations from the threat of diseases that have been killing humans for millenia, start to spout this crap. Yes you are an idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
So please help clear up my befuddled thinking, if you would be so bold.
Click on an individual graph to enlarge.
http://healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=4&event=graphcats_print_list_item
What are "antitoxins"?
Why are all these graphs showing that the diseases in question were all in dramatic decline long before the introduction of the vaccine?
By the way, this is the information given on the original video I posted:
"In this extremely informative video, fifteen people, including Dr. Viera Scheibner (a PhD researcher), five medical doctors, other researchers, reveal what is really going on in relation to illness and vaccines. Ironically, the important facts come from the orthodox medicine's own peer-reviewed research."
from http://www.moviesfoundonline.com
Last edited by some waygug-in on Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:35 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here you go. From the CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready
| Quote: |
| Better nutrition, not to mention the development of antibiotics and other treatments, have increased survival rates among the sick; less crowded living conditions have reduced disease transmission; and lower birth rates have decreased the number of susceptible household contacts. But looking at the actual incidence of disease over the years can leave little doubt of the significant direct impact vaccines have had, even in modern times |
And Christ, smallpox!! Idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Flattery won't win me over to your way of thinking.
So I guess all the people who spoke on the video must be "idiots" as well then.
Here's another essay or two from some "idiots" - as you call them.
http://www.vran.org/vaccines/smallpox/sma-info.htm
Here is an excerpt for you:
SMALLPOX
by Ian Sinclair.
In England, compulsory vaccination against smallpox was first introduced in 1852, yet in the period 1857 to 1859, a smallpox epidemic killed 14,244 people. In 1863 to 1865, a second epidemic claimed 20,059 lives. In 1867, a more stringent compulsory vaccination law was passed and those who evaded vaccination were prosecuted. After an intensive tour year effort to vaccinate the entire population between the ages of 2 - 50, the Chief Medical Officer of England announced in May 1871 that 97.5% had been vaccinated. In the following year, 1872, England experienced its worst ever smallpox epidemic which claimed 44,840 lives. Between 1871-1880, during the period of compulsory vaccination, the death rate from smallpox leapt from 28 to 46 per 100,000 population.
Writing in the British Medical Journal (21/1/1928 p116) Dr L Parry questions the vaccination statistics which revealed a higher death rate amongst the vaccinated than the unvaccinated and asks:
"How is it that smallpox is five times as likely to be fatal in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated?
"How is it that in some of our best vaccinated towns - for example, Bombay and Calcutta - smallpox is rife, whilst in some of our worst vaccinated towns, such as Leicester, it is almost unknown?
"How is it that something like 80 per cent of the cases admitted into the Metropolitan Asylums Board smallpox hospitals have been vaccinated, whilst only 20 per cent have not been vaccinated?
"How is it that in Germany, the best vaccinated country in the world, there are more deaths in proportion to the population than In England - for example, in 1919, 28 deaths in England, 707 in Germany; In 1920, 30 deaths in England, 354 in Germany. In Germany in 1919 there were 5,012 cases of smallpox with 707 deaths; in England in 1925 there were 5,363 cases of smallpox with 6 deaths. What is the explanation?
In Scotland, between 1855-1875, over 9,000 children under 5 died of smallpox despite Scotland being, at that time, one of the most vaccinated countries in the world. In 1907- 1919 with only a third of the children vaccinated, only 7 smallpox deaths were recorded for children under 5 years of age. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Flattery won't win me over to your way of thinking.
So I guess all the people who spoke on the video must be "idiots" as well then.
Here's another essay or two from some "idiots" - as you call them.
http://www.vran.org/vaccines/smallpox/sma-info.htm
Here is an excerpt for you:
SMALLPOX
by Ian Sinclair.
In England, compulsory vaccination against smallpox was first introduced in 1852, yet in the period 1857 to 1859, a smallpox epidemic killed 14,244 people. In 1863 to 1865, a second epidemic claimed 20,059 lives. In 1867, a more stringent compulsory vaccination law was passed and those who evaded vaccination were prosecuted. After an intensive tour year effort to vaccinate the entire population between the ages of 2 - 50, the Chief Medical Officer of England announced in May 1871 that 97.5% had been vaccinated. In the following year, 1872, England experienced its worst ever smallpox epidemic which claimed 44,840 lives. Between 1871-1880, during the period of compulsory vaccination, the death rate from smallpox leapt from 28 to 46 per 100,000 population.
Writing in the British Medical Journal (21/1/1928 p116) Dr L Parry questions the vaccination statistics which revealed a higher death rate amongst the vaccinated than the unvaccinated and asks:
"How is it that smallpox is five times as likely to be fatal in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated?
"How is it that in some of our best vaccinated towns - for example, Bombay and Calcutta - smallpox is rife, whilst in some of our worst vaccinated towns, such as Leicester, it is almost unknown?
"How is it that something like 80 per cent of the cases admitted into the Metropolitan Asylums Board smallpox hospitals have been vaccinated, whilst only 20 per cent have not been vaccinated?
"How is it that in Germany, the best vaccinated country in the world, there are more deaths in proportion to the population than In England - for example, in 1919, 28 deaths in England, 707 in Germany; In 1920, 30 deaths in England, 354 in Germany. In Germany in 1919 there were 5,012 cases of smallpox with 707 deaths; in England in 1925 there were 5,363 cases of smallpox with 6 deaths. What is the explanation?
In Scotland, between 1855-1875, over 9,000 children under 5 died of smallpox despite Scotland being, at that time, one of the most vaccinated countries in the world. In 1907- 1919 with only a third of the children vaccinated, only 7 smallpox deaths were recorded for children under 5 years of age. |
Well way to go. You ask someone to address those charts, and when this is done so, you move on to this fluff.
Small pox is now eradicated thanks to vaccination.
| Quote: |
| As recently as 1967, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 15 million people contracted the disease and that two million died in that year |
It was officially eradicated in 1979.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
From your essay
| Quote: |
| "How is it that smallpox is five times as likely to be fatal in the vaccinated as in the unvaccinated? |
This is a fallacy. When 98% of the population of the country is vaccinated, of course more people will die amongst the vaccinated. There are more of them.
| Quote: |
| "How is it that something like 80 per cent of the cases admitted into the Metropolitan Asylums Board smallpox hospitals have been vaccinated, whilst only 20 per cent have not been vaccinated? |
See above.
| Quote: |
"How is it that in Germany, the best vaccinated country in the world, there are more deaths in proportion to the population than In England - for example, in 1919, 28 deaths in England, 707 in Germany; In 1920, 30 deaths in England, 354 in Germany. In Germany in 1919 there were 5,012 cases of smallpox with 707 deaths; in England in 1925 there were 5,363 cases of smallpox with 6 deaths. What is the explanation?
In Scotland, between 1855-1875, over 9,000 children under 5 died of smallpox despite Scotland being, at that time, one of the most vaccinated countries in the world. In 1907- 1919 with only a third of the children vaccinated, only 7 smallpox deaths were recorded for children under 5 years of age. |
This is all possible if not a high enough % are vaccinated. Germany didn't close its borders I presume. Diseases like this go through cycles of killings, go away and return. What were the figures for the 20 years before 1919 in England and Germany?
If you havn't already, read this link. It addresses basically every misconception about vaccinations and will answer your questions. If you still have problems..well i dunno..
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Diseaseshadalready |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.vran.org/vaccines/smallpox/sma-info.htm
The CDC reported (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 30, 1999, 48:621-628) that improvements in sanitation, water quality, hygiene, had been the most important factors in control of infectious diseases in the past century. Although vaccines were mentioned, they were not included among the major factors.
One of the conclusions in Thomas McKeown�s seminal work, �The Modern Rise Of Populations� (1976, also endorsed by a Lancet editorial, 2/1/75), was that the decline in mortality in the 18th and 19th centuries was essentially due to the reduction in deaths from infectious diseases, and that it was not the result of immunizations. Similar studies by scholars John & Sonia McKinlay (1977) shows that almost all the increase in human lifespan since the year 1900 is due to reductions in infectious disease, with medical intervention (of all kinds) accounting for only about 3 per cent of that reduction. According to World Health Statistics Annual, 1973-76, vol.2, �there has been a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries.�
In answer to your question, I can only post part of this essay.
Not only had poor sanitation and nutrition lay the foundation for disease, it was also compulsory smallpox vaccination campaigns in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that played a major role in decimating the populations of Japan (48,000 deaths), England & Wales (44,840 deaths, after 97 per cent of the population had been vaccinated), Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, Italy, India (3 million�all vaccinated), Australia, Germany (124,000 deaths), Prussia (69,000 deaths�all revaccinated), and the Philippines. The epidemics ended in cities where smallpox vaccinations were either discontinued or never begun, and also after sanitary reforms were instituted (Most notably in Munich-1880, Leicester-1878, Barcelona-1804, Alicante-1827, India-1906, etc.).
In many nations, mortalities from smallpox hadn�t begun to decline until the citizenry revolted against compulsory smallpox vaccination laws. For example, the town of Leicester from 1878 to 1898 stood in stark contrast to the rest of England where thousands were dying from the aggressive half century-old government mandatory immunization campaigns.
And if you have the time, here's another letter, reporting on common myths about smallpox.
http://www.vran.org/vaccines/smallpox/sma-facts.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry way. The scientific evidence is completely against you. There's not a single credible study in support of your claim. Just recently two anti vaxers joined an experiment to duplicate a highly criticized study anti vaxers wave around claiming supports their dangerous belief and it came up negative.
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=372
Read it 'n' weep.
| Quote: |
| The CDC reported (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 30, 1999, 48:621-628) that improvements in sanitation, water quality, hygiene, had been the most important factors in control of infectious diseases in the past century. Although vaccines were mentioned, they were not included among the major factors. |
Hey when you actually read the article what does the article ACTUALLY SAY:
| Quote: |
| Public health action to control infectious diseases in the 20th century is based on the 19th century discovery of microorganisms as the cause of many serious diseases (e.g., cholera and TB). Disease control resulted from improvements in sanitation and hygiene, the discovery of antibiotics, and the implementation of universal childhood vaccination programs. |
Your source is 100% lying. Sorry. Check your sources, some time.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0906/is_/ai_55360783
| Quote: |
SMALLPOX
by Ian Sinclair. |
Errr. How does a 19th century vaccination program relate in any way to modern vaccination campaigns?
| Quote: |
| Why are all these graphs showing that the diseases in question were all in dramatic decline long before the introduction of the vaccine? |
Because other factors can also result in the decrease of those diseases like improved sanitation and widespread knowledge in the population of the germ theory of disease. Also, you're mixing up terms. The graphs show mortality rates (not INFECTION rates). Improved medical care and the ability to treat deadly symptoms (for example the introduction of a diphtheria anti toxin) also decrease the mortality rate.
Way, you're cherry picking. Fallacy.
| Quote: |
| According to World Health Statistics Annual, 1973-76, vol.2, �there has been a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries.� |
Information from a 22 year old book, that's updated frequently?
http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat/en/index.html
Nothing from a more recent edition? Searching the 2008 edition I can find nothing about this. Perhaps WHO changed their mind based on new data? Or your source is simply making up this quote?
This book is published by WHO. Since you cite it, I'll assume you believe WHO is a legit source on vaccine information. Surely you don't believe WHO is telling the truth here and lying about other stuff. If so, other than confirmation bias, I'd like to see your reason for cherry picking. So what does WHO have to say about vaccines:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs288/en/index.html
| Quote: |
Effectiveness and safety
All vaccines used for routine immunization are very effective in preventing disease, although no vaccine attains 100% effectiveness. More than one dose of a vaccine is generally given to increase the chance of developing immunity.
Vaccines are very safe, and side effects are minor ─ especially when compared to the diseases they are designed to prevent. Serious complications occur rarely. For example, severe allergic reactions result at a rate of one for every 100 000 doses of measles vaccine. Two to four cases of vaccine-associated paralytic polio have been reported for every one million children receiving oral polio vaccine. |
Odd WHO is recommending vaccines here:
http://www.who.int/whr/2007/conclusion/en/index.html
| Quote: |
Open sharing of knowledge, technologies and materials, including viruses and other laboratory samples, necessary to optimize secure global public health. The struggle for global public health security will be lost if vaccines, treatment regimens, and facilities and diagnostics are available only to the wealthy.
|
And in the PDF of the 2007 World Health Report:
| Quote: |
With time, scientific knowledge evolved, containment
measures became more sophisticated and some
infectious disease outbreaks were gradually brought
under control with improved sanitation and the discovery
of vaccines. |
Further let's examine that quote, even if the context is not supplied:
| Quote: |
| there has been a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries. |
If you introduce plumbing and clean water you'll see a decline. From your own charts we see that. When you introduce modern medicine, clean water, and a knowledge of the germ theory, you get declines. How does this argue against vaccines? If you introduce seat belts in a car you get huge reductions in traffic deaths. Does that then mean safer roads and airbags are unnecessary because we got those seatbelts in finally? Think things through.
From your myth link:
| Quote: |
| Mack stated that even with poor medical care, the case fatality rate in adults was "much lower than is generally advertised" and thought to be 10-15%. He said that the statistics were "loaded with children that had a much higher fatality," making the average death rate reported to be much higher. Amazingly, he revealed his opinion that even without mass vaccination, "smallpox would have died out anyway. It just would have taken longer." |
It would be terribly nice to see this quote in full context. All diseases die out eventually, either because we gain natural herd immunity or the disease mutates allowing it to pass itself on but without killing the host. Nothing shocking there.
Also that page lists "generally accepted facts". Who are these facts generally accepted by? The author gives no sources. The author sets up several straw men and then knocks them down. And regarding point #5. Sorry, the effectiveness of vaccines has been demonstrated in the medical literature since the time of Jenner. Explain how smallpox was eradicated in such a short order of time?
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/6/1488
Note the conclusion:
| Quote: |
Conclusions. The vaccine, administered by >100 health care providers to 571 children during a 7-year time period, was effective. |
And
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6325909
| Quote: |
| no child who received vaccine contracted varicella. The vaccine was 100 per cent efficacious in preventing varicella in this population of healthy children |
What is your goal post for demonstrating the effectiveness of a vaccine? Hmmm?
What you got next for us? I'm happy to give you another pants down public spanking over your illogic, inability to understand basic terminology, and quote mining. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm going to assume he going to do his normal thing and completely ignore your post, whilst throwing out some more crap to be cleaned up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| I'm going to assume he going to do his normal thing and completely ignore your post, whilst throwing out some more crap to be cleaned up. |
I've asked him what his goal post for "an effective vaccine" is. Let's see if he can at least answer that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't answer your question, I simply don't have the expertise or education to do so.
But I do get concerned when I see things like Dr. Horowitz bringing out secret government plans for population control, with things like vaccinations being contaminated with various viruses etc.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8df9-oADP_c
or interviews like this:
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=vi_tZ8puaAM
So when I find all kinds of websites saying that the CDC is lying about vaccines, how do I know who is lying? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
