Vaxxed
- Thread starter naturalbornhawk
- Start date
Tarheel, you haven't pointed out in the article where you said it stated mothers pass along lifelong immunity to their child. And, everyone including you keeps dodging the herd immunity issue. I've asked probably 4 times now and 0 responses. This is a very central issue to this debate, so I urge the pro folks to tackle it if you can.
Confirming that you can't comprehend scientific literature does nothing to bolster your case.
If it doesn't then it's useless at preventing disease in children who aren't sucking at mommy's tit. I'm not even sure how you can question herd immunity. The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963. That year there were over 385,000 cases of measles with 364 deaths. Ten years later, the number of cases was below 30,000 and deaths had dropped to 23. in the first decade of the 21st century, the average was fewer than 100/year with a documented death toll of THREE...for the entire decade. Now we are seeing measles on the rise...and who gets sick?
For all you guys on here who think there isn't corruption in science. I'd like you to listen to what this Scientist has to say about one of her experiences. The entire interview is excellent and central to this discussion but I understand folks are short on time so to cut to the chase focus on 2:40 to about 4:30. Listen to that and come back here and tell us all how there is no corruption in science. This kind of stuff happens all the time guys, whether you want to admit to it or not.
Then she talks about how Al adjuvant has not been safety tested.
Then ff to 13:15 to hear what was found in a couple autism studies that she was personally a part of.
Then she talks about how Al adjuvant has not been safety tested.
Then ff to 13:15 to hear what was found in a couple autism studies that she was personally a part of.
Joe Mercola would post an article about HIV not causing AIDS if he thought it would make him money
...wait...
Of course there's corruption in science. Anything involving human beings is going to have corruption. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU THAT THIS ENTIRE THREAD!!
Andrew Wakefield is a prime example of that corruption.
Once more - with feeling - why did he refuse the opportunity to reproduce his results with a larger cohort? Not ONE SINGLE RESEARCHER using Wakefield's own methodology has been able to reproduce his results. Are THEY all corrupt with Wakefield being the lone shining beacon of virtue? Answer those question.
Like "I don't want to stop for any red lights"
When it's putting other people at risk who do not have the choice, it's not appropriate.
I've stated it here many times - if people want to 'dissent', they can accept the consequences of their actions. They can accept the financial liability of ANYONE they infect (e.g. came in contact with) when they get measles or whatever. They can accept zero health coverage for any costs associated with their care for vaccinable diseases they contract. They would not be eligible to file for any form of bankruptcy or protect any asset they have to cover those costs.
Thus, if they feel that strongly about no vaccines, then accept the liabilities that come with it.
...and anyone with a basic statistics background is well aware than when you conduct the same tests to an alpha = 0.05 confidence level, you WILL have exactly 1 out of 20 of your 'studies' show a positive result or 'effect' - it's precisely how the math works.
Thus, if you run the same study 20 times, you'll get 19 'null' effects and 1 'positive'. That's the same as 'not significant'. The only way to counteract that issue (from repeated/same study designs) is to EXPAND the study group size (increase your study power - or reduce beta error). When Wakefield refuses to do this to verify results, all of his credibility is simply gone. That is precisely what you do to solidify your position. When people take to the blogs instead, it is a giant red warning light....indicating the position is most probably total bullshit.
As anychawk would tell you CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION!! That's not how science works!!
Sorry, true herd immunity still doesn't make sense at all based on success rates and longevity rates amongst the population. Explain to me your theory on how we can still have herd immunity given those two items and you might have something.
Last edited:
Look at that bolded sentence. The quoted posts below all at least imply against this notion. It's as if you saw the video and all of a sudden decide to throw your mainstream science golden child under the bus because of your Wakefield accusations. Makes a lot of sense.
But you're right though, mainstream science has corruption written all over it. Doesn't help your case in the least.
Last edited:
That's funny, I was actually thinking just the opposite. BTW, you still haven't explained the herd immunity question, after you specifically being asked at least twice. At least answer the question before you go making posts like this. It's kind of a big deal.2 pages later, naturalborn and his ilk still getting their assess handed to them and correctively going
Last edited:
COME ON people! Answer the question! lolI really don't think ANYTHING related to science 'makes sense' to you.....
It's been answered many many times; someone (BioHawk) posted the data on pre/post vaccine disease rates. If you cannot process basic factual information, it's a colossal waste of everyone's time dealing with you.
The only link I can find that Bio shared was the 107. Could you link it or at least tell me what page it's on? I don't have a lot of time today - or the next 2 weeks for that matter.
I am talking about the herd immunity question, not the double bline placebo controlled question that Bio FAILED miserably to answer by the way.
I'm at a loss here. What about herd immunity doesn't make sense to you? People who are vaccinated don't get sick when exposed to the pathogen in question. This is true for 95+% of the population. If they don't get sick, it's nearly impossible for them to transmit the pathogen to others. So you're saying that vaccines don't have the success rate advertised or you're saying that those who are vaccinated can still somehow transmit the pathogen. Neither of those two is supported by research or reality. Pick one or both or give an alternative explanation.
Look at that bolded sentence. The quoted posts below all at least imply against this notion. It's as if you saw the video and all of a sudden decide to throw your mainstream science golden child under the bus because of your Wakefield accusations. Makes a lot of sense.
WTF? Those comments say nothing of the kind. Those posts are trying to explain to you that there is robust and extensive independent research showing NO connection between vaccines and autism. NO CONNECTION. Studies that included well over one million children. You're backing the idea that Wakefield's 12 child study...children HE selected in contravention of basic research protocols - trumps all that other science.
For the last time (probably not) - why has Wakefield REFUSED to follow up his research with a larger cohort to support his claims?
My bias is irrelevant since I am using the opinions of major research organizations. If I have a bias, it is to respect the professionals and their opinions on this. As for VAERS, that is primarily there to monitor people that have allergic reactions to the vaccines. To try and ban a substance just because some people have allergies is stupid.
Also, the fact that you don't think drug prices affect healthcare costs is laughable. I'll just refer you to the uberdouche who bought the drug used in treating AIDS and then increased the price by like 100 times as example number one of this.
No, that's negligence or refusal. Dissent is disagreeing with an opinion. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with a scientific opinion as long as you have reliable scientific evidence to support why you disagree with an opinion. "I don't want to" is just refusing to do it....because. Well, there could be a legitimate reason to refuse something but again, that's based on a scientific reason and it is a consequence of dissenting with a scientific opinion.
Last edited:
Nope, it wasn't. It was bhawk that used that term: your replies were fairly respectful, just a bit on the condescending side.
This is no different than a Trump v. Clinton debate. Both sides feel strongly about their views, and for some reason feel offended when they are unable to convince others to think accordingly.
I happen to feel the same way about vaccines as I do about politicians: everybody should be free to vote for whoever they want to vote for or get as many shots as they want..............just don't try and make me do the same. I happen to think that they're both bad for the country, but live and let live, right?
Fair enough.
The problem with the live and let live approach with vaccines is somebody else's decision to not vaccinate their kids could put me or my children at risk. Remember what happened at Disney Land last year with the measles outbreak? That is exactly why it is important everyone gets vaccinated. Plus, it also protects people who can't take the vaccine (like someone with a severe allergy) because there won't be very many people that can carry the disease to be transmitted. This is why most of these diseases had been eliminated.
2 pages later, naturalborn and his ilk still getting their assess handed to them and correctively going
Looks like Prime showed up to lower the collective IQ. Who'da thunk he'd agree with the OP?
You just don't understand. It's perfectly logical and humane to inject a child full of neurotoxins. What harm could that possibly have on infants ? I got an idea. Let's come up with a cool way for kids to suck on lead paint chips too. Maybe lace it with Red 40 for flavor and some aspartame.
Have you confused yourself with your own thoughts today? Throw a few of your epic rants of absolute nothing into this thread for good measure.
It is perfectly logical and humane based upon the protection it affords. If eating dog shit made my kid immune to cancer, I'd have them choking it down.
It's pretty obvious that you have no clue what a 'neurotoxin' even is....
For argument sake, I'll say I don't. But, I've read Harvard Med people say it is. That certainly trumps you.
We are over-vaccinated as a nation and the cumulative effect from an aggressive immunization schedule 'should' be a concern. Children are vaccinated way more than 30 years ago.
What does that even mean? We're "over-vaccinated"? According to who? You? And what cumulative effects has your research noted?
So? They get more antibiotics than they did 100 years ago.
It's not a concern for the American Association of Pediatricians or AMA. Those are the folks I get my medical info from.
The argument that 'it's too big a burden for naive immune systems' has been debunked ad naseum; babies get millions of times the exposure to germs/bacteria/etc. on their way out of the birth canal and in their first hours outside the mother. It's nonsense, based on fearmongering and ignorance.
The AMA, like any other organization run by humans, has its whores. They are given cabin cruisers, junkets and incentives to peddle prescriptions. They pay out millions a year JUST in speaking fees.
This ho parlayed her public career at the CDC into a richly rewarding stint at Merck. Recently she sold $$$Millions in shares at Merck. I wonder what she did as a favor to Merck?
Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.
Executive Vice President & Chief Patient Officer, Strategic Communications, Global Public Policy and Population Health
Julie L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.
Executive Vice President & Chief Patient Officer, Strategic Communications, Global Public Policy and Population Health
- Executive Vice President & Chief Patient Officer, Strategic Communications, Global Public Policy and Population Health, Merck & Co., Inc., 2016
- Executive vice president, Strategic Communications, Global Public Policy and Population Health, Merck & Co., Inc., 2014
- President, Merck Vaccines, 2010-2014
- Co-Chair, Board of Directors, Sanofi Pasteur MSD Joint Venture, 2010-present
- Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2002-2009
- Director, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, CDC, 1998-2002
- Adjunct Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine in Infectious Disease, University of California, San Francisco, 2002-present
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! And there it is!! When all other arguments fail, say the organizations that do the research are corrupt and bought off. Because...well, there are thousands of people involved in these groups and, well...um...right.
If you had any idea how science actually works, you would realize how stupid statements like this are. Even if you do find some "whores", there are ten more people who aren't and would debunk any bullshit said "whore" tried to produce. Not to mention, these conclusions are far bigger than the AMA. Every other research and medical organization agrees with them. The number of people that would have to be involved in this conspiracy and the amount of money it would cost to run it would make the entire effort pointless because whatever money they planned on earning would be used up in maintaining the conspiracy.
