Also, earlier, you claimed that if germ theory were correct that everyone who was exposed to a pathogen would contract the disease, but then brought up the idea that taking your tonsils out increases the chances of the polio virus causing paralysis. Umm...so which is it? I shouldn't bother asking, since you aren't actually a germ theory denialist at all. (Total false advertising.)
It's from 1942 and it was written up in the A.M.A Five of the six children of an Akron family had their tonsils out one day last summer and within 48 hours all five came down with infantile paralysis. Three of them died. The sixth child did not contract paralysis. There had been no epidemic of the disease in Akron and none followed.
A group of researchers from the University of Michigan, Western Reserve University and Akron's Children's Hospital investigated this puzzling case, published their findings last fortnight in the A.M.A. Journal. The investigators discovered that the infantile paralysis (poliomyelitis) virus was present in the feces of the sixth child.
They also found the virus in two groups of cousins with whom the children had come in contact, and in one family of neighborhood playmates—ten children in all. Yet none of these children, though harboring the polio virus, got the disease. The researchers conclude that in the case of the five paralyzed children the tonsil operation was "the precipitating factor," warn doctors and parents that tonsil operations are dangerous during the poliomyelitis season (summer and fall),
even though the disease "is not notably prevalent in a community." Probable connection between tonsillectomies and poliomyelitis: nerves injured by surgery are more susceptible to polio infection, so that the latent virus could travel readily from the injured throat nerves to the medulla oblongata, where the spinal cord enters the brain.
remember this was 1942 and they did not understand the actual purpose of tonsils then.
@sierraz36 If you are making the argument that germ theory is scientifically debunked, you cannot be anything BUT a germ theory denier. The fact of the matter is that it has NOT been debunked. Indeed it has been shown correct repeatedly.
@sierraz36 No, that is exactly what I meant to say. My only error is to think that you were sharp enough to follow. I guess I should have paid closer attention to the evidence you have provided indicating otherwise.
Evidence for Germ theory? How about "flesh eating" bacteria? That is one where it is easy to watch the activities of the bacteria destroy the surrounding cells. What happens when the proper antibiotic is given? The bacteria die and the flesh stops necrotizing.
@sierraz36 I cannot explain it any more clearly to you. These bacteria exist. They do not suddenly change nature. They cause the condition. When they are killed, the condition goes away.
It is readily apparent that all you are doing is spouting some nonsense you read on a blog.
@sierraz36 What is erroneous about my knowledge of germ theory? Your question in and of itself shows that you do not understand it. The bacteria do not "only cause the condition sometimes". They cause the condition when they are able to enter the otherwise closed system. That does not require poor health.
Indeed, different bacteria are affected by different antibiotics and they can to an extent be targeted.
Dead bacteria are no more of a problem than all of the other dead cells in your body.
@sierraz36 Your body is indeed for all intents and purposes a closed system.
As to why some people can be carriers of disease without illness, its a matter of biochemistry and immunity. Just because you have the virus in you and are not getting sick does not mean that the virus is not reproducing. It means that your particular system fights it off before that infection runs rampant and causes problems. Just because not everyone gets actively sick has no bearing on the validity of the theory.
@sierraz36 Overwhelming reproduction is the REASON for sickness dolt. If the immune system has been exposed previously or for some reason that person's unique biochemistry prevents more than a sub-clinical infection, the person will not be sickened by the pathogen. That does not change the fact that the pathogen is the source of the illness. One individual not getting sick is no less proof against germ theory than one person surviving a car crash is proof that car crashes do not kill people.
okay so we are once again changing the criteria from merely being in the (completely wrong) "closed system" to being in the so called "closed system" and replicating.
Are you saying sometimes the virus replicates and causes sickness and some times the virus replicates and doesn't cause sickness?
At least your now admitting you were wrong when you said "if the virus or bacteria enters the "closed system" you will get sick...
@sierraz36 I did not change any criteria. Notice how you just brushed aside the quantitative describers given for replication?
My admitting? You're an idiot. Further, no I did not admit to being wrong. My statement was a generality directed at your asinine statement concerning all people who come in contact will get sick or else germ theory is invalid. I have explained it. You are an imbecile.
@sierraz36 No, it does not shatter germ theory in any way shape or form that a virus can get into a system that already has immunity or for some reason has a different biochemistry. What you are showing is an alarming ignorance of how the body fights infection.
"If the immune system has been exposed previously or for some reason that person's unique biochemistry prevents more than a sub-clinical infection, the person will not be sickened by the pathogen."
sub-clinical infection implies that although the virus is there and no symptoms are manifesting, they are still an active form of disease and are playing havoc with that person's health.(though they do not register on common tests)
@sierraz36 They do NOT bypass (one word) the immune system. They bypass one PART of the immune system. Think of a castle with a moat. If you swam the moat would you have conquered all of its defenses? How do you know if the wall inside is strong enough to protect against attackers who can swim? Who will react better to the new swimming attackers, a defender in the castle who has never seen that attack before or one who has seen someone swim the moat and had to kill that attacker on its own?
@sierraz36 No, that is not what sub-clinical means. The very idea means that the infection is NOT playing havoc with the person's health. Rather, the infection has either not reached a stage of becoming symptomatic (a natural selection survival mechanism for a pathogen) or the person's unique body chemistry for some reason does not fight a low level infection. Thiamine deficiency is not an example of sub-clinical infection. It is a DEFICIENCY in nutrition.
Living organisms are considered open systems because they take in substances from their environment such as food and air and return other substances to their environment. Humans, for example, inhale oxygen out of the environment and exhale carbon dioxide into the environment..
In contrast, a watch is an example of a closed system in that it is a relatively self-contained, self-maintaining unit that has little interacts or exchange with its environment.
@sierraz36 Remember that this was before the invention of the vaccine which made polio disappear in the Western world. Tonsils are removed more now than ever. Why, if the poliovirus is not the cause of the sickness, hasn't there been a precipitous rise in cases? The fact that tonsillectomies could increase risk is moot. You can get polio with your tonsils. You can't get polio without the viral infection causing it.
@batigol47 Actually , once again you are completely mistaken. Tonsils are removed INFREQUENTLY. Go read the stats. In the 20's 30's and 40's there were considered "useless" and easily infected, and hence frequently removed. Not today. Polio has not been eradicated by the vaccine at all. It is now called various types of meningitis. Show me people with polio paralysis and tonsils. oh.. and good luck ;)
@sierraz36 400,000 tonsillectomies are performed annually in the US. Indeed that is less than the 1950's, but irrelevant to the point. It remains a common procedure, yet polio has disappeared. Upon further reading you find that tonsillectomies did not decrease until the 1960's, AFTER the decrease in polio cases. Again this reiterates that it is the VIRUS that is responsible for polio and that with the removal of the virus, the risk factor presented by tonsillectomy is moot.
@batigol47 In regards to your "polio disappeared" statement" Remember the Cutter incident? No, I don't think you do... In 1955, within days of the first mass trial of the Salk injectable polio vaccine, 1.8 million children in the United States, hundreds of its recipients and their contacts developed paralysis. So did they pull the vaccine? Of course not! They REDEFINED the classic definition of polio... Which is EXACTLY why you think polio was eradicated when it has not been at all.
I'm just wondering.. does it trouble you that polio vaccine still, to this day, is contaminated with monkey viruses, of which, the most famous is SV40?
How about this fact:
Only irrelevant and flawed epidemiological research showed that thimerosal
in vaccines is not associated with serious neurological problems.
CBS News has found that since 1988, the vaccine court has awarded money judgments, often in the millions of dollars, to thirteen hundred and twenty two families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. In many of these cases, the government paid out awards following a judicial finding that vaccine injury lead to the child’s autism spectrum disorder.
@sierraz36 There is not ONE finding that a vaccine caused ASD. Not one.
That the court has paid out a little more than a million dollars in total award (including attorney fees) on every compensation means it is serving its exact purpose. in 23 years, only 2631 cases have been compensated out of how many billions of vaccine doses given? Yes, vaccines can injure and even kill. However it is a statistically minor number and they are being compensated. Meanwhile childhood disease rates plummet.
@sierraz36 SV-40 is NOT a contaminant any longer, nor has it been in the West for half a century. SV-40 has never been proven detrimental in humans either.
How about this fact: there is no evidence that shows thimerosal in doses found in vaccines could be detrimental. That is the positive statement and the one that can be proven.
@sierraz36 What is your source for the last batch being used in 1991? The last batch to contain it in the US was made in 1961 and there is absolutely no way that a batch was still being used 30 years later.
The courts have not awarded anything for thimerosal damage. Post your evidence that they have.
Common neurological symptoms of mercury poisoning that occur in children are: decreased eye contact, flat affect, repeating certain actions over and over again, not responding to their name, not looking at an object that is being pointed at by another, poor concentration or attention, sensitivity to sensory stimulation.
Common language or speech symptoms of mercury poisoning: loss of speech, delayed speech decreased understanding and articulating words, remembering certain words.
Also common are social problems such as withdrawal, being irritated, aggressive behavior, night terrors and other sleep problems, mood swings. In addition other symptoms include auto-immune disorders such as multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes, asthma, chromic ear infections, and decreased immunity.
and considering thimerosal IS mercury and the children have the change AFTER vaccination....
I would have to conclude that yes, mercury in vaccines causes injury, and the courts have been awarding money for children who are BRAIN DAMAGED (ie the neurological symptoms of mercury poisoning)
I would have to say they are receiving compensation for the horrific damage the vaccine did to their child.
@sierraz36 Of course you are ignoring the HOST of physiological symptoms that accompany mercury poisoning in children: loss of hair, teeth and nails, skin discoloration, excessive sweating and saliva, tachycardia, hypertension and shedding of skin.
The fact that some symptoms match does not make it correct. There are multitudes of diseases and syndromes that may display similar symptoms. It is the DIFFERENCES that matter.
The ubiquitous human polyomaviruses, BK virus and JC virus, have been associated with the induction of these neoplasms in animal models. A related monkey polyomavirus, simian virus 40 (SV40), is highly tumorigenic in rodents and also induces choroid plexus papillomas.
METHODS: We tested the possibility that polyomaviruses were associated with these tumors in humans. Tumors from 31 children--20 with choroid plexus neoplasms and 11 with ependymomas--
were evaluated for the presence of polyomavirus T-antigen gene sequences by means of amplification with the polymerase chain reaction.
RESULTS: Ten of the 20 choroid plexus tumors and 10 of the 11 ependymomas contained amplification products that preferentially hybridized to probes specific for SV40 viral DNA rather than BK or JC viral DNA. In two specimens, DNA sequencing demonstrated that the amplified sequence was identical to the sequence of that region of the SV40 gene.
In three other specimens, amplification with SV40-specific primers revealed a 574-bp segment of the SV40 viral gene. In 7 of 11 tumors examined by immunohistochemical staining, viral T antigen was expressed in the nuclei of the neoplastic cells.
CONCLUSIONS: Half of the choroid plexus tumors and most of the ependymomas that we studied contained and expressed a segment of T-antigen gene related to SV40. These results suggest that SV40 or a closely related virus may have an etiologic role in the development of these neoplasms during childhood, as in animal models.
Still think SV40 has never been proven detrimental in humans either???
"These results suggest that SV40 or a closely related virus may have an etiologic role in the development of these neoplasms during childhood, as in animal models."
you think the word "suggest" invalidates the results?
@sierraz36 I did not say anything invalidated results. You seem to ignore the important word in the sentence: MAY. Further studies have been done and so far none has shown beyond reasonable scientific doubt that SV-40 causes human cancer. I wonder what you think of Gardasil and HPV, because the case for HPV as cancer causing is FAR stronger.
@sierraz36 Studies from 2010 that showed no link: PMID: 20717113; PMID: 20576103; PMID: 20513084; PMID: 20176487
Now there are a few that leave the question open, but none that show it does. These studies all point to several necessary conditions for SV-40 to have an impact. ex. PMID: 20178601;PMID: 21460851
It is also being used in ANTI-cancer gene therapy research.
If you had a job with one goal, and I gave 50 million dollars a year to reach your goal, how many years should you be given to reach the goal before you are fired?
@sierraz36 That depends entirely on the project. Presuming that you are talking about combating measles, 50 million dollars is not much money. There are more than 50 million people born every year and expecting to catch them all at a dollar per person is ludicrous.
@sierraz36 The Cutter incident was a case of poor manufacturing, not of a general vaccine failure. Are all green onions bad because batches have been contaminated with e. coli or hep A in the past?
The claim that polio has been simply "redefined" is absolute bs perpetrated by quacks like Sherri Tenpenny. It has no validity. Where are they hiding all of these maimed children and adults with their ventilators?
@sierraz36 Tonsillectomies declined AFTER polio did. Where are all of the cases? Furthermore, you said it was renamed aseptic meningitis and the case rates have actually remained steady. There are still 400000 tonsillectomies each year. Where are the cases?
@sierraz36 Again, where are all of these kids who suffered from your renamed polio hiding. If it's a/v meningitis, where are they hiding all of the kids on ventilators? Of course this ignores the fact that v/a meningitis is a potential complication from a host of pathogens, not just polio. Further, viral meningitis cases can now be tested for causative agents. Where are all the polio induced cases? Or do you think the conspiracy is so large that every lab knows to throw JUST those results out?
@sierraz36 I know what I am talking about. What exactly do you think I "made up"?
What is clear is that you only know the things spoonfed to you by quacks like Tenpenny.
Notice how this was the only one in the past series you replied to as well? What is apparent from that is you are so concrete as to not understand Socratic method.
"From 1923 to 1953,before the Salk killed-virus vaccine was introduced, the polio death rate in the United States and England had already declined ON IT"S OWN by 47 percent and 55 percent, respectively. Source International Mortality Statistics (1981) by Michael Alderson."
@sierraz36 It did NOT drop on its own dolt, and "it's" means it is. It dropped because of the advent of the iron lung and improved understanding of treatment during the cases. The polio case rate, the important stat, was not decreasing. The overall trend of the half century prior to the vaccine was a rise in case rate, with expected peaks and valleys. After the vaccine was introduced the case rate plummeted and never returned.
@sierraz36 Even your own anti vax idiots do not dispute it. Yet again you show how stupid you are. A search of poliomyelitis incidence rates in the US from 1915 will give you a plethora of links to it. Aside from the outlier of 1915, which was an epidemic that convinced the government to begin tracking the disease, NOT the beginning of it, contrary to the anti-vaxers, the general trend up to the release of the vaccine was a steady rise that was peaking in the pre-vax epidemic of the late 40s.
You keep saying look into this or that or the next thing - while at the same time dismissing any actual source of information available. If academic research is bull. The CDC is bull. The FDA is bull. The WHO is bull (which is were I am getting my measles mortality info). PubMed is bull (which includes journals from all sorts of academic medical journals). Then what's left? I suppose what's left costs $19.95?
"They (CDC, ACIP and Merck) are passing off estimated, hypothetical numbers as actual cases. This is statistical fraud. In the financial world such mis-representation would lead to criminal charges. If a company inflated its earnings or revenues by 300% (as the CDC does hepatitis B disease statistics) and foisted those figures off as official data (and not some back-of-the-envelope guess-timate) - that company would be investigated by the SEC and sued by shareholders.
Why doesn’t that happen in the medical world? There’s no regulator to keep the CDC honest. They do not say those figures are hypothetical estimates, they misrepresent the data. Go try to audit those 320,000 supposed new infections/yr. You will not find them. The whole exercise is designed to increase public hysteria about the risk of a low-risk disease so the CDC can extend it’s pervasive influence and Merck can increase it’s $900 million/year vaccine revenues."---Michael Belkin
@sierraz36 Michael Belkin is not a scientist, he is a money man. The study of disease is not the same as the analysis of the market. That is his argument however; that you cannot "audit" cases. Ironic indeed that he is PAID by anti-vaccination/alt-health industries to discredit medicine.
@batigol47 So in spite of the fact that Michael Belkin is a "money man" (as you say) are you agreeing with him that it is impossible to verify any stats provided by the CDC??
If the stats provided by the CDC cannot be verified, then how can can we possibly rely on it's information?
I can give you examples of when the CDC gets caught with it's pants down exaggerating numbers.. and they always say the same thing...
@sierraz36 It is asinine to expect acknowledged estimations to be verifiable. They are estimations. To expect an accounting would be akin to offering a census annually for each disease. The tactic being used by Belkin is disingenuous and designed solely to undermine, not to "prove" anything. The studies which give stats based on estimation offer their methodologies. The irony is that the anti-establishment folks also crucify what they believe are underestimations made using the same methods.
When the CDC lists stats on it's website pertaining to disease, they do not call them estimates.
Think about it. People go there looking for ACTUAL numbers not "guesstimates"
They only call them estimates when they are caught FALSIFYING information.
To use CDC stats as actual numbers until they are proven to be false numbers, and then lowering the "threat" of "the lie" by calling them estimates is deceitful.
The CDC even reported a measles outbreak in a documented 100% vaccinated population.
source:MMWR. 33(24),6/22/84.
A study examining this phenomenon concluded, “The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.
Failure to reach the goal of measles elimination. Apparent paradox of measles infections in immunized persons.
Review article: 50 REFS. Dept. of Internal Medicine, Mayo Vaccine Research Group, Mayo Clinic Foundation, Rochester, MN. Archives of Internal Medicine. 154(16):1815-20, 1994 Aug 22.
Japan experienced yearly increases in small pox following the introduction of compulsory vaccines in 1872. By 1892, there were 29,979 deaths, and all had been vaccinated
source: Trevor Gunn, Mass Immunization, A Point in Question, at 15 (citing E.D. Hume, Pasteur Exposed-The False Foundations of Modern Medicine, Bookreal, Australia, 1989.)
The Medical Sentinel recently reported, “from 1911 to 1935, the four leading causes of childhood deaths from infectious diseases in the U.S. were diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945 the combined death rates from these causes had declined by 95 percent, before the implementation of mass immunization programs.
source:Harold Buttram, M.D., “Vaccine Scene 2000, Review and Update,” Medical Sentinel, Vol.5 No. 2, March/April 2000.
“Hot Lots”—vaccine lots associated with disproportionately high death and disability rates—have been repeatedly identified by the NVIC, but the FDA consistently refuses to intervene to prevent further unnecessary injury and deaths. In fact, individual vaccine lots have never been recalled due to their greater incidence of adverse reactions. However, the rotavirus vaccine was taken off the market a few months after being introduced when it caused bowel obstructions in many recipients.
Incredibly, the FDA and CDC knew about this problem prior to licensing the vaccine, but both organizations still gave their unanimous approval
source:Chairman/Congressman Dan Burton, Committee of Government Reform, Opening Statement, “FACA: Conflicts of Interest and Vaccine Development, Preserving the Integrity of the Process,” June 2000.
Are we talking about the same system that protected Bayer, who knew it had millions of dollars worth of aids infected injectable blood-clotting medicine — Factor VIII concentrate, and instead of destroying it, sold it to Asia and Europe?
FDA regulators helped to keep the continued sales hidden, asking the company that the problem be ”quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public,” according to the minutes of a 1985 meeting
@sierraz36 The FDA has ZERO control over sales in foreign countries. Beyond that, they did not KNOW the extent of tainting as a test had not been created. Many countries they sold it to had not approved the new version. There were shortages of the new version. Without any medicine these people would die immediately, forget the chance of catching a disease later from the treatment. In a perfect world they would have torched it all and money would not be an issue. To expect that is simply naive.
Actually there was no shortage of the new version, or problems with approval.
Yet even AFTER it began selling the new product, the company KEPT MAKING the old medicine for several months more. A telex from Cutter to a distributor suggests one reason behind that decision, too: the company had several fixed-price contracts and believed that the old product would be cheaper to produce.
so your saying, that in any injectable material used for medicine, we should not expect it to be untainted, nor should we expect the public to be informed if that was the case?
....and you roll up your sleeve and call me NAIVE??? in case your wondering my source for the above was the New York Times By WALT BOGDANICH and ERIC KOLI
Any time that you take a blood product there is some risk, the question is one of how much. At the point we are discussing, it was completely unknown what that risk was. They had no way of testing. All they knew was that there were patients who had received Factor VIII who were subsequently sick with no other risk factors.
The public by that point WAS aware of the risk. The FDA did its job in the US, which is the only place it has any control.
@sierraz36 Yes, there was a shortage of the new one. It is a demonstrable fact. There were plasma shortages which in turn led to factor product shortages. It is also certain that the new version was not approved in all of the places the old one was being sold.
I would not argue that price was not A reason. I would argue that it is not THE reason.
as for your lame "the new version was not approved in all of the places the old one was being sold."
Hsu Chien-wen, an official at Taiwan's health department, said in 2003 that Cutter had not applied for permission to sell the heated medicine until July 1985.
In late 1984, when a Hong Kong distributor asked Cutter about the newer product, records show that Cutter asked the distributor to "use up stocks" of the old medicine before switching to its "safer, better" product
While the new product was selling well for Cutter, a Cutter company meeting notes that "There is excess nonheated inventory", which resulted in the company deciding to "review international markets again to determine if more of this product can be sold."Cutter decided to sell millions of dollars of the older medicine to Asia and Latin America while selling the new, safer product in the West, to avoid being stuck with large stores of a product that was proving increasingly unmarketable.
@sierraz36 The point remains that they did not know what level of risk they were dealing with and indeed they had been selling the same product for many years without complaint. The new version was more expensive (not in the case of existing contracts mind you) and the standard contracts would have had an effect on price of the new product worldwide. I agree that in hindsight countries should have anted up and Cutter acted with greater morality, but many haemo. are still alive from the old med.
@sierraz36 Straight from the wiki; read the rest. The execs and officials you mentioned going to jail were French delayed approval because they wanted a French made version.
You are also ignoring that this was almost 30 years ago, that the US system worked, that procedures exist to limit future risks and that US sufferers were compensated.
Companies make decisions based on risk in all business. There is difference between moral and legal. It is a big reason for social notforprofit HealthCare.
@sierraz36 No matter what they were using the plasma on it did not change that there was a shortage. That shortage came in no small part from the public knowledge of tainting and the high-risk areas the companies had relied upon to get the plasma. It was a Catch-22. The "millions upon millions" number is also hyperbolic. The numbers are more likely in the tens or hundreds of thousands, though there is no real way to know. The execs were french who cheated THEIR LAW to get a french product.
@sierraz36 Let's start with scarlet fever: It all but disappeared because of the advent of antibiotics prior to 1945. Beyond that you once again are ignoring that mortality rates are NOT the important statistic, particularly during that era. It was a time of HUGE advances in modern medicine. Drs were better able to treat the diseases. Dip had an anti-toxin beginning in the 1890s and the vax was available in... wait for it ...1913. Pertussis vax: 1906. Both lowered mortality and case rates.
@sierraz36 I can explain that you are an idiot. A drop in mortality rates does not require a drop in cases. A drop in cases however will drop mortality rates. As treatments improved, death was less apparent. That does not mean people were not suffering from the sickness and potential long term effects despite surviving the infections.
I did not use mortality to close my post either. I said that the aforementioned things dropped mortality AND case rates for the specific ones you mentioned.
Funny.. you sound frustrated and often resort to name calling.. is that because it's difficult for you to keep "explaining away" years and years of obvious ineffectiveness and injuries?
@sierraz36 I am only frustrated by your continually asinine comments. You show that you are either oblivious or purposefully obtuse in order to achieve your agenda.
I do not have to explain away the fact that every time a vaccine has been introduced in the modern era the case rates have plummeted only to return when vax levels fell (ie Dip in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Iron Curtain or Polio in afghanistan under the Taliban).
@sierraz36 Your having had a disease disproves it has "all but disappeared"? Scarlet Fever was a scourge before the vaccine was invented and then the antibiotics which rendered the vaccine unnecessary. It is a fact that case rates have plummeted and deaths are rare. At one point it was expected that 1/10 strep cases advanced to SF. Now, it is rare enough to not even be a mandatory reportable disease with fewer than 10k cases from 99-08 in the US despite an estimated 3 million cases of strep
please provide your sources for the vaccinations for Dip and Pertussis prior to 1945 being given to the public in sufficient quantities as to actually have the effect of lowering both mortality and case rates.
@sierraz36 Both are epidemic diseases. The vaccines did not need to be given to everyone to have the effect, as they could be given in high risk areas where infections had already begun (for example the famous Nome event in 1925).
@sierraz36 In the technical sense, Jenner's vaccine was the first in 1796. However, it was not the only method used which makes 1800's stats on vaccination unreliable. True modern vaccine emanates from Pasteur's work. Without the development of germ theory, it was a guessing game. Ergo, the late 1800s was the infancy of modern vaccination. Post WWI HUGE strides were made. War stimulates medicine research. Improvements in microscopes aided significantly (particularly the EM's in the 30s).
@sierraz36 That is a 35 year old study. It resulted in the addition of a booster dose of vaccine. Once that booster was added, the problem disappeared.
@sierraz36 The 1984 measles outbreak amongst a previously vaccinated group of teens. The study was not wrong. I am not complaining about it. It is evidence that vaccinations work and our understanding continues to progress to make them more effective. The problem was identified and fixed. No such relapses have been recognized since. Over 90% of measles cases are in people who are either entirely unvaccinated or have not received the full dose.
oh really.. maybe you'd care to explain these cases away for me?
- In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organization after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its HIGHEST EVER mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)
- In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People's Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)
- In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article on measles which stated" Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children." (JAMA, 21/11/90)
@sierraz36 So you posted a couple that I missed? Out of the litany of posts you have made? You realize I have to sleep and work right? Oh, I forgot, you are one of those that thinks this is what I do for a living. Man that would be Easy Street....
Should I redirect you to all the end of streams you have left?
@sierraz36 Being that it was just explained to you that in 1978 the recommended schedule was NOT adequate, it should be clear to you why this statement is irrelevant.
@sierraz36 I can find no verification to that claim. All references are that verbatim quote.
No mention of it exists in pub med. Studies on the topic do not mention it (PMID: 6084468, PMID: 7756188,PMID: 6976234) PMID: 111981 discusses AFTER that point the great difficulty in administration in the area, so one has to doubt the veracity. Further, it is evident from the articles that at the time they were giving ONE dose, which as discussed is now KNOWN not to be adequate.
"In May 1990 we started to track DPT vaccine lot numbers when parents reported their child’s hospitalization, injury or death following vaccination to NVIC. Evaluating adverse event reports from more than 90 families, we found multiple serious reports were from the same vaccine lot numbers. NVIC made three separate presentations to government advisory committees between 1990 and 1993, but no substantive action was ever taken by the FDA or CDC.
Upon further investigation when the VAERS computer data became available through the Freedom of Information Act, we found.....many lots with very high numbers of reports; and no recall of any lot of vaccine. We do not know how many doses of vaccine are in each lot because the FDA and the drug companies do not release this information to the public. Therefore, it is impossible to precisely compare one lot to another for reactivity.
Vaccine manufacturers and the FDA will not release the number of doses in each lot of DPT vaccine to the public. Therefore it is not possible to totally, accurately compare the reactivity of one lot to another lot. In the past fifty years reports of "hot lots" of vaccines, those that appear to be associated with more injuries and deaths than others, have been reported in the United States and Europe."--NVIC
On Wednesday March 21 this office learned from the CDC, Atlanta that Wyeth Labs, after discussions with the CDC, had agreed to recall DPT vaccine associated with sudden unexplained infant deaths in Tennessee. The vaccine associated with these deaths was all of a single lot number - 64201."
Remember, just one recall disproves your assertion.
@sierraz36 Not at all. I am saying that you do not understand the value of estimation and try to undermine it by making asinine arguments. They do not wait. It is inherent in the language they use. It is not their fault that people like you are too stupid to recognize that when someone says "about" it means estimation. No doubt you are the type that moves Hollywood to beat us over the head with exposition in every movie so that you can understand the plot.
So when the CDC claims that influenza is "a highly contagious virus that causes an average of 36,000 deaths and 200,000 hospitalizations in the U.S. every year", I should understand that that is just an estimate and do some more investigating?
I took your advice and here are some of the results.
The 2004 flu season CDC "estimate" of deaths from flu =69, 984
Actual deaths from flu=753.
Funny, the remaining 65,231 were deaths from pneumonia...
@sierraz36 Now I know you are stupid. Why not go to the CDC page on flu and look up symptoms? There you will find the following statement: "Pneumonia, bronchitis, and sinus and ear infections are three examples of complications from flu. "
You should learn not to make factually erroneous statements.
@sierraz36 Again with the Tenpenny disingenuity. Where did that pneumonia come from? Normal healthy people do not develop pneumonia Influenza virus causes pneumonia. If you were in a car wreck that severed your carotid artery, would you label that a vehicular death or a blood loss death?
@sierraz36 You certainly seem to imply that academic research was bull. :) I am glad you think otherwise, or there really isn't any use in a discussion since that's really the only source for good information on these topics. I read the FDA info/summary articles that are cited (though I must admit I rarely read the cites unless I'm really looking into something). I look to the CDC and WHO for numbers - I don't know who else compiles them.
@sierraz36 I am getting a bit frustrated because your evidence isn't evidence against vaccines in general - and doesn't conflict with anything I have said. I assert that the health of an individual is just one factor of many as to why some people get sick due to a pathogen and others do not. It also depends on the pathogen. Whether or not a vaccine campaign is a good idea depends on the pathogen and the situation. You seem to want to make rules out of exceptions.
How exactly do you "do research" when every organization that actually does research in immunology and collects data (such as infection rates) in your world is lying? I ask you again - are you doing immunological research and independently assessing death/injury/infection rates in your basement - or are you just denying the validity of mainstream research and putting your trust in a couple authors of books you happen to read?
Ok - so you believe that viruses exist and that they cause disease. At least that's something. For a while I thought you were actually a germ theory denialist, and now I realize that you just have some sort of hybrid concept of disease where "germs" matter, but "filth" (whatever that is) matters more and that somehow everyone with tonsils is immune to polio virus. I still have no idea where you are getting your information.
@sierraz36 You display a BASIC lack of understanding on pathology and the immune system. It doesnt matter how "healthy" you are; if I exposed you to hep A and you were not vaccinated, (presuming that you are living in the Western World where it is uncommon to have been exposed as a small child) it is a near certainty that you would develop the illness. HOW sick you get is highly variable on your individual biology, but the virus will make you sick.
@sierraz36 Apparently you did not read mine. 10 children do not constitute a significant sample. That tonsillectomies increase risk is irrelevant in the age of vaccination. Kids who had tonsils did get polio. Many who did not have tonsils did not get polio. However, kids who do not get exposed to the poliovirus do NOT get polio 100% of the time.
It is "you're" by the way, and if you expect anyone to take you seriously, I suggest you learn that one.
Autism is a plague! All of those infected with it must be euthanized! no threat intended
multisnootylives1 6 months ago
Also, earlier, you claimed that if germ theory were correct that everyone who was exposed to a pathogen would contract the disease, but then brought up the idea that taking your tonsils out increases the chances of the polio virus causing paralysis. Umm...so which is it? I shouldn't bother asking, since you aren't actually a germ theory denialist at all. (Total false advertising.)
sinmantyx 9 months ago
@sinmantyx
Maybe this will help you understand
It's from 1942 and it was written up in the A.M.A Five of the six children of an Akron family had their tonsils out one day last summer and within 48 hours all five came down with infantile paralysis. Three of them died. The sixth child did not contract paralysis. There had been no epidemic of the disease in Akron and none followed.
sierraz36 9 months ago
A group of researchers from the University of Michigan, Western Reserve University and Akron's Children's Hospital investigated this puzzling case, published their findings last fortnight in the A.M.A. Journal. The investigators discovered that the infantile paralysis (poliomyelitis) virus was present in the feces of the sixth child.
sierraz36 9 months ago
They also found the virus in two groups of cousins with whom the children had come in contact, and in one family of neighborhood playmates—ten children in all. Yet none of these children, though harboring the polio virus, got the disease. The researchers conclude that in the case of the five paralyzed children the tonsil operation was "the precipitating factor," warn doctors and parents that tonsil operations are dangerous during the poliomyelitis season (summer and fall),
sierraz36 9 months ago
even though the disease "is not notably prevalent in a community." Probable connection between tonsillectomies and poliomyelitis: nerves injured by surgery are more susceptible to polio infection, so that the latent virus could travel readily from the injured throat nerves to the medulla oblongata, where the spinal cord enters the brain.
remember this was 1942 and they did not understand the actual purpose of tonsils then.
sierraz36 9 months ago
and just in case you don't remember ..
You labeled ME a germ theory denier....
all i said was that germ theory was scientifically debunked, and not a useful theory to pin your health on.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 If you are making the argument that germ theory is scientifically debunked, you cannot be anything BUT a germ theory denier. The fact of the matter is that it has NOT been debunked. Indeed it has been shown correct repeatedly.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
oh?
It has?
I think your mistaken.
Show me scientific evidence of the validity of germ theory.
After all, your the one claiming it is correct, so put your money where you mouth is.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 MY mistaken? What did I tell you?
batigol47 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@batigol47
I think you meant to say "I'm mistaken?" instead of MY mistaken?...
you said
"The fact of the matter is that it has NOT been debunked. Indeed it has been shown correct repeatedly."
so I asked you for scientific evidence of the validity of germ theory.
and your response?
"MY mistaken? What did I tell you?"
That is hardly scientific evidence of the validity of germ theory.
Perhaps you'd like to try again?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 No, that is exactly what I meant to say. My only error is to think that you were sharp enough to follow. I guess I should have paid closer attention to the evidence you have provided indicating otherwise.
Evidence for Germ theory? How about "flesh eating" bacteria? That is one where it is easy to watch the activities of the bacteria destroy the surrounding cells. What happens when the proper antibiotic is given? The bacteria die and the flesh stops necrotizing.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
how exactly is that proof of germ theory.?. or maybe you do not know what germ theory is..?
I'm starting to suspect you don't...
Here's an idea...!
Go do some research, read up on germ theory and come back and then we can try to have a conversation.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 I cannot explain it any more clearly to you. These bacteria exist. They do not suddenly change nature. They cause the condition. When they are killed, the condition goes away.
It is readily apparent that all you are doing is spouting some nonsense you read on a blog.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
Exactly! You have not one clue of what germ theory is.
Funny, you spend so much time defending something you are not familiar with.
...and in your erroneous understanding of germ theory, why does the bacteria cause the condition only sometimes?
Why are there times when the bacteria is present yet the condition does not develop?
If killing is the solution..:
What is the effect of dead bacteria in the human body?
Is modern medicine capable of only killing the "bad bacteria"?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 What is erroneous about my knowledge of germ theory? Your question in and of itself shows that you do not understand it. The bacteria do not "only cause the condition sometimes". They cause the condition when they are able to enter the otherwise closed system. That does not require poor health.
Indeed, different bacteria are affected by different antibiotics and they can to an extent be targeted.
Dead bacteria are no more of a problem than all of the other dead cells in your body.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
well for one thing
you beliefs are not scientific.
The body is not a "closed system" by any stretch of the imagination.
Are you unaware that the bacteria or viruses can be in a human body, and yet not cause any disease?
I'm surprised you said that as I showed you this earlier in a previous post.
"Yet none of these children, though harboring the polio virus, got the disease."
If germ theory is valid, how can the virus or bacteria be in a system, yet cause no disease?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Your body is indeed for all intents and purposes a closed system.
As to why some people can be carriers of disease without illness, its a matter of biochemistry and immunity. Just because you have the virus in you and are not getting sick does not mean that the virus is not reproducing. It means that your particular system fights it off before that infection runs rampant and causes problems. Just because not everyone gets actively sick has no bearing on the validity of the theory.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
Maybe for you intents and purposes it is a closed system, but in reality it is not.
You said "They cause the condition when they are able to enter the otherwise closed system. "
reconcile that with "just because you have the virus in you and are not getting sick does not mean that the virus is not reproducing"
you clearly stated that in your understanding of germ theory, once the virus is in the "closed system" it causes disease.
For it to not cause disease is to shatter germ theory
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36
If the viruses and bacteria make it through your so called "closed system"and and are not causing illness, reproduction is irrelevant.
Is it your view, that reproduction, although no illness is present, makes a difference?
I still haven't figured out why you added that.
Wouldn't it be smarter to figure out why in some people it works this way instead of injecting poison in all people?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Overwhelming reproduction is the REASON for sickness dolt. If the immune system has been exposed previously or for some reason that person's unique biochemistry prevents more than a sub-clinical infection, the person will not be sickened by the pathogen. That does not change the fact that the pathogen is the source of the illness. One individual not getting sick is no less proof against germ theory than one person surviving a car crash is proof that car crashes do not kill people.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
okay so we are once again changing the criteria from merely being in the (completely wrong) "closed system" to being in the so called "closed system" and replicating.
Are you saying sometimes the virus replicates and causes sickness and some times the virus replicates and doesn't cause sickness?
At least your now admitting you were wrong when you said "if the virus or bacteria enters the "closed system" you will get sick...
hmmm progress AMAZING!
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 I did not change any criteria. Notice how you just brushed aside the quantitative describers given for replication?
My admitting? You're an idiot. Further, no I did not admit to being wrong. My statement was a generality directed at your asinine statement concerning all people who come in contact will get sick or else germ theory is invalid. I have explained it. You are an imbecile.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 No, it does not shatter germ theory in any way shape or form that a virus can get into a system that already has immunity or for some reason has a different biochemistry. What you are showing is an alarming ignorance of how the body fights infection.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
you said:
"If the immune system has been exposed previously or for some reason that person's unique biochemistry prevents more than a sub-clinical infection, the person will not be sickened by the pathogen."
sub-clinical infection implies that although the virus is there and no symptoms are manifesting, they are still an active form of disease and are playing havoc with that person's health.(though they do not register on common tests)
example:thiamine deficiency
sierraz36 9 months ago
The next rabbit, you think, you so cleverly pulled out of your hat was "If the immune system has been exposed "
Which brings us to an important topic, and that is how exactly does the human immune system work?
If you had a clue, you would have to concede that injections BY PASS the human immune system and do NOT make it stronger.
That's why vaccinations DO NOT PROTECT anyone of ANYTHING.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 They do NOT bypass (one word) the immune system. They bypass one PART of the immune system. Think of a castle with a moat. If you swam the moat would you have conquered all of its defenses? How do you know if the wall inside is strong enough to protect against attackers who can swim? Who will react better to the new swimming attackers, a defender in the castle who has never seen that attack before or one who has seen someone swim the moat and had to kill that attacker on its own?
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 No, that is not what sub-clinical means. The very idea means that the infection is NOT playing havoc with the person's health. Rather, the infection has either not reached a stage of becoming symptomatic (a natural selection survival mechanism for a pathogen) or the person's unique body chemistry for some reason does not fight a low level infection. Thiamine deficiency is not an example of sub-clinical infection. It is a DEFICIENCY in nutrition.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 What about my "belief" is not scientific? Give evidence. Further, that is not evidence of any error in understanding.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
Living organisms are considered open systems because they take in substances from their environment such as food and air and return other substances to their environment. Humans, for example, inhale oxygen out of the environment and exhale carbon dioxide into the environment..
In contrast, a watch is an example of a closed system in that it is a relatively self-contained, self-maintaining unit that has little interacts or exchange with its environment.
sierraz36 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sierraz36 Thank you for reiterating that you simply do not understand biology.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Remember that this was before the invention of the vaccine which made polio disappear in the Western world. Tonsils are removed more now than ever. Why, if the poliovirus is not the cause of the sickness, hasn't there been a precipitous rise in cases? The fact that tonsillectomies could increase risk is moot. You can get polio with your tonsils. You can't get polio without the viral infection causing it.
batigol47 9 months ago
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 400,000 tonsillectomies are performed annually in the US. Indeed that is less than the 1950's, but irrelevant to the point. It remains a common procedure, yet polio has disappeared. Upon further reading you find that tonsillectomies did not decrease until the 1960's, AFTER the decrease in polio cases. Again this reiterates that it is the VIRUS that is responsible for polio and that with the removal of the virus, the risk factor presented by tonsillectomy is moot.
batigol47 9 months ago 2
sierraz36 9 months ago
Before polio vaccine there were approximately 30,000 to 50,000 cases of polio per year in the US.
After the vaccine (and the redefinition) there were approximately 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral or aseptic meningitis in the US.
Polio still happens today.. in the unvaccinated, it's called polio...in the vaccinated, it's called viral or aseptic meningitis.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36
I'm just wondering.. does it trouble you that polio vaccine still, to this day, is contaminated with monkey viruses, of which, the most famous is SV40?
How about this fact:
Only irrelevant and flawed epidemiological research showed that thimerosal
in vaccines is not associated with serious neurological problems.
sierraz36 9 months ago
CBS News has found that since 1988, the vaccine court has awarded money judgments, often in the millions of dollars, to thirteen hundred and twenty two families whose children suffered brain damage from vaccines. In many of these cases, the government paid out awards following a judicial finding that vaccine injury lead to the child’s autism spectrum disorder.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36
pretty cool, the government giving away money for something that doesn't happen, huh?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 There is not ONE finding that a vaccine caused ASD. Not one.
That the court has paid out a little more than a million dollars in total award (including attorney fees) on every compensation means it is serving its exact purpose. in 23 years, only 2631 cases have been compensated out of how many billions of vaccine doses given? Yes, vaccines can injure and even kill. However it is a statistically minor number and they are being compensated. Meanwhile childhood disease rates plummet.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
plummet?
what happened to your million of dead kids from measles??
I don't know about you but a million sounds like a lot to me....
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Waiting for you to quote me saying a million kids die of measles each year.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
finally batty, your right about something,It was not you who posted it, but someone else who posted to you.
It was in the same vein as all the other ridiculous things you say, so it was easy to ascribe it you to.
My apologies.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 My right? Good job.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 SV-40 is NOT a contaminant any longer, nor has it been in the West for half a century. SV-40 has never been proven detrimental in humans either.
How about this fact: there is no evidence that shows thimerosal in doses found in vaccines could be detrimental. That is the positive statement and the one that can be proven.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
yes you are right about it being a "contaminant" any longer... the last confirmed batch of tainted vaccine containing SV40 was used up in 1991.
In regards to your belief that "there is no evidence that shows thimerosal in doses found in vaccines could be detrimental."....
The courts disagree with you and award damages every year to people who have been harmed.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 What is your source for the last batch being used in 1991? The last batch to contain it in the US was made in 1961 and there is absolutely no way that a batch was still being used 30 years later.
The courts have not awarded anything for thimerosal damage. Post your evidence that they have.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
Sure.
What are the symptoms of mercury poisoning?
Common neurological symptoms of mercury poisoning that occur in children are: decreased eye contact, flat affect, repeating certain actions over and over again, not responding to their name, not looking at an object that is being pointed at by another, poor concentration or attention, sensitivity to sensory stimulation.
sierraz36 9 months ago
Common language or speech symptoms of mercury poisoning: loss of speech, delayed speech decreased understanding and articulating words, remembering certain words.
Also common are social problems such as withdrawal, being irritated, aggressive behavior, night terrors and other sleep problems, mood swings. In addition other symptoms include auto-immune disorders such as multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes, asthma, chromic ear infections, and decreased immunity.
sierraz36 9 months ago
What are the symptoms of Autism?
OH MY GOODNESS!!
It's the same thing as MERCURY POISONING!
and considering thimerosal IS mercury and the children have the change AFTER vaccination....
I would have to conclude that yes, mercury in vaccines causes injury, and the courts have been awarding money for children who are BRAIN DAMAGED (ie the neurological symptoms of mercury poisoning)
I would have to say they are receiving compensation for the horrific damage the vaccine did to their child.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Of course you are ignoring the HOST of physiological symptoms that accompany mercury poisoning in children: loss of hair, teeth and nails, skin discoloration, excessive sweating and saliva, tachycardia, hypertension and shedding of skin.
The fact that some symptoms match does not make it correct. There are multitudes of diseases and syndromes that may display similar symptoms. It is the DIFFERENCES that matter.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Cite your source.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
N Engl J Med. 1992 Apr 9;326(15):988-93.
DNA sequences similar to those of simian virus 40 in ependymomas and choroid plexus tumors of childhood.
Bergsagel DJ, Finegold MJ, Butel JS, Kupsky WJ, Garcea RL.
Division of Pediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Children's Hospital, Boston.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ependymomas and papillomas of the choroid plexus occur in early childhood.
sierraz36 9 months ago
The ubiquitous human polyomaviruses, BK virus and JC virus, have been associated with the induction of these neoplasms in animal models. A related monkey polyomavirus, simian virus 40 (SV40), is highly tumorigenic in rodents and also induces choroid plexus papillomas.
METHODS: We tested the possibility that polyomaviruses were associated with these tumors in humans. Tumors from 31 children--20 with choroid plexus neoplasms and 11 with ependymomas--
sierraz36 9 months ago
were evaluated for the presence of polyomavirus T-antigen gene sequences by means of amplification with the polymerase chain reaction.
RESULTS: Ten of the 20 choroid plexus tumors and 10 of the 11 ependymomas contained amplification products that preferentially hybridized to probes specific for SV40 viral DNA rather than BK or JC viral DNA. In two specimens, DNA sequencing demonstrated that the amplified sequence was identical to the sequence of that region of the SV40 gene.
sierraz36 9 months ago
In three other specimens, amplification with SV40-specific primers revealed a 574-bp segment of the SV40 viral gene. In 7 of 11 tumors examined by immunohistochemical staining, viral T antigen was expressed in the nuclei of the neoplastic cells.
sierraz36 9 months ago
CONCLUSIONS: Half of the choroid plexus tumors and most of the ependymomas that we studied contained and expressed a segment of T-antigen gene related to SV40. These results suggest that SV40 or a closely related virus may have an etiologic role in the development of these neoplasms during childhood, as in animal models.
Still think SV40 has never been proven detrimental in humans either???
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Did you even read that last sentence? Maybe you should try again. Virology has developed significantly since 1992.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
you said SV40 has never been proven detrimental in humans
I proved you wrong.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 And that study does not prove it. Try reading that last sentence again, nimrod.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
ok
"These results suggest that SV40 or a closely related virus may have an etiologic role in the development of these neoplasms during childhood, as in animal models."
you think the word "suggest" invalidates the results?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 I did not say anything invalidated results. You seem to ignore the important word in the sentence: MAY. Further studies have been done and so far none has shown beyond reasonable scientific doubt that SV-40 causes human cancer. I wonder what you think of Gardasil and HPV, because the case for HPV as cancer causing is FAR stronger.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Studies from 2010 that showed no link: PMID: 20717113; PMID: 20576103; PMID: 20513084; PMID: 20176487
Now there are a few that leave the question open, but none that show it does. These studies all point to several necessary conditions for SV-40 to have an impact. ex. PMID: 20178601;PMID: 21460851
It is also being used in ANTI-cancer gene therapy research.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
If you had a job with one goal, and I gave 50 million dollars a year to reach your goal, how many years should you be given to reach the goal before you are fired?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 That depends entirely on the project. Presuming that you are talking about combating measles, 50 million dollars is not much money. There are more than 50 million people born every year and expecting to catch them all at a dollar per person is ludicrous.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 The Cutter incident was a case of poor manufacturing, not of a general vaccine failure. Are all green onions bad because batches have been contaminated with e. coli or hep A in the past?
The claim that polio has been simply "redefined" is absolute bs perpetrated by quacks like Sherri Tenpenny. It has no validity. Where are they hiding all of these maimed children and adults with their ventilators?
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
I guess if they have their tonsils, (tonsillectomies dramatically declined) there is no need for ventilators...lol
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Tonsillectomies declined AFTER polio did. Where are all of the cases? Furthermore, you said it was renamed aseptic meningitis and the case rates have actually remained steady. There are still 400000 tonsillectomies each year. Where are the cases?
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
look up viral or aseptic meningitis.
I thought i made that clear earlier...
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Again, where are all of these kids who suffered from your renamed polio hiding. If it's a/v meningitis, where are they hiding all of the kids on ventilators? Of course this ignores the fact that v/a meningitis is a potential complication from a host of pathogens, not just polio. Further, viral meningitis cases can now be tested for causative agents. Where are all the polio induced cases? Or do you think the conspiracy is so large that every lab knows to throw JUST those results out?
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
So instead of actually looking up what i told you to look up, you decided to spout ridiculousness you made up in your own mind?
That's helpful.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 I know what I am talking about. What exactly do you think I "made up"?
What is clear is that you only know the things spoonfed to you by quacks like Tenpenny.
Notice how this was the only one in the past series you replied to as well? What is apparent from that is you are so concrete as to not understand Socratic method.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
"From 1923 to 1953,before the Salk killed-virus vaccine was introduced, the polio death rate in the United States and England had already declined ON IT"S OWN by 47 percent and 55 percent, respectively. Source International Mortality Statistics (1981) by Michael Alderson."
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 It did NOT drop on its own dolt, and "it's" means it is. It dropped because of the advent of the iron lung and improved understanding of treatment during the cases. The polio case rate, the important stat, was not decreasing. The overall trend of the half century prior to the vaccine was a rise in case rate, with expected peaks and valleys. After the vaccine was introduced the case rate plummeted and never returned.
batigol47 9 months ago
Comment removed
sierraz36 9 months ago
@batigol47
wow
do you really believe that?
It ABSOLUTELY declined on it's own, and there are thousands of of research materials that make this point.
Are you once again going to state mortality rates are unimportant again?
you say "The overall trend of the half century prior to the vaccine was a rise in case rate"
please give me your source for this erroneous statement.
I think you are confusing it with the rise in case rate that occurred AFTER vaccination was implemented.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Even your own anti vax idiots do not dispute it. Yet again you show how stupid you are. A search of poliomyelitis incidence rates in the US from 1915 will give you a plethora of links to it. Aside from the outlier of 1915, which was an epidemic that convinced the government to begin tracking the disease, NOT the beginning of it, contrary to the anti-vaxers, the general trend up to the release of the vaccine was a steady rise that was peaking in the pre-vax epidemic of the late 40s.
batigol47 9 months ago
You keep saying look into this or that or the next thing - while at the same time dismissing any actual source of information available. If academic research is bull. The CDC is bull. The FDA is bull. The WHO is bull (which is were I am getting my measles mortality info). PubMed is bull (which includes journals from all sorts of academic medical journals). Then what's left? I suppose what's left costs $19.95?
sinmantyx 9 months ago
@sinmantyx
I never said academic research is bull. I think maybe your getting frustrated??
I showed you the FDA had an agenda, and because of it's agenda, I do not think they provide truthful information.
I do not believe reading propaganda is helpful.
Sorry if that's a problem for you.
sierraz36 9 months ago
"They (CDC, ACIP and Merck) are passing off estimated, hypothetical numbers as actual cases. This is statistical fraud. In the financial world such mis-representation would lead to criminal charges. If a company inflated its earnings or revenues by 300% (as the CDC does hepatitis B disease statistics) and foisted those figures off as official data (and not some back-of-the-envelope guess-timate) - that company would be investigated by the SEC and sued by shareholders.
sierraz36 9 months ago
Why doesn’t that happen in the medical world? There’s no regulator to keep the CDC honest. They do not say those figures are hypothetical estimates, they misrepresent the data. Go try to audit those 320,000 supposed new infections/yr. You will not find them. The whole exercise is designed to increase public hysteria about the risk of a low-risk disease so the CDC can extend it’s pervasive influence and Merck can increase it’s $900 million/year vaccine revenues."---Michael Belkin
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Michael Belkin is not a scientist, he is a money man. The study of disease is not the same as the analysis of the market. That is his argument however; that you cannot "audit" cases. Ironic indeed that he is PAID by anti-vaccination/alt-health industries to discredit medicine.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47 So in spite of the fact that Michael Belkin is a "money man" (as you say) are you agreeing with him that it is impossible to verify any stats provided by the CDC??
If the stats provided by the CDC cannot be verified, then how can can we possibly rely on it's information?
I can give you examples of when the CDC gets caught with it's pants down exaggerating numbers.. and they always say the same thing...
"Errr...Ahhhh.. those were estimates....."
Would you like some examples?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 It is asinine to expect acknowledged estimations to be verifiable. They are estimations. To expect an accounting would be akin to offering a census annually for each disease. The tactic being used by Belkin is disingenuous and designed solely to undermine, not to "prove" anything. The studies which give stats based on estimation offer their methodologies. The irony is that the anti-establishment folks also crucify what they believe are underestimations made using the same methods.
batigol47 9 months ago 2
@batigol47
lmao
oh boy... your a little duller than I thought...
When the CDC lists stats on it's website pertaining to disease, they do not call them estimates.
Think about it. People go there looking for ACTUAL numbers not "guesstimates"
They only call them estimates when they are caught FALSIFYING information.
To use CDC stats as actual numbers until they are proven to be false numbers, and then lowering the "threat" of "the lie" by calling them estimates is deceitful.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Go find a statement that you think is inaccurate on the CDC website. Post it here.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
The CDC even reported a measles outbreak in a documented 100% vaccinated population.
source:MMWR. 33(24),6/22/84.
A study examining this phenomenon concluded, “The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.
Failure to reach the goal of measles elimination. Apparent paradox of measles infections in immunized persons.
sierraz36 9 months ago
sources:
Review article: 50 REFS. Dept. of Internal Medicine, Mayo Vaccine Research Group, Mayo Clinic Foundation, Rochester, MN. Archives of Internal Medicine. 154(16):1815-20, 1994 Aug 22.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@batigol47
In 1989, the country of Oman experienced a widespread polio outbreak six months after achieving complete vaccination
source:Outbreak of paralytic poliomyelitis in Oman; evidence for widespread transmission among fully vaccinated children. Lancet vol 338: Sept 21, 1991; 715-720.
sierraz36 9 months ago
Japan experienced yearly increases in small pox following the introduction of compulsory vaccines in 1872. By 1892, there were 29,979 deaths, and all had been vaccinated
source: Trevor Gunn, Mass Immunization, A Point in Question, at 15 (citing E.D. Hume, Pasteur Exposed-The False Foundations of Modern Medicine, Bookreal, Australia, 1989.)
sierraz36 9 months ago
The Medical Sentinel recently reported, “from 1911 to 1935, the four leading causes of childhood deaths from infectious diseases in the U.S. were diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945 the combined death rates from these causes had declined by 95 percent, before the implementation of mass immunization programs.
source:Harold Buttram, M.D., “Vaccine Scene 2000, Review and Update,” Medical Sentinel, Vol.5 No. 2, March/April 2000.
sierraz36 9 months ago
“Hot Lots”—vaccine lots associated with disproportionately high death and disability rates—have been repeatedly identified by the NVIC, but the FDA consistently refuses to intervene to prevent further unnecessary injury and deaths. In fact, individual vaccine lots have never been recalled due to their greater incidence of adverse reactions. However, the rotavirus vaccine was taken off the market a few months after being introduced when it caused bowel obstructions in many recipients.
sierraz36 9 months ago
Incredibly, the FDA and CDC knew about this problem prior to licensing the vaccine, but both organizations still gave their unanimous approval
source:Chairman/Congressman Dan Burton, Committee of Government Reform, Opening Statement, “FACA: Conflicts of Interest and Vaccine Development, Preserving the Integrity of the Process,” June 2000.
sierraz36 9 months ago
I await your response batty.....
explain all of these away...
you can do it!!
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 That the rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn over what was still an exceedingly rare event shows that the system works.
batigol47 9 months ago
Comment removed
sierraz36 9 months ago
@batigol47
Are we talking about the same system that protected Bayer, who knew it had millions of dollars worth of aids infected injectable blood-clotting medicine — Factor VIII concentrate, and instead of destroying it, sold it to Asia and Europe?
FDA regulators helped to keep the continued sales hidden, asking the company that the problem be ”quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public,” according to the minutes of a 1985 meeting
yeah.. great system
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 The FDA has ZERO control over sales in foreign countries. Beyond that, they did not KNOW the extent of tainting as a test had not been created. Many countries they sold it to had not approved the new version. There were shortages of the new version. Without any medicine these people would die immediately, forget the chance of catching a disease later from the treatment. In a perfect world they would have torched it all and money would not be an issue. To expect that is simply naive.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
Actually there was no shortage of the new version, or problems with approval.
Yet even AFTER it began selling the new product, the company KEPT MAKING the old medicine for several months more. A telex from Cutter to a distributor suggests one reason behind that decision, too: the company had several fixed-price contracts and believed that the old product would be cheaper to produce.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36
so your saying, that in any injectable material used for medicine, we should not expect it to be untainted, nor should we expect the public to be informed if that was the case?
....and you roll up your sleeve and call me NAIVE??? in case your wondering my source for the above was the New York Times By WALT BOGDANICH and ERIC KOLI
Published: May 22, 2003
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 you're ffs.
Any time that you take a blood product there is some risk, the question is one of how much. At the point we are discussing, it was completely unknown what that risk was. They had no way of testing. All they knew was that there were patients who had received Factor VIII who were subsequently sick with no other risk factors.
The public by that point WAS aware of the risk. The FDA did its job in the US, which is the only place it has any control.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Yes, there was a shortage of the new one. It is a demonstrable fact. There were plasma shortages which in turn led to factor product shortages. It is also certain that the new version was not approved in all of the places the old one was being sold.
I would not argue that price was not A reason. I would argue that it is not THE reason.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
Because Cutter was using some of its limited plasma to continue making the old product, they may have contributed to the shortage. ( I say DID)
The United States Food and Drug Administration helped to keep the news out of the public.
All over the world millions upon millions were given to people infected by using these blood products.
Some drug company executives were given prison terms.
sierraz36 9 months ago
as for your lame "the new version was not approved in all of the places the old one was being sold."
Hsu Chien-wen, an official at Taiwan's health department, said in 2003 that Cutter had not applied for permission to sell the heated medicine until July 1985.
In late 1984, when a Hong Kong distributor asked Cutter about the newer product, records show that Cutter asked the distributor to "use up stocks" of the old medicine before switching to its "safer, better" product
sierraz36 9 months ago
While the new product was selling well for Cutter, a Cutter company meeting notes that "There is excess nonheated inventory", which resulted in the company deciding to "review international markets again to determine if more of this product can be sold."Cutter decided to sell millions of dollars of the older medicine to Asia and Latin America while selling the new, safer product in the West, to avoid being stuck with large stores of a product that was proving increasingly unmarketable.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 The point remains that they did not know what level of risk they were dealing with and indeed they had been selling the same product for many years without complaint. The new version was more expensive (not in the case of existing contracts mind you) and the standard contracts would have had an effect on price of the new product worldwide. I agree that in hindsight countries should have anted up and Cutter acted with greater morality, but many haemo. are still alive from the old med.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Straight from the wiki; read the rest. The execs and officials you mentioned going to jail were French delayed approval because they wanted a French made version.
You are also ignoring that this was almost 30 years ago, that the US system worked, that procedures exist to limit future risks and that US sufferers were compensated.
Companies make decisions based on risk in all business. There is difference between moral and legal. It is a big reason for social notforprofit HealthCare.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 No matter what they were using the plasma on it did not change that there was a shortage. That shortage came in no small part from the public knowledge of tainting and the high-risk areas the companies had relied upon to get the plasma. It was a Catch-22. The "millions upon millions" number is also hyperbolic. The numbers are more likely in the tens or hundreds of thousands, though there is no real way to know. The execs were french who cheated THEIR LAW to get a french product.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Let's start with scarlet fever: It all but disappeared because of the advent of antibiotics prior to 1945. Beyond that you once again are ignoring that mortality rates are NOT the important statistic, particularly during that era. It was a time of HUGE advances in modern medicine. Drs were better able to treat the diseases. Dip had an anti-toxin beginning in the 1890s and the vax was available in... wait for it ...1913. Pertussis vax: 1906. Both lowered mortality and case rates.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
please explain why morality rates are not important statistics, and especially during that era.
Also, I;m a bit confused..
In the beginning of your post, you say mortality rates are not important statistics, and the you use them to close your post ...
soeither the first part was wrong or the second part..
please explain.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 I can explain that you are an idiot. A drop in mortality rates does not require a drop in cases. A drop in cases however will drop mortality rates. As treatments improved, death was less apparent. That does not mean people were not suffering from the sickness and potential long term effects despite surviving the infections.
I did not use mortality to close my post either. I said that the aforementioned things dropped mortality AND case rates for the specific ones you mentioned.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
Funny.. you sound frustrated and often resort to name calling.. is that because it's difficult for you to keep "explaining away" years and years of obvious ineffectiveness and injuries?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 I am only frustrated by your continually asinine comments. You show that you are either oblivious or purposefully obtuse in order to achieve your agenda.
I do not have to explain away the fact that every time a vaccine has been introduced in the modern era the case rates have plummeted only to return when vax levels fell (ie Dip in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Iron Curtain or Polio in afghanistan under the Taliban).
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
well i personally had scarlet fever so I can attest to it's "all but disappeared " status.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Your having had a disease disproves it has "all but disappeared"? Scarlet Fever was a scourge before the vaccine was invented and then the antibiotics which rendered the vaccine unnecessary. It is a fact that case rates have plummeted and deaths are rare. At one point it was expected that 1/10 strep cases advanced to SF. Now, it is rare enough to not even be a mandatory reportable disease with fewer than 10k cases from 99-08 in the US despite an estimated 3 million cases of strep
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47 ]
please provide your sources for the vaccinations for Dip and Pertussis prior to 1945 being given to the public in sufficient quantities as to actually have the effect of lowering both mortality and case rates.
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Both are epidemic diseases. The vaccines did not need to be given to everyone to have the effect, as they could be given in high risk areas where infections had already begun (for example the famous Nome event in 1925).
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Look at the dates. That is the infancy of modern medicine. It has absolutely no bearing on modern vaccination.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
oh?
can you tell me the history of modern vaccination and provide the studies they used to come to the conclusion that vaccines are safe and effective?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 pick a vaccine.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
all vaccines
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 pick one. There is too much information to give otherwise.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
we are talking about the history of vaccination.
okay, what was the first vaccine invented and how did it come about?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 In the technical sense, Jenner's vaccine was the first in 1796. However, it was not the only method used which makes 1800's stats on vaccination unreliable. True modern vaccine emanates from Pasteur's work. Without the development of germ theory, it was a guessing game. Ergo, the late 1800s was the infancy of modern vaccination. Post WWI HUGE strides were made. War stimulates medicine research. Improvements in microscopes aided significantly (particularly the EM's in the 30s).
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 That is a 35 year old study. It resulted in the addition of a booster dose of vaccine. Once that booster was added, the problem disappeared.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
which study are you complaining about in the above answer?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 The 1984 measles outbreak amongst a previously vaccinated group of teens. The study was not wrong. I am not complaining about it. It is evidence that vaccinations work and our understanding continues to progress to make them more effective. The problem was identified and fixed. No such relapses have been recognized since. Over 90% of measles cases are in people who are either entirely unvaccinated or have not received the full dose.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
oh really.. maybe you'd care to explain these cases away for me?
- In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organization after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its HIGHEST EVER mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)
sierraz36 9 months ago
- In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People's Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)
sierraz36 9 months ago
- In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article on measles which stated" Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children." (JAMA, 21/11/90)
sierraz36 9 months ago
I'm pretty sure 1990 comes after 1984, at least where I live it does.. might be different where you live...
sierraz36 9 months ago
hmmm.. still no response..
funny, you answered other posts...
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 So you posted a couple that I missed? Out of the litany of posts you have made? You realize I have to sleep and work right? Oh, I forgot, you are one of those that thinks this is what I do for a living. Man that would be Easy Street....
Should I redirect you to all the end of streams you have left?
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 See above: 1984 led to recommendation of 4th MMR. 1990 got it MANDATED.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 The 1990 outbreak was what got the recommended fourth dose finally mandated. It has been 20 years. Where are the new cases?
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Being that it was just explained to you that in 1978 the recommended schedule was NOT adequate, it should be clear to you why this statement is irrelevant.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 I can find no verification to that claim. All references are that verbatim quote.
No mention of it exists in pub med. Studies on the topic do not mention it (PMID: 6084468, PMID: 7756188,PMID: 6976234) PMID: 111981 discusses AFTER that point the great difficulty in administration in the area, so one has to doubt the veracity. Further, it is evident from the articles that at the time they were giving ONE dose, which as discussed is now KNOWN not to be adequate.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
when you say "It is asinine to expect acknowledged estimations to be verifiable."
are you saying the CDC posts information that is worthless?
Why do they wait until the numbers are challenged to make the "estimation declaration"?
sierraz36 9 months ago
Hmmm
no comment on the "hot lots"
i was sure if anyone could explain that away, it would be you...
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Because it is demonstrably incorrect. Individual lots of vaccine have been recalled on numerous occasions.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
may I please have some examples?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Take the time to look search for recalled vaccine lots They are easy to find
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
if it so easy why don't you provide the evidence for what you claim and back it up?
sierraz36 9 months ago
"In May 1990 we started to track DPT vaccine lot numbers when parents reported their child’s hospitalization, injury or death following vaccination to NVIC. Evaluating adverse event reports from more than 90 families, we found multiple serious reports were from the same vaccine lot numbers. NVIC made three separate presentations to government advisory committees between 1990 and 1993, but no substantive action was ever taken by the FDA or CDC.
sierraz36 9 months ago
Upon further investigation when the VAERS computer data became available through the Freedom of Information Act, we found.....many lots with very high numbers of reports; and no recall of any lot of vaccine. We do not know how many doses of vaccine are in each lot because the FDA and the drug companies do not release this information to the public. Therefore, it is impossible to precisely compare one lot to another for reactivity.
sierraz36 9 months ago
There currently are DPT lots on the market that have been associated with large numbers of reports including hospitalizations, injuries and deaths.
sierraz36 9 months ago
Vaccine manufacturers and the FDA will not release the number of doses in each lot of DPT vaccine to the public. Therefore it is not possible to totally, accurately compare the reactivity of one lot to another lot. In the past fifty years reports of "hot lots" of vaccines, those that appear to be associated with more injuries and deaths than others, have been reported in the United States and Europe."--NVIC
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 You are quoting NVIC. They are about as far from unbiased as you can get.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 DPT is no longer on the market in the US. DTaP is used instead.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36
"Bulletin No. 6
March 30, 1979
Wyeth DPT Vaccine Recall
On Wednesday March 21 this office learned from the CDC, Atlanta that Wyeth Labs, after discussions with the CDC, had agreed to recall DPT vaccine associated with sudden unexplained infant deaths in Tennessee. The vaccine associated with these deaths was all of a single lot number - 64201."
Remember, just one recall disproves your assertion.
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Not at all. I am saying that you do not understand the value of estimation and try to undermine it by making asinine arguments. They do not wait. It is inherent in the language they use. It is not their fault that people like you are too stupid to recognize that when someone says "about" it means estimation. No doubt you are the type that moves Hollywood to beat us over the head with exposition in every movie so that you can understand the plot.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
So when the CDC claims that influenza is "a highly contagious virus that causes an average of 36,000 deaths and 200,000 hospitalizations in the U.S. every year", I should understand that that is just an estimate and do some more investigating?
I took your advice and here are some of the results.
The 2004 flu season CDC "estimate" of deaths from flu =69, 984
Actual deaths from flu=753.
Funny, the remaining 65,231 were deaths from pneumonia...
sierraz36 9 months ago
I say funny cause the CDC does not recognize the flu as one of the many causes of pneumonia...
So thank you for pointing me in the right direction.
So now I am no longer a "silly boob" who takes the CDC numbers as "at least in the "ballpark"
To me, there is a HUGE difference between 69,984 and 753.
You've taught me that estimations can be critically erroneous.
Thanks Batty!
:)
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Now I know you are stupid. Why not go to the CDC page on flu and look up symptoms? There you will find the following statement: "Pneumonia, bronchitis, and sinus and ear infections are three examples of complications from flu. "
You should learn not to make factually erroneous statements.
batigol47 9 months ago 2
@sierraz36 Again with the Tenpenny disingenuity. Where did that pneumonia come from? Normal healthy people do not develop pneumonia Influenza virus causes pneumonia. If you were in a car wreck that severed your carotid artery, would you label that a vehicular death or a blood loss death?
batigol47 9 months ago
@sierraz36 You certainly seem to imply that academic research was bull. :) I am glad you think otherwise, or there really isn't any use in a discussion since that's really the only source for good information on these topics. I read the FDA info/summary articles that are cited (though I must admit I rarely read the cites unless I'm really looking into something). I look to the CDC and WHO for numbers - I don't know who else compiles them.
sinmantyx 9 months ago
@sierraz36 I am getting a bit frustrated because your evidence isn't evidence against vaccines in general - and doesn't conflict with anything I have said. I assert that the health of an individual is just one factor of many as to why some people get sick due to a pathogen and others do not. It also depends on the pathogen. Whether or not a vaccine campaign is a good idea depends on the pathogen and the situation. You seem to want to make rules out of exceptions.
sinmantyx 9 months ago
How exactly do you "do research" when every organization that actually does research in immunology and collects data (such as infection rates) in your world is lying? I ask you again - are you doing immunological research and independently assessing death/injury/infection rates in your basement - or are you just denying the validity of mainstream research and putting your trust in a couple authors of books you happen to read?
sinmantyx 9 months ago
Ok - so you believe that viruses exist and that they cause disease. At least that's something. For a while I thought you were actually a germ theory denialist, and now I realize that you just have some sort of hybrid concept of disease where "germs" matter, but "filth" (whatever that is) matters more and that somehow everyone with tonsils is immune to polio virus. I still have no idea where you are getting your information.
sinmantyx 9 months ago
@sinmantyx
Wrong again.
I believe viruses and bacteria exist.
That's a fact.
Whether they make you sick or not when they enter your body is ONLY dependent upon the state of your health.
period. NOT on the fact that bacteria and viruses got into your body.
Do you sort of understand it a little bit now?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 You display a BASIC lack of understanding on pathology and the immune system. It doesnt matter how "healthy" you are; if I exposed you to hep A and you were not vaccinated, (presuming that you are living in the Western World where it is uncommon to have been exposed as a small child) it is a near certainty that you would develop the illness. HOW sick you get is highly variable on your individual biology, but the virus will make you sick.
batigol47 9 months ago
@batigol47
you are 100% completely WRONG.
See my post above dated fro 1942.
10 children all with polio virus in their systems, 5 with no tonsils, extremely ill ,3 died. the rest never even developed any illness.
Viruses can only make you sick if the state of your health is bad.
If your correct, then why didn't all the children develop polio?
sierraz36 9 months ago
@sierraz36 Apparently you did not read mine. 10 children do not constitute a significant sample. That tonsillectomies increase risk is irrelevant in the age of vaccination. Kids who had tonsils did get polio. Many who did not have tonsils did not get polio. However, kids who do not get exposed to the poliovirus do NOT get polio 100% of the time.
It is "you're" by the way, and if you expect anyone to take you seriously, I suggest you learn that one.
batigol47 9 months ago 2
@batigol47
lol
Funny how you say 10 children is not enough to constitute a significant sample.
Where are the groups of the vaccinated that constitute a significant sample, and prove vaccines are safe and effective?
.
sierraz36 9 months ago
Please show the stats where the studies compared people who have the polio virus in their bodies and either had or did not have tonsils.
your statement:
"kids who do not get exposed to the polio virus do NOT get polio 100% of the time."
makes absolutely no sense, Reality is, if you are not exposed to the virus then of course you will not be able to develop the disease.
If you get a polio vaccination, your chances increase immensely.
an uncomfortable FACT.
sierraz36 9 months ago
As to this statement you made below....
"It is "you're" by the way, and if you expect anyone to take you seriously, I suggest you learn that one."
Once again you are completely incorrect.
"You're" is a contraction for the words "You are"
"Viruses can only make you sick if the state of you are health is bad."
see? wrong usage of the word.
Oh.. and its polio virus...
two words not one...
Just trying to help you so people will take you seriously...maybe learning "this one" will help you.
sierraz36 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam