# Social Category > General Chat Forum >  Vaccinations in the spotlight

## Trickzta

Vaccinations are a) alright, b) bad, c) criminal, d) deadly, e) essential, f) fraudulent, g) good, h) harmful i) important?

Any idea what goes into the vaccines?

Main Question; Why should children who have been vaccinated look upon children who have not been vaccinated as a threat to their health?

Here's a few posts about vaccinations. What's your take on this controversial issue?

The current rate of autism (ASD) in the USA is one in 50, or 2 percent of children aged 6 to 17; whereas in the late 1970s it was one in 10,000.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/10/...ge-payout.html

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2013/08...-and-cervarix/

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...gi?read=153790

http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html

This Natural site (GreenMedInfo) has loads of studies done on many topics. this link takes you to many vaccine reports. 
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/search/gmi/vaccines

From the same site; As thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines, the number of neurodevelopmental disorders decreased in the US. http://www.greenmedinfo.com/toxic-in...cine-adjuvants

Do you have any evidence proving that vaccines really work? Please post the articles/links here, as this post has only negative points and both sides of the story should be presented.

Thank you. (sorry about all the links)

----------


## Trickzta

Here are more posts warning of the dangers of vaccinations. I've come across some posts quoting 'insider whistleblowers' who claim it is a false science. As with any post you question the motive and test the claims and even then the truth can be elusive. Trust those that seek the truth, never trust those that claim they found it. (forgotten whose words these were)

Jeffry John Aufderheide started VacTruth.com in May of 2009.
Jeffry was a rescue swimmer in the United States Navy and held a Top Secret clearance. In 2000, he was honorably discharged from the Navy and a year later started his family. In 2001 his first son, Brandon, was born. Twenty one vaccines later, his son stopped reaching his developmental milestones.http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/7-m...fefec-86914577

Of course the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) section of the CDC, publishes many vaccine side-effects, including death.
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/how...2a8c6-86914577


A shot in the dark?
https://www.northstarnutritionals.co.../the-flu-shot/

The inside story on vaccine dangers
http://www.naturalnews.com/042642_Su...ion_myths.html

No positive posts yet. Rare?

----------


## Dave A

:Hmmm:  Vaccinate against polio or be a victim of and live with the consequences of polio?

Know anyone who has had to live with the consequences of polio all their life?
I do. And it's no joke.

How about smallpox? There's another preventable demon with quite a kick!

On the flip side, I have little doubt there's a fair amount of false pharma out there just chasing profits.

----------

tec0 (05-Nov-13), Trickzta (07-Nov-13)

----------


## adrianh

I still don't know what you are trying to prove. There will always be people who are adversely affected by some or other medication.

There is no value in quoting how many people react badly without quoting how many people don't. 

More people die of smoking, car crashes, air crashes etc anyway. 

I gather that you are against vaccines, great, I'm happy for you, then don't vaccinate your kids. Saying that one sbould ban vaccines because 1% of the population has a bad reaction to them is like saying that one should ban cars because people have accidents in them. If you are going to use stats then you should look at the whole picture, not just a bit of anecdotal data.

----------

Trickzta (07-Nov-13)

----------


## tec0

again I give you... 




try and find the full video as they did a lot of research on the subject. I will take my children for vaccinations. I will also allow myself to be vaccinated. Imagine how many deaths there would be today if we start to "mistrust" our medication. Yes it is true that "some" not all but "some" medication have bad effects. Still I would rather take my chance with a vaccination then without one.

Did you know if you drink to much water that you can die? So do we ban water now? Here is a little truth for you medication is not a 100% and yes it can be dangerous. But life is fragile so we must take chances to protect it. 

It is easy to say "vaccination is bad" but how on earth did you rule out the millions who's lives where saved and is effectively healthy and unharmed by the vaccinations? 

Like I said a chance is better then no chance.

----------

Trickzta (07-Nov-13)

----------


## Blurock

Vaccinations against polio, small pox and other diseases has saved so many lives and there is so much evidence in favour of vaccinations that it is not worth arguing against it. Ignorance can not be taught.

----------

Trickzta (07-Nov-13)

----------


## Dave A

> Ignorance can not be taught.


 :Stick Out Tongue: 

And can be vaccinated against with a great education  :Big Grin:

----------

Trickzta (07-Nov-13)

----------


## Trickzta

Thanks for your replies. I’ve posted many links that dispute the story we’re being told. Name changes to diseases and a host of other factors that are behind this ‘science’.

I too used to believe in the number of diseases that were ‘wiped out’ only to find that there were dirty little secrets and roadblocks to prevent the access to ‘Official Documents’ that really should be in the public domain.

That’s my opinion anyway. As I’ve said I’ve kept an open mind and I add it’s still open and it would give me great pleasure to get the ‘whole truth’ properly explained, even if I’m proved to be completely wrong. I actually wish I was wrong.

Thanks again.

----------


## Trickzta

Seeing that this critically important post is from a site designated to be a danger to children and seeing that I've committed to not posting long posts elsewhere, I've decided to emulate politicians and plonk the long post here (I never mentioned anything about posting here - which goes to show; Sometimes what is not said, is more important (relevant) than what is said. For the record my own posts are opinion based. A professional should always be consulted before starting any treatment. Bananas are a dangerous herb, always consult a Professional before eating bananas. For the record all my posts are posted "without prejudice" even if the post does not specifically state this.

There is, and this is what makes life what it is, always someone who takes the opposite view. When health and illness and children are involved, then preconceived perceptions, whatever their source, should be left outside the scope of any serious discussion concerning such issues. To say or even think that my intention/s in any shape or form, are of a nature that has harm or malicious motives as a reason for posting, is in all probability an indication of serious mental health issues. Let science based on science have the last say. Leave pride, preconceived memes, personal slurs, unproven data and human emotions out of the equation, and then, hopefully through sharing truth, wisdom, knowledge and experience we can come to better understand the issues, the bones of contention, and each other. To follow any other route usually leads to unhealthy attitudes and off topic slap fights that no-one benefits from.

Without prejudice, this site is more concerned about children's health than the FDA is. Because of my promise to limit the length, the subject matter & the number of links that I post on another thread and in the light of another promise to reveal the extent of the corruption in the world today, starting with those that were entrusted to protect the very people they systematically sacrifice. Propaganda is a major weapon used by experienced and dangerously unhinged minds to feed false reality to .............(to be continued.) 

Reputation of vaccinationcouncil.org	

Reputation ratings and reviews are based on other users experiences. They help you make an informed decision whether to trust a site or not. Learn more.
Trustworthiness 
Very poor
Child safety 
Poor
The site has a very poor reputation based on user ratings, and it is not suitable for children. 
Information from third-party sources (0)
WOT uses third-party information, such as listings of phishing and malware sites, to support user ratings and to provide additional information about potential threats. Learn more..
User reviews (42)
Subscribe to comments 
Leave a comment to describe your experience with this site. Comments provide additional information for other users, but do not affect the reputation. Read more
Comment votes have been disabled for this site.
Sort by: 
	Agrees
	Date



International Medical Council on Vaccination 

	Home
	About
	Start Here
	Quick Compare
	Videos & Webinars
	Articles
	Books and Media
	RSS Feed
	Twitter
	Facebook
Vaccines: a peek beneath the hood. ~ By Roman Bystrianyk and Suzanne Humphries, MD
 November 12, 2013Posted in: Articles
 Print  PDF
It is dangerous to let the public behind the scenes. They are easily disillusioned and then they are angry with you, for it was the illusion they loved.
 W. Somerset Maugham
Medical history books, almost uniformly extol the virtues of vaccination. Upon reading these books, one is left with the impression that during the 1800s and into the 1900s, there were rampant plagues that killed countless scores of people and that, because of vaccines, this is no longer the case. This is certainly what we believed growing up, and most people we talk to have a similar impression. It generally permeates society as an established fact.
It is difficult to underestimate the contribution of immunization to our well-being. It has been estimated that, were it not for childhood vaccinations against diphtheria, pertussis, measles, mumps, smallpox, and rubella, as well as protection afforded by vaccines against tetanus, cholera, yellow fever, polio, influenza, hepatitis B, bacterial pneumonia, and rabies, childhood death rates would probably hover in the range of 20 to 50%. Indeed, in countries where vaccination is not practiced, the death rates among infants and young children remain at that level. [1]
Paul Offit talks in his recent book Deadly ChoicesHow the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All about how the whooping cough vaccine has reduced deaths from that disease from 7,000 to only 30.
Whooping cough (pertussis) is a devastating infection. Before a vaccine was first used in the United States in the 1940s, about three hundred thousand cases of whooping cough caused seven thousand deaths every year, almost all in young children. Now, because of the pertussis vaccine, fewer than thirty children die every year from the disease. But times are changing. [2]
This type of information can even be found in medical journals. A lengthy study on whooping cough and the whooping cough vaccine was published in 1988 in the journal Pediatrics. The first paragraph of the paper states the following:
In the United States, pertussis has been successfully controlled by routine mass immunization of infants and children. In the prevaccine era, there were 115,000 to 270,000 cases of pertussis and 5,000 to 10,000 deaths due to the disease each year. During the last 10 years, there have been 1,200 to 4,000 cases and five to ten deaths per year. [3]
That paragraph set the tone for the rest of the article by indicating that thousands of people died each year from whooping cough, but after the DTP vaccine was introduced, very few died. Anyone who believed this statement would, of course, believe in the benefit of the vaccine.
The problem with these statements is that they are not supported by the evidence. When we look at the actual data, we see that although many people did die from whooping cough in the early part of the 1900s, by the time the vaccine had been introduced the death rate in the United States had declined by more than 90 percent. Using the source that was referenced to make the statement in the Pediatrics paper, we see that the decline in deaths from the peak was approximately 92 percent before the introduction of the DTP vaccine. [4]

The article in the journal Pediatrics is quite damaging because it would have been read primarily by doctors, leaving many with the impression that vaccines were completely responsible for the decline in deaths. The actual number of deaths by the time of the introduction of the DTP vaccine was approximately 1,200not the 5,000 to 10,000 often cited. Again, this faulty thinking that vaccines were responsible for the lions share of mortality decline is pervasive in all corners of society.
An additional important point to notice is that when looking at the graph you can clearly see that each year the trend was that of a decrease in deaths from whooping cough. At the point the vaccine was introduced there was no apparent effect in the downward trend.
Another data set from England starting at the beginning of the 20th century shows the lack of impact of the vaccines even more dramatically. Here you can see that the death rate had fallen by over 98% before the national use of the DTP vaccine in the 1950s.

England began keeping statistics in 1838, which was 62 years before official U.S. statistics were gathered. Looking at this data, we can see that the death rate from infectious diseases was high during the 1800s and declined from the mid-1800s to the mid-1900s to almost zero. Looking at the whooping coughs death from England, deaths had decreased by more than 99 percent before any vaccine.

In the case of measles, the death rate had declined by almost 100 percent.

Analysis of the data shows this often-repeated mantra that vaccines were key in the decline of infectious disease deaths is a fallacy. Deaths had decreased by massive amounts before vaccinations. In the case of scarlet fever and other infectious diseases, deaths declined to near zero without any widespread vaccination.

Unfortunately, this erroneous belief has led people to trust in vaccination as the sole way to handle infectious diseases when there were clearly other factors that caused mortality to decline. Those factors were improved hygiene, sanitation, nutrition, labor laws, electricity, chlorination, refrigeration, pasteurization, and many other facets that we now generally take for granted as part of modern life. Very little of the improvement in the death rate had anything to do with medicine. A 1977 report estimated that, at best, approximately 3 percent of the mortality decline from infectious disease could be attributed to modern medical care.
In general, medical measures (both chemotherapeutic and prophylactic) appear to have contributed little to the overall decline in mortality in the United States since about 1900having in many instances been introduced several decades after a marked decline had already set in and having no detectable influence in most instances. More specifically, with reference to those five conditions (influenza, pneumonia, diphtheria, whooping cough, and poliomyelitis) for which the decline in mortality appears substantial after the point of interventionand on the unlikely assumption that all of this decline is attributable to the intervention . . . it is estimated that at most 3.5 percent of the total decline in mortality since 1900 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the diseases considered here. [5]
The emphasis today on more and more vaccines, is in part built on this ingrained thinking. The fact that deaths from infectious diseases declined so greatly before vaccines and antibiotics, is ignored. This lapse in study has created a situation where we could have learned a better way to manage all infections in a more comprehensive way. Yet, to this day, despite such a phenomenal transformation, we have failed to learn the lessons of this history. The solutions that led to a 99 percent decline in death has been ignored, with the entire emphasis on the final 1 percent, which would have occurred anyway even without a vaccine.
However, in some corners, there is recognition that vaccines were not what caused the major decline in infectious disease mortality. They often erroneously point to antibiotics and improved medical care and grudgingly give some credit to sanitation and other factors. There is little curiosity as to how all these factors worked and how they still apply today. The shift on emphasis is now on the incidence of disease after vaccination with a decreased emphasis on mortality. The thinking goes that, by wiping out the disease with vaccines, there is no risk of death. This appears to be a reasonable approach. How well has it worked?
Lets take whooping cough as an example. In 1979 Sweden withdrew use of the DTP vaccine on the basis that it was not effective and possibly unsafe. The fear, of course, would be that with lower vaccination rates, the death rate would increase. So what happened in this case?
A 1995 letter from Victoria Romanus at the Swedish Institute of Infectious Disease Control indicated that deaths from whooping cough remained near zero. Swedens population was 8,294,000 in 1979 and 8,831,000 by 1995. From 1981 to 1993, eight children were recorded as dying, with the cause of death listed as pertussis. This averaged to be about 0.6 children per year possibly dying from whooping cough. These numbers show that the odds of dying from pertussis in Sweden were about 1 in 13,000,000 even when there was no national vaccination program. [6]
In another case, DTP vaccination coverage in England dropped from about 78 percent to 30 or 40 percent because of concerns over safety. The assumption was that there would be an increase in deaths due to the decreased coverage. The years from 1976 to 1980 were the ones when vaccination rates were at their lowest. Using official statistics, the number of deaths in those years totaled 35. The deaths from the previous five years (1971 to 1975), while vaccination rates were higher, totaled 55, or about 1.5 times greater than when vaccination rates were lower. [7] This was directly opposite what is generally believed should have happened.
And have whooping cough rates really been controlled? The sad truth is that whooping cough never really went away and is endemic. Huge numbers of people still cough from Bordetella pertussis, the bacteria involved in whooping cough. Because of waning vaccine- immunity, up to one-third of persistent coughs are whooping cough.
Although pertussis traditionally has been considered a disease of childhood, it was well-documented in adults nearly a century ago and is currently recognized as an important cause of respiratory disease in adolescents and adults, including the elderly. Because of waning immunity, adult and adolescent pertussis can occur even when there is a history of full immunization or natural disease . . . Studies from Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, and the United States indicate that between 12 and 32% of adults and adolescents with a coughing illness for at least 1 week are infected with Bordetella pertussis. [8]
Lets focus on another infectious diseasemeasles. Keep in mind that by 1963, almost no one died from measles. During this year, the whole of New England had only five deaths (Maine: 1, New Hampshire: 0, Vermont: 3, Massachusetts: 0, Rhode Island: 1, Connecticut: 0) that were attributed to measles. [9] Deaths from asthma were actually 56 times greater than from measles during that year.
But did incidence decline as vaccine proponents emphasize? There are some graphs you can find on the Internet that claim there was little decrease in incidence. The graph I have seen that shows this only has a few data points and a line between two distant points in time. This graph is of poor quality and draws an incorrect conclusion. Looking at more comprehensive incidence data, we can see a drop in incidence in 1963 at the introduction of the measles vaccine.

Measles incidence did apparently dramatically drop after 1963. But can this drop be completely attributed to the success of the measles vaccine? The early measles vaccine that contained killed virus was an aluminum-precipitated vaccine produced from formaldehyde-inactivated monkey kidney cell cultures. A study from 1967 revealed that the vaccine could cause pneumonia as well as encephalopathy (inflammation of the brain).
Pneumonia is a consistent and prominent finding. Fever is severe and persistent and the degree of headache, when present, suggests a central nervous system involvement. Indeed one patient in our series who was examined by EEG, evidence of disturbed electrical activity of the brain was found, suggestive of encephalopathy . . . These untoward results of inactivated measles virus immunization was unanticipated. The fact that they have occurred should impose a restriction on the use of inactivated measles virus vaccine. We now recommend that inactivated measles virus vaccine should no longer be administered. [10]
The killed vaccines were quickly abandoned. [11] But there were also significant issues with the live vaccines, which were not highly attenuated and produced a modified measles rash in about half of those injectedessentially equivalent to a case of measles. Forty-eight percent of people had rash, and 83 percent had fevers up to 106°F post-injection. 
So how did measles incidence drop so dramatically after the 1963 vaccine? In part, it had to do with a definition. If you had a high fever and you had a vaccine, of course you didnt have measles even if you were sicker than you would have been if you contracted measles naturally.
Back in the 1960s, it was expected that a single shot would protect you for life without serious effects, which would later turn out not to be true.
The United State Public Health Service licensed a new, refined, live-measles vaccine. Although several live vaccines have been licensed since 1963all of them one-shot treatments that give life immunity without serious side-effectsthe new one is considered by epidemiologists as the best so far in minimizing the side-effects. [12]
Claims were even made in the 1960s that only a certain number of children needed to be vaccinated in order to wipe out measles.
Measles, the harmless childhood disease that can kill, will be nearly eradicated from most areas of the country a year from now, officials of the United States Public Health Service predict . . . Although there are still more than 12 million susceptible children, vaccination of the right two million to four million youngsters could wipe out the disease, according to Dr. Robert J. Warren of the Communicable Disease Center in Atlanta. [13]
More than a decade later, the objective of measles elimination was still not achieved. There were repeat epidemics that happened throughout the United States.
By 1989 the new theory on failure to eradicate was that the earlier vaccines were not as effective as originally believed. Some of the first vaccines mass produced in 1963 contained a killed virus. In 1989 Dr. Feigin of Texas Childrens Hospital stated that he believed the 1963 vaccine was not widely effective and that the 1967 vaccine was unsta¬ble and lost its effectiveness if not properly refrigerated. It was not until 1980 that a stable live measles vaccine became available. [14]
In the same year, after three types of measles vaccines had failed to produce eradication or even predictable herd immunity, vaccine scientists changed course from one shot and stated that, in using the new live vaccine, two doses would be required for reliable protection. They also recommended that everyone under the age of 32 be revaccinated because the old vaccines they received were inadequate. The single shot once promised to provide lifelong immunity against measles in the 1960s was never produced. 
And was the measles incidence declining before 1963 anyway? Looking at the measles incidence data, the trend line shows that incidence was on the decline.

Part two to follow)

----------


## Trickzta

Part two)

In fact, if that trend line held, measles incidence would have hit zero by around the year 2000. This is actually the year when the CDC declared measles had been eliminated from the United States.
So were all these vaccines worth the cost, effort, and adverse reactions to tackle what was by 1963 considered a mild childhood illness?
When we hear about vaccines, we are often told a simple story of how they stimulate antibodies. The theory goes that the stimulation of antibodies creates a memory of a disease so the next time you encounter it, your body will quickly defeat the enemy. It’s a nice, simple, and easy-to-remember story.
Believing you understand the immune system because you hear the words “antibodies” and “protection” mentioned together is like thinking you know how a car really works because you see it has wheels. The immune system is a highly complex, still-poorly understood entity, composed of many different cell lines, each producing different chemicals that are released into the blood. These chemicals are used by the body and are affected by age, stress, nutritional status, environment, and a whole host of factors that are barely understood.
“. . . the immune system remains a black box,” says Garry Fathman, MD, a professor of immunology and rheumatology and associate director of the Institute for Immunology, Transplantation and Infection . . . “It’s staggeringly complex, comprising at least 15 different interacting cell types that spew dozens of different molecules into the blood to communicate with one another and to do battle. Within each of those cells sit tens of thousands of genes whose activity can be altered by age, exercise, infection, vaccination status, diet, stress, you name it. . . . That’s an awful lot of moving parts. And we don’t really know what the vast majority of them do, or should be doing . . . [15]
The immune system is traditionally divided into the humoral immune system that is involved with antibodies and the cellular immune system that does not involve antibodies but entails the activation of various cells such as natural killer cells. What we do know is that, contrary to popular belief, antibodies are not necessary when it comes to full measles recovery.
. . . children with antibody deficiency syndromes have quite unremarkable attacks of measles with the characteristic rash and normal recovery. Furthermore, they are not unduly prone to reinfection. It therefore seems that serum antibody, at any rate in any quantity, is not required for the production of the measles rash; nor for the normal recovery from the disease; nor to prevent reinfection. [16] 
Children with a deficit in antibody production, called agamma-globulinemia, recover from measles just as well as normal antibody producers, and this has been known since the late 1960s when vaccines were being developed and advanced. But antibody response is really the only thing that is talked about and promoted when it comes to vaccines. Because this knowledge disturbed the simplistic antibody-protection paradigm, it was considered a “disconcerting” discovery in this 1968 medical paper.
One of the most disconcerting discoveries in clinical medicine was the finding that children with congenital agamma-globulinaemia, who could make no antibody and had only insignificant traces of immunoglobulin in circulation, contracted measles in normal fashion, showed the usual sequence of symptoms and signs, and were subsequently immune. [17]
How does nutrition play a role in disease? Discovered in the 1920s, vitamin A was dubbed the “anti-infective” vitamin. It alone has a tremendous impact on measles deaths. During the 1990s, mortality reductions of 60 to 90 percent were measured in poor countries using vitamin A in hospitalized measles cases.
Combined analyses showed that massive doses of vitamin A given to patients hospitalized with measles were associated with an approximately 60% reduction in the risk of death overall, and with an approximate 90% reduction among infants . . . Administration of vitamin A to children who developed pneumonia before or during hospital stay reduced mortality by about 70% compared with control children. [18]
Availability of vitamin C-rich fruits and vegetables was another factor in disease morbidity and mortality reduction. There were improving trends in overall nutrition, as seen by a parallel in the decline in deaths from measles and the vitamin C deficiency disease, scurvy. Experiments done in the 1940s showed that vitamin C was effective against measles, especially when used in higher doses.
During an epidemic [of measles] vitamin C was used prophylactically and all those who received as much as 1000 mg. every six hours, by vein or muscle, were protected from the virus. Given by mouth, 1000 mg. in fruit juice every two hours was not protective unless it was given around the clock. It was further found that 1000 mg. by mouth, four to six times each day, would modify the attack; with the appearance of Koplik’s spots and fever, if the administration was increased to 12 doses each 24 hours, all signs and symptoms would disappear in 48 hours. [19] 
In the early 1900s, other treatments were being successfully used to treat measles. In 1919 Dr. Drummond commented that cinnamon oil was an effective prophylactic against measles or that it made measles milder.
It has been my practice, when I meet with a case of measles in a family, to prescribe a course of cinnamon for all unprotected members of the family. In the majority of cases the person so treated [with cinnamon] escaped the disease [measles] altogether, or else had it in very mild form. [20] 
Nutrition and other factors have a big impact on measles, so why aren’t we talking about them at all? Because the emphasis is always on a single, highly lucrative medical procedure—vaccination. This sole paradigm has swept virtually all other strategies to the wayside.
Another key factor to consider is that measles vaccine does not create lifelong immunity, whereas natural infection with measles does. The only way to remain immune with artificial immunity via vaccines is to be vaccinated several times during a lifetime. We have not yet seen how the vaccine will play out over several generations of exclusively vaccinated people. Epidemics are likely to become more common in the future.
A 2009 study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society investigated what could happen with waning measles vaccine immunity even with high vaccine coverage among children. They predicted that, after a long disease-free period in the population, the introduction of infection will lead to far larger epidemics than predicted by standard models.
We can foresee that vaccination will have two conflicting effects . . . it will reduce the number of newborn susceptibles and hence should have some of the usual associated public-health benefits reducing the number of cases in young children. However, this reduction in cases will lead to a reduction in boosting and therefore a greater susceptibility to infection in older age classes . . . When immunity wanes, vaccination has a far more limited impact on the average number of cases. While this observation has clear public-health implications, the dynamic consequences of the interaction between vaccination, waning immunity and boosting are far more striking. For high levels of vaccination (greater than 80%) and moderate levels of waning immunity (greater than 30 years), large-scale epidemic cycles can be induced. [21]
A 1984 study [22] reported that by 2050, the proportion of measles susceptibles may be greater than in the pre-vaccine era. So have we created a ticking time bomb with waning immunity? Will there actually be bigger measles epidemics in the future? If there are, the response will probably be to blame the unvaccinated, which has in fact been done for over 100 years, and then to enforce more vaccinations upon different age groups.
Because of the zealous pro-vaccine bias that permeates society, the true forces that drove the major decline in deaths from infectious diseases are not acknowledged. At most, there is a slight admission that “sanitation” has some effect, but better medical care and antibiotics are still given the credit.
Groups of individuals who have anointed themselves as “skeptics” seek to derail anything that questions vaccination. The definition of skeptic used to be “one who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions,” but this definition in its modern usage has been hijacked and transformed to someone that essentially blindly supports any orthodox position as gospel. These people will continue on their crusade of supporting vaccines at all costs and to assail anything that might question their myopic view. If those people had a desire to learn the truth, perhaps they would peek beneath the hood of infectious diseases and vaccines, and learn a little more. Imagine what could be in the trunk!
Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk are authors of Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines and the Forgotten History available on amazon.
Bibliography:

1. Irwin W. Sherman, Twelve Diseases That Changed Our World, 2007, p. 66.
2. Paul A. Offit, MD, Deadly Choices—How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All, 2011, p. xii.
3. James D. Cherry, MD MSc; Philip A. Brunell, MD; Gerald S. Golden, MD; and David T. Karzon, MD, “Report on the Task Force on Pertussis and Pertussis Immunization—1988,” Pediatrics, June 1988, vol. 81, no. 6, Part 2, p. 939.
4. Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times to 1970 Part 1, Bureau of the Census, 1975, pp. 77.
5. John B. McKinlay and Sonja M. McKinlay, “The Questionable Contribution of Medical Measures to the Decline of Mortality in the United States in the Twentieth Century,” The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, Health and Society, vol. 55, no. 3, summer 1977, p. 425.
6. Letter from Victoria Romanus, MD, PhD, Department of Epidemiology Swedish Institute of Infectious Disease Control, Stockholm Sweden, August 25, 1995.
7. Record of Mortality in England and Wales for 95 Years as Provided by the Office of National Statistics, 1997; Health Protection Agency Table: Notification of Deaths, England and Wales, 1970–2008.
8. Edward Rothstein, MD, and Kathryn Edwards, MD, “Health Burden of Pertussis in Adolescents and Adults,” Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, vol. 24, no. 5, May 2005, p. S44.
9. Vital Statistics of the United States 1963, Vol. II—Mortality, Part A, pp. 1–18, 1–19, 1–21.
10. Vincent A. Fulginiti, MD; Jerry J. Eller, MD; Allan W. Downie, MD; and C. Henry Kempe, MD, “Altered Reactivity to Measles Virus: Atypical Measles in Children Previously Immunized with Inactivated Measles Virus Vaccines,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 202, no. 12, December 18, 1967, p. 1080.
11. “Measles Vaccine Effective in Test—Injections with Live Virus Protect 100 Per Cent of Children in Epidemics,” New York Times, September 14, 1961.
12. “Thaler to Hold State Senate Hearing to Find Fastest Way to Expedite Plan,” New York Times, February 24, 1965.
13. Jane E. Brody, “Measles Will Be Nearly Ended by ’67, U.S. Health Aides Say,” New York Times, May 24, 1966.
14. Lisa Belkin, “Measles, Not Yet a Thing of the Past, Reveals the Limits of an Old Vaccine,” New York Times, February 25, 1989.
15. B. Goldman, “The Bodyguard: Tapping the Immune System’s Secrets,” Stanford Medicine, summer 2011.
16. P. J. Lachmann, “Immunopathology of Measles,” Proceedings Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 67, November 1974, p. 1120.
17. “Measles as an Index of Immunological Function,” The Lancet, September 14, 1968, p. 611.
18. Wafaie W. Fawzi, MD; Thomas C. Chalmers, MD; M. Guillermo Herrera, MD; and Frederick Mosteller, PhD, “Vitamin A Supplementation and Child Mortality: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of the American Medical Association, February 17, 1993, p. 901.
19. Fred R. Klenner, MD, “The Treatment of Poliomyelitis and Other Virus Diseases with Vitamin C,” Southern Medicine & Surgery, July 1949.
20. “Cinnamon as a Preventive of Measles,” American Druggist Pharmaceutical Record, New York, November 1919, p. 47.
21.J. M. Heffernan and M. J. Keeling, “Implications of Vaccination and Waning Immunity,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol. 276, 2009.
22. D. L. Levy, “The Future of Measles in Highly Immunized Populations: A Modeling Approach,” American Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 120, no. 1, July 1984, pp. 39–48.

----------


## Trickzta

When billions of dollars are driving a Government protected industry, what are the chances of public interest being of a higher priority than the continuation of the ‘Program” and the profits it makes? Sure, the same old ‘made for public consumption’ Media releases will pay lip service to the concerns raised by ‘stupid and ignorant people’ who question aspects of the industry generated ‘feel good’ reports.

Only when blatant and catastrophic slip-ups occur do the big guns step in and act. Nice word ‘act’, behind the act of investigating is the mad rush to find a scape-goat and/or a reason for transferring blame before the current crises gets too out of hand.

Many such Industries exist in these supposedly enlightened times. 
I previously posted this link but as there are warnings about the safety of the site, warnings that could deter some from accessing the site, (nothing wrong with a cautious approach, I’ve taken the liberty of posting the thread in its entirety. Apologies to those who have already accessed this post.
Vaccine Bombshell: Leaked Confidential Document Exposes 36 Infants Dead After This Vaccine


A report to the government noted babies died after receiving a vaccine.
A confidential GlaxoSmithKline document recently leaked to the press exposed that within a two-year period, a total of 36 infants died after receiving the 6-in-1 vaccine, Infanrix Hexa. [1] According to the website Initiative Citoyenne [2] who reported the news, the 1271 page document revealed that GlaxoSmithKline received a total of 1,742 reports of adverse reactions between October 23, 2009, and October 22, 2011, including 503 serious adverse reactions and 36 deaths. Initiative Citoyenne stated:
“It’s not that 14 deaths were recorded by GSK between October 2009 and end in October 2011 as we had originally calculated but 36 (14 from 2010 to 2011 and 22 from 2009 to 2010). In addition to these 36 deaths at least 37 other deaths (sudden death mainly), bringing the total to at least 73 deaths since the launch of the vaccine in 2000, and again, this concerns only the death by sudden death, no further recovery of under-reporting.”
Using the figure of 36 deaths over a two-year period, this averages 1.5 deaths per month, which by anyone’s standard is extremely high. Note that only 1 to 10% of adverse reactions to vaccines are actually reported. Therefore, in reality, the problem could potentially be far more serious and the actual number of fatalities much higher.
THE DEADLY CHEMICAL COCKTAIL
The charts show that many of the babies who died passed away within the first few days of receiving the vaccine. [3] A total of three infants were reported to have died within hours of receiving the vaccine. This tragedy is hardly surprising given the vaccine’s ingredients listed on the GSK Infanrix Hexa product information leaflet, which parents are rarely given the chance to read prior to vaccination, including non-infectious substances from tetanus, diphtheria bacteria, purified proteins of pertussis bacteria, the surface protein of the hepatitis B virus (HBsAg, derived from genetically engineered yeast cells) and inactivated poliovirus. [4] Each 0.5mL dose contains:
•	diphtheria toxoid
•	tetanus toxoid
•	pertussis toxoid
•	filamentous haemagglutinin
•	pertactin
•	recombinant HBsAg protein
•	poliovirus Type 1
•	poliovirus Type 2
•	poliovirus Type 3
•	purified capsular polysaccharide of Hib covalently bound to tetanus toxoid
•	aluminium hydroxide
•	aluminium phosphate
•	2-phenoxyethanol, lactose
•	Medium 199
•	neomycin
•	polymyxin
•	polysorbate 80
•	polysorbate 20
•	sodium chloride
•	water
TOXIC DOSES OF TOXIC CHEMICALS
In an interesting article by Dr. Harold Buttram titled “The Ultimate Gamble: Do Childhood Vaccines Result in Genetic Hybridization from Alien Human and Animal DNA Contents?” he highlighted the problems associated with just two of these ingredients, including aluminum, which is a neurotoxin associated with Alzheimer’s disease and seizures, and formaldehyde, which is a known cancer-causing agent commonly used to embalm corpses. [5]
Dr. Harold Buttram also stated:
“It is universally recognized among toxicologists that combinations of toxic chemicals may bring exponential increases in toxicity; that is, two toxic chemicals in combination will bring a ten-fold or even a hundred-fold increase in toxicity. 
A classical example of this principle was the Schubert study [21] in which it was found that the amount of lead and the amount of mercury, when each was given separately, would be lethal for one percent of rats tested, would become lethal for one hundred percent of rats tested when combined.
In vaccines this principle would apply at least to mercury and aluminum, both of which are potent neurotoxins.”
CONCLUSION
Considering this information, is it any wonder that babies are dying after receiving vaccinations containing these ingredients? GlaxoSmithKline may try and hide the facts from us but they cannot hide them forever. Infanrix Hexa should be removed from the market immediately.
See more at: http://vactruth.com/2012/12/16/36-in....kjuZbcR3.dpuf

My opinion of observations gleaned from this ‘highly dangerous report’ include,
1)	The initial report serves as a form of ‘damage control’ by initially downsizing the extent of the problem in public Media Releases. 
2)	 The argument that “dead or weakened germs cannot make you ill therefore the vaccine is safe” does not take the other toxins in vaccines into account. This completely and utterly destroys what little science is presented in their ‘theory’.
3)	The number of times they say ‘at least’ when adjusting totals for Public consumption is cause for concern, it tacitly suggests that there are more casualties hidden from sight. (opinions may differ, even worse is that some will have no opinion of their own) Arguably it is “legalese”;- a term used to refer to ‘defensive or carefully worded text in anticipation of future legal argument or suchlike. Even then it is cause for concern.
4)	Some vaccines are made from ingredients that are toxic enough to be a danger to people even if the germs are not taken into consideration.
5)	 Major Companies, often with government support and protection, and even Special Laws and Special Courts in some cases, to further protect the Companies, are still in the habit of misrepresenting the truth and hiding reports and findings from the public’s eye.
6)	Protocol is rarely exercised by the Medical practitioner or Institution when it comes to informing the patient/parent about the benefits vs the dangers of vaccines. Little or no background screening is done in most cases.       
I've omitted the source material list for this post, it is available on request.

----------


## pmbguy

I just pray that nobody takes your posts seriously. Trickzta - would you be able to cope with having the death of a child on your hands because you convinced somebody not to vaccinate? This is a serious matter. I don’t think you fully comprehend the possible consequences of your actions. You are not a doctor and you have zero authority on the matter. This is the most harmful thread I have seen so far on TFSA. I really think you should think long and hard about this. Think of what you doing. You are trying to save the world...I get it, but what you are doing is the opposite. I just hope you will see the light. But I doubt that...you are too far into your quest for a turnaround. But may I please appeal to your better judgement and ask you to rather not continue with this quest. Think about it...what if you wrong and caused the unnecessary death of a child because of your unprofessional opinion on the matter.  

Here is an interesting thought. Instead of vomiting out all this crap you find on the internet, do this instead. Make a list containing the phone numbers of a 100 doctors. Then ask each of them what they, as professionals, have to say on the matter. 

Trickzta my post is harsh, sorry. I know you have good intentions. You are not a bad guy. But I have to be harsh given the fact that your beliefs may actually kill somebody. 


For anybody else who read this thread and is consequently convinced by it, Pease Please speak to your doctor first before deciding not to vaccinate.

----------


## Trickzta

I'll not post again until I've answered your post in full. Professionals should always be consulted in any health issues. On this we agree. That I'm not a Medical Professional is a fact. I've never made any intentional claim to the opposite, that is I've never claimed to be a Expert or Doctor or other Professional. Whenever I remember I state that my words (my own words) are merely 'opinion'.

You are correct in saying that I mean no harm to others, especially children. When I originally posted the subject was (in my opinion) about a loving family that was badly affected by *let's call it circumstance for now*. I believed that they were charged with murder but every mention of their plight by others spoke of 'negligence' but no links were supplied. I'm still unsure of the precise charges they face. There was little regard for the parents in replies that mentioned them. Their was some but not much sympathy for them even when (and here I rely on overseas sources) had they been guilty of shaking their baby why did the Medical Fraternity not detect the trauma that such violent action would present as marks and bruises especially around the neck area?

This is what my post was intended to do, discuss the case in general and the charges in particular. 

I think you're a good guy too. I could see that we were on a collision course with our opposite views and a bit of "getting personal" was creeping into the conversation. 

I'll suspend posting as per your plea, for the meantime anyway. May I contact you directly (in the forum of course) to discuss this privately? 

Take Care.

----------


## pmbguy

Hi Trickzta – You can send me a private message anytime I really don’t mind. However I must point out that I don’t wish to discuss this topic in much more depth than we already have. You see I studied child development and epidemiology, I know how deadly and debilitating some of these preventable diseases are. I also know what a huge positive impact vaccines have had worldwide, Saving the lives of millions. So I won’t be swayed by any argument you put forward, therefore I wish to abstain from debating this issue with you.

You have the right to post your opinions, however wrong I may feel they are. I regret the tone of my other posts above, But I could not help myself since I feel it is potentially harmful. 

You must understand that the internet is full of information that seems to disprove any scientific fact you can think of. There are Professors that believe aliens walk amongst us. You will find the dissertations of doctors that believe Hiv-Aids does not exist. Just because you find a mountain of evidence on the internet does not mean it is true.

----------


## adrianh

@pmbguy - I must admit that I don't read any of the junk that the guy posts. My dad was an orthopaedic surgeon, my mom a radiographer and my sister was a nurse for a couple of years... We grew up around hospitals and medical professionals so I don't have much regard for the opinions of untrained people in this regard.

----------


## pmbguy

I struggled to read all the long posts, I tried but could not for the life of me read everything, sorry Trickzta 

It is weird how some people are very impressionable when it comes to things they read on the internet. I think that from when children start to read they learn that there are only 2 major types of literature, factual and fiction. This gets burned into the psyche and when the internet came along there was suddenly this huge amount of fiction but written in a factual manner. So the person reading it has a natural inclination to take it at face value and not doubt its integrity. I know one or two people that will accept almost anything they read on the internet, no matter how much I appeal to their reason. Children should get taught in school that there is a third major class of literature called internet misinformation.

Also each individual fact stated in Tricksta’s posts may be correct on its own, but it is the way the information is put together that leads to false conclusions, especially when other much more prudent facts are left out. The issue is then not seen in a holistic balanced manner, creating a totally false impression. 
At some point he quoted some number of babies that apparently died from a specific vaccine, 34 or something, but he failed to investigate how many millions are saved by that very same vaccine. 

The following fictional scenario is for demonstration purposes only, I don’t wish to get sucked into a pointless discussion over vaccines again: Leaked documents show that in 2010 alone 12 people died from drug X. This is horrific. The document is real and was hidden from public consumption. The FDA has approved this drug and they won’t ban this drug even though it kills people. They just after money...conspiracy....bla bla bla. BUT what the impressionable reader does not know (does not want to know) was that the same drug directly lead to the recovery of 10 000 people in the same year, therefore no FDA investigation etc etc etc. You need the full picture to draw conclusions. You can’t only listen to one side of the story and think you got the whole picture.

----------

Dave A (16-Nov-13)

----------


## adrianh

When we were kids the stories always started off by saying "my friend know somebody who says..." or "they say..." now it's "I saw it on the internet..." of course photographs don't lie, Photoshop is a myth, journalist don't make up stories or embellish and fools & spin doctors don't create websites to flaunt their ideas!....hmmmm...seems we're back at the old story of "who's truth are we talking about" - the truth seen through various perceptions could be contradictory...

You see the problem lies in the fact that the deaths due to vaccines are visible and countable but the lives saved are not because there is no way to quantify whether a specific person would have contracted the disease if they were not vaccinated. The only thing that one can say is that there were a specific number of deaths reported due to a particular disease and with the advent of vaccinations there are a smaller number of deaths which implies that the vaccines do make a difference.

I would hazard a guess that chemotherapy kills 10 times more people in a day than vaccines kill in a year....and I would also add that cars kill 1000x more people per hour that vaccines kill in an year...we should rather ban cars to save lives...but we are ok with the risk of driving a car...funny how silly our brains are!

----------

Trickzta (19-Nov-13)

----------


## Trickzta

Disclaimer; applicable to all my posts in this forum and elsewhere. My posts are opinion and are not intended to influence any decisions especially those that are related to health or Medical issues. Consulting a professional is strongly recommended before any change to your medical regime is considered, whether such change or thought of changing is derived from content in my posts or not. Always consulting an expert before following advice from any source is, in my opinion, good practice.

I am not a medical professional by any means or any stretch of imagination, I’m not qualified to give medical advice. My posts are not to be seen as medical advice, I strongly recommend consulting a professional with any concerns or health issues before making any decisions on health matters. Please consult with your GP or your professional of choice before drawing conclusions from my posts including links to third parties, or any other posts that appear on internet in any form or shape. This thread has tilted off topic to some degree, nevertheless, it is healthy to debate in an open and honest manner, presenting available data in good faith without attacking the people who have an opposite view to the one you present, whether that viewpoint is what you truly believe or not.

A debate or discussion should be viewed as a means to broaden our knowledge and/or understanding of the subject matter and related issues and in some cases, unrelated issues. To approach such debate with a ‘win by any means’ attitude defeats the object, in fact the notion of winners and losers detracts from the essence of such debate and often debases the content by evolving into a personal battle of wits and/or a exchange that ridicules the oppositions viewpoint, sometimes even causing personal insults to replace ordered discussion based on verifiable points of contention. This is my opinion.

----------


## Trickzta

Are you guys serious? Have you read what you've posted? I have and will point out blatant discrepancies in your posts should you request me to do so. Take care.

----------


## pmbguy

I like this Trickzta better

----------

Trickzta (19-Nov-13)

----------


## Citizen X

> Vaccinations are a) alright, b) bad, c) criminal, d) deadly, e) essential, f) fraudulent, g) good, h) harmful i) important?


I’m a layman to the field of medicine, have no medical training and don’t profess the same. I do however know one or two things about medical law and medical forensics.
On the point of vaccinations in general, I’ll turn to my two dogs Romeo and Lancelot for guidance, they require their yearly vaccination, failing which they are vulnerable to rabies.
There are cases in SA where mothers were found to be negligent for not taking their babies to a doctor for the relevant vaccination. In these cases these babies had succumb to whatever the vaccination was supposed to prevent. There is no excuse for a parent not taking their babies for the relevant vaccinations, as they given for free at Government clinics and hospitals.
The Flu Vaccine, I took the flu vaccine for these past two years and did not get the flu. 
So, I choose option ‘e’ essential.

----------

Trickzta (19-Nov-13)

----------


## Justloadit

If you need to travel in certain countries in Africa, you are required to take yellow fever vaccination, and provide proof of the same, or else you may not enter the respective country.
Surely this is a strong indication, that the vaccine works.

----------

Trickzta (19-Nov-13)

----------


## Trickzta

Vanash, thanks for replying and expressing your view. As mentioned previously by one or both of us, everyone is entitled to his own opinion. I seriously suggest that you do a little research, time permitting to verify what, if any, scientific papers, research etc., verify or establish any 'scientific' link to the vaccine industry and to the vaccines themselves.

Some of the most damning evidence (scientific evidence) that I came across condemning the science-free theories associated with vaccines, I came across while searching for proof that vaccines did in fact work. Non the less I respect your choice without condemnation. There are babies that died because of not being vaccinated? Hard to prove (I would imagine) when many vaccinated babies die from disease vaccine was supposed to prevent. But truth be told, the biggest purse is usually better represented in a court of law, a factor that is apparent to some, conspiracy theory to others. 

Won't be long and we'll have a vaccine to prevent freckles. Take care.

----------


## Trickzta

If you need to travel in certain countries in Africa, you are required to take yellow fever vaccination, and provide proof of the same, or else you may not enter the respective country.
Surely this is a strong indication, that the vaccine works. 

Justloadit, thanks for your reply. In my humble opinion, this info is indicative of Imperial Rule (past or present) in said African countries, and is typical of residual influence remaining once the Powers have departed.

What is blatantly missing in this "Emperors New Clothes" scenario, presented by vaccine propaganda, is the scientific data that is available for all other drugs. Indications are good, but on their own, are deemed as insufficient evidence to support a scientific claim.

----------


## Citizen X

For me personally in the final analysis of this vaccine matter, if my two dogs must get vaccinated for several sickness and disease which could be fatal to them and I diligently take them for all their vaccines as I know it’s in their best interest, then why on earth will I be against any form of medically approved human vaccination. Babies need to be vaccinated, if their mothers fail to do so they will be held to be negligent. It’s a legal duty of a mother to act with certain matters regarding the infant and later the minor, one of this is access to health care and this includes vaccinations. There’s no mother from any quarter of SA that’s just going to prevent their own child from being vaccinated on a whim, most take this task seriously and rightfully so.
In short if vaccines are good enough for my dogs then they also good enough for me!

----------

Trickzta (26-Nov-13)

----------


## Trickzta

Thanks Vanash, for taking the time to share solid advice in your replies in other posts. It makes sense what you say and I was aware of some of the faults or undesirable aspects of trying to say too much and ending up sounding disjointed. To be frank this post and another took a strange turn or two and the topic was lost in the ensuing banter. Strangely enough some of the replies have content that is more applicable to the reply itself than it is to my posts.

I can be evasive when the occasion calls for it, I never realised the extent to which it is apparent to you and possibly others. Even more surprising is how so many people implicitly believe in some things that have no scientific evidence on which to base their findings on. I myself was unaware, until recently, of the nature of propaganda driven mass indoctrination and the use of these measures for political and financial gains. 

You might say that to back up my opinion in regard to the previous two sentences would require multiple links. First I'd have to post a link that says that there have been no 'double blind etc., published data on vaccines for fifty years, although lately, here in Africa multiple Countries in conjunction with Super Rich Iconic people have done some preliminary research or tests or whatever the correct label is. The results were much trumpeted and celebrated even though by their own admission the results were lower than expected and in my opinion there is something 'fishy' about using a product that was shelved years ago to be resurrected and then used in Africa with African Guinea Pigs. Also fishy to me is the fact that after 50 years of proclamations of 'saving the world' aided and abetted by dubious laws and social pressure and the ever present propaganda spewing Mass Media Machine the vaccine pushing Mafia see fit to actually start doing the evaluations etc., that is a legal requirement as stipulated by the FDA. Secondly I’d have to post links concerning propaganda and its role in mass mind control, these links would in turn lead to more links when points of view were challenged.

To keep such a wide range of topics simple is no easy task. This is not a 'cut and paste' post but a spur of the moment reply. Due to a problem on two attempts to post this I did have the opportunity to edit some parts. The problem was in my mind, self induced. Don’t try to click the ‘Thank you’ button until the post has uploaded. Yes I did try it and it doesn’t work.

But seriously;
           Instead of having a thread that meanders and winds (as you kindly pointed out to me) and has no potential of ending any millennium soon, I propose that we close this chapter or take it one point at a time.

I am open to suggestions in this regard. I never started this thread with the aim of 'winning' or 'losing' a concept that I feel debases the objectives of reasonable debate where serious issues are the topic. The only winners or losers I had in mind were the parents whose plight I wanted to highlight in the hope that they receive a fair hearing. My opinion remains unchanged and I'd like to thank all for their input regardless of their opinions stated or implied. The opposition this post received from some had the knock on effect of opening many, many new doors (in windows  :Wink: ) doors that I would not have opened had there been no response at all.

I must also admit that some of the opposition was 'tongue-in-cheek' and almost as over the top as I was, which is healthy I'd say. Thanks again for your guidance Vanesh, you helped me realise that I was defeating myself by trying too hard and was coming across as a bit too much of a "stiff upper lip", which is not really my style. I learned some interesting insights as well as the 'art' of keeping posts short and sweet. I yet have to apply this learning to my posts, as you can see.


In short if vaccines are good enough for my dogs then they also good enough for me![/QUOTE]

Lol Vanesh but still the most scientific related reply I've had! This makes me wonder if your dog has steak and eggs for dinner or if the Epol is good enough for you? Jus jokin! Take care.

----------


## pmbguy

@Trickzta – Here are some verifiable statistics to look at. These are cold hard facts, difficult to dispute. 


Polio was one of the most dreaded childhood diseases of the 20th century in the United States. Periodic epidemics occurred since the late 19th century and they increase in size and frequency in the late 1940s and early 1950s. An average of over 35,000 cases were reported during this time period. With the introduction of Salk inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) in 1955, the number of cases rapidly declined to under 2,500 cases in 1957. By 1965, only 61 cases of paralytic polio were reported

The last cases of naturally occurring paralytic polio in the United States were in 1979, when an outbreak occurred among the Amish in several Midwestern states.


http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/polio/dis-faqs.htm

----------

Citizen X (26-Nov-13), Trickzta (26-Nov-13)

----------


## Trickzta

Sure, stats are impressive.

No Placebo-Controlled Trials of Whole-Cell Vaccine Since 1950 - All Post-Vaccination Research in The Last 60 Years Shows Health Damage 

No randomised placebo-controlled trials of whole-cell vaccine have been performed since the 1950s, when diagnostic methods were different. Indeed, in the early 1990s, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which spent 20 months studying all the available data on vaccinations, confirmed that no controlled clinical trials have ever been conducted to rule out whether the vaccine can cause chronic neurological damage, blood disorders, juvenile diabetes, Guillain-Barre paralysis and learning disabilities. With the most controversial vaccine in history, most questions about safety have never been asked.

The only large-scale study ever conducted in the US, at University of California at Los Angeles in 1979, found that one in 875 doses of DTP is followed by convulsions, or an episode of shock or collapse, leading to death in the case of two babies (Pediatrics, 1981; 68: 650-60). As for brain damage, a Swedish study showed a rate of brain damage or death of one in 17,000 children (BMJ, 1967; 4: 320-3).
http://preventdisease.com/news/13/11...m_medium=email

This kind of polio, "Atypical Polio", has since been renamed "ME" and even more recently, "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome". But it remains a kind of polio despite the change of name, and newer technology has shown up the generic similarities of the most frequent agent that causes it.
http://www.investinme.org/InfoCentre...es-popup-2.htm 

Now what I’ve been trying to highlight is that vaccines are allowed to ‘bypass’ normal channels even when there is no rampant epidemic to warrant drastic action.
Minimizing COIs in vaccine safety research could reduce research bias and restore greater trust in the vaccine program.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22375842

Thanks for the reply.

----------


## pmbguy

So Trickzta Polio was eradicated in the US by the use of the polio vaccine. Is this not proof enough for you? You have simply bypassed my post and did not acknowledge the implications this has on your argument. How can you overlook the clear and simple facts?

----------

Trickzta (26-Nov-13)

----------


## Trickzta

*This is what started this thread. I am not bypassing your post of stats. I will post a reply about stats soon.* 
Mrs. A said that around this time the pediatrician requested a biopsy to test the collagen for brittle bone disease. The results of this test are not known because Baby A’s medical records have since gone missing.
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/201...vaccine-death/

*I do not trust stats that exclude some strains of polio, and/or subscribe to renaming these strains.*
Another high-ranking expert of the WHO, not authorised to talk to the media, told Dawn that although the latest mutated form was very close to the P2 strain of the polio virus, it could not be labeled P2. 
“P2 polio virus was eradicated from the world in 1998 leaving the world with only P1 and P3” he remarked                                                                   http://dawn.com/news/1032836/mutated...-polio-worries
The National Polio Surveillance Project data show that the polio eradication program has increased paralysis among children—from 3,047 cases yearly in 1997 to 61,038 cases in 2012, most now being classified as AFP instead of polio.

The Government does not reveal how many of these cases are due to the vaccine. It was observed in 2005 that, against 66 cases of polio caused by the wild polio virus that year, 1,645 were caused by the vaccine. Data reveals that those vaccinated are 6.26 times more likely to be paralyzed.
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/201...io-free-india/

Thanks for the reply.

----------


## Trickzta

*More info on name changes. Plus some more info for those that are interested.*
The history of polio has been distorted. 
The first thing anyone says when you discuss not giving vaccines is 'do you want her to get polio?' Obviously not, although 'getting' polio and being paralyzed are two completely different things, given that 95% of polio cases are asymptomatic. Furthermore, polio has been consistently reclassified over the last 50 years so that many diseases we called polio at one time are no longer called that. This reclassification is not just an American trait, though.
In India in 2012, they celebrated a whole year going by without a polio death. Great news, hey! But have you heard of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis? A new study revealed that rates of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) have increased 1200% since the oral polio vaccine was introduced a decade ago. Bear in mind NPAFP is "clinically indistinguishable" from wild polio.  Clinically. Indistinguishable. We may have eliminated a virus, but we have not eliminated paralysis, which, after all, should have been the goal of the program.
So, has polio been "eradicated" or reclassified?
Also, you most likely source of getting polio in America in the last 60 years was actually from a polio vaccine. In 1955, in what is now referred to as the 'Cutter Incident', 120,000 people were mistakenly vaccinated with live polio. Whoops!
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/8-m...c7bec-86914577

----------


## Citizen X

@ Trickzta, just a thought :Embarrassment: : 

You have clearly invested considerable time and energy on this thread and your other threads. This tells me that you capable of conducting sound research. Why not channel your research capabilities in some of the other forums of TFSA?[as you have no doubt already seen, there is the marketing forum, the general business forum just to name 2]

I think that you can make a meaningful contribution! Try one of the sub- categories of TFSA business forum.

I’m merely trying to suggest that given the fact that you are willing to invest time and considerable research energy in very specific topics, why not use your skills and abilities to the benefit of the entire TFSA community? In doing so I assure you that you will be making a meaningful contribution to South Africa..

Just my 2 cents..

----------

Trickzta (26-Nov-13)

----------


## Trickzta

You are right Vanash, and I've posted a small piece on antibiotics minutes ago, before I read your reply. I will try to get around to posting more in the future. Thanks.

----------

Citizen X (26-Nov-13)

----------


## Citizen X

> You are right Vanash, and I've posted a small piece on antibiotics minutes ago, before I read your reply. *I will try to get around to posting more in the future*. Thanks.


All research has value! Someone out there in our South African community will owe you a debt of gratitude if you could simply use your research skills in the right direction.
 Think of it as this energy you have, which you and you alone can channel in this right direction. And, hey, you get to choose:[*I’m just naming a few:* General Business Forum, Business Finance Forum, Accounting Forum, Marketing Forum, Business Online Forum, Business Ownership and Management Forum, Scam alert Forum, Technology Forum].
In one of these forums you can find your niche, it’s waiting for you!




> *I will try to get around to posting more in the future*


I'll hold you to this :Wink: 
PS: When you want to reply to a very specific persons post, use the 'reply with quote,' ribbon, bottom right of every post next to  the 'reply,' ribbon,' this will make it must easier to follow what you saying and where you going with a specific point..

----------

