Oh Wonderful! Flu Vaccine May Not Work

#127
#127
I haven't mentioned it yet, but those with children certainly appreciate the drastic decline in rotavirus. That was a nasty infection, until about 2006, when (according to our new vaccine expert) babies suddenly evolved and were no longer susceptible to blowout diarrhea and explosive vomiting that often landed them in the hospital. Amazingly, and simultaneously, older kids and adults somehow developed this new wonder-power, as well, and infection in their demographics is much less common now.

Of course, the conspiring government and evil doctors claim that the vaccine (which was licensed and recommended for widespread use at the same time) and herd immunity are responsible, but we are no fools.
 
#128
#128
Velo Vol said:
One problem here.

The Price of Prevention: Vaccine Costs Are Soaring

$2,200 to vaccinate someone up to age 18?
Click to expand...

Ever spent a couple days in the hospital? Or a few hours in the ICU? Or a week off work?

Of course, an extended stay for meningitis, days of IV antibiotics, lifelong nursing care and therapy for paralysis or brain damage, etc could easily run 10-100s times that figure.

When you put the pencil to the paper, it's actually quite a bargain if it prevents even one or two of the conditions.
 
#129
#129
I'd understand the vaccine outrage if it became a federal mandate. Right now, it's a choice in most situations, so what's the gripe really?
 
#131
#131
I've gotten so many vaccines and shots that I've lost count.


I've gotten the flu shot for 12 years now and never had the flu.
 
#132
#132
jamesd1628 said:
Well, let’s at least try to focus on one of these at a time, for clarity. Say polio, since it’s the first on your list. You state: “Polio . . . used to kill a bunch of people, now [it doesn’t].” While that statement is true, it says nothing about why it’s true, i.e., it says nothing about whether the polio vaccine is the reason for the drop in rates of polio. Significant evidence suggests that the polio vaccine had little to do with the drop in polio rates. Consider the following:

- Polio rates decreased dramatically across the US and Europe, over several decades, before any vaccine was introduced or widely used
- In several European countries where no vaccine was ever introduced, the polio rates dropped to todays nearly non-existent rates on their own, with no vaccine
- Following introduction of the polio vaccine, the definition of polio was modified to make it much harder to be diagnosed with polio, thereby inflating the supposed effectiveness of the polio vaccine (testified to by Dr. Bernard Greenberg, chairman of the Committee on Evaluation and Standards of the American Public Health Association, in Congressional hearings in 1962)
- At no time after the introduction of the polio vaccine was the decline in the incidence of polio greater than before vaccine introduction.

Furthermore, it would appear that the polio vaccine even causes polio in many cases:

- In the US, polio rates skyrocketed in years immediately following the introduction of mass inoculations, usually by hundreds of percentage points
- Quote from Jonas Salk, inventor of the polio vaccine: ““When you inoculate children with a polio vaccine you don’t sleep well for two or three weeks.”
- More from Salk: “In 1976, Dr. Jonas Salk, creator of the killed-virus vaccine used in the 1950s, testified that the live-virus vaccine (used almost exclusively in the U.S. from the early 1960s to 2000) was the “principal if not sole cause” of all reported polio cases in the U.S. since 1961.”
- In 1992, the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published an admission that the live-virus vaccine had become the dominant cause of polio in the United States. In fact, according to CDC figures, every case of polio in the U.S. since 1979 was caused by the oral polio vaccine. (see CDC Admitted Polio Outbreaks after 1979 Were Vaccine Associated - CNN iReport)

All of that evidence (including source material) and much more can be obtained from any number of web sites. I’m not going to waste my time dragging citations over to this site; if someone is curious, the information is readily available, with original source material.




I don’t think even the CDC would make such a bold statement. Have you read their information page regarding the flu vaccine? In case you haven’t, here it is: Vaccine Effectiveness - How Well Does the Flu Vaccine Work? | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC. I’ve never seen such non-committal double-talk in all my life. Of course, they really have no choice considering how many studies show that the flu vaccine provides little, if any, benefit. You could pull up a dozen studies showing that it’s effective in some limited circumstance, and I could pull up just as many showing its ineffectiveness in others. That really kind of puts the CDC in a bind as to what they can say on their web site.

For me, the bottom line is this: if you’re going to inject me or, more importantly, my children with some foreign substance, the burden lies on you to convince me that the benefit outweighs the risks. In my view, that burden is far from being met.
Click to expand...

No, the bottom line is you don't want to be convinced. Your mind is made up.
 
#134
#134
jamesd1628 said:
That's probably a fair assessment of the mindset of both sides of the aisle.
Click to expand...

One side of the aisle is based on science. The other side is based on what a Playboy playmate thinks. This isn't a debate with two legitimate "sides" anymore than a round vs. flat earth debate is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#136
#136
Vercingetorix said:
One side of the aisle is based on science. The other side is based on what a Playboy playmate thinks. This isn't a debate with two legitimate "sides" anymore than a round vs. flat earth debate is.
Click to expand...

Really? Are you saying there are no medical doctors that are anti-vaccine? No other scientists, biologists or other highly educated people on that side of the aisle? Sure, there are obviously more on the pro-vaccine side, but many of the most vocal adversaries of vaccines are medical doctors and scientists. But I suppose that you think being the majority and/or having a "consensus" automatically makes you right. Much like the majority used to believe - to use your example - that the earth was flat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#137
#137
jamesd1628 said:
Really? Are you saying there are no medical doctors that are anti-vaccine? No other scientists, biologists or other highly educated people on that side of the aisle? Sure, there are obviously more on the pro-vaccine side, but many of the most vocal adversaries of vaccines are medical doctors and scientists. But I suppose that you think being the majority and/or having a "consensus" automatically makes you right. Much like the majority used to believe - to use your example - that the earth was flat.
Click to expand...

None that I know, and that's a fairly large sample size. In fact, most of them would handle you much less gently than I have.

Having a "consensus" doesn't mean anything. Having decades of irrefutable scientific evidence, however, seals the deal.
 
#138
#138
kiddiedoc said:
None that I know, and that's a fairly large sample size. In fact, most of them would handle you much less gently than I have.

Having a "consensus" doesn't mean anything. Having decades of irrefutable scientific evidence, however, seals the deal.
Click to expand...

If only you had that.

And trust me, I've had my fair share of heated arguments with doctors, on this issue and others. I have multiple doctors and nurses in my family, in addition to knowing quite a few others. They normally don't like me very much.
 
#146
#146
jamesd1628 said:
I have yet to see you address the fact that all of the diseases for which we have a vaccine had declined to nearly non-existent levels before vaccines were ever used.
Click to expand...

That's intellectually dishonest. Infection and death rates for nearly everything dropped drastically in the past 100 years due to advances in medicine and access to care. That doesn't make vaccinations obsolete in eradicating illness.
 
#147
#147
jamesd1628 said:
I have yet to see you address the fact that all of the diseases for which we have a vaccine had declined to nearly non-existent levels before vaccines were ever used.
Click to expand...

GAVol said:
That's intellectually dishonest. Infection and death rates for nearly everything dropped drastically in the past 100 years due to advances in medicine and access to care. That doesn't make vaccinations obsolete in eradicating illness.
Click to expand...

When trying to determine whether a vaccine is responsible for the declining incidence of a disease over time, how is it intellectually dishonest to take into account the decline in that disease before the vaccine was introduced? It would seem impossible to answer the question without addressing that fact.
 
Last edited:
#149
#149
jamesd1628 said:
When trying to determine whether a vaccine is responsible for the declining incidence of a disease over time, how is it intellectually dishonest to take into account the decline in that disease before the vaccine was introduced? It would seem impossible to answer the question without addressing that fact.
Click to expand...
how is it logical to equate a decline to an eventful eradication? Can you think of a disease that ever just went away naturally?
 
#150
#150
GAVol said:
how is it logical to equate a decline to an eventful eradication? Can you think of a disease that ever just went away naturally?

Why did smallpox return to the UK recently after they stopped vaccinating?
Click to expand...

Define eradication.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top