or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › If Vaccines Were Never Invented...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If Vaccines Were Never Invented... - Page 9

post #161 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post
 

Based on the research I've done, Jenner's original vaccine really did not work and did not save any lives. I think the real reason that vaccines became so popular is because it was something the medical establishment could sell and make money from it. They can't sell someone's "immune system boosting life style choices" which fights off these diseases, but they can sell vaccine products.

 

 

And your evidence of this is???

 

The immunity from smallpox vaccine is not thought to last that long, especially when it's from only a single dose.  There were also certainly problems with distribution of Jenner's vaccine since they did not have controlled storage methods, the ability to give a specific dose, the ability to ensure they were actually giving the right thing, or any of the modern sterilization techniques. So yes, there were likely many vaccine failures and there were a lot of problem with other thing such as syphilis or even smallpox itself being passed along with or instead of the vaccine. 

 

However, there is also ample evidence that the smallpox vaccine could protect against smallox and did save many lives.  The modern vaccinia virus used in the vaccine is not that far removed from Jenner's original, so if Jenner's original didn't work, and we have pleny of evidence that the modern vaccine is effective in preventing both smallpox and related pox diseases, when exactly and why did it suddenly start working?

post #162 of 178
Thread Starter 
My evidence is particularly the death records for several countries; the more vaccines given, the more deaths. Read more here
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/smallpox/smallpox-bringing-a-dead-disease-back-to-life/
Also see that table with the cowpox vs. Smallpox comparison, that's evidence of the vaccine being based on fraudulent fantasy.
post #163 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post

My evidence is particularly the death records for several countries; the more vaccines given, the more deaths. Read more here
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/smallpox/smallpox-bringing-a-dead-disease-back-to-life/
Also see that table with the cowpox vs. Smallpox comparison, that's evidence of the vaccine being based on fraudulent fantasy.

 

It's late so I don't have time to give that link the response it deserves, but will try to be back tomorrow to do so.  

 

For now, starting with the section comparing smallpox and cowpox...

 

Much of the information in this section seems to come from more-than-a-century old writings of an early anti-vacctionist and germ theory denier who they quote as saying "Small-pox, on the other hand, is not limited to the female sex as is cow-pox, nor to one portion of the body; it presents different physical signs, and, furthermore, is tremendously infectious, and the course and symptoms of the two diseases are totally different. Therefore there is no analogy between the two."

 

The claim that cowpox only infects females and only infects cows are both absolutely false.  Cowpox is called cowpox because that is there it was observed, but it has never been limited to cattle and is now generally not even found in cows.  Most cases of human cowpox these days are generally caught from cats who get it from hunting infected rodents.  Rodents seem to be the actual natural reservoir for this disease. That is humans, cats, an rodents of all genders, not just the females. 

 

The claim that smallpox only infects humans is mostly true.  There is no non-human reservoir of smallpox, and it was thought that it could not infect other animals, and most likely really can not do so naturally.  Just a decade or so ago scientists managed to prove that it was possible to infect an animal by deliberately infecting some poor monkeys using doses up to a millions times what it would take to infect a human.  Still, not something that would happen in nature as it had been tried by scientists before with more reasonable doses and always failed. 

 

The second line of the chart claims that they are different because cowpox is not infectious and smallpox is.  This is just ridiculous.  Both are infectious.  

 

The third line is not from the century old source who would not have known this.  It just say that cowpox is orthopox vaccinia while smallpox is orthopox variola. They explain above the chart with  "Doing a taxonomic check today in a standard index of viruses from a National Institutes of Health database [21] readily points out that cowpox is caused by a virus called Orthopox vaccinia and smallpox is caused by a virus called Orthopox variola."

 

So?  Why are they acting like this is some sort of astonishing revelation? 

 

They are different but closely related diseases. That is the whole point and why it works.  They are different, so they effect the body differently, with cowpox being much, much milder.  They have enough similarities though that an immune system which has learned to identify and protect against one will also be able to recognize and defend against the other.  Orthopox vaccinia also protects against other orthopox viruses, protecting humans and monkeys from monkeypox an rabbits from rabbitpox and mice from mousepox. 

 

In a related example of how smallpox and cowpox are not alone in this regard, Dogs can not get measles from humans, and humans can not be infected with canine distemper.  However, the two diseases are very closely related.  They share a common ancestor which is still around and infecting bats.  Mumps and a whole several other diseases also came from this parent disease, but they are not as similar to distemper as measles is.   Human measles vaccine can protect dogs from canine distemper, though it is not quite as effective as the actual distemper vaccine. 

post #164 of 178

The cowpox/smallpox story is an urban legend from the 18th century.  Many persons got cowpox and smallpox.  The milking maids actually washed their hand which probably prevented them from getting smallpox in the first place.  HIs technique was rough, dirty, and unscientific.

 

Edward Jenner was jeered at many medical meetings because many doctors had treated patients who had cowpox and smallpox; it was the political forces of the day that pushed the smallpox vaccine on the populace, not any solid health evidence. If Edward Jenner delivered his spiel today, he would be laughed out of the halls of medical academia - having one disease does not prevent another, or that is what modern medicine will tell us.

 

How about telling us why the last person to DIE from smallpox was fully vaccinated - protected? - against the disease, and why she passed it on to her mother,  who most probably was also vaccinated against smallpox, being the mother of a healthcare worker?

post #165 of 178
Quote:

Originally Posted by applejuice View Post

 

Edward Jenner was jeered at many medical meetings because many doctors had treated patients who had cowpox and smallpox; it was the political forces of the day that pushed the smallpox vaccine on the populace, not any solid health evidence. If Edward Jenner delivered his spiel today, he would be laughed out of the halls of medical academia - having one disease does not prevent another, or that is what modern medicine will tell us.

 

Of course Edward Jenner faced a lot of ridicule and was jeered at by many.  His ideas were new and controversial and involved deliberately infecting human beings with an animal disease which was seen as barbaric.  

 

However, his ideas also had a lot of support, and he was absolutely not alone in them.  In fact, he wasn't even the first to come up with them, and his paper wasn't the first medical paper on the subject of how cowpox infection prevents smallpox infection.    He gets the credit because he was the first to both try deliberately infecting people with cowpox and publish a medical paper on it, so he's the one who really got the ball rolling. 

 

The first recorded cowpox vaccination was Benjamin Jesty a farmer who twenty years before Jenner's experiments, at the start of a smallpox outbreak, deliberately infected his wife and two sons with cowpox (he'd already had it before).  None of them got smallpox in that outbreak or future ones despite his sons being directly exposed to it.  HIs gravestone gives him credit for being the first known person to use cowpox this way. 

 

Also twenty or so years before Jenner's expirements and just a little before Jesty's, a surgeon by the name of John Fewster noted that variolation (the process of deliberately infecting  people with smallpox material from a mild case in hopes that they would have a mild case of it, which often did work, but also killed a lot of people and spread smallpox), which normally made people quite sick, did not have any effect on those who had previously had cowpox.  He presented a paper called "Cow Pox and the ability to prevent Smallpox" to the Medical Soceity of London in 1765. 

 

Fewster was known to Jenner.  It's not clear whether Jenner knew of Jesty.  However, there are also known attempts from a few others in different countries with no connection to Jenner to do use cowpox around the same general time. 

 

This is all history though.  It is not surprising that some people had a lot of trouble accepting cowpox vaccination and that Jenner's theory as to why and how cowpox protected against smallpox turned out to be very wrong.  This was before germ theory had been discovered and so no one involved at the time had every even heard of a virus.  They also didn't have electron microscopes to see the virus or the ability to compare viral DNA to see just how closely the diseases are related. 

 

Are you seriously saying that modern medicine laughs at that immunity developed against cowpox can also be protective against smallpox too?  The idea of crossimmunity between them is very well accepted by the medical establishment. 

 

Also, now we do understand DNA and can test and see just how closely related the diseases are.  Testing how effective the vaccine is  by deliberately exposing them to smallpox as was done in Jenner's day can not be done today for obvious reasons of it being horribly unethical.  However, monkeys have been vaccinated with vaccinia then deliberately exposed to monkeypox (another closely related orthopox virus which is named for being found in monkeys but, like cowpox, is probably primarily a disease of rodents.  It can infect humans and is deadly to them, but does not spread from person to peson nearly as easily as smallpox), and the vaccine was found to be effective in preventing it.  

 

 

Quote:
 

How about telling us why the last person to DIE from smallpox was fully vaccinated - protected? - against the disease, and why she passed it on to her mother,  who most probably was also vaccinated against smallpox, being the mother of a healthcare worker?

 

 

Simple: because no vaccine is 100% effective all the time.  Smallpox vaccine in particular is known to be fairly short lasting (though while this is true a lot of the time, surprising recent research seem to show that some people may still somehow have protective levels of immunity decades later), and it had been twelve years since her last vaccine.  Researchers actually working with the vaccine were re-vaccinated every few years. 

 

She was infected because of the gross negligence of a researcher working with the virus a floor beneath her who worked with the virus with no protective clothing or a ventilation hood or sealed rooms or anything and allowed the airborne virus to enter the building's ventilation.  None of the researchers actually working with the virus or working in the same lab were infected, nor was anyone else in the building besides the one woman a floor above, and her mother was the only person of those she exposed or who helped care for her who she managed to infect.  Really, since we already knew that the vaccine was not 100% effective, that the outbreak was limited to two people is actually a pretty good testament to how well the vaccine worked to protect the researchers and other people who were exposed. 

post #166 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

Gee thanks, but if you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I posted to that ncbi link a week ago in post #146.

 

 

Speaking of paying attention... 

 

This bit from your above post: 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post

 

How about telling us why the last person to DIE from smallpox was fully vaccinated - protected? - against the disease, and why she passed it on to her mother,  who most probably was also vaccinated against smallpox, being the mother of a healthcare worker?

 

 

Gave me a bit of deja vu, so I went looking back one page to look, and yep, we've already did this.  

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

 And you did not note that the very last person to DIE from smallpox was a fully vaccinated healthcare worker in September 1977; she gave it to her mother, also vaccinated, who recovered. So much for the smallpox vaccine or any vaccine saving lives or preventing disease.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pers View Post
 

 

Yes, I noted that.  I make no claims that the vaccine was 100% effective.  That it was only her an her mother infected is a pretty good credit to the vaccines protecting all the people who cared for them and all the people actually working with the virus (she was working on something different upstairs from the virus, which is evidence of just how dangerous it was).  

 

 

Oh well. I guess my response this time went into a little more detail, so there is that.  But will it noticed this time?

post #167 of 178
Thread Starter 
 

They are different but closely related diseases. That is the whole point and why it works.  They are different, so they effect the body differently, with cowpox being much, much milder.  They have enough similarities though that an immune system which has learned to identify and protect against one will also be able to recognize and defend against the other.  

 

FYI - the whole table comparison thing is not even one of my main points for why I do not think the world's population would have been killed off if vaccines were never invented. Its just one quick point that I made because its a good simple demonstration of how the vaccine theory is fraudulent fantasy. The part above that I highlighted in bold, which you stated, is the theory behind how vaccines work. That's the fraudulent fantasy theory. Making people believe this fraudulent fantasy theory is essential for selling vaccines $$$. The true effective ways for building a strong robust, healthy immune system---cannot be sold $$$.

post #168 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post
 

 

FYI - the whole table comparison thing is not even one of my main points for why I do not think the world's population would have been killed off if vaccines were never invented. Its just one quick point that I made because its a good simple demonstration of how the vaccine theory is fraudulent fantasy. The part above that I highlighted in bold, which you stated, is the theory behind how vaccines work. That's the fraudulent fantasy theory. Making people believe this fraudulent fantasy theory is essential for selling vaccines $$$. The true effective ways for building a strong robust, healthy immune system---cannot be sold $$$.

 

Of course the world's population would not have been killed off by the diseases we have vaccines to prevent.  These diseases had been around for thousands of years and yet the human population generally thrived.   Many individuals did not though. These diseases did not kill enough people to threaten the existence of the human species, but they still did kill a lot of people.  Vaccines save lives. 

 

How can the chart be a "good simple demonstration of how vaccine theory is fraudulent fantasy" when the only accurate information it contains is the names of the diseases it is comparing?  For that matter, the entire page contains very little information that is true - fraudulent fantasies would be a good way to describe their depictions of vaccination, Jenner, and Smallpox history. 

 

I think vaccines may strengthen the immune system just a very small amount in the sense that anything the immune system responds to makes it just a little stronger?  That's really not the point though.  The measles vaccine isn't supposed to make the immune system stronger in general so it will be better at fighting off the flu or a cold or botulism or whatever.  It is just meant to give it a preview of what it will be like to fight measles so it will be prepared to do so whenever it may encounter measles in the future. 

 

For all that it is true that a healthy immune system can't be sold for $$$, funny how many of the big names in anti-vaccines try to do just that by pushing all sorts of expensive vitamins and supplements on the basis that they are supposed to boost the immune system. 

 

Back to measles, if the vaccine is not actually extremely effective as we have been told, but is instead completely ineffective, then why did measles go away?  My parents and aunt and uncles and virtually everyone in their generation had measles.  Just a few short decades later, measles was so rare that outbreaks of it was worthy of making the news, and I didn't actually know anyone growing up who got measles.  

 

Pretty much everyone in my generation did get chickenpox though. Now chickenpox is still around, and I do know five unvaxed kids (in two families) who got it, one of which my kids played with right before he broke out in spots, but that's it.  My kid have never had it, my other friends' kids have never had it, and the Internet is full of people who want chickenpox having trouble finding chickenpox to expose their kids to and going so far as to getting stranger to send licked lollipops (eeewwww) through the mail.  So what is causing the decline in chickenpox?

post #169 of 178
Thread Starter 
Did you know that all the VPDs were vanishing significantly, long before the vaccines were ever invented? There are graphs that illustrate this nicely. Did you know that chicken pox and measles are not deadly diseases at all? Vaccines kill. They do not save lives. Vaccines don't work. See question #4 : http://www.vaclib.org/intro/qandaone.htm

Also the ways to build a healthy robust strong immune system don't include those vitamins and supplements that you're referring to. The ways I'm talking about are not patented.
post #170 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post

Did you know that all the VPDs were vanishing significantly, long before the vaccines were ever invented? There are graphs that illustrate this nicely. Did you know that chicken pox and measles are not deadly diseases at all? Vaccines kill. They do not save lives. Vaccines don't work. See question #4 : http://www.vaclib.org/intro/qandaone.htm

 

No, VPDs in general were not vanishing significantly long before vaccines.  

 

Some diseases which we don't vaccinate for which are spread by contaminated water and such were disappearing to to modern sewers and sanitary practices.  TB does not spread very easily so is mostly a risk in long-term crowed living conditions, so improved standards of living caused a decline in it.  The ability to treat TB also decreased the spread of the disease - before antibiotics an individual could live with TB and spread it for years.  Yellow fever (vaccine preventable) and malaria (not vaccine preventable) are not passed from person to person directly, so targeting mosquito populations that carried them was the most effective way of making those diseases no longer a problem in North America. 

 

Diseases which are highly contagious and passed easily directly from person to person were not going away though.  Measles was just as common as it ever had been - practically every child got it - right up until the vaccine, and then it went away suddenly.  Everyone I knew as a kid had chickenpox at some point or another - it wasn't declining before the vaccine. Mortality from them was declining due to better living conditions and better medicine, but it wasn't and never would be zero. 

 

Not deadly diseases at all?  Yes, most kids survive just fine (especially chickenpox, for which death is very rare), but a some kids did and would still die.  I guess it depends on how many kids dying you need to consider something deadly.  Deadly or not, the diseases still suck to have, and both (but especially measles) can have some nasty complications resulting in a lot of misery and sometimes hospitalization.  Sometimes they can leave lifelong negative consequences.  There are reasons a disease may be worth trying to prevent even if people aren't dropping like flies from it. 

 

Did you mean a different question for your link?  Question four is primarily complaining that when another vaccine is used as a placebo rather than saline they think this can hide side effects.  I'm not sure that has to do with what we were just talking about. 

post #171 of 178
Thread Starter 
http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index.htm#8

Those are the graphs where you can see that the diseases for which they sell vaccines were mostly vanishing long before the vaccines were ever invented.

There are extremely effective ways for preventing diseases that are healthy and non toxic. Putting diseased toxic filth into the bloodstream via vaccines dirties it, poisons it and damages the immune system and overall health, which is doing the complete opposite of the extremely effective ways for preventing diseases.

JAMA study reveals vaccines don't work:

http://www.naturalnews.com/022617.html
post #172 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post

http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index.htm#8

Those are the graphs where you can see that the diseases for which they sell vaccines were mostly vanishing long before the vaccines were ever invented.

 

 

Those graphs are all death rates, not incident rates.  Please read my previous post again.  As I said in it, yes, mortality rates from many diseases were going down long before vaccines due to improved general health, living conditions, and better medicine.  There are also diseases which can be controlled through safe food handling and water treatment such as typhoid, cholera, and dysentery, and yes, these diseases were going away due to better sanitation. I said all this already. 

 

So please either show evidence that diseases such as measles, chickenpox, whopping cough, or the common cold which are spread directly from person to person and can be caught just from breathing the same air as an infected person were declining in incidence prior to vaccines, or quit making that claim. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post


JAMA study reveals vaccines don't work:

http://www.naturalnews.com/022617.html
 

That study isn't even looking at the effectiveness of vaccines.  Natural News has a long history of grossly misinterpreting any study it reports on.  It is also mixing up incidence rates and mortality rates. 

post #173 of 178
Thread Starter 
They should be the death rates and not the incidence rates. That's what matters. Did you know that people who were never vaccinated for those diseases (including there being no vaccine for the common cold, etc.), expose themselves to those germs but never develop the disease? How does that happen? Because of the healthy non toxic ways which strengthen the immune system and overall health. Thus, the incidences of diseases (and deaths) actually decline when implementing these healthy ways. Vaccines are unhealthy toxic diseased poison which disables and pollutes the bloodstream and body, completely counteracting and opposite to healthy ways for developing a clean strong immune system and body.
post #174 of 178

Umm, I've definitely seen studies that showed that kids with non-medical exemptions for vaccinations were more likely to get pertussis than kids that were vaccinated.

 

Also, there is no evidence that unvaccinated people practice more "healthy ways" (whatever they are) than vaccinated people, or that vaccinated people who also practice "healthy ways" don't do better than unvaccinated people when confronted with vaccine preventable diseases.

 

As for the medical establishment selling vaccines to people, what they should really be selling is vaccine controversy.  vaccines are worthless to the drug companies once they go off patent, and patents usually expire after ~7 years on the market.  So what they really need is more people like you who sound the alarm about vaccines.  In the general public, that's enough to make parents "concerned" about side effects while still wanting their kids to get the shots.  That increases demand for new "safer" vaccines which can be money-makers for the drug companies.  So you are helping the drug industry in that, like it or not.


Edited by naimah - 12/26/13 at 11:57pm
post #175 of 178
Thread Starter 
I've seen outbreaks of pertussis in vaccinated populations where the vaccinated develop pertussis and the non vaccinated don't.

Avoiding toxins/poison is a healthy way. Loading oneself with toxins/poisons weakens and damages health.

Vaccine companies obtain insignificant benefit from those speaking out against vaccines. Most people don't want to poison and kill their children with vaccines so when they know other people who refuse vaccines, they are more willing to trust parents who aren't selling products for money.
post #176 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post

They should be the death rates and not the incidence rates. That's what matters. 

 

Your argument was that vaccines were completely ineffective and diseases were already vanishing before they had vaccines.  This is a question of incidence rates.  The measles vaccine is clearly quite effective in preventing measles. 

 

I brought up several posts ago that deaths rates had already gone down substantially prior to vaccines due to a combination of better living condition an better medicine.  But, for diseases that still circulated freely, while the death rate were much, much lower than they had been, people still did die from them, and they would do so still today.  They had bleach and running water and handwashing and sewers when my mom was a kid in the fifties.  While medicine has improved in many ways since then, there is still not much they can do to help fight a virus besides treat symptoms and offer support, and they had already developed antibiotics to treat opportunistic bacterial pneumonia, so how much differently would measles be treated now than then? 

 

Finally, the death rate are not all that matters.  Rate of complications, especially serious ones such as permanent brain damage or damage to sight or hearing or scarring in the lungs or facial scarring also matter.  Beyond that,being sick and miserable just suck. 

 

Quote:
 Did you know that people who were never vaccinated for those diseases (including there being no vaccine for the common cold, etc.), expose themselves to those germs but never develop the disease? How does that happen? Because of the healthy non toxic ways which strengthen the immune system and overall health. Thus, the incidences of diseases (and deaths) actually decline when implementing these healthy ways. Vaccines are unhealthy toxic diseased poison which disables and pollutes the bloodstream and body, completely counteracting and opposite to healthy ways for developing a clean strong immune system and body.

 

Sure. My friends unvaxed kids and my fully vaxed kids were all playing with another friend's unvaxed kids right before one of them broke out in chickenpox.  His sister got it, but none of the other kids got it, even though they were playing with him when he should have been quite contagious.  Maybe my kid's vaccines proteced them, or maybe they wouldn't have gotten it anyway, there is no way to know.  Mine still haven't had it in the five years or so since.  My friend's unvaxed kids did get it after being exposed again a little under a year later, and while it wasn't too bad in two of her kids, her youngest had a pretty nasty case of them.  So.. should we presume they were super-healthy and resistant to chickenpox when they were exposed at the playdate but then declined in health by the time they actually did get it?  Or is it more likely just random chance that even though we thought they were very exposed and sure to get it, they didn't actually get enough of an exposure or breath in enough virus to infect them?

 

There are rare cases of people who have unnoticed cases of measles or chickenppox, especially if they have them as infants while still protected by maternal antibodies.  Of course, this isn't always a good thing as kids who have chickenpox before age one may have a milder case (though it can be serious if they don't actually have enough maternal antibodies), they are more likely to have chickenpox twice or end up with pediatric shingles. 

 

There are also some people who have genetic resistance to certain diseases, including people who are resistant to HIV, and taking bone marrow from one of them and transplanting it into a girl with HIV (for other reasons than just intending to treating the HIV) seems to have made her HIV go away. 

 

Then there are people like my grandmother who just seem to almost never get sick for unknown reasons.  She's nearly a hundred and lives mostly independently and has a pretty active social life.  She was born in the age before most vaccines and such but recovered well.  Unfortunately she didn't have antibiotics either so ended up in the hospital for quite a while from an ear infection that nearly killed her and did cause permanent damage to her hearing in one ear. But now she is quite healthy for he age.  She has one of the worst sweet tooths I've ever come across though, and she's always been a fan of processed food, especially since she quit cooking when my grandfather died nearly thirty years ago and has lived pretty much on frozen dinners and stuff out of boxes since. Perhaps all the sugar and preservatives are preserving her health now?

 

Eating properly and getting enough sleep and avoiding stress and all that can help your immune system function properly and help it fight off disease better.  In the same way, getting enough calcium and magnesium an vitamin D and whatever an getting proper excercise builds stronger bones.  But no matter how much you build up your bones, you still might break them in a fall or playing sports, and no matter how well you treat your immune system, it's can only be as strong as your genetics make it and no amount of supplements or sleep or whole foods that will keep the vast, vast majority of people from getting measles at some point if it were allowed to circulate, and no such thing ever as a perfect immune system which can fight off any amount of exposure to any amount of disease.  

 

Your body is designed to clear toxins and can do so just fine with the very small amounts in vaccine.  They are not harmful to the immune system.  

 

And I realize I am making some assumptions of what your ideas of improving immune health are, so just what is your opinion of how one builds a healthy body and strong immune system?

post #177 of 178
Thread Starter 
What I meant by diseases vanishing is death rates declining. In my mind I already don't care about the incidence rates. Do you know that some people will have the disease bug, thus have the disease, but their health and immune systems are so strong and robust that they will never display the symptoms of the disease? That's why incidence rates don't matter and only death rates do.

Vaccines change the immune system, they destroy its balance between th1 and th2 response. Vaccines skew and over stimulate the immune system towards th2, the auto immune responses, which makes th2 dominant and suppresses th1 responses. A healthy immune system is balanced and dynamic, able to switch back and forth between th1 and th2 as needed. Therefore, vaccines damage the immune system and cause bad health like auto immune diseases and cancer. This effect is often times seen instantly in the obvious vaccine damaged people. For others, its more of a slow poison where the damage shows up later in life, maybe as a teen or young adult.
post #178 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyLilPwny View Post

What I meant by diseases vanishing is death rates declining. In my mind I already don't care about the incidence rates. Do you know that some people will have the disease bug, thus have the disease, but their health and immune systems are so strong and robust that they will never display the symptoms of the disease? That's why incidence rates don't matter and only death rates do.

 

 

So... it's not that "vaccine theory is fraudulent fantasy" then as you said before?  But rather the measles vaccine is very effective in preventing measles, but not necessary because death rates declined a lot before it? 

 

Probably should have said becoming less deadly then rather than saying they were vanishing. 

 

Yes, some people may have an asymptotic case.  This is both rare and unpredictable though.  The vast majority of people get sick in ways that they can tell they are sick, and with measles, some of them get very sick and a small number of those will suffer permanent damage such as damage to the lungs or brain. Not to mention, being sick just sucks.  This is why incidence matters too, not just death. 

 

Quote:
 Vaccines change the immune system, they destroy its balance between th1 and th2 response. Vaccines skew and over stimulate the immune system towards th2, the auto immune responses, which makes th2 dominant and suppresses th1 responses. A healthy immune system is balanced and dynamic, able to switch back and forth between th1 and th2 as needed. Therefore, vaccines damage the immune system and cause bad health like auto immune diseases and cancer. This effect is often times seen instantly in the obvious vaccine damaged people. For others, its more of a slow poison where the damage shows up later in life, maybe as a teen or young adult.

 

The idea that vaccines cause a skewed th1/th2 response to bacteria and viruses encountered after vaccination is a theory that is not supported by evidence. 

 

Yes, in very rare cases, vaccines can trigger autoimmune disorders.  You know what else can trigger autoimmune disorders and is far more likely to?  Natural infections, including those that can be prevented by vaccines.  For example, GBS is an autoimmune disorder that can be triggered by vaccines and has been linked to the flu in particular.  However, influenza also causes GBS and does so at a higher rate.  If you end up with GBS, it is more likely that you got it from the flu than from a flu vaccine. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › If Vaccines Were Never Invented...