or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › do you vaccinate?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

do you vaccinate? - Page 11

post #201 of 345

Vax.

post #202 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

Vaccines did NOT cause the disease declines, all diseases died out of their own accord in the past, it is a very normal event that has seen untold amounts of diseases come and go in the past.  See this picture:

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/40874_451441187808_613002808_5195233_6148957_n.jpg

 

There is statistical data to support that chart, my friend made it.  I've seen the data - it's out there, it isn't hidden, but you do need to know what to look for and you do need to know how to interpret data. 


Might be kind of veering off track here (especially since I agree with your position on this issue!) but I have been trying to find data on the disease rate of decline -- this one shows the death rate, but I am looking for disease incidence not just deaths... I could've sworn I saw it at one point but I haven't been able to find it since... any chance you have a link to something like that?
post #203 of 345

I looked in the sticky section and couldn't find Emmeline's 10 questions.  She also provides some links, which I don't have, but I do have the questions.  Emmeline, if you're lurking, please chime in with the rest.

 

Note the depth and complexity involved in finding answers to most of these questions.  That alone should dispel the myth that non-vax-compliant parents blindly listen to Jenny McCarthy, conspiracy theory websites, and their own whiny emotions.  

 

Answering these questions actually requires some mental muscle, dedicated research, and genuine scientific inquiry.  But whether you vax fully, not at all, or somewhere in between....I admire and applaud you if you put this much thought into your decision!

 

You now are entering a tinfoil hat-free zone.  thumb.gif

 

 

 

Quote:
Here are some questions to answer for yourself in deciding about vax.

1. Name of the disease
2. Description of the disease
3. Length of time from initial infection to end of all symptoms
4. Infectious period
5. Normal symptoms of the disease
6. Known serious consequences of the disease
7. Proportion of persons infected developing serious consequences
8. Transmission route of the disease
9. Prevalence of the disease
10. Treatments of the disease and efficacy of those treatments
11. Relevant research about the disease
12. Name of the vaccine
13. Company that makes the vaccine
14. Contents of the vaccine
14A. The significance of whether or not the vaccine is live
15. History of development of the vaccine
16. Known side-effects of the vaccine and rate of incidence of those side-effects
17. Possible side-effects not yet acknowledged by the vaccine maker
18. Relevant research into the vaccine
19. How effective is the vaccine at preventing the disease?
20.What is the vaccine meant to do? (Many vaccines are not meant to prevent infection or transmission).
21.Number of cases reported each year.
22.Number of deaths reported each year from the vaccine and natural disease.

 

post #204 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

I looked in the sticky section and couldn't find Emmeline's 10 questions.  She also provides some links, which I don't have, but I do have the questions.  Emmeline, if you're lurking, please chime in with the rest.

 

Note the depth and complexity involved in finding answers to most of these questions.  That alone should dispel the myth that non-vax-compliant parents blindly listen to Jenny McCarthy, conspiracy theory websites, and their own whiny emotions.  

 

Answering these questions actually requires some mental muscle, dedicated research, and genuine scientific inquiry.  But whether you vax fully, not at all, or somewhere in between....I admire and applaud you if you put this much thought into your decision!

 

You now are entering a tinfoil hat-free zone.  thumb.gif

 

 

 

 


Love this! And also wanted to add that as someone who doesn't vax I am very VERY sensitive to when my DD is sick. I pay very close attention to the symptoms, we don't go ANYWHERE. I make sure to doubly try and get her to eat well, i actually take our frozen homemade chicken stock and put it in a sippy cup warmed up for, which she loves. I have a fully packed medicine cabinet full of various things that will help us get through sicknesses including a stethoscope (ok i stole this from my college's clinicinnocent.gif years ago) as well as various herbal and homeopathic remedies. I also have the conventional baby tylenol for a severe fever and other random stuff.

 

I do not take the decision to not vax lightly, I feel like it is my responsibility to be as learned as I can in the symptoms of VPDs as well as the possibility of exposure in my particular area. My mother is also immune compromised so I NEVER risk exposing her to any bug when I think DD or I have one. She could end up in the hospital very very quickly. 

 

Whether you vax or not, one should never act as though stuffing their kid with cough medicine and sending their snotty little behinds out in public is an ok thing do to!

 

post #205 of 345

This may be OT but I am bringing it up b/c of that chart I just looked at. Scarlett fever essentially eradicated itself, absolutely. I just want to say that I did have it and my sister had it too. It was rough for a couple weeks. We now laugh about how we were lying on the couch together halucinating b/c our fevers were so high. We are fine though. I haven't had anything more than a cold in maybe 10 years and I'm only 23.

 

I have no clue if I was vaxed as a kid or not. I do know that I had blood drawn to see what vaxes were in my system or w/e (IDK what it's called) and the Dr. said it didn't look like I had any, but I had immunity (paraphrasing b/c I can't remember the exact word she used) to Hep B. I know I had CP as a kid and it was no big deal.

post #206 of 345
Scarlet fever hasn't been eradicated. The incidence of scarlet fever hasn't declined significantly in the last century. What we've nearly eradicated is DEATH from scarlet fever--because our understanding of how to prevent the spread of infection increased, our understanding of how to care for those infected increased, and then finally because penicillin came into common usage. You'll notice that while death from scarlet fever had declined, the last hurrah for scarlet fever deaths came in the last few decades before the 1950s, when we had penicillin in abundance to treat strep infections. Strep in those days had very little resistance to penicillin, and so scarlet fever became simple to treat in most cases.

I don't find those charts particularly useful, because they deal with death rates, not the incidence of infection. There are many, many reasons why improvements in our understanding of disease, and our treatment of disease, would have resulted in significantly reduced death rates. For example, the death rate from pediatric diarrheal diseases began to plummet a long, long time before we had rotavirus vaccinations. The rate of infection with rotavirus remains very high-- nearly every child in the USA has contracted it at least once by age 5. And yet death from it has become uncommon, because we understand the disease and how to prevent the deadly dehydration that used to kill children. In order to assess the efficacy of vaccines, we don't need data about mortality. We need data about infection rates. That would be more convincing.
post #207 of 345

Getting accurate data on infection rates would be ideal. However completely impossible. It would essentially require swabbing the entire population regularly to see what pathogens they are carrying and establish what percentage of people carrying the pathogen become symptomatic, as well as identifying which pathogens can result in diseases that present with similar Sx.

 

I just do not see this being realistic.

 

Stats on mortality are far more likely to be accurate than stats on incidence of disease.

post #208 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosurreal09 View Post

This may be OT but I am bringing it up b/c of that chart I just looked at. Scarlett fever essentially eradicated itself, absolutely. I just want to say that I did have it and my sister had it too. It was rough for a couple weeks. We now laugh about how we were lying on the couch together halucinating b/c our fevers were so high. We are fine though. I haven't had anything more than a cold in maybe 10 years and I'm only 23.

 

I have no clue if I was vaxed as a kid or not. I do know that I had blood drawn to see what vaxes were in my system or w/e (IDK what it's called) and the Dr. said it didn't look like I had any, but I had immunity (paraphrasing b/c I can't remember the exact word she used) to Hep B. I know I had CP as a kid and it was no big deal.


You do realize that scarlet fever is not a VPD, right?

 

Also, vaccines don't "stay in your system."  They help your body to create antibodies to various pathogens.  You draw titers to check immunity.  If you have immunity to Hep B, you were likely immunized for it, since to only other way to get immunity to actually contract the disease.  

 

I don't mean to pick on you, but your post is concerning. I've seen you post before that you feel prepared not to vax because you could recognize symptoms of a VPD in your baby and treat appropriately. However, this post indicates a lack of understanding of even which diseases are VPDs and the most basic idea of how vaccines work.

 

post #209 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post

Getting accurate data on infection rates would be ideal. However completely impossible. It would essentially require swabbing the entire population regularly to see what pathogens they are carrying and establish what percentage of people carrying the pathogen become symptomatic, as well as identifying which pathogens can result in diseases that present with similar Sx.

 

I just do not see this being realistic.

 

Stats on mortality are far more likely to be accurate than stats on incidence of disease.


We should just set up swabbing stations on every street cornerwinky.gif...I'm sure it would totally workeyesroll.gif

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post




You do realize that scarlet fever is not a VPD, right?

 

Also, vaccines don't "stay in your system."  They help your body to create antibodies to various pathogens.  You draw titers to check immunity.  If you have immunity to Hep B, you were likely immunized for it, since to only other way to get immunity to actually contract the disease.  

 

I don't mean to pick on you, but your post is concerning. I've seen you post before that you feel prepared not to vax because you could recognize symptoms of a VPD in your baby and treat appropriately. However, this post indicates a lack of understanding of even which diseases are VPDs and the most basic idea of how vaccines work.

 


I imagine she probably just to young to remember the immunization? maybe...

I had my mom tell me (ok this is true I swear)...The PLAGUE only went away after "they" started vaccinating for it...In the old days, she said they didn't use injections but they did it the way they did with small pox, smear a little of the pus on an open cut....dizzy.gif

post #210 of 345


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WildKingdom View Post




You do realize that scarlet fever is not a VPD, right?

 

Also, vaccines don't "stay in your system."  They help your body to create antibodies to various pathogens.  You draw titers to check immunity.  If you have immunity to Hep B, you were likely immunized for it, since to only other way to get immunity to actually contract the disease.  

 

I don't mean to pick on you, but your post is concerning. I've seen you post before that you feel prepared not to vax because you could recognize symptoms of a VPD in your baby and treat appropriately. However, this post indicates a lack of understanding of even which diseases are VPDs and the most basic idea of how vaccines work.

 


I was referring to the chart, which is why I said it was OT b/c it is NOT a VPD. I am pretty sure the chart labeled it as eradicated? I know which diseases are VPDs. I got all that titers done when I was like 15, I don't remember getting vaxed or which ones I got ect. So I am saying IF I had gotten them all and the boosters (which again I am not sure of) the only thing that IDK "stuck" was the Hep B then. My only point in sharing that was b/c if you vax your child, it means nothing if you/your child is not completely on top of it for the rest of their lives...


I know vaxes don't "stay in your system" I am not good with words ok. I know they are suppose to make your body create antibodies to to the pathogens...What I was trying to say was if I did have vaxes as a kid (which is highly probable), when I got the titers done I only had hep B. As I mentioned above I was only 15 when I had the titers done.

 

OK. I apologize that I suck with words.

post #211 of 345

You know what Wild I am pretty pissed that you think I would just blindly make any health decision for my child. I may not be as smart as you, and I may not be able to express myself with words as eloquently, but I am not a complete moron. I would never endanger my child. Hell I was smart enough to research how to be the best mom, how to raise my child without violence, and how BFing is so important beyond societal "norms"...but my gosh I must not be smart enough to make a decision on vaccination b/c I am no where near as educated as you all.

 

Well don't worry I will keep my 2cents to myself from now on, on the vax forum. I won't say a word. You want me to add a disclaimer to my sig that says "WARNING don't take my advice on anything b/c I am not as educated as you" Will that make you feel better?

 

It is one thing to have questioned what I said (b/c re-reading it I can see what little sense it makes) but questioning my intelligence on my parenting choices...come on.

post #212 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosurreal09 View Post


 


I was referring to the chart, which is why I said it was OT b/c it is NOT a VPD. I am pretty sure the chart labeled it as eradicated? I know which diseases are VPDs. 

Scarlet fever is a complication of untreated group a strep infection. Incidence of scarlet fever became increasingly rare once antibiotics were available to treat the initial GAS infection. I'm guessing the chart showed the decrease in mortality from scarlet fever, which is logical, considering the discovery of antibiotics. Score 1 for allopathy.

post #213 of 345
 
Might be kind of veering off track here (especially since I agree with your position on this issue!) but I have been trying to find data on the disease rate of decline -- this one shows the death rate, but I am looking for disease incidence not just deaths... I could've sworn I saw it at one point but I haven't been able to find it since... any chance you have a link to something like that?


As a pp mentioned, incidence rate is problematic due to many factors, such as reporting. When someone dies, the data is reported.  When someone gets sick, the data is rarely reported.  With a disease like measles for instance, many doctors overlook it or diagnose it when it isn't measles.  The data isn't as accurate as mortality rate data.  

 

 

The incidence rate isn't as pushed either because few would vaccinate based on only the risk of contracting a disease.  There are many bugs out there we fight off all the time, we don't vaccinate against any of them unless they have the potential to kill us.  Although, considering parents are vaccinating against chicken pox, I am not surprised by the fear and decisions made based on that fear any more... seems we're a paranoid lot and that's what we're stuck with now (been through an airport lately?) What is reprehensible is the way the vax propaganda tries (and succeeds) to take the credit for the decline in death rates. Death rates for all the vaxed diseases were clearly and overwhelmingly in decline before vaccination.

 

Here is data regarding incidence history in Canada.  - not mortality rates. You can double check the source, as I did.  Not only did I check that data, I calculated the averages per ten years.  I did this because the chart looks so neat and tidy and that unnerved me.  If you do this yourself, you'll see that the chart they made from the original chart and data is accurate.  

 

I have some friends who are extremely knowledgeable on this topic, they live and breathe vax stats and data and adverse reporting etc.  I can ask them for such info if you like, for whichever country you're in or for a different disease.

 

 

 

 

This is a way to google a timeline, just click on the portion of history and it opens to more detail with articles that cite that date, for example this one.

 

 

Info, for what it is worth:

 

When they tell you thousands of people die from measles each year, this is manipulation.  They may as well tell you that thousands of people die from cluster bombs.  It isn't relevant to your country.  2 people died of measles during one year that 5 people died from the vaccine.  We count deaths from these diseases in tiny numbers, if at all.  

 

Unvaxed contraction rate is 2.5%, vaxed contraction rate 33%. According to the WHO, those who are vaccinated are 15 times more likely to contract measles. Source.

 

Cherry picking data is common also.  How can a parent make an informed decision if the information is theatrics?  We can start the chart dates to look like vax caused the decline... as an example:

 

 

Chart 

 

 

This is the data if we cherry pick for vax propaganda (look at his charts, they start at 1950 or later)

 

Be on the lookout for that kind of bullsh!t.

 

All disease had a massive decline in that time period.  Even scurvy, which is not contagious but instead just a vit c deficiency.  Scurvy is not affected by cleaner water or any of that... all this data tells me that the only common link is dietary.  Nutrition went up and diseases went down.  Vitamin A causes a 50% decrease in death rate from measles and is used in Africa with the vaccine.  


Edited by Calm - 3/20/11 at 3:26pm
post #214 of 345

Documentary:  The Greater Good - Trailer

 

This doco premieres in April.  

 

"THE GREATER GOOD looks behind the fear, hype and politics that have polarized the vaccine debate in America today. The film re-frames the emotionally charged issue and offers, for the first time, the opportunity for a rational and scientific discussion on how to create a safer and more effective vaccine program."

 

 

 

 

 

Informed Refusal of Vaccines Form

 

This includes religious grounds and info for and against vax that you sign and have your doc sign.

post #215 of 345

 

Who is Jenny McCarthy?  A quick google returned a blonde woman and a wiki page that says she is a celeb turned vaccine = autism activist, is this correct?  There are a lot of anti-vax celebs. Robert F. Kennedy and Jim Carrey are my two favourites. There are celebs that are pro-vax, too. Do we do something as serious as vax our kids because a celeb said so? I friggin' hope not. Perhaps we're so used to celebs telling us which soda to drink we get a little confused. I don't think there is a stereotype of a vaxer or nonvaxer and trying to find one, be it paranoia addled conspiracism non-vaxers or fear riddled sheeple vaxers, is futile and pointless. It is probably largely based in attempting to ease our own guilt or inflate our sense of intrinsic rightness via extrinsic judgement. Rudimentary psych 101.

 

 

 

 

Last I checked, something that causes paralysis is not the definition of “safe”. That our babies and children for the most part fight off most of the overt and obvious damage is a testament to the miracle of human physiology, not to the safety of the vaccines.

 

Ibuprofen has been deemed “safe” - the dose needed to cure a headache won't kill you, but even the average lay person knows that it stresses the liver each and every time you take it, no matter how tiny the dose. I don't call ibuprofen safe... unless I am strictly limiting my judgement to whether it kills or maims irreparably. And that seems to be the definition of safe for parents who call vax safe.  The definition of “safety” needs to be more clearly delineated, perhaps, but technically, “safe” means: free from danger or the risk of harm. Clearly, vaccines have a risk... even the manufacturers claim “the benefit outweighs the risk”, so they aren't pretending there is no risk. There is a matter of degrees... everything carries risk, even swallowing, therefore, what is “safe” is totally subjective. No one can claim vaccines to be safe or unsafe as a fact, only as opinion. I might find one death in 1000 "safe" but you might find that unsafe.  A company telling me vaccines are safe doesn't make it so.  A scientist telling me a drug is safe does not make it so.  I look at the information and decide for myself.    

 

 

What's more frustrating is that only 10% of adverse reactions are reported. This is an actual statistic, and in some reports, the figure is more like 3%. That is 90% of paralysed, sick, chronically pained or otherwise damaged individuals, often children, not reported into the system so are any of us making a truly informed decision? 

post #216 of 345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

As a pp mentioned, incidence rate is problematic due to many factors, such as reporting. When someone dies, the data is reported.  When someone gets sick, the data is rarely reported.  With a disease like measles for instance, many doctors overlook it or diagnose it when it isn't measles.  The data isn't as accurate as mortality rate data.  

 

 

The incidence rate isn't as pushed either because few would vaccinate based on only the risk of contracting a disease.  There are many bugs out there we fight off all the time, we don't vaccinate against any of them unless they have the potential to kill us.  Although, considering parents are vaccinating against chicken pox, I am not surprised by the fear and decisions made based on that fear any more... seems we're a paranoid lot and that's what we're stuck with now (been through an airport lately?) What is reprehensible is the way the vax propaganda tries (and succeeds) to take the credit for the decline in death rates. Death rates for all the vaxed diseases were clearly and overwhelmingly in decline before vaccination.

 

Here is data regarding incidence history in Canada.  - not mortality rates. You can double check the source, as I did.  Not only did I check that data, I calculated the averages per ten years.  I did this because the chart looks so neat and tidy and that unnerved me.  If you do this yourself, you'll see that the chart they made from the original chart and data is accurate.  

 

I have some friends who are extremely knowledgeable on this topic, they live and breathe vax stats and data and adverse reporting etc.  I can ask them for such info if you like, for whichever country you're in or for a different disease.

 

 

 

 

This is a way to google a timeline, just click on the portion of history and it opens to more detail with articles that cite that date, for example this one.

 

 

Info, for what it is worth:

 

When they tell you thousands of people die from measles each year, this is manipulation.  They may as well tell you that thousands of people die from cluster bombs.  It isn't relevant to your country.  2 people died of measles during one year that 5 people died from the vaccine.  We count deaths from these diseases in tiny numbers, if at all.  

 

Unvaxed contraction rate is 2.5%, vaxed contraction rate 33%. According to the WHO, those who are vaccinated are 15 times more likely to contract measles. Source.

 

Cherry picking data is common also.  How can a parent make an informed decision if the information is theatrics?  We can start the chart dates to look like vax caused the decline... as an example:

 

 

Chart

 

 

This is the data if we cherry pick for vax propaganda (look at his charts, they start at 1950 or later)

 

Be on the lookout for that kind of bullsh!t.

 

All disease had a massive decline in that time period.  Even scurvy, which is not contagious but instead just a vit c deficiency.  Scurvy is not affected by cleaner water or any of that... all this data tells me that the only common link is dietary.  Nutrition went up and diseases went down.  Vitamin A causes a 50% decrease in death rate from measles and is used in Africa with the vaccine. 

Very strange indeed.  I checked your chart for the measles incidence in Canada.  Here is a direct link to the actual data site http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/meas-roug/index-eng.php#fig8

 

It bears no resemblance to your source.  I have no idea how they made that graph.  You can't just average data for ten years and stick a point on a graph and draw the best fit line.  That's not how epidemiology works.  Your source also conveniently leaves out the fact that there is no Canadian data available at all from 1959 to 1968.  So, where did your source get his data???  Talk about cherry picking.

 

Some of your other charts are from whale.to.  A website so reprehensible (it denies the Holocaust, among other things), that MDC will not even allow links to it.  I'm surprised that yours got through, and I will alert the mods to it.
 

 

post #217 of 345


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calm View Post

 

Here is data regarding incidence history in Canada.  - not mortality rates. You can double check the source, as I did.  Not only did I check that data, I calculated the averages per ten years.  I did this because the chart looks so neat and tidy and that unnerved me.  If you do this yourself, you'll see that the chart they made from the original chart and data is accurate.  

 

[snip]

 

Cherry picking data is common also.   


Speaking of cherry picking, the chart looks so unnaturally smooth and neat because he cherry picked data points which would show a huge decline, kind of like measuring the sunlight at noon on Jan 1, dusk at some point halfway through the year, and midnight on December 31 and concluding that the sun had been going out all year.  It is really strange - it is hard to imagine that the author could have possibly done that by accident, so it must have been a deliberate attempt to mislead people... but then he/she includes the link to the information on the bottom of the graph (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cig-gci/p04-meas-roug-eng.php).  If you go to that page, there is an actual graph of the data, which shows normal ups and downs of infectious disease but no overall decline prior to vaccination (there is a sharp drop around 1958, but unless you know of a reason why the disease would suddenly have gone away that year, I'm guessing that has more to do with a decline in reporting or only part of the year reported prior to the nine years of no reporting rather than an actual decline in disease). 

 

As you said, determining exact incidence rates of many common diseases from the past is difficult due to irregular reporting (part of the reason, I suspect, that around the 1950s is when a lot of the incidence graphs start for the US - more organization and better reporting).  But with something like measles, do we really need exact numbers to tell us the disease was very common prior to vaccination?  In the states, people born before 1957 are considered not to need vaccination for measles even if they never had it because they are assumed to have had measles - pretty much everyone got it back then. It was just a part of life, then came vaccination, and suddenly it wasn't, to the point where while I and all my friends and school mates had chicken pox growing up, no one I knew had measles, and I suspect it was the same for the majority of people here who are around my age.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

When they tell you thousands of people die from measles each year, this is manipulation.  They may as well tell you that thousands of people die from cluster bombs.  It isn't relevant to your country.  2 people died of measles during one year that 5 people died from the vaccine.  We count deaths from these diseases in tiny numbers, if at all.  

 

 

It's not relevant currently because, thanks to vaccination, we don't even have thousands of cases here.  Imagine for a second that we stopped vaccinating entirely and measles became once again a common disease that everyone got at some point or other, usually in chidlhood.  In recent decades, the death rate for measles in the US has been about 1 or 2 deaths per thousand cases.   Cases and deaths would vary greatly from year to year, but supposing there are four million babies born this year, and they all get measles eventually, and just 1 per thousand dies of it, then that would mean that roughly 4,000 of the lives started this year in the US would be ended by measles eventually.  And same for the babies born the next year and the year after.   

 

Certainly a lot more than five deaths to prevent measles.  Though, I am curious as to what single year had five deaths from the measles vaccine, and the source you got that from? 

 

And while death may be the biggest concern, it is not the only reason for vaccination.  Measles can also have serious complications such as encephalitis or blindness.  While most kids would be fine at home, some get very sick and require hospitalization which most people would rather avoid.  Even just being sick sucks.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Unvaxed contraction rate is 2.5%, vaxed contraction rate 33%. According to the WHO, those who are vaccinated are 15 times more likely to contract measles. Source.

 

The pages containing the footnotes that give the sources of that information are not included in Google's preview, which would make it rather difficult to check them.  But the numbers are just plain ridiculous.  Measles is rare in countries with high vaccination rates, and is certainly not contracted by 33% of the vaccinated population.  While vaccines do not give 100% protection 100% of the time and some vaccinated people do get the disease, vaccinated people are far less likely to contract measles than unvaccinated - there are countless studies demonstrating the effectiveness of the measles vaccine.  

 

 

post #218 of 345

Wildkingdom, you say you have no idea, and that's ok, but it is called a trend, and is a common use of data on graphs.  The chart is correct, double check it yourself, do year by year if you like, it won't matter what chunks you do, it will show the exact same downward trend. Here is a chart of satellite temperatures that clearly shows both types of chart on the same one... the data in detail, then the trend, which are the straighter lines.

 

The missing years are irrelevant, that's when the vaccine was brought in.  We are looking at the trend, and if full data is required, just go to the source, which, I may add, clearly shows the trend anyway.

 

I don't deny the holocaust but people have got to realise that ad hominem is a debate fallacy.  ie, I don't care if the author of a site worships a satanic spaghetti monster and eats children for lunch, what matters is if their info is verifiable.  They had charts I wanted to use... what religion they are or what they "believe" is none of my business; I don't operate with that kind of prejudice, no matter how much I'm offended by someone's opinion.  If I am trying to make a case that the holocaust didn't happen, then I link whatever whale page has such info, then MDC would have to decide just how offensive that is, and if offense counts enough to remove information.  But in this case, it is pure ad hominem as we are not discussing the holocaust, and the links are charts.

 

ETA, forgot to link the chart.   Fixed now.


Edited by Calm - 3/20/11 at 2:02pm
post #219 of 345

Ok, we've changed hands now to a new poster and removal of the old one.  Give me a moment to catch up...

post #220 of 345

I will find a chart that goes earlier than 1924... I have altered the post with the whale link, it has a new link.  Hopefully that site doesn't support Hitler (although it is the AMA, so that's open for debate).

 

I still believe mortality rates are more important than contraction.  We have diseases, infections, fungus... all kinds of things and the important question is how severe they are and in what percentage of the population - and why.  Vit A cuts the mortality rate in half for measles, so instead of researching vaxes we could be finding ways to avoid them by understanding the diseases instead.  But no one makes money unless a drug is the result of the research.  As long as vaccines are the focus of medical science, real solutions will take much longer to find... such as the vitamin A link.

 

 

Edited by Calm - 3/20/11 at 3:27pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › do you vaccinate?