do you vaccinate? - Page 13

[pers]

It wasn't suggesting 33% of vaxed people get measles.  For example, if you have 100 unvaxed kids and 100 vaxed kids and measles comes to town, 2 of the unvaxed  kids will get it and 33 of the vaxed will get it.  If measles does not come to town, 0% will get it.

Measles does come to town occasionally, brought back from overseas. Some people are usually infected, both those unvaccinated and those whose vaccines have failed to protect them for whatever reason, then eventually thanks to most people being protected by vaccines, each line of infection ends with people who don't encounter anyone who could catch it or at least not enough to pass the disease on.

The author states: "the WHO did a study and found that while in an unimmunized, measles susceptible group of children the normal rate of contraction of disease was 2.4%, in the control group that had been immunized, the rate of contraction rose to 33.5%."

Do you have the actual book?  If so, can you check the footnote that Google doesn't show and let me know exactly what study this was?  Becasue while I can find countless studies demonstrating the effectiveness of measles vaccines, so far I only have the report of this guy that such a study even exists, and no information as to its size or methodology.

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.

Lovely example. Notice how the trend lines don't pass through the extreme high lows of the data becasue the extreme highs and lows on their own do not represent the trend. I had a minute to spare, so I added a purple line to represent how it would look if Raymond Obomsawin, PhD (the guy who made the measles graph you linked to) did it in the same manner he made his graph of measles. It would look like this:

Except then he would delete the part prior to his start at the highest point so we can't see that that year was quite a bit higher than normal, and remove data points that show the normal up-down repeating cycle so it looks like a smooth decline, and the result would be something like this:

Oh my goodness, global temperature is plummeting and we are all going to freeze!

But that's pretty much what he did - picked the very highest point to start with the picked another point or two on the way to the bottom on the criteria that they matched the story he was trying to tell rather than use any statistical modeling or averages to actually try and represent a real trend in reported measles infections. 

The downward trend in that chart, the original one from PHAC is obvious.  I can't believe I'm discussing this chart in so much detail, when anyone who looks at it can see it goes from 800 incidences of measles in 1935, to 420 in 1950, to 350 in 1955 and to less than 100 by 1959... what about that is so difficult to grasp?

Three points:

1. It is only obvious when, like Obomsawin, you ignore half the data. The numbers do not start with 800, there is a decade of the original graph before that that he didn't bother to include, and just a couple years before the unusual high of 800 there is a year with only a bit over 100 reported cases/ 100000 population. A line truly representing the data trend prior to vaccination would probably be fairly level, or even possibly sloped slightly upwards given the highs past the year with the 800 are mostly higher than in the decade prior to it (though if that were the case, I would suspect it would probably be the result of better copliance with reporting).

2. Notice the part I made red. We don't actually have data for 1959 because measle was not reported nationally from 1959 to 1968. I suspec that either reporting stopped partway through the year and the author included the number of cases that had been reported prior to that of the partial year in place of a number for the whole year, or else for some reason put in an end pint that would have it level with where it started again for 1969. Whatever happened, it appears to be an unfortunate problem with the graph. There is another graph for Canada at http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/measles-canada.jpg which shows total numbers of cases (so not adjusted for population) and does not show any more drop at the end before the gap than would be expected form the normal up-down cycle.  The US graph linked above doesn't have any such dramatic drop.  

3. Even if we did have an actual report of under 100 for 1959, it would not show that measles had suddenly decided to play nice and not make people sick any more.  That would only be a bit lower than the other lowest point on the graph, and shorty after that cases swung back up to the highest point.  

Further evidence of the effectiveness of measles vaccination is that as vaccination numbers fell in the wake of the autism scare in the UK, measles numbers rose rather dramatically there.  And how recent vaccination campaigns in Africa are time and time again followed by a drastic decrease in measles cases and deaths.  

I'm curious as to what you think caused measles to go away?  I can understand why people who haven't really looked at the numbers might be convinced that it went away over half a century or so as a result of improved sanitation and nutrition and such, but I'm a bit confused as to what great social improvements happened in 1955 or so to cause measles to basically go away in just a few years?  

Edited by pers - 3/21/11 at 5:25pm

[Enudely]

Wow.  I wish I could read this whole thread, but I couldn't resist putting my 2 cents in.  Neither of my children are vaccinated and we don't plan to give them any vaccines.    

The more research I did (and I did a hell of a lot!!), the more convinced I was not to vax.  I'm a little cross eyed from sleep dep and staying up way too late, but here goes, I'll try and voice my opinion here. 

reasons?:

-We don't know enough about immunity.

-We don't know enough about vaccines and how much they actually did contribute to the fall of said diseases.

-There are not any studies on the long term effects of vaccines.  There are not conclusive, reliable studies on the short term effect of vaccines.

-Vaccine reactions are not documented.  Mothers who swear their child had a reaction to a vaccine are told that they are crazy.  The Medical profession won't even consider the fact that they might be dangerous, despite the fact that many of us are concerned.

-Almost all the diseases we vaccinate against are things that a healthy child will survive and be stronger for it.  In the past 20 years, 100% of cases of polio have been a direct result of the Polio vaccine.  The best way to get Polio currently in America is to get the shot.  In fact, there is convincing evidence (based on CDC statistics) that polio was on the decline before the vaccine was introduced and the incidents of the disease shot way up as soon as the vaccine was introduced.

-I am not comfortable with injecting formaldehyde, aluminum, thimerosol (yup, it's still in there!) and/or a bunch of random animal parts into my child

-I am not comfortable with the insane amount of money being generated by the CDC and the alarming lack of proper research that has been done (sure, call me a conspiracy theorist! go for it!)  I don't trust the FDA.  I think they are corrupt.

     Overall, I am unconvinced that vaccines are safe and effective.  And I'm pro science too!!!! Imagine that!! Let's see some scientific studies that prove the safety and efficacy of vaccines!!! Then we can all be pro science!!!! Agh!  I'm getting punchy!  

The fact is, it's a very emotional issue.  I don't even talk about it with my friends.  People are way too freaked out about it so it's just a hard thing to discuss with a straight head.

[Calm]

Originally Posted by WildKingdom 

Um, no.  Not even close.  Your first example shows a scatter plot of data with a best fit line drawn.  Not incidence data, not averages, no relation to what we are talking about.  Your second example looks like it might be showing how rates of prostate cancer rise with age in men.  Again, not based on averages and nothing to do with infectious disease incidence. Your third example shows a graph of actual data points of TB death rates.  Nothing to do with averages over time.  Your fourth example- I'm not even sure what it has to do with the example at hand.  

So, do you have anything to show me that actually relates to the discussion?  Clearly I'm wasting my time here.

We're all doing the best we can.  I don't feel I'm wasting my time, although I admit it can be frustrating to repeat myself in myriad ways and still feel misunderstood.  It isn't about who's right and wrong, it's about expanding our knowledge base.  I learn the most from those I disagree with.

Data can be used in many different ways, and epidemiology is not exempt from that.  They are averaged, best fit and trends, etc. Let's use the Canadian chart itself, with averages put in much the way I did them.  I just happen to have such a graph:

I did not use 12 year averages like they did, I used ten, then every two years, which shows the trend more clearly.  This chart completely ignores the 1959 <100 data and does not show the downward trend from 1950.  If you compare it to the original, you can see the differences. 

Can you see how averages are useful now?  Can we move past this yet?

I've made the claims that:

• Vaccines are full of toxic material (this, I hope, has now been established for those who said it is benign, even the inserts list diseases it causes on a list as long as my arm).

• Severity and death had plummeted before the vaccine was brought in – again, I hope the data has shown that.

• Incidence had also dropped, but not nearly as much.

That last point is the contention it seems, is that correct?  I'll assume it is.  So here is a chart that shows both death rates and incidence rates for the US:

You can see the incidence reaches as high as 6-700 until 1940.  Then it drops and sits at no higher than around 400.  That can be visually seen, however for those who can't see it, you can average it out (for those who can deal with averages) or look it up either way you will confirm a 25% drop in measles incidence.

Without vaccines incidence was declining, and the obvious question (for those not justifying vax) is: what if a 25% drop per 20 years continued?  What if they had given a vaccine in 1912 and the death rates plummeted ... we'd be convinced without the vaccines that wouldn't have occurred yet we have the history that says that indeed, that did occur so why not the incidence?  Small pox had a vaccination rate of 10% apparently, yet was completely eradicated.  There are other diseases that have disappeared without vaccines... it happens, is my point.  Could we have avoided the nasty chemicals?  Parents come here to learn about vaccines because obviously none of us wants to put that stuff in our kid's veins its just that some of us decided the risk of the vaccine was less than the risk of the disease.  

Some will say that they are ever so grateful for vaccines because the quickening decline prevented complications from measles in many kids, but only those who have not seen the complications from vaccines would even go there.  Tragically, they tightened the adverse reactions advisory to two weeks or less after vax... any reactions that show up after that time aren't compensated... and worse: they aren't put on the list so you won't even know they exist if it weren't for things like my friend's advisory campaign and site.  Thousands of cases just poof, "la la la, I can't hear you."

I'd be happy to furnish anyone with info if I have it, a new chart perhaps?  If you'd rather dictate your truth to me, that's ok.  Christians tell me I'm going to hell, too, but when I say prove it, they brandish their wands and start quoting miracles and myth.  We can do more than give our opinion, although our opinions are worth gold, in my opinion.  I haven't seen that much science on this thread full of pro-scientists, but much opinion... a lot of it based on propaganda, fear and fairy dust.    

Edited by Calm - 3/22/11 at 4:38am

[Calm]

Pers, this is a good point: 

 

Lovely example. Notice how the trend lines don't pass through the extreme high lows of the data becasue the extreme highs and lows on their own do not represent the trend. I had a minute to spare, so I added a purple line to represent how it would look if Raymond Obomsawin, PhD (the guy who made the measles graph you linked to) did it in the same manner he made his graph of measles. It would look like this:

Obomsawin defended his chart saying he did 12 year averages, and he included the drop off before the missing years.  He cherry picked the start date.  

Does the word "measles" sound funny to anyone else? I've said it in my head and written it far too much now it sounds like a small marsupial.  

[Calm]

Yanno, I keep looking at that chart and wondering how the heck they didn't get measles reports just before, during and just after the introduction of the vaccine.  That's odd.  Of all the dates on that graph for stats to be missing, that's the least likely.

[quedal]

Apart from all the statistics-do you feel safe injecting your children with something that the companies that make them are COMPLETELY safe from prosecution in the case of a negative outcome? Would you buy from a company that didn't offer warranties or returns? The newest legislature (when they upheld this law protecting vaccine manufacturers,) states that vaccines are inherently unsafe...

[Marnica]

No I don't vaccinate for many of the reasons already explained by previous posters.

In addition to the manufacturers having total liability coverage, I find it interesting that private insurance companies who do some of the best liability studies supposedly do not cover any damages to life incurred through Acts of God, Nuclear war or nuclear power plant accidents or Vaccinations.

There is something seriously wrong here.

[SilverMoon010]

I didn't read all of the posts, but I wanted to step in and add my 2 cents worth.

I respect all parents that research and make a decision whether vaxxing or nonvaxxing, rather than taking every doctors' word for it and not opening a book to research vaccines themselves.  With that said, I think a lot of people miss the target as to how much $$$$ is involved when it comes to vaccines.  You have to look and ask youself why did the vaccine schedule triple and why are so many now "recommended" and "required," and now people act as if we get the chicken pox nowawdays we're gonna die!! How did it come to this? It never used to be that way.  We have better living conditions and medical care today more than ever.  Why do we need so many artificial substances injected into ourselves to prevent ourselves from geting the freakin flu!!!!! Why aren't they pushing natural cures/immunity boosters such as vitamins, vitamin D, etc.? You'll never hear that because they don't make money off of it. If you are not aware of it now, just look at how much marketing goes into vaccine ads.  Vaccines are a business whether you want to admit it or not. It can't be denied.  Yeah, maybe they were credible back in the day when there wasn't so much marketing involved and the medical system actually cared about their patients' health, but to be honest, all of the marketing around vaccines that I have seen today totally makes me see the light.    This country is so greedy, and they don't take the time to research enough about vaccines, such as the long-term effects, etc. I'm not against those who choose to vaccinate, but I think they are unsafe and until I am proven otherwise, it's going to remain that way.

The recalls also scare me as well, besides the potential for awful side effects, the ingredients in them, their lack of effectiveness, ill long-term effects, etc.  It's terrible when, how they just vaccinated thousands of kids with a vaccine,   weeks later they say "Oppppssss.....that was a bad one," and guess what....THEIR HANDS ARE CLEAN OF IT! No liability.  It's just terrible and I could never imagine me being in that situation with my children.  I would go insane if that ever happened.  The list for my decision to not vaccinate goes on and on.

Edited by SilverMoon010 - 3/22/11 at 2:14pm

[pers]

Originally Posted by Calm 

  This chart completely ignores the 1959 <100 data and does not show the downward trend from 1950.  If you compare it to the original, you can see the differences. 

They did not ignore 1959.  Take a look at the chart again - it says right on the bottom "measles not nationally reportable 1959-1968."  Once again, I don't know why the other graph includes a data point for a year that wasn't reported, but suspect that it was either because reporting stopped part way through the year and the author for some reason included that incomplete number or because he/she for some reason made the start of the not reported period match the end.  It is unfortunate, and the only way to know for sure what is going on would be to ask the people responsible for that particular graph.  Other graphs of Canada's measles cases, such as the one you've included, do not show any data for 1959.   

• Vaccines are full of toxic material (this, I hope, has now been established for those who said it is benign, even the inserts list diseases it causes on a list as long as my arm).

No one has denied that some of the ingredients in vaccines are toxins that are dangerous in a high enough quantity.  But toxins such as aluminum are all around us, even in our foods, and our body is able to handle them in lesser amounts, such as what we get from our diets or vaccines.  While too much  formaldehyde is a very bad thing indeed, we need it for metabolic purpose, and the amount delivered by vaccines is a drop in the bucket compared to what our own bodies produce for these purposes.  

Severity and death had plummeted before the vaccine was brought in – again, I hope the data has shown that.

Where has anyone argued with this?  

Incidence had also dropped, but not nearly as much.

Repeating up-down cycles are normal for measles.  If you want to talk about ten year averages, the period from 1934-1944 seems to have been a height of measles activity, and while measles went down a bit from that height in the next decade, 1944-1954 still contains higher measles numbers than 1924-1934.  There is no long term evidence that measles overall was on a decline at all, much less that it would have gone completely away!

You can see the incidence reaches as high as 6-700 until 1940.  Then it drops and sits at no higher than around 400.  That can be visually seen, however for those who can't see it, you can average it out (for those who can deal with averages) or look it up either way you will confirm a 25% drop in measles incidence

You speak of averages, but only seem interested in the high points or perhaps averaging the high points.  You could also take another look at this graph and note the extreme lows of the 1940s and guess that the average cases per year for the forties would probably be slightly lower than the averages cases per year for the 1950s.  Was measles on the rise again? 

Really, though, you are trying to get more information from this rough and fuzzy graph than it can tell you.  While you can make an extremely crude estimate of where you wold draw a line for each decade such that the area above your line but below the measles line is about equal to the area below your line but above where the measles line passes below, thus showing the average cases for the decade, but it would be very unlikely to be at all accurate from the rough guesses you can make as to where exactly on the graph the data point even are.  The scale of the vertical access makes it difficult to get more than a rough idea of what the value is (is the high point around 1914 supposed to be 350?  Or 375?  probably someplace between), and it's difficult to even line up the years with the highs and lows.. not helped at all by the label for the year '25 being misplaced to where the year '24 should be. 

The graph of deaths contains a clear and obvious drop.  For the case though, I would guess the average would fall someplace around 350 per year for each decade averaged over - some a little lower and some a bit higher - but that's just an extremely rough estimate.  The graph shows the general ups and downs of the disease and times of high and low activity, but if there were any overall decline, it is not obvious enough to show up from this imprecise view of the data - you would need to be able to analyze the actual numbers to determine if an overall trend of decline even existed, much less was enough to be statistically significant.  

Without vaccines incidence was declining, and the obvious question (for those not justifying vax) is: what if a 25% drop per 20 years continued?  What if they had given a vaccine in 1912 and the death rates plummeted ... we'd be convinced without the vaccines that wouldn't have occurred yet we have the history that says that indeed, that did occur so why not the incidence? 

Then a lot of lives would have been saved, as the incidence of measle plummeted much more rapidly in the years following the introduction of mass vaccination than the death rate fell in the half-century before, so most of the people who died of measles between 1912 and the introduction of the vaccine would never even have caught measles.  But still, while the rareness of measles may have made it hard to tell just the magnitude of how other factors lower measles mortality, there would still be the occasional cases of measles popping up now and then for quite a while after the start of vaccination (especially as getting the vaccination to everyone would have been much more difficult given the difference in transportation and such between 1912 and the '60s), and it would have been recognized that people who did get measles were less likely to die of it than in the past. 

Small pox had a vaccination rate of 10% apparently, yet was completely eradicated.  There are other diseases that have disappeared without vaccines... it happens, is my point.

Where and over what time period did Smallpox apparently have a vaccination rate of 10%?  

Sure, other disease disappeared without vaccination.  Typhus and cholera are both spread by contaminated water or food contaminated by dirty water, so modern sewage solutions for dealing with human waste and cleaning up our water supply took care of both.  Malaria and yellow fever are both spread by mosquitoes, so battling the populations of mosquitoes that can carry them (most varieties found the US can not) eliminated them from the States.  The black plague is rather complicated, but I believe was largely due to spreading too quickly - nearly everyone in its path would either be killed or just infected but survive (leaving them immune) over a very short period of time, leaving it without large vulnerable populations to infect for a time, or one must also consider the conditions at the time the pandemics started and what allowed it to spread so quickly.  I believe that in some cases, diseases have also mutated over long periods of time to the point that they became less harmful to humans, though I couldn't name any in particular at the moment.  

But why would a disease like measles which has been around for thousands of years and is spread not through dirty water or mosquito but directly from person to person quite easily suddenly practically disappear in the course of just a few short years?  At the same time as it still exists and continues to spread quite easily in areas where vaccination rate remained low?  Except now rates of measles are on the decline in areas of Africa that have had recent mass vaccination campaigns, but in the meantime they rose in the UK as vaccination rates there dropped?

Quote:

Obomsawin defended his chart saying he did 12 year averages, and he included the drop off before the missing years.  He cherry picked the start date.  

Obomsawin's defense of his own chart is weak to the point of being ridiculous.  Yes, he cherry picked the start - what a different story his chart would have told had it included the lower numbers of 1924-1934, risen for the period including 1935, then dropped again to about where it had been or even slightly lower? A very different story indeed than his tale of a disease suddenly going away.  

Also, how in the world is his chart representative of 12 year averages?  His starting point at almost 800 cases/100000 population for 1935 matches the highest point on the original graph.  What twelve year period is that supposed to represent the average of?  How can the very highest point on a graph represent the average of any larger portion of the graph?  Same with the 1959 point.  Even assuming it was a valid data point, how in the world would a low point on the graph followed by a period of no information represent an average for any larger period, much less a 12 year period, at least not unless one made some very extreme and unsupported assumptions about what happened in those twelve years?  And he does not even bother to include a note that there is no actual data from 1959-1968 - just continues his line as if it were there and supported the story he wanted to tell about the nasty disease deciding to leave us alone.  

In the US the measles cases were also declining a bit from a higher period, similar to what happened on the graph of averages over twelve years for Canada you posted above, but then reached a not-very-low-low in 1959 and started back up again to waver up and down for a bit until the introduction of mass vaccination where they suddenly drop off dramatically.  

Also, incidence reports give us an idea of what was going on with the disease at the time and a picture of how it cycled up and down, but they do not tell the full story or account for every case (or even, perhaps most cases).  How many doctors actually reported? While measles could have serious consequences or even kill, most of the time it did not - how many cases were never even seen by a doctor?  In addition to reported cases to give us an idea of the patterns of rise and fall of the disease, we must rely on the memories of our parents and grandparents of measles being a common disease and surveys indicating that 95% of kids had it by the age of 15, backed up by studies showing that most people born in the prevaccine era have blood titers showing measles immunity.  In addition, we have random placebo controlled studies of the vaccine from various times and places demonstrating how effective the vaccine is in preventing disease.  

Yanno, I keep looking at that chart and wondering how the heck they didn't get measles reports just before, during and just after the introduction of the vaccine.  That's odd.  Of all the dates on that graph for stats to be missing, that's the least likely.

Yeah, that is kind of strange.  Table B517_525 which can be downloaded from this page shows the numbers for the diseases and says that chickenpox and mumps stopped being reported in 1958 and then measles in 1959.  Measles reporting started again in 1968, but mumps and chickenpox were not resumed.  And yet, I have seen numbers for mumps and chickenpox from more recent times - perhaps added up from local reports by some other entity?  And despite saying that measles reporting stopped in 1959, the table doesn't have a number for 1957 or 58 either, and no chicenpox or mumps numbers for 1956 or 57.  It is rather strange.  Speculation on the reasons behind this are rather pointless though, I would suggest that if anyone were really concerned about it they should contact Stats Canada directly and ask them what the heck is up with the reporting.  

The section directly below the download link is rather interesting.  It discusses a bit about the ration between cases actually reported in a year and the number of people who reported being sick in a particular year when surveyed.  

[heathergirl67]

Why vaccines are not big money-makers for pharmaceutical companies and fewer and fewer and making vaccines:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5562/1998.full 

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/3/622.full 

During the past fifty years, companies devoted solely or primarily to manufacturing vaccines (such as Lederle and Praxis) have been acquired by other pharmaceutical companies; the number of companies making vaccines has decreased from twenty-six in 1967 to seventeen in 1980 and to five in 2004 (GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, Merck, Wyeth, and Chiron).⁸ Previously, among companies that made vaccines only, resources for development of one vaccine would compete with resources for the development of another. Now, because of mergers, vaccines compete for resources with drugs and most often lose.

To determine where they should invest research and development (R&D) dollars, pharmaceutical companies evaluate a product’s potential to contribute to their bottom line. Among the four large companies still making vaccines (Chiron accounts for less than 1 percent of the worldwide vaccine industry), none has revenue from vaccines that exceeds 10 percent of total revenue.⁹ All four companies could stop making vaccines tomorrow without much impact on their bottom lines. In 2002, Wyeth stopped making its combination diphtheria–tetanus–acellular pertussis (DTaP) and influenza vaccines. The decision had little impact on shareholders but a major impact on stakeholders; it precipitated vaccine shortages and vaccine rationing for both DTaP and influenza vaccines.¹⁰ 

Vaccines are used at most several times in a lifetime; drugs are often used every day. Therefore, the market for drugs is much greater than the market for vaccines. For example, the conjugate pneumococcal vaccine for children (Prevnar), the highest-revenue-generating vaccine, has annual gross U.S. sales of about $1 billion. But markets for cholesterol-lowering agents; hair-loss products; potency drugs; and drugs for heart disease, obesity, or neurological problems are often $7 billion per drug or more. (Annual revenues for Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering agent, are greater than revenues for the entire worldwide vaccine industry.)⁷

Because of the large private market for drugs, many companies compete to make similar products; however, no other company has made a pneumococcal vaccine for children. Of the twelve vaccines routinely recommended for infants and young children, seven are made by one company, and only one is made by more than two companies" [/quote] 

It discusses factors that discourage vaccine making such as:

• Small market for vaccines compared with drugs 
• Effect of mergers 
• Dramatic reduction in the private vaccine market 
• Low or inconsistent insurance reimbursements 
• Lack of infrastructure support 
• Public buy-in versus public buy-out 
• Regulatory issues: moving from relative to absolute safety 
• Product liability 

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67 

Why vaccines are not big money-makers for pharmaceutical companies and fewer and fewer and making vaccines:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5562/1998.full 

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/24/3/622.full 

It discusses factors that discourage vaccine making such as:

• Small market for vaccines compared with drugs 
• Effect of mergers 
• Dramatic reduction in the private vaccine market 
• Low or inconsistent insurance reimbursements 
• Lack of infrastructure support 
• Public buy-in versus public buy-out 
• Regulatory issues: moving from relative to absolute safety 
• Product liability 

There is something so skewed about this.  I see product liability on the list, when in fact, pharmaceutical companies are immune to liability, and regulatory issues and absolute safety??  Don't get me started.  I don't buy this at all. If there was no money in vaccines, the pharmaceutical companies would not be jumping at every single chance they have to make mass distributions of unsafe vaccines, i.e. H1N1, Gardasil. They may make less than other types of products would but I don't know if that's true.  Plus,  with them producing many different types of vaccines nowadays, it is way more profitable than this article lets on, especially now with drugstores carrying vaccines.  This is the main reason they are producing far more vaccines than in the past.  To make more money!! Follow the money trail. 

Edited by SilverMoon010 - 3/22/11 at 6:58pm

[PlayaMama]

could the product liability have to do with recalls?

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Mandy F 

 If there was no money in vaccines, the pharmaceutical companies would not be jumping at every single chance they have to make mass distributions of unsafe vaccines, i.e. H1N1, Gardasil. Follow the money trail. 

I agree, follow the money trail. Pharmaceutical companies are in the business of manking money and they're good at it. That's why in the last few decades we've gone from having dozens of manufacturers of vaccines to now just four. They're not big money makers. If they were, you'd better believe that the pharm companies would be jumping all over them.

[GoBecGo]

Given how broad vaccine programmes need to be to be effective (for populations) i'm sure that liability would put most companies off entirely if they didn't have some protection.  When H1N1 was starting to be seen 2 years ago the pharmaceutical companies were under massive pressure from governments to provide a safe effective vaccine, preferably yesterday, that they could give to pretty much everyone.  That's a big ask, the companies in question don't have decades to test these things, or do trial after trial.  It's not nice to know that money and market competition plays into the whole thing, but we live in capitalism, everything from the offered vaccine to the school textbooks (and what's in them) is directed by money.

I'm in the UK so we have a far less full-on vaccine schedule, and the "money" for the pharma companies isn't really there to be made with the NHS.  The NHS has to carry the whole cost of vaccination, so they are selective about what vaccines they put on the schedule and who qualifies for each one (for example you get newborn hep B if you are a newborn with hep B in the immediate family you live with or one of your parents has it, likewise childhood TB vaccine, flu shots only go to "vulnerable groups" - the pregnant, elderly or chronically ill).

And as many of us vaxers have already said, i don't believe vaccines are SAFE, i believe they are SAFER than the disease they aim to protect against.  There is a huge difference.  For me it's a balance of risk, and i came down on this side, but i can totally see how others might come down on the other side.

As a vaxer the liability thing doesn't really alter my view either.  It's not like money could fix a vaccine injury.  Because i'm in the UK there is provision within the NHS for those who need extra services or support due to injury, illness or general condition, so i wouldn't need to litigate to make life possible.  Again, i understand that if i were elsewhere that might be a factor for me, but then again i feel the risk of injury is higher with the disease than with the vaccine, so i would probably still vaccinate.

[Calm]

The size of my writing changes, and I can't get the upsizing to stick, so I apologise if it is too small to read.  Hit control + and the screen will enlarge.

Quote:

No one has denied that some of the ingredients in vaccines are toxins that are dangerous in a high enough quantity.

Actually, they have.  I only mentioned the things I did to counter things I read here.  There are countless other issues I could bring up about vaccinations, but I limited it to those things I saw in this thread.

Quote:

 While too much  formaldehyde is a very bad thing indeed, we need it for metabolic purpose, and the amount delivered by vaccines is a drop in the bucket compared to what our own bodies produce for these purposes.  

Actually, the amount an infant receives is the equivalent to how much is currently in their system according to several citations.  

The ingredients is a massive subject on its own, I can't do it justice at this time.  One thing you have overlooked, which all the info also overlooks is that nature does not inject formaldehyde into our veins, esp not bound to methanol etc.  Everything you put into your body was naturally meant to go into your mouth - through the digestive tract.  Things injected into the veins completely circumnavigate that process.  

As a for instance, if I swallow DMT, nothing happens, because of chemicals in the stomach that break it into different chemistry.  If I smoke it or inject it, it becomes the most powerful hallucinogen on the planet.  

I recognise we have some of the chemicals in vaccines already in our bodies... aluminium included actually.  That does not automatically make them good.  And it says nothing of the chemical structure.  Take fluorine for example.  The mainstream tells you your body needs fluoride, and this may be true.  However, what your body uses is organic, calcium fluoroapatite.   The fluoride in tooth paste and water is an inorganic salt,  and is harmful (it says on the tube and in science literature), sodium fluoride.  They rely on the the fact that most people don't know that, and even if they did, would not appreciate the chemistry.  They act in different ways.  Fluoride is not always fluoride.  Same with all other chemistry.   

Quote:

You speak of averages, but only seem interested in the high points or perhaps averaging the high points.  You could also take another look at this graph and note the extreme lows of the 1940s and guess that the average cases per year for the forties would probably be slightly lower than the averages cases per year for the 1950s.  Was measles on the rise again

I averaged every point of that data, not just the high points.  I do many things to data, not just any one thing.  

 

Where and over what time period did Smallpox apparently have a vaccination rate of 10%?  

 

 "It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we vanquished smallpox with vaccines when only 10% of the population were ever vaccinated." Dr. Glen Dettman, AMM, BA, PhD, & Archie Kalokerinos, MD, 1986. (p. 36) In the late 1960's and 1970s, Dr. Kalokerinos and Dr. Dettman discovered that some 500 out of every 1,000 Aboriginal children were dying in the Northern Territories. The cause was a type of toxic shock reaction, complicated by vitamin C deficiency, often brought on by immunisation. In a two-year period without vaccination and with improved nutrition not one child died. (p.43)

I'm running short on time, so I'll have to come back but I did want to spend a minute on  "the dose makes the poison" because it underpins most of the "soothing" doctors give concerned parents, and therefore much of the argument in these kinds of discussion.

There was the "don't eat tuna if you're concerned about vaccine mercury" phase and now we have the endogenous formaldehyde phase, "you have formaldehyde in your body already".  First I'd like to ask, why do people get adverse reactions at all (so called "allergies" notwithstanding) if it is dose dependent?  Why are some severely neurologically damaged or paralysed?  Think hard about the answer to that question, because it flies in the face of the dose-dependent rhetoric.

All of us can eat an apple and be ok (allergies notwithstanding).  If someone drops dead from an apple, the apple was tainted.  We most certainly would not accept that "people occasionally drop dead from apples, but other than that, they're safe".  Yet, that is exactly what we are expected to accept with vaccines.

Even endogenous formaldehyde causes cancer, so it seems that some chemicals, whether endogenous or exogenous, aren't always good.  

Mercury is apparently ok by some that vaccinate, and even after it was removed from vaccines people still say it wasn't because it is toxic (search this thread for an example of such a comment).  Chemical composition and route of administration must be considered. Aluminium in vaccines is aluminium salt.  This is a significant difference.  

Quote:

Mercury in any form is toxic. The difference lies in how it is absorbed, the clinical signs and symptoms, and the response to treatment modalities.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/819872-overview

Formaldehyde is in many foods, too.  But again, not helpful information because formaldehyde is metabolised during digestion.  In fact, the word "digestion" doesn't really encapsulate the complexity... it should be called "the magical mystical journey of a thousand chemical explosions".  

We inject this stuff straight into the veins, we may as well shoot it right into the brain.  We don't ask the body, we don't give it a chance to remove the rubbish, we just plough it straight in there.  Hence, neurological damage can occur.  

We don't vaccinate pregnant women because the baby can't cope but suddenly the newborn is equipped to cope? What happens during birth that toughens them up to such a degree?

Another important factor is it isn't just the chemicals as they are, for example:

Quote:

Studies were conducted to highlight the importance of carbonyl groups in formaldehyde-treated vaccines and to explain the adverse effects of formaldehyde vaccines in measles and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections. The data from the studies show that the induction of carbonyl groups on vaccine antigens by formalin treatment might profoundly affect immunogenicity, changing the balance between protective and deleterious immune responses...

Heat, oxidation and exposure to aldehydes create reactive carbonyl groups on proteins, targeting antigens to scavenger receptors. Formaldehyde is widely used in making vaccines, but has been associated with atypical enhanced disease during subsequent infection with paramyxoviruses. We show that carbonyl groups on formaldehyde-treated vaccine antigens boost T helper type 2 (TH2) responses and enhance respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in mice, an effect partially reversible by chemical reduction of carbonyl groups.

http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/Health/A-potential-molecular-mechanism-for-hypersensitivity-caused-by-formalin-inactivated-vaccines.html   

"Most inactivated viral vaccines are prepared by the reaction of viruses with formaldehyde (Brown, 1995). Formalin reacts with many chemical groupings of proteins that lead to the phenomenon of “membrane effect” in which the reaction “closes” the outer protein shell of the virus before the nucleic acid of the infectious genome is destroyed. Even after prolonged incubation of the inactivated antigen infectious nucleic acid can emerge and lead to a replication of the virulent virus. This can cause a sub-clinical infection or even lead to disease."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533761/

Does 'the dose make the poison?'

One of the reasons it took us so long to figure out plastic, esp bisphenol A was causing us harm is because a very low dose (1 nanomolar) of bisphenol A induces a stronger response than a much higher dose (100 nanomolar). The dose makes the poison is hampering our medical and general scientific advancement, is an antiquated idea, esp in the light of quantum mechanics.  

 

Must go.  Run out of time.

Edited by Calm - 3/23/11 at 5:22am

[Calm]

I can't believe we have spiralled down to defending vaccine/drug manufacturers.  Esp their profit margin.  I must be in the twilight zone.  I've been in many vaccination debates, some of them on mainstream science forums, some of them with real life professors, and occasionally I see people saying they aren't toxic and I thought that was ludicrous... but this is the first time I've seen the suggestion that they are some kind of good will charity that isn't making as much money as we think.  

I'm not even going to enter that part of the discussion on principle.  

[SilverMoon010]

THANK  YOU, Calm!  I felt the same way. I couldn't believe what I was hearing and am frightened that people actually think they are not making money on this.  Wow, the only thing Big pharma is good at is apparently brainwashing those into believing they are doing this for the better good of people, out of the goodness of their hearts.

Here are just two examples for those who think they are not out for money:

http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/06/ny-mandates-pharma-forced-vaccine.html

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/56252/
 

Edited by SilverMoon010 - 3/23/11 at 5:41am

[katelove]

Originally Posted by Calm 
 

Quote:

One thing you have overlooked, which all the info also overlooks is that nature does not inject formaldehyde into our veins, esp not bound to methanol etc.  Everything you put into your body was naturally meant to go into your mouth - through the digestive tract.  Things injected into the veins completely circumnavigate that process.  

I understand what you're saying here, and I don't disagree with your point, but vaccines are not injected into the veins. They are injected into muscle.

Sorry to be pedantic but I have seen this mentioned more than once on this forum and I think it's important to be accurate to maintain our credibility and  to reduce the number of things people seeking an argument (in general, not on the forums) can find to nitpick in order to avoid the real issues.
 

[Calm]

Originally Posted by katelove 

I understand what you're saying here, and I don't disagree with your point, but vaccines are not injected into the veins. They are injected into muscle.

Sorry to be pedantic but I have seen this mentioned more than once on this forum and I think it's important to be accurate to maintain our credibility and  to reduce the number of things people seeking an argument (in general, not on the forums) can find to nitpick in order to avoid the real issues.
 

Fair point.  "straight into the veins" is more of a visual, but you are right.  It does get nit picky.

[SilverMoon010]

Originally Posted by katelove 

I understand what you're saying here, and I don't disagree with your point, but vaccines are not injected into the veins. They are injected into muscle.

Sorry to be pedantic but I have seen this mentioned more than once on this forum and I think it's important to be accurate to maintain our credibility and  to reduce the number of things people seeking an argument (in general, not on the forums) can find to nitpick in order to avoid the real issues.

Not true...It varies by vaccine; however,whether it is intramuscular (in muscle) or subcutaneous (below top layers of skin into fatty layers that is rich in blood vessels) , the vaccine will quickly get into the bloodstream via tiny blood vessels in the muscle or subcutaneous tissue.   Either Either
 

Either way, it's entering the blood.