Infectious Disease Mortality 1900-96

[goodpapa]

I found this graph again, one of the first smoking guns that told me that the CDCs vax campaign is full of it.

It's quite obvious from the curve of the graph that vaccination had nothing to do with the majority of the decline in deaths from infectious disease in the previous century.

And it is this lie-- that vaxes are responsible for the decline-- that is the cornerstone upon which everything else is built.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/osr/site/about/graph.htm

More than 90% of the decrease occurs before the sixties when they started vaxing. Interestingly enough it flatlines just about when they DO start. I wonder how low it would be if they hadn't begun the onslaught.

And it's on their own website,

Ray

P.S. There used to be a "click to enlarge" link under this graph, but I guess they took that out when they "modified" the page on Aug.14, 2003. Can they make it any harder to read?

BTW, that's 1900,1920,1940,1960,1980 along the bottom and mortality rate per 100,000 up the side.

I wonder how long it will take for the graph to disappear? (LOL)

[goodpapa]

Now, this IS interesting...

...I've found another version of the chart on the CDC website, but for some strange reason their site won't allow me to link straight to it. When I try ,I end up on the home page.

But it's easy to get to. Do a search off of the home page with the exact keyphrase:

"infectious disease rates"

Number 3 should read "Box 1 Trends in Deaths Caused by Infectious Diseases in the United States, 1900-1994"

now this one was last updated 10/13/2001, so its older than the first.

Now the good part: It emphases in text that "between 1980 and 1992, the death rate from infectious diseases increased 58% (including only those people for whom the primary cause of death was an infectious disease.)"

But according to the first chart the reason for the increase after 1980 was "several factors (including HIV-related mortality and antibiotic resistance) caused these rates to rise."

But this chart was updated about a week ago, which means that my new one is, in fact, an original--- and very specific about the primary cause of death being an infectious disease...

... which, of course, is intentionally EXCLUDING HIV-related mortality. As far as "antibiotic resistance"-- that's a complete stretch-- essentially a smoke-screen --since there's no way they could keep track of that. (Though, I'll do search for antibiotic resistance and see what I get)

This new chart, as well, has an inset chart highlighting the period of the 58% growth since 1980 (isn't that when the VAX program really "took off" ?) as does the first, but in contradistinction, it focuses directly on the time period in question, rather than including the 1970s. The final outcome is that the graph is very explicit and shocking in its rate of increase.

Whoever put this one on the CDC website may work for them (perhaps a computer subcontractor) but...

... they certainly are NOT on board with the CDC program.


BTW, the only way I can keep up with the points I am making is to have the two copies printed out in front of me.

I advise any and all interested to do the same---- who knows how long they'll be there.


So the spin is that they're reducing death when their charts say that they're increasing it--- but now everybody's makin' money!


Ray

[goodpapa]

I knew I could do it...

...The Direct link to The Truth (in this case the Divine hidden within the Demonic):

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/emergplan/box01.htm


This is really all anybody needs to see and understand to know that Vaccination is a Myth.

The entire premise promoted by the CDC and others can be annihilated with just one graph---- that they provide.

This, then, is truth also:

http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID...8-012134-4422r


Procreate, Lactate, Disseminate!!,


Ray

[goodpapa]

More of the Great Lie....

...http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/community/

"...After their discovery in the 1940's they transformed medical care and dramatically reduced illness and death from infectious diseases"

Oh, really... not according to this graph:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/emergplan/box01.htm


Looks to me like the dramatic reduction had already taken place. So really, neither vaccines nor antibiotics were responsible for the dramatic reduction. So what was?

Try sanitation and diet for starters.

Anyone know what CA-MRSA is?

Answer: Community-associated Methicillin-resistant...

...Staphylococcus aureus

Looks like the medical profession has created another Frankenstein monster and it's coming to a neighborhood near you...

Connecticut, Minnisota, Georgia, and Maryland

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/hip/ARESIST/mrsa_comm_faq.htm

and recently added (sept.23,2003), Northern Manhattan, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago

http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r030923.htm


Reminds me of that book I read: "The Coming Plague"


Ray

[goodpapa]

Thanks to Sandy Mintz's...

...Vaccination newsletter for a head's up on this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Go New Zealand! Finally a vax study that uses a real control group of non-vaxed children.

I wonder how many non-vaxed children are associated with Mothering.

Wouldn't it be great if we could orchestrate our own study?



Procreate, Lactate, Disseminate!


Ray

[annalily]

Thanks Ray. Just wanted to let you know someone's here following the links and reading!

[goodpapa]

Well, annalily...

...I had a feeling someone---even more than one--- was stopping by, but thanks for saying hi.


In my family, we both "Procreated", my wife "Lactates", and I....

...of course, "Disseminate.


Ray

[goodpapa]

It's all about credibility...

...if there's one bad egg, what about the rest?


http://www.staugustine.com/stories/0..._1827743.shtml

How anyone could vaccinate FOR ANYTHING after reading an article like this is incomprehensible.


Ray

P.S. Not only are these young people, but, in general, they are stronger and in better health than the average population.

[Pigpen]

Re: Thanks to Sandy Mintz's...

Originally posted by goodpapa
...Vaccination newsletter for a head's up on this one:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Go New Zealand! Finally a vax study that uses a real control group of non-vaxed children.

I wonder how many non-vaxed children are associated with Mothering.

Wouldn't it be great if we could orchestrate our own study?



Procreate, Lactate, Disseminate!


Ray

I'm having a really hard time not sending this link to my brother who's son was just diagnosed with Asthma and Allergies. But, I'm sure it's just a coincidence...
Keep these great links coming!

[goodpapa]

Just moved this here...

to keep the CDC dissection together:


Sara, in honor of your....
...breastfeeding prowess, I've been wrestling with the CDC info to get a little sumpin' on "mumps encephalitis".

Much easier said than done. A first result was this:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000379.htm

An "outbreak" of 63 cases of mumps in N.J. No complications, no hospitalizations.

Interesting this was, and this will be the main point later, the mean age was 11 years--spanning 6 to 17 years old.

Now we have 480 University age cases:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000944.htm

One case of meningoencephalitis-- but these are all college age students--- and I don't have to check this website to know that mumps should be a childhood disease. Every book on childhood diseases discusses the added dangers of these diseases as adult diseases.

Notice how in the South Dakota adult cases 44 of 94 lacked previous evidence of having had the vax or disease. This is typical semantics of a CDC document-- you have to interpret the meaningful data...

...'cause what that means to me is that 50 cases had had the vax or disease. Of course they don't tell the breakdown of that number, but from what I know of immmunity---I got my mumps naturally and the best my parents could do was pieces of ground beef during the illness---I'll bet that those 50 cases (more than half) were vaxed.

This next one is a little trickier:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000890.htm

And, mind you, this was a search using the term: "mumps encephalitis"

No mention of this phenomenon in the vaccine era, even though there are plenty of recorded cases of the naturally occurring disease. 2,982 cases in 1985.

Strangely, the reason my search turned up this document was the following:

"...mumps has never been given the same priority as measles or rubella in the public or medical community, despite the morbidity due to mumps and the fact that mumps virus was a leading cause of acquired deafness in the prevaccine era and the leading cause of viral encephalitis of known etiology in the United States until 1975."

The thing is that the first paragraph mentions the "152,209 cases (of mumps) reported in 1968, the year mumps became a nationally notifiable disease and the first year after mumps vaccine licensure in December 1967.

So there is no meaningful data on mumps before 1968 the year AFTER the mumps vax is introduced, but the "leading cause of acquired deafnenss and viral encephalitis OF KNOWN ETIOLOGY.. until 1975.

Why is that phrase is there? Was it perhaps the ONLY known etiology, one of few known? What was the starting date as a "leading cause of known etiology for those two ? Was it perhaps after the vaccine was introduced in December 1967? Was this initial vaccine a live vax?

The only meaningful info in this report is simply this:

"Persons who were neither vaccinated nor infected at a young age may be exposed when they are older and at higher risk for mumps-associated complications."

Remember those 50 college students in South Dakota who didn't qualify as "no-vax, no illness."

My son WILL get natural immunity to mumps. If we can't find it here in N.C. we will go anywhere in the continental US to find it, and I'll even be offering a "finders fee" (LOL)


Don't just procreate, disseminate and you better
Breastfeed (dammit, dhs, get on board!),


Ray