Well, he cited the medical journals where he got his information. So it is very well documented. It sure sounded very credible. While I was listening, I was thinking if you took the vaccine ingredients like the viruses, formaldehyde, contamination from the animal's viruses and the other ingredients, then injected it into an apple, no one would go near it. I am certain that you would never take a bite of that apple. But we blindly roll up our sleeves (and our kid's sleeves) without questioning exactly what is in there. Even the doctor doesn't know what is in there. Maybe we just accept the 'official' side of the coin just too willingly. BTW, what ever happened to the H1N1 vaccine? It is another winter and seems to have faded from the news. Is the virus still out there and headed this way?
A common practice among the advocates of quackery is simply to lie in their citations. That's why a reliable broadcaster like Mark Crislip is so good: He takes the time to read the quacks, and then actually read the original studies, to see where the quacks have misrepresented the studies, and often simply lied about them. It takes minutes to make up the kind of rubbish Prius313 is citing (and some others as well) but it takes many hours of research to debunk each false claim. This is why most scientists refuse to debate the advocates of CAM. There's a parallel with claims of the paranormal: A few minutes with Photoshop and a bit of imagination, and you have a claim which can take long serious research to get to the bottom of. As for your question about H1N1, most vaccines confer many years of immunity. If you got your H1N1 vaccination, you don't need another. If you did not get it, and have changed your mind, you may be able to get it through your doctor. But flu strains tend to shift with time, due to the development of immunity in people who've been vaccinated, or have had a virus and survived. Thus, last year's flu strain is unlikely to be common this year. Vaccines work! The proof is the eradication of smallpox, and the defeat of polio in developed countries. Very sadly, thousands of children die every year because of the lies of charlatans who convince their parents not to get them vaccinated. I don't need to know what's in a vaccine. I just need to know what are the chances I'll get sick with or without it, what are the consequences if I do get sick, and what actual risks may be in the vaccine itself. In point of fact, the risks from vaccines are infinitesimal, and the benefits vary with the illness in question. In the case of flu, the vaccine merely prevents a nasty cold-like illness that is fatal in a fairly small (but significant!!!) percentage of people. In the case of the DPT group, the vaccine prevents some really horrid diseases. Etc. Refusing vaccines for yourself or your children requires the most colossal ignorance of the facts, and a mind-boggling degree of either stupidity or recklessness. Refusing to let your kids get vaccinated is a form of child abuse tantamount to forcing them to play Russian roulette with a loaded pistol.
It's playing Russian Roulette with a loaded pistol in a crowded room. Immunizations aren't all 100% effective and many become less effective after several years. The tin foil hatted parents that don't get their child immunized are also risking the health of others.
It's all fine and good when you are the only one not immunized, but once the numbers drop too low, heard immunity starts to fade. We are starting to see this happen with this new group of crazy parents. Tom
I think you mean 'herd' immunity. That only applies to natural immunity of a group. There is no herd immunity for vaccines or artificially induced resistance that by-passes the normal channels of entry into the body. But the question is: if you are vaccinated, then aren't you protected? If the vaccine is effective, then why would you suddenly be at risk being around non-vaccinated people? It just doesn't make sense. It would seem logical that either a particular vaccine works or it doesn't work. It can't work only if every gets it otherwise it doesn't work. Don't make sense. Either way, the guy doing the reporting is a PhD, researcher, scientist who cites peer-reviewed literature. On today's program, he covers part 2 of the look into vaccines, he covers more on exactly what is in vaccines that we are not told about, which is a bigger problem than we think. He also covers AIDS, and has an interesting essay by Ralph Nader. Overall a very interesting program. The Gary Null Show - Progressive Radio Network Click on download 12-02-11 Daniel, I send you to referenced works that you don't bother to check out, and you just blow circuits and spew insults. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sorry. Another question for you: If you get the flu shot and I don't get the flu shot and neither of us gets the flu...then how do you know that you didn't get it because of the flu shot?
I think we are basically saying the same thing, either way, when people wear their tinfoil hats too tightly, it adversely effects their ability to think clearly. The sad part is they are breeding and inflicting their disease carrying spawn on the rest of us.
Herd is the right word. Herd immunity is strictly an overall ability for a vector (usually a virus) to not reach the critical threshold of an increasing infection rate. Herd immunity can be achieved naturally from an early wave of infection or by ADEQUATE vaccination of the exposed population at risk. Smallpox is an excellent example. Before smallpox vaccinations were eliminated, the herd immunity of the US was present. Now there is no herd immunity against smallpox. The 1st key concept is that not every individual needs to be vaccinated to provide herd immunity. The 2nd key concept is that some minimum percentage of the population must be resistant (via natural means or vaccination). Need to clarify you comment. "Immunity for vaccines" makes no sense. If the wording was to be "herd immunity from vaccines" then you statement is wrong. Smallpox and Polio herd immunity was achieved entirely via vaccinations. Not 100% of the time. Depending on the virus and type of vaccine, then the protection could fade with time. Tetanus vaccines must be given periodically. Smallpox is a one time vaccination. On top of that there are individuals whose immune system does not fully function, rendering some individuals unable to have or hold immunity. You would not.....in a perfect world. If you happen to have a susceptible immune system or you got a bad vaccine batch, then you are depending on herd immunity instead of your immunity. You are leaving out the two variables of the wild variations in people's immune systems and the ability for viruses to mutate. Vaccines are known to work on populations with some precision, but that does translate to a person having the same odds. It's like the math of gambling at a Casino. A few "win", most "lose", and the house always makes money. Fortunately with us, when it comes to vaccinations, the losers are the killer viruses.
I guess I should not be surprised that Prius313 does not believe in vaccines. And the reason I do not bother to waste my time with your references is that so much of what you post is nonsense that I consider it reasonable to ignore the rest. Just as one example, your assertion that herd immunity cannot be conferred by vaccination. Herd immunity occurs whenever a small enough number of people are susceptible to a pathogen that the pathogen cannot gain a foothold in the population. It does not matter where the immunity comes from. If such statements of yours come from your references, then I conclude that your references are bogus.
What, you haven't heard about herd immunity? Yeah, I typoed that one, which is what we bad spellers claim when spell check can't save us. Tom
Dr. John McDougall wrote a newsletter article about his encounter with what he regarded as over-the-top medical arrogance. That article is interesting, but what I found even more interesting was the responses that he received from other medical people. The full response article is available at McDougall Newsletter: November 2011 - Responses to How to Protect Yourself from Abusive Doctors That newsletter also has backlinks to the original piece, as well as another article about how Steve Jobs had cancer for about 30 years. A few quotes from the responses:
Sorry, from what I have read on the subject by scientists who study such things, I don’t agree with the notion that herd immunity can be injected into a community. (Insert daniel’s expletives here) It is an interesting proposal on the part of Prius drivers, however it is opposite of what has been written about the subject. Vaccinating someone doesn’t confer immunity onto another person no matter how you look at it or how many are vaccinated. According to the literature, herd immunity applies to a group being exposed through normal channels to strengthen the group. I am not anti-vax, I just have some questions/issues, instead of following blindly like a religion. (Vaccines for everyone, against everything!) You want one, go get one. I am not the only person asking questions. Real scientists and researchers are asking these questions. The idea that if "some minimum percentage" is vaccinated, a percentage that no one seems to be able to identify, only then is the vaccinated population protected. But if the percentage is low, then the vaccination won’t work. If a vaccine is effective, then it would stand to reason that even if only one person was vaccinated in a given population, then they should be protected. According to the Prius drivers here, then the vaccine wouldn’t be effective unless “a certain percentage” is vaccinated. Yes I understand it is not a perfect world, and all things aren’t equal and there are many variables, bad vaccines, weak immune systems, yadda, yadda, yadda. So do what you want with this. Don’t listen to the program I referenced. Fine with me.
This isn't a matter of belief. We aren't talking about religion. This is simple scientific fact. Immunizing a significant portion of a population reduces the ability of disease to spread, even if the vaccine is not 100% effective. It is like spacing houses far apart. Each house may still be able to burn, but a fire will not jump from house to house. That is the principle behind herd immunity. Tom
Not exactly settled science. I subscribed to Dr. Blaylock's newsletter for a few years, and his passion is about brain inflamation. Given that he's a neurosurgeon, I guess it fits. Anyway, one source of brain inflamation is all the vaccines that people are getting these days. In this article, he explains his views on how the concept of herd immunity developed, and the flaws in applying it to vaccination immunity. The full article is available at Forced Vaccinations, Government, and the Public Interest - NHF An excerpt on the issue of herd immunity...
seriously, why the hell do i even waste my time reading this circular-logic nonsense. this thread, if anything, is clear evidence that the american public has utterly, utterly failed to understand science. instead, it has become easily swayed by unscientific or pseudoscientific lies and misrepresentations (conveniently labeled with disclaimers such as describing them as "their views") put forth by quacks seeking to profit from public fear and uncertainty. if americans knew science from their own nice person, these lies would never stand, even from people who use the false appeal to authority "Dr. Suchandsuch says" all the time. the measles vaccination rate has fallen below 95% and we are in fact facing resurgent epidemics. whooping cough is breaking ribs of infants who rely on community immunity.
It will only convince the survivors. But then again, they will have survived, so obviously they didn't need a vaccination. Tom
Unfortunately, for people who regard religious authority as the font of all knowledge, science is simply "another false religion." People who, as Galaxee points out, do not understand what science is, are easily swayed by quacks who garner followers either by simply attacking the "scientific establishment" or by using scientific-sounding gobbledegook. And the quacks who berate the profit motive of drug companies, are themselves just trying to make money by selling their own remedies. The telling point is that in mainstream (evidence-based) medicine, there is a separation of prescriber from seller: The doctor who prescribes a drug never sells it to you, and the pharmacist who sells it never prescribes it. In the world of "alternative medicine," the same practitioner who prescribes a "remedy" is generally the same person who sells it to you.
I don't know enough about the US education system to say where the fault lies - whether it's diversion of public funds to private education, the legality of lying in reporting, or the insistence that beliefs be taught as equal to reality - but this systemic mistrust of science is killing us.
Interesting choice of diseases. The Black Plague that wiped out about 1/3 of the population of Europe in the 14th century was not treated with vaccinations or antibiotics. Yet it went away. The effective treatment of the time was to improve sanitation, primarily by leaving unsanitary areas. The disease ran its life cycle, and disappeared from the scene. It has recurred several times, but never with the intensity of that first (recorded) time. For those dedicated to taking vaccines for every possible disease, a vaccine does exist for Black Plague. Think I'll pass on that one for the time being...
