Vaccination - Split from Microchipped Babies

[Taomeow]

.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Taomeow

[thelerner]

Fine, we'll ignore measles (though its highly contagious, can cause death and was nearly knocked out before the anti-virus craze kicked in) still its seems obvious to me stopping such things as small pox and polio would result in millions of lives saved.  Here's a chart that perhaps explains it better:

 

 

 

 

I think the antivaccine people are the ones putting lives at risk.   I get the feeling you don't realize just how deadly some of those diseases used to be.  Here's a link: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/vaccines-saved-millions-lives/  

summary:

Over 5.2 billion people died in the 20th Century. Although the 20th Century ended a mere 13 years ago, from a statistics standpoint, we know we will probably die of different diseases (and other less natural causes) than our forebears. The causes of death evolve over time as medicine improves, science ameliorates risk, lifestyles change, environments shift, and politics reshape our world. British data journalist David McCandless (of Information is Beautiful) created this fascinating infographic based on a project, commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, a U.K. charity devoted to human health, called Death in the 20th Century, which shows us, graphically, the leading causes of mortality from 1900 to 2000, worldwide. 

 

Some of the numbers are shocking...

But the most interest information is in the Infectious Disease section. Nearly 1.7 billion people have died from infectious diseases. Some of the more interesting numbers are:

• Diphtheria–0.76 million deaths
• Hepatitis B–12.7 million deaths
• Measles–96.7 million deaths
• Meningitis-21.9 million deaths
• Polio–0.13 million deaths
• Smallpox–400 million deaths (yes, 400 million)
• Tetanus–37.1 million deaths
• Whooping cough–38.1 million deaths

Vaccines are life savers and a tool that should not be ignored or thrown out.  There may be problems with some but they are too important and saved too many lives to ignore. 

[thelerner]

In 2011 there were an extra 47500 new cases of NPAFP -- Non-polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis.  Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly.   That's how vaccines "eradicated polio."

 

Bill Gates, a lineage eugenicist, who proclaimed in 2010 that this century will be "the century of vaccines," is a staunch believer in depopulation as the solution to humanity's problems.  A random search for "Bill Gates, vaccines, depopulation" will yield some interesting speeches.  Here's a sample (sorry for the annoying editing gimmicks at the very end -- no time to look for a better presentation, it's the message that matters...   a tiny sample soundbite -- "with new vaccines, we can reduce the population by 10-15%.")

 

 

 

The editing in that clip is awful; awfully manipulative and it from the beginning to the end.    You have someone who's trying to halve the deaths of children, spending billions to save lives in a dozen different ways you've found a video that cuts and pastes to reverse its true meaning.  The Gates speech, a Ted's talk, which outlines ways to save lives is twisted to mean the opposite.  Despicable.

 

Its an example of how horribly far anti science people will go to incriminate anyone opposes them.  Vaccination is one of the ways the Gates Foundation is going to fight childhood deaths because they're smart and want the biggest bang for there buck.  They're going after other diseases and poverty in other ways too. 

 

There is a theme in the Foundation that the best way to slow population growth is through education of woman, greater opportunity and prosperity and knowledge that children won't die young.   Its not a machiavelian scheme rather its trying to raise the living standard with the hope that when its raised 3rd world populations become more like first; families choose to have fewer children. 

 

I recommend reading about the Gates foundation its very worthwhile.  He's gotten fellow billionaires to give to it, not because they're like doctor evil and want to destroy the world, but because they want to give back.   From purifying water to ending childhood scourges (which it starts saying in your clip before the editing goes nuts).   Read about there goals and what they do: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do

 

As always look to the original, listen to the actual talk, make a decision without the manipulation on what he is saying :

 

 

But its also the same game of continual fraud and substantiated fearmongering we see throughout the antivaccine movement.   Let me see if the link here gets copied: (Snopes has a more in-depth rundown of the rumor's origin and history, if you're interested its short.)

 

For readers: http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp

summary:

"For a thorough analysis of the flaws and misinformation associated with the current CDC autism "cover-up" conspiracy theory, we recommend the posts on the subject at ScienceBlogs, which note of the claim at the heart of this matter (i.e, allegedly suppressed proof of a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys after MMR vaccination) that:

 

Vaccination data were abstracted from immunization forms required for school entry, and records of children who were born in Georgia were linked to Georgia birth certificates for information on maternal and birth factors. Basically, no significant associations were found between the age cutoffs examined and the risk of autism. I note that, even in the "reanalysis" by Brian Hooker, there still isn't any such correlation for children who are not African American boys

 

So is Hooker’s result valid? Was there really a 3.36-fold increased risk for autism in African-American males who received MMR vaccination before the age of 36 months in this dataset? Hooker [performed] multiple subset analyses, which, of course, are prone to false positives. As we say, if you slice and dice the evidence more and more finely, eventually you will find apparent correlations that might or might not be real. In this case, I doubt Hooker's correlation is real.

 

There's no biologically plausible reason why there would be an effect observed in African-Americans but no other race and, more specifically than that, in African-American males. In the discussion, Hooker does a bunch of handwaving about lower vitamin D levels and the like in African American boys, but there really isn't a biologically plausible mechanism to account for his observation, suggesting that it's probably spurious. There are multiple other studies, many much larger than this one, that failed to find a correlation between MMR and autism.

 

What [Hooker] has done, apparently, is found grist for a perfect conspiracy theory to demonize the CDC, play the race card in a truly despicable fashion, and cast fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the CDC vaccination program, knowing that most of the white antivaccine activists who support [him] hate the CDC so much that they won't notice that even Hooker's reanalysis doesn’t support their belief that vaccines caused the autism in their children.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp#WRDkZmyAxRMDTVrz.99"

Edited March 5, 2015 by thelerner

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"The causes of death evolve over time as medicine improves"

-----

 

Right now, Iatrogenic Harm (harm from medicine) is the #1 cause of death.

 

Used to be heart disease and cancer, but medicine "evolved".

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

Edited March 5, 2015 by vonkrankenhaus

[thelerner]

Yet life spans and child mortality rates have dropped. 

 

From http://data.unicef.org/child-mortality/under-five

"The dramatic decline in preventable child deaths over the past quarter of a century is one of the most significant achievements in human history. The global under-five mortality rate has declined by nearly half (49 per cent) since 1990, dropping from 90 to 46 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2013. The under-five mortality is falling faster than at any other time during the past two decades. Thanks to the accelerated progress in reducing child mortality, the world saved almost 100 million children– among them, 24 million newborns – who would have died had mortality remained at 1990 rates.

 

Despite this admirable accomplishment, progress must be accelerated to meet Millennium Development Goal 4: Reduce child mortality. Going beyond the MDG deadline, the momentum to improve child survival must be sustained in all regions. If current trends continue, the world will not meet the MDG target until 2026.

 

- See more at: http://data.unicef.org/child-mortality/under-five#sthash.pGdCJbLW.dpuf"

 

and for life spans http://www.healthdata.org/news-release/life-expectancy-increases-globally-death-toll-falls-major-diseases

summary:

Global life expectancy for both sexes increased from 65.3 years in 1990 to 71.5 years in 2013, and women made slightly greater gains than men. Female life expectancy at birth increased by 6.6 years and male life expectancy by 5.8 years. If trends seen over the past 23 years hold, by 2030 global female life expectancy will be 85.3 years and male life expectancy will be 78.1 years.

 

or just Americans

http://consumer.healthday.com/public-health-information-30/centers-for-disease-control-news-120/americans-living-longer-than-ever-683595.html

Summary:

Global life expectancy for both sexes increased from 65.3 years in 1990 to 71.5 years in 2013, and women made slightly greater gains than men. Female life expectancy at birth increased by 6.6 years and male life expectancy by 5.8 years. If trends seen over the past 23 years hold, by 2030 global female life expectancy will be 85.3 years and male life expectancy will be 78.1 years..

..

"Life expectancy has been increasing pretty steadily for the last 50 years or so," said Robert Anderson, chief of the Mortality Statistics Branch at the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics.

Life expectancy has been increasing for several reasons, Anderson said. But, he added, "improvements in heart disease and stroke mortality have had a big impact. That's a large proportion of total deaths and that's where the action really is in terms of improved life expectancy. That's really what's driving the trend."

 

me.  So if you believe there's a Machiavellian plan to destroy mankind or parts of it.  Good news, its not working(!); humanities population is growing, and we're living longer.   There is the hope that population growth slows down and living standards for mankind as a whole continues to increase, which its done more in the past 30 years then in the previous 1,000. 

 

It certainly hasn't all been good, but its not so bad. 

Edited March 5, 2015 by thelerner

[Taomeow]

.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Taomeow

[eye_of_the_storm]

it is DYSGENICS being practiced... not eugenics...

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/; from Greek εὐγενής eugenes "well-born" from εὖ eu, "good, well" and γένος genos, "race, stock, kin") is the belief and practice which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population.

the opposite of ^^^

Nature practices eugenics.. everyone does when selecting a partner

If you seek an intelligent, emotionally well balance, physically healthy person you are practicing eugenics.

International Banks/ Gov/Corps want a one world slave race however, easy to control.

THE BORG WANTS YOU!



Get your vaccines today!

Free coffee with every vaccine!

Join the Trans-Humanist Movement, Utopia Awaits!

One World, One People. Workers of the World Unite!







 

Edited March 5, 2015 by eye_of_the_storm

[Taomeow]

.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Taomeow

[eye_of_the_storm]

People do not choose a partner toward improving the quality of the human population.

They do as individuals desiring healthy children unconsciously or consciously, which collectively would improve the human population... war, genocide, specifically targeting intellectuals/ natural leaders etc... + collective dysgenics... vaccines, medicated water, toxic air, toxic food etc... biological warfare, attacking genetics ... a possible "symptom" of vaccines is... "minor brain damage"... resulting in the opposite...
+ corruption of culture and education.




I said intelligent, emotionally well balanced and physically healthy... not wealthy

Psychopaths have been self selecting to rule while destroying/controlling everyone else.

I agree with

chapter 57

The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men's weapons,
The more trouble in the land.
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.

Therefore the sage says:

     I take no action and people are reformed.
     I enjoy peace and people become honest.
     I do nothing and people become rich.
     I have no desires and people return to the good and simple life.

Living in harmony with Nature...

The current system is working against Nature.

We all have to go back to living like this




Move away from this...

Edited March 5, 2015 by eye_of_the_storm

[blue eyed snake]

 Therlerner, I said I'd give you (et al) 30-second soundbites, not sources I've investigated (that's sources to investigate, not regurgitated PR, social engineering pieces, and infomercials that are far easier to come by).  I did this in the hope you would want to take a closer look at sources of dissenting opinions yourself.  But no.  You had to dissect the finger pointing at the moon instead, the random video I specifically pointed out was a random video because I was investing 30 seconds in the endeavor of piquing your interest and didn't want to sacrifice more for naught -- I wanted to make sure it wouldn't be for naught first.

 

The video you linked is not only non-information, it's manipulative by getting words out of context

 

I could give you a list of really excellent and rigorous sources that runs for miles. 

 

I would like some sources that give real information on this. Until now you're clearly stating your opinion but not giving any (substantial and reliable) source. As opposed to vK who did give interesting and trustworthy sources. 

 

But before doing that, I wanted to at least pique your interest?  With polio info?  With the interesting fact that they can and do "eradicate" diseases vaccinated against by renaming those diseases?  That's one way for a disease to "disappear" -- don't you find it even a tad intriguing?  No?  

 

I am interested, else I wouldn't read and react but:

please prove this, in my country polio is very small in proportion due to the vaccination scheme. 

Before the vaccination scheme people died and became handicapped for life.

What renamed disease do you think we have now? Please with a source

 

Or maybe you would want to look at the way we traded off tetanus (12 cases in all of Europe in all of WWII -- sic!)

 

that's nonsense, in my small country alone there where 30 to 50 deaths as result from tetanus each year, until they started vaccinating.

 

for a yearly 12% increase in incidence of lymphoma in teenagers which this particular vaccine may be directly responsible for? (That's tens of thousands of cases yearly and steeply on the rise!)  Or maybe...  Ah, well.  

 

sources?

 

Nevermind what I maybe thought I could accomplish.  Didn't happen.   

 

what did you want to accomplish?

[blue eyed snake]

My family had doctors and scientists several generations back, and you know what stories I heard as a kid from those old physicians?  Stories along the lines of, "diseases are not what they used to be.  Not behaving the same way."  And they were referring to the times before mass vaccinations. They were describing infections that resolved in a crisis -- a sign that the immune system put up a real fight and won.  They stopped seeing this dynamics in vaccinated patients.  Diseases started lingering...  becoming chronic...  going deeper, damaging organs permanently.  

 

The time before the mass-vaccinations, yeah, that's between 1950 and 1960. Incidentally the same time that people started to eat refined foods, too much sugar, i think fluoridating was around that time, cars were on the rise, more people living in city's, more people with less then healthy daily movement and fresh air, etcetera ad infinitum. All factors that have an adverse effect on our health. I do not say that vaccinations don't have adverse affects, but I do say that you ( or your family) confuse causality with correlation here...

 

 

Of course malnourished, overworked, impoverished populations were at great risk come infectious disease.  Of course infant mortality was rampant in infants of mothers working 18-hour shifts. 

 

I agree totally, but my answer would be to try get those families a better life first, before we'd contemplate stopping vaccinating against life-threatening diseases.... 

 

But socially uncompromised populations not only lived longer -- in my family in particular -- than the current average lifespan, but were never sick.  Imagine that.  My great-grandparents were never sick at all.  They had ten children who were never sick at all.  Of these children, one proceeded to become a pediatrician who worked in this capacity for 70 years, making home visits every day, and some of the stories I mentioned earlier were told by her...  and she most definitely knew what she was talking about.  She HATED vaccines...     

 

And you do seem to hate them too

[thelerner]

eye of the storm, a billion or two people moving from this: a City (w/ highrise living) spreading out into this beautiful cabin (wood burning?) with 10 idealyic acres would be horrible for the planet.  Strangely enough city life, having 400 people living in one tall building is probably more ecological responsible then 100 cabins taking up a few squaire miles.   Wood burning is horribly inefficient and polluting.  Without modern farming we'd probably kill all wild life within a few years, not to mention finishing the job of deforesting the earth.   We are 7 billion people and counting. 

 

In some ways your idealyic picture might well be showing the "Psychopaths have been self selecting to rule while destroying/controlling everyone else" enjoying there spoils. 

 

 

back to the vaccines.. how anti science and medicine do we want to get?  If we were bitten by a rabid raccoon would we really say no to the vaccine?  Think its a conspiracy to make money, full of lies and poison?   Hopefully not, it based firmly on science and has saved 1,000's of lives.   Hopefully it'd be a no brainer.  

 

Yes, it may not work all the time, there could be side effects, there are some kinds of perservatives in it to keep it active, but bottom line is, its based on solid science and saves lives. 

[Enishi]

One essay I read awhile back that I often find myself revisiting is The Medical Racket by Wade Frazier. Here's a section on vaccines and Pasteur:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm#germ
 

 

Vaccination is another outcome of Pasteur’s germ theory.  Pasteur was not the first vaccinator, as Edward Jenner and others had the idea for smallpox much earlier, but Pasteur provided the theoretical basis, and he was the first great commercializer of the process.  His anthrax and rabies vaccinations were two early instances of the commercialization of vaccination.  As with fluoridation, assessing vaccine effectiveness is a numbers game.  In Hume’s book, she dealt at length with the effectiveness of vaccination, especially Pasteur’s.  Before Pasteur pursued his vaccines, smallpox vaccination became mandatory in England, and the numbers are illuminating.  In 1840, smallpox vaccines became free in England and Wales.  In 1853, the vaccine became compulsory.  In 1867, those who did not submit to vaccination were prosecuted. The deaths in England and Wales from smallpox are presented for the pertinent years.[217]

 

Epidemic years

England and Wales smallpox deaths

1857-1859

14,244

1863-1865

20,059

1870-1872

44,840

 

Smallpox only declined in England and Wales when vaccination did.[218]  In addition, smallpox mortality increases in vaccinated populations.  While the USA's fatality rate from smallpox was less than 3% of cases around 1900, in the far more vaccinated U.S. Army in the Philippines, the fatality rate was more than 25%.[219]  The highest death rate in the Philippines during the smallpox epidemic of a century ago was in Manila, with a fatality rate of 65%, and Manila was the most heavily vaccinated place in the Philippines.  Vaccination makes the disease more deadly when contracted.  George Bernard Shaw remarked on the statistical fraud that took place in England in trying to make vaccination appear more successful than it was.
 

The standard history books fail to mention that Pasteur’s early experiments with his vaccine were disastrous.  Pasteur’s plagiarized vaccine was used on thousands of sheep in Southern Russia.  The vaccine was administered to 4,564 sheep, and 3,696 died almost immediately from the vaccine.[220]  Pasteur had to pay for all the animals that he killed with his “preventive.”  The numbers show similar success with Pasteur’s rabies vaccine.  He may have even invented a new disease with that vaccine.  Time and again, the actual effects of vaccination show something very different from unqualified success.  A chapter of Hume’s book is devoted to the vaccination lessons of World War I.  Disease caused nearly as many casualties during the disaster at Gallipoli as those dead and wounded in battle, with heavily inoculated troops.  The grand finale of World War I was an “influenza” epidemic that swept the world in 1918-1919, beginning at a U.S. military base and killing probably at least 25 million people and crippling my grandfather, who was in the trenches during World War I.  They thought he was dead, and put him in a makeshift morgue with other soldiers.  He awoke days later in the charnel house, and nearby soldiers were spooked to watch a man crawl out of there.  Rheumatoid arthritis accompanied his illness, which crippled him.
 

If Hume’s work was all I had seen about the “success” of vaccination, Geison’s criticism of Hume’s poor understanding of Pasteur’s work might have been convincing, but there is little evidence that vaccination gets any credit for preventing or eradicating disease.  The Hygienic principles of sanitation and nutrition have apparently eliminated most epidemic disease, not vaccination.  The tuberculosis death rate in Great Britain was 4,000 per million people in 1840.  The tuberculosis bacillus was identified in the 1880s, when the death rate had fallen to less than 2,000.  Antibiotics were introduced at the end of World War II, when the rate had fallen to about 400, and the tuberculosis vaccine was introduced in the early 1950s, when the death rate had fallen below 300.  How can vaccination receive any of the credit?  Measles mortality, as a death rate per million people, had fallen from 1,100 per million in 1910 to only a few in the 1970s in Great Britain, when immunization was introduced.[221]  Whooping cough, now called pertussis, had already declined by more than 80% from 1900 in Great Britain when the vaccine was introduced, in the late 1930s.  In 1984, 46% of children contracting whooping cough in the United States had previously been vaccinated, as well as 58% of all children contracting measles.[222]

Edited March 5, 2015 by Enishi

[vonkrankenhaus]

Here are some interesting charts detailing reduction of disease and correlating this to introduction of vaccination:

 

http://preventdisease.com/news/pdf/InfectiousDiseaseVaccines.pdf

 

Here is some statistics on allergies - allergies and autoimmune syndromes have increased tremendously along with vaccination programs.

 

http://www.aaaai.org/about-the-aaaai/newsroom/allergy-statistics.aspx

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

[Taomeow]

.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Taomeow

[thelerner]

Enishi, when you have to dig up a a comparison of the U.S army in the Phillippines in order to prove something, I get the feeling its highly cherry picked.  In other words, the general army number didn't work, the army in San Juan didn't, the navy in guam didn't  but finally we found a statistics that backs us up, the U.S army in Phillippines.  You look until you find an abnormality, then compare to another number.  Its how statistics become lies.   It weakens the case in my opinion.

[thelerner]

  Thelerner, join the chant once again too!  Happy happy joy joy! 

fine.  just let me get this in.. the great majority of doctors are for vaccinations. 

ahem..

I apologize for my abrasive tone.  Both sides have to acknowledge that the passion in this issue is driven by concern for the lives and well being of children and the general population.  Its a heated issue, where the heroes on one side are the villains in the other. 

 

Also its wrought with questionable statistics on both sides.  And worse litered with anecdotes and opinions taken as facts.  Take the Amish angle.  In one story online, the anti-vaccine researcher stated Amish don't get vaccinated and have no autism, but he found 3 who somehow did and all 3 had autism.  That could interpreted as the vaccine gives 100% of kids autism, or God hates the Amish, or more likely there's a screw up in interpretation.  

 

Another site said, the Amish they sent out a survey and accordingly found 85% of Amish returns said they did vaccinate.  That also gets my BS detector going.  The hard rule of Anthropology is people lie en masse particularly when there is gain involved.  I assume the truth is in the middle, some Amish get vaccinated, some Amish have autism, but at high levels its probably grouped in with mental retardation and low levels are considered quiet people.  There's no over diagnosis as in the regular population where schools give special benefits to the iffier claim.

 

Thus both sides exaggerate. 

 

Its good to have people question and double check big government and big business.  Where there is profit motive there is possibility of corruption.   Its certainly not automatic though.  Government and Business do good things too.  There is a possibility that the anti-vaccination people are right on some fronts.  There may be too many mandatory vaccinations and some might be less safe then others,  But thats a call for better studies, not to throw out the tool of vaccinations, which save and prevent imo many diseases.

 

Personally, I've always chosen not to get a pneumnoia shot, that could change in the future.  I didn't like having my new borns get shots just after birth.  I'd have preferred to wait a few weeks until they were stronger and not subject them to more trauma just after birth. 

 

Thus, with good will towards all, I will continue to study with matter with an admittedly bias towards vaccination but with an open enough mind to look for the most even handed, least manipulated, cleanest studies. 

[ralis]

Linked here are several academic articles on herd immunity. Many of the comments on this thread lack well thought arguments. Anti vaccine advocates endanger the lives of others.A very insular selfish ideology, which is irresponsible.

 

If the mumps vaccine were available when I was young, I most likely would not be dealing with a physical problem that may have been caused by having the mumps. No, I am not sterile.

 

 

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/7/911.full

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/herd-immunity.html

Edited March 5, 2015 by ralis

[ralis]

A quick reading of this book would eliminate much of the non sequitur based arguments here.

 

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff-ebook/dp/B00351DSX2

[ralis]

For a bit of cold hard reality this picture says it all. Without small pox vaccine this would be very common.

 

 

Edited March 5, 2015 by ralis

[Taomeow]

.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Taomeow

[ralis]

Really Ralis?

 

 

And this is what Nazi experimentation with vaccines looks like.  (Make no mistake, the ideology of vaccines was introduced by IG Farben and perfected in Auschwitz.) 

 

Credible link please with facts.

[ralis]

Why don't we see millions of people with these kind of deformities that are supposedly based on what?

[Taomeow]

.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Taomeow

[Taomeow]

.

Edited July 27, 2015 by Taomeow