|
|
Post by Gifthorse on May 3, 2014 14:39:33 GMT -5
According to ' Zak'... "The spontaneous abeyance of the plague supports my theory that epidemic diseases are socially regulated and have a natural "lifespan" of period of optimum virulence. Vaccination programmes are invariably introduced at the end of this period (this was the case with the mass vaccination for diphtheria, measles, whooping cough, scarlet fever, polio, tuberculosis and whooping cough), when the disease has already become innocuous (ie, the death rate for it has fallen to near zero)." Seriously?  |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 3, 2014 15:54:09 GMT -5
Yes, very seriously. The stats for all these diseases are a matter of public record. I've studied them very carefully, and as I've said a number of times already, they do not support the claims made for vaccination. Specifically, there is no evidence at all that fatality rates for any infectious disease were ever reduced by the introduction of vaccination programmes. No lives have ever been saved through vaccination. That's an easily proved fact, and I have proved it countless times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gifthorse on May 3, 2014 19:02:38 GMT -5
So, no such thing as global warming, vaccines don't work....but psychics are real?
You seem to have made up your mind firmly about all this so...Wow. Just wow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 3, 2014 19:20:40 GMT -5
I go where the evidence takes me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 19:52:50 GMT -5
I go where the evidence takes me. What is the evidence? |
|
|
|
Post by raybar on May 3, 2014 21:27:45 GMT -5
... there is no evidence at all that fatality rates for any infectious disease were ever reduced by the introduction of vaccination programmes. No lives have ever been saved through vaccination ... Phrased in this way it sounds as it you are talking about a treatment or a cure -- something which helps a sick person to recover from an illness. That is not what vaccines do. Vaccines provide a resistance or immunity to a disease so that fewer people get sick in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 3, 2014 21:36:07 GMT -5
The evidence for the effectiveness - or, rather, non-effectiveness - of mass vaccination is in the mortality rate stats. That's the bottom line. If the mortality rate decreases after vaccination, then there are grounds for claiming that vaccination was effective. If, on the other hand, the mortality rate is unchanged after vaccination, then you can say WITH CERTAINTY that vaccination had no effect.
If an average of 100 people are dying every week from an infectious disease BEFORE the population is vaccinated, then you would expect that number to drop in the weeks and months after vaccination.
In fact the mortality rate is unchanged after vaccination. And this is true for all infectious diseases. In other words vaccination makes no difference to the number of deaths.
For me that's incontrovertible proof that vaccination is ineffective.
I am well aware of all the arguments and claims for vaccination, and the scientific explanations of how it is supposed to work etc., but the simple fact of the matter is that the numbers do not support the claims. If vaccination does not result in a reduction in the mortality rate for a particular disease, then it is a self-evident fact that vaccination hasn't worked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 3, 2014 21:38:07 GMT -5
In which case there would be a reduction in the number of cases (and a corresponding reduction in the mortality rate). But if you look at the figures you will see that there is no such reduction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 21:39:22 GMT -5
Where are the statistics you are using? This is not funny. People's lives are at risk and mostly chilren's. Please reference where you are getting these statistics, or just admit this is your personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 3, 2014 21:40:58 GMT -5
I'm talking about the official CDC figures (for the US), and the official Health Department figures (for the UK).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 21:41:54 GMT -5
Okay, that's fine. Where are the links?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 3, 2014 22:24:23 GMT -5
Which links? The stats for all infectious diseases are on government and CDC websites.
Look, I've had this discussion countless times over the last 20 plus years. I've discussed/argued it with doctors, virologists, epidemiologists etc at symposiums, in newsgroups, on facebook, by email etc. I really don't want to go over it all again. I have challenged the people involved in this field to produce, or point me to, any real-life epidemic anywhere in the world, where vaccination resulted in a reduction in instances of a particular disease. Not one has ever been able to provide me with that proof. I've investigated hundreds of epidemics, from the US and the UK (where stats are more reliable), to countries like India and Africa, and scrutinized the figures very carefully. I have never been able to find a single case where the introduction of mass vaccination was followed by a reduction in the occurrence of the disease in question and a reduction in the mortality rate.
I'm not "against" vaccination. It just doesn't work. I regard it in the same way that I regard homeopathy.
Oh, and by the way, vaccination is the pharmaceutical industry's most lucrative line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 22:36:39 GMT -5
I'm not "against" vaccination. It just doesn't work. I regard it in the same way that I regard homeopathy. Well then, that's different. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on May 3, 2014 22:45:39 GMT -5
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. This is the CDC graph plotting the incidence rate for tuberculosis in the US from 1900 - 1960. Did the introduction of the vaccine stop the disease? That's the claim that is made.  In my opinion it's obvious that the disease was already in decline, having reached the end of its natural "life span". The mortality rate was at near zero. The vaccination program made no difference whatsoever. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2014 22:59:19 GMT -5
Of course! All of those people died in the interim. Is that how you see it? The strong will live and good riddance tp the ones with weaker immunity for whatever disease it was? Can we just leave it as you said it. that you're not against vaccinations, but consider it the same as homeopathey? At least you sound more caring then just lettng people die because in the end the disease will go away, away with the dead. And only those with stronger immune systems survive. Why is that better? Oh, maybe because of Darwinism?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 4, 2014 11:47:44 GMT -5
Why are you so mean to Zak, Lily?
|
|
