Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Deaths aren't trivial. But you are screaming about 57 out of 741 MILLION? Really?
And you saying that if only they had the vaccines ... so are vaccines now 100% effective for everyone all the time? That vaccine is 100% guarantees that you won't get sick? maybe you should notify the manufacturers and they can put that on the PI. Oh, wait. They can't. It's not true.
With an adequate immune system, guess what? You don't get sick.
Why aren't you yelling about car accidents? Cigarette smoking? High fructose corn syrup (diabetes)? Those are all deadly and kill hundreds of thousands. If death is why you are so adamant about vaccines, perhaps you should take on other areas where death is rampant. But no. Becuase vaccines. Because worship at the alter of big pharma.
Please sir, may I have another shot?
Actually, it's 57 out of 15,000. You need to take "Beginning Epidemiology".
Why are you putting words into suzy's (or anyone's) mouth, or I should say keyboard? No one who knows anything about vaccines says they are 100% effective all the time for everyone. No one. It's almost like I should stop here. But, because fools (me) rush in where angels fear to tread, I'll continue, for the readers.
Actually, if there's any vaccine that's a good advertisement for vaccinations in general, it's measles. If they all worked as well as the measles vaccine, we'd be in hog heaven re: vaccines. Two doses are about 97% effective in preventing measles. That's why, even in Europe where people have been more influenced by that quack Wakefield (though not so much any more in his native country) there have *only* been 15,000 cases out of these 741 million people. 87% of these cases were UN-vaccinated.
An "adequate immune system" is easily overwhelmed by the measles virus. 90% of non-immune people will get measles if exposed to the virus for as short a period as 15 minutes.
Car accidents, cigarette smoking, high fructose corn syrup are all being addressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
Why are politicians directing care? Because vaccines are not NOT healthcare. They are politics. That's why the govt intervened and protected the industry from liability.
Politicians are tasked with implementing the recommendations of the medical experts. Some do it quite badly. The anti-vaxers love the AV pols, e.g. Bobby Kennedy, Jr. (not really a pol but a member of a huge political dynasty), Donald Trump, Jill Stein (who is "not anti-vax BUT. . .") as well.
Wakefield lost his medical license and moved to Texas. I wish he would get deported. He made at least three appearances in Minneapolis in 2010-2011 to tell Somali parents that MMR was the cause of autism in their kids. https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.f81354be678d
Wakefield lost his medical license and moved to Texas. I wish he would get deported. He made at least three appearances in Minneapolis in 2010-2011 to tell Somali parents that MMR was the cause of autism in their kids. https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...=.f81354be678d
You didn't read your own articles. I googled autism in the first one, and it's not even mentioned.
Go find the ACTUAL STUDY published in 1998 and prove 100% that the word "autism" is used. Go copy and paste the actual text here so we can all see that the study that was ground zero for the autism/vaccine debate actually states: Vaccines cause autism.
Actually, it's 57 out of 15,000. You need to take "Beginning Epidemiology".
Why are you putting words into suzy's (or anyone's) mouth, or I should say keyboard? No one who knows anything about vaccines says they are 100% effective all the time for everyone. No one. It's almost like I should stop here. But, because fools (me) rush in where angels fear to tread, I'll continue, for the readers.
.
She said all that ALL deaths could have been prevented. Which means, no one would have died had they gotten vaccinated. So no, not putting anything anywhere that it doesn't belong. Maybe talk to her about that directly, since she isn't clear that vaccines are not 100% effective.
Case of Mars bars to you if you can figure out WHY that statement is wrong om 2 accounts.
#1. Vaccines are not 100% effective
#2. ?? I know the answer. Do you? She apparently doesn't either. (hint: has to do with age of those who died)
And, it's 57 deaths out of total population. Since everyone is at risk since ... AGAIN ...vaccines are not 100% effective.
You didn't read your own articles. I googled autism in the first one, and it's not even mentioned.
Go find the ACTUAL STUDY published in 1998 and prove 100% that the word "autism" is used. Go copy and paste the actual text here so we can all see that the study that was ground zero for the autism/vaccine debate actually states: Vaccines cause autism.
The first article talks about how Wakefield "was coolly urging parents to give their children single vaccines at annual intervals," and "Next morning's headlines, inevitably, highlighted the potential risks from MMR. In the years following, national vaccination rates against MMR fell from above 90 per cent to below 80 per cent, dropping so low in some areas that measles outbreaks have occurred."
See this: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/co...s-cause-autism "Though in the paper they stated that they could not demonstrate a causal relationship between MMR vaccination and autism, Wakefield suggested in a video released to coincide with the paper’s publication that a causal relationship existed between the MMR and autism: “…the risk of this particular syndrome [what Wakefield termed autistic enterocolitis] developing is related to the combined vaccine, the MMR, rather than the single vaccines.” He then recommended that the combination MMR vaccine be suspended in favor of single-antigen vaccinations given separately over time. (Wakefield himself had filed for a patent for a single-antigen measles vaccine in 1997 and so would seem to have a potential financial interest in promoting this view.)"
The Lancet retracted Wakefield's paper for fraud. Do you know he actually paid some children at his own son's birthday party for drawing their blood? The guy is an absolute sleaze! And here he was, trying to get people to use his special single antigen measles vaccine (something that existed before they antigens were all combined into the MMR) so he tried to drum up fear of the triple-antigen vaccine. The British medical board stripped him of his license. This is something that is not done lightly (or Sears would lose his!). Yet you defend him.
We all know he didn't use the word autism in the study. What difference does it make?
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
She said all that ALL deaths could have been prevented. Which means, no one would have died had they gotten vaccinated. So no, not putting anything anywhere that it doesn't belong. Maybe talk to her about that directly, since she isn't clear that vaccines are not 100% effective.
Case of Mars bars to you if you can figure out WHY that statement is wrong om 2 accounts.
#1. Vaccines are not 100% effective
#2. ?? I know the answer. Do you? She apparently doesn't either. (hint: has to do with age of those who died)
And, it's 57 deaths out of total population. Since everyone is at risk since ... AGAIN ...vaccines are not 100% effective.
If the people had not gotten measles, they wouldn't have died. It's that simple.
Moderator cut: off topic
Ages of people in Europe who have died from measles:
"‘It is tragic and unacceptable that 49 children and adults in EU countries have died from complications of measles infection in the past two years, while safe and effective vaccines are readily available,’ says Dr Andrea Ammon, Director of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). https://www.vaccinestoday.eu/stories...-unacceptable/
Please provide some data that all the deaths are to infants under 1 year.
The first article talks about how Wakefield "was coolly urging parents to give their children single vaccines at annual intervals," and "Next morning's headlines, inevitably, highlighted the potential risks from MMR. In the years following, national vaccination rates against MMR fell from above 90 per cent to below 80 per cent, dropping so low in some areas that measles outbreaks have occurred."
See this: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/co...s-cause-autism "Though in the paper they stated that they could not demonstrate a causal relationship between MMR vaccination and autism, Wakefield suggested in a video released to coincide with the paper’s publication that a causal relationship existed between the MMR and autism: “…the risk of this particular syndrome [what Wakefield termed autistic enterocolitis] developing is related to the combined vaccine, the MMR, rather than the single vaccines.” He then recommended that the combination MMR vaccine be suspended in favor of single-antigen vaccinations given separately over time. (Wakefield himself had filed for a patent for a single-antigen measles vaccine in 1997 and so would seem to have a potential financial interest in promoting this view.)"
We all know he didn't use the word autism in the study. What difference does it make?.
You cannot be serious with that question. It is all the difference in the WORLD.
He NEVER published any paper that said there was a link between autism and vaccines. NEVER.
You think that isn't relevant?????
And again: post a quote from the study ITSELF, not people's interpretations of what it said. Post what It actually stated.
If you have issues with the aurtism = vaccine crowd, why aren't you going after every journalit that reported that? Every historical website, like the one about that states that as FACT, when it isn't a fact at all?
You cannot be serious with that question. It is all the difference in the WORLD.
He NEVER published any paper that said there was a link between autism and vaccines. NEVER.
You think that isn't relevant?????
And again: post a quote from the study ITSELF, not people's interpretations of what it said. Post what It actually stated.
If you have issues with the aurtism = vaccine crowd, why aren't you going after every journalit that reported that? Every historical website, like the one about that states that as FACT, when it isn't a fact at all?
Isn't science about hard facts and evidence?
"Dr Wakefield’s comments at a press conference announcing the paper, where he linked the MMR vaccine to a risk of autism, led to a public health scare that saw uptake of the vaccine dip below 80%." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323045/
This is not from the National Enquirer, it's from the BMJ, a respected medical journal.
You can ask me to quote from the study ITSELF till H*ll freezes a 6 foot crust. Wakefield was smart enough not to say that, but he said it at the press conference that announced the paper. And the paper suggested such a link. NOVA - Official Website | The Autism-Vaccine Myth
Here's a quote from your paper: "“In eight children, the onset of behavioral problems had been linked, either by the parents or by the child's physician, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination,” the authors wrote." NOVA - Official Website | The Autism-Vaccine Myth
Why should I "(go) after every jounalit(sic) that reported? You keep saying, quote the study. There's the quote.
"Dr Wakefield’s comments at a press conference announcing the paper, where he linked the MMR vaccine to a risk of autism, led to a public health scare that saw uptake of the vaccine dip below 80%." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2323045/
This is not from the National Enquirer, it's from the BMJ, a respected medical journal.
You can ask me to quote from the study ITSELF till H*ll freezes a 6 foot crust. Wakefield was smart enough not to say that, but he said it at the press conference that announced the paper. And the paper suggested such a link. NOVA - Official Website | The Autism-Vaccine Myth
Here's a quote from your paper: "“In eight children, the onset of behavioral problems had been linked, either by the parents or by the child's physician, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination,” the authors wrote." NOVA - Official Website | The Autism-Vaccine Myth
Why should I "(go) after every jounalit(sic) that reported? You keep saying, quote the study. There's the quote.
And will you please learn to format correctly?
Where does the data in the paper show that "vaccines" cause "autism." You already said that the word autism isn't in the study.
You are NOT quoting the study. You are quoting what other people said ABOUT the study. There's a big difference.
Now you are trying to quote a press conference. So where is the DIRECT quote? You haven't provided it you have only quoted other people paraphrasing what was alledgedly said.
Do you not see the difference?
It's the crucial primary source. Which, in all this vaccine/autism madness, WASN'T HIM. It was everybody else who was paraphrasing him.
PS. Wakefield's study only discussed a correlation of the *timing* of the MMR vaccine and a disruption in gut flora. Discussed, not confirmed, not blamed. Discussed. As in: Huh. This is something that we saw within this very, very small population of care reports.
That's it.
Isn't science about T R U T H?? Evidence?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
