anti-cervical cancer HPV vaccine - the government has admitted that 1,725 persons have lost their lives (Pittsburgh, Austin)
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.
I'm curious how a measles outbreak could happen (such as the one Eleanora1 above posted) when the huge majority of those who caught it were vaccinated?...The article states that 839 people caught measles...curious why they don't include the vaccination status of those 839..had they been unvaccinated they ABSOLUTELY would have included that....notice how after the fact...they mention that the school has 11% unvaccinated...still hoping that people will blame that, istead of the obvious...vaccines don't work, and actually disable and weaken your immune system making you more suseptible to desease....such as these 839 people.
As usual, you show your total lack of knowledge about epidemiology. 839 people were exposed. 839 did not contract measles, 11 did, and surprise!, they were all unvaccinated.
Here is another snippet from the article:
He said that in a recent Indiana outbreak, a 17-year-old girl was infected with measles on a trip to Romania, and when she came home she went to a church picnic attended by about 500 people. Of that group, 35 were unvaccinated. Three people out of 465 vaccinated got measles, while 31 out of the 35 who were unvaccinated contracted the disease, Offit said.
0.6% of the immunized people got measles; 88% of the unimmunized people got the illness. More than 100X the number of unimmunized got mealses compared to the immunized group.
I got measles when I was about 10. We had regular vaccinations and sugar cubes we had to take (for polio I think) at school and my measles probably came from the vaccination and not exposure to the virus per se. I cannot remember if it was related.
What ever the reason, the vaccinations are anyway a milder form of the disease that helps the immune system develop antibodies against the virus.
Plenty of other vaccinations I had did not lead to an illness. I was the only kid of three in our household that did get measles.
Refusing to get vaccinations, they should prevent folk like this from travelling abroad or even outside their county were that possible. Seeing that stats show ±50% Americans hardly leave their county or the town they were born in (probably similar in other parts of the world too - can't find the stats) this is probably not a problem.
The earlier illustrations of travel and coming back infecting folk is anyway ample proof of the danger of contracting a disease in less healthy nations. When folk are not vaccinated and there is an outbreak, the calamity is far worse, history shows us this.
Unfortunately, your link of rehashed propaganda cannot compare to the Real World.
What exactly is your thought process when confronted with a post like Katiana's above? Was the quoted statistical evidence a figment of someone's imagination?
I'm fascinated by the machinations of conspiracy theories, I truly am.
Step 2 is to reduce herd immunity among adults. If you had measles as a child, you are very likely to have lifelong immunity. People born before 1957 in the U.S., probably have had measles (95% roughly) and are, therefore, permanently immune. No measles vaccine can provide this degree of immunity on the population level
.
If the measles vaccine can't provide such protection then why have measles rates dropped so drastically since the introduction of the vaccine? Why did we go from 50,000 measles case a year to less than 300 in a really bad year? Why were so few vaccinated people catching measles when an outbreak happened?
Do you really think there's silent epidemic of measles going on right now that public health officials are covering up?
Don't lie...really rayneinspain...obviously you didn't read my last post, or you'd have your answer.
No. You'd have a pack of lies by a blogger who clearly doesn't understand math or science. I have no idea why posters here are supposed to find such lies convincing.
The above reads as if it was written by a heartless pharmaceutical executive and, frankly, I find it offensive.
Disease will always exist. It serves an individual purpose. The fight against it is only for profit. They will never find a cure for anything because that's not the purpose of medicine. Oh, they'll claim they're looking, but it will never be the end result. There is too much profit in it. And the fact that anyone is subjected to dangerous medications and that any damages they suffer are simply par for the course is just evil.
You're offended that he finds a few deaths acceptable in the fight against disease, yet you're okay with letting disease run through the population unfettered by medical intervention because it "serves an individual purpose"? And you think that the people trying to stop disease are the evil ones?
Hey, how is that smallpox treating you and your family? Oh, you don't know anyone who has had smallpox? Because it's been all but wiped off the face of the planet by the medical community?
Those conniving b-tards! They're saving hundreds of thousands of lives JUST because they know at some point those people will get the flu or pneumonia or strep throat so the medical community can save them from THOSE diseases, so they can sit and wait for them to get sick again so they can save them AGAIN! It's a bloody cash cow! If the medical community had just let those people die from smallpox as nature intended then they wouldn't have all these healthy people around to get more money from when they become ill with minor maladies. Evil. Truly evil.
Yep, me too. I had Measles, both of them. I have lifetime immunity to them. The kids being given the shot for them? Nope...no lifetime immunity. Yep, had them, parents did not contact a physician or report my measles to anyone. ***(Note that my cases were not reported, NOR were countless of other kids' cases, hence, with certainty we know that their numbers of claims of how many deaths per cases existed are skewed.)**They did do what all friends and relatives did back then. They contacted the school and the other families.
No one freaked-out back then. It was acceptable and preferable to any shot that thankfully, did not exist at that time.
You see, "Survival of the Fittest" is a door that swings both ways. The shots are maiming and even killing babies. Why? Survival of the fittest, it's that whomever can survive them, does.
The "diseases" well, we didn't call them that, nor did our parents. We called them illnesses, sicknesses, that's all. Same thing....survival of the Fittest applies here, too. Just common sense.
Oh, our parents mostly gave-in to whatever shots existed then. Interestingly, we had fewer kids harmed by the shots then. We had dramatically FEWER SHOTS.
Yep, me too. I had Measles, both of them. I have lifetime immunity to them. The kids being given the shot for them? Nope...no lifetime immunity. Yep, had them, parents did not contact a physician or report my measles to anyone. ***(Note that my cases were not reported, NOR were countless of other kids' cases, hence, with certainty we know that their numbers of claims of how many deaths per cases existed are skewed.)**They did do what all friends and relatives did back then. They contacted the school and the other families.
And five hundred people died each year as a result of measles. They don't die anymore. Most people would agree that fewer deaths are a good thing. Unless, of course, you're anti-vaxxer worried about a boo-boo and unconcerned about actual death people.
No one freaked-out back then. It was acceptable and preferable to any shot that thankfully, did not exist at that time.
Why are dead people preferable to vaccines?
You see, "Survival of the Fittest" is a door that swings both ways. The shots are maiming and even killing babies. Why? Survival of the fittest, it's that whomever can survive them, does.
You are confusing the measles vaccine with measles. Measles maims and kills. Measles shots protect against measles.
The "diseases" well, we didn't call them that, nor did our parents. We called them illnesses, sicknesses, that's all. Same thing....survival of the Fittest applies here, too. Just common sense.
So what did you call measles back in the good old days when people died from it here? Happy Fun Time? Fabulous Chance to Be Sick For a Few Weeks? Great and Glorious Opportunity to Get Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis?
Do tell.
Oh, our parents mostly gave-in to whatever shots existed then. Interestingly, we had fewer kids harmed by the shots then. We had dramatically FEWER SHOTS.
Now? It's the Medical Matrix gone-wild.
You had fewer shots back then and more dead babies. Today we're smarter and we prefer more shots and fewer dead babies. Common sense really is that simple.
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.
