Topic: Antivaccination propaganda here and there. - page 4. (Read 1317 times)

Is the rash infectious? Will the rash cause pneumonia or death? Indistinguishable means going into a doctor and them saying, hey it looks like you have the measles. Not that you have the measles and will suffer all of the effects.

I've gotten fevers from flu vaccines before, but had it been the flu I would have been hospitalized due to (minor) preexisting conditions. I don't think you can make a sound argument that a 5% chance of a rash or fever (in the measles case) is the same as a rather deadly disease.



You test the genotype of the strain of the measles virus to determine whether its a false positive (IE residual from the measles vaccine) or an actual case of the measles. They are not positively IDing cases of the measles. Of the 194 cases sequenced, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences means that it was a side effect reaction, not the actual measles.

I'll read over your link shortly. I don't mind discussing this in the slightest with you. Again, I'm not under any assumption that I'll change your mind, and I don't care to. I'd like to better understand your point of view and find what I believe to be sources of incorrect information. Lets say that the measles vaccine does cause the measles disease, I'll say sure it might, but thats not a conclusion that can be drawn from the study we've been talking about.

Except they are explicitly testing the genotype of the vaccine induced strain. It says so right in the abstract as well as the text of the paper.

"During measles outbreaks, it is important to be able to rapidly distinguish between measles cases and vaccine reactions to avoid unnecessary outbreak response measures such as case isolation and contact investigations. We have developed a real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) method specific for genotype A measles virus (MeV) (MeVA RT-quantitative PCR [RT-qPCR]) that can identify measles vaccine strains rapidly, with high throughput, and without the need for sequencing to determine the genotype. We have evaluated the method independently in three measles reference laboratories using two platforms, the Roche LightCycler 480 system and the Applied Biosystems (ABI) 7500 real-time PCR system. In comparison to the standard real-time RT-PCR method, the MeVA RT-qPCR showed 99.5% specificity for genotype A and 94% sensitivity for both platforms. The new assay was able to detect RNA from five currently used vaccine strains, AIK-C, CAM-70, Edmonston-Zagreb, Moraten, and Shanghai-191. The MeVA RT-qPCR assay has been used successfully for measles surveillance in reference laboratories, and it could be readily deployed to national and subnational laboratories on a wide scale."

"During the measles outbreak in California in 2015, a large number of suspected cases occurred in recent vaccinees (3). Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences (R. J.McNall, unpublished data). In contrast, only 11 of 542 cases genotyped in the National Reference Center for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella in Germany were associated withthe vaccine virus."


As you can see they are specifically detailing the positive identification of the vaccine induced strain of measles.


The criticisms of the bolded parts all hinge on your misinterpretation of the paper, and if you will see they do in fact positively identify the vaccine induced measles strain you will notice each of your arguments fails to hold merit.


Speaking of Doctors, here is a real one with more details on this specific topic:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/03/05/measles-vaccine-reactions.aspx

^^^ As you said earlier, "Its not about medicine, its about integrity. As a person in a role of research, you have moral and legal obligations to accurately represent your findings."

Note that the word "indistinguishable" is used with regard to the rash after vaccination. So, if it is indistinguishable, it might as well be measles. If they have to use PCR machines to tell the difference, why would anyone want to get vaccinated against something they are going to get the same symptoms of? If the reash is really different, then why use the word "indistinguishable?"

Let's get the safety figured out ahead of time, before we start administering the vaccines. Since the safety has not been figured out, the moral and legal obligatio0ns have not been carried out.

There are a few places where the scare quotes could be meant to show sarcasm or something I suppose. It is not good practice, but I'll give a few of those occurrences the benefit of the doubt as you suggest. I'll focus on specifics then.

From this paragraph for full context,

"In other words, measles outbreaks were occurring among children who were already vaccinated with the measles. If you do the math, nearly 38% of the genetic sequences that were conducted on supposed “measles” cases turned out to identify measles strains that originated in the vaccines themselves. Thus, more than one out of three cases of measles in the United States was actually a reaction from a measles vaccine, not “wild-type” measles."

Measles outbreaks were not occurring among children already vaccinated, the children would get a rash or whatever, and it would sometimes be seen as a false positive. Doctors do not report a case of the measles before its confirmed, anymore than they report flu statistics to people on people that come in with sore throats to get checked for the flu, only to find out its strep. By saying that the cases tested positive for non-wild type measles, they are claiming that cases tested positive for vaccine induced measles. Not that the tests confirmed that the patients did not have the measles, with the traces left behind from the vaccination, not from the disease itself.

"Notably, the lying lamestream media never attributes measles outbreaks to measles vaccines. In every case, without exception, measles outbreaks are blamed exclusively on “anti-vaxxers,” even when more than one-third of measles outbreaks are actually caused by the vaccines themselves, as this breakthrough science now proves."

As before, an outright lie. That is not a conclusion made in the study they are referencing.


"Measles vaccines, truthfully stated, are creating their own demand for more vaccines by causing measles outbreaks in children. Naturally, the entire vaccine establishment and fake news media complex refuses to report the truth about any of this, pretending that measles outbreaks are only occurring among unvaccinated children. This is how outbreaks that are caused by vaccines end up getting blamed on “anti-vaxxers,” resulting in wholesale censorship of vaccine awareness content by Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Pinterest and other tech giants that universally function as the propaganda arm of Big Pharma and the CDC."

Once again, that is pretty straightforward in claiming the vaccine causes measles outbreaks. That was not mentioned a single time in the report that they are citing as proof.


Just because little Johnny got a rash, that doesn't mean they got the measles. What the article is addressing is Johnny getting a rash, going into the doctor, and the doctor saying, Oh! That looks like the measles, lets test you! The study was about how to make the tests more efficient and quick, so Johnny's worrying mother wouldn't have to  sit there for 8 hours in quarantine while they waited for lab results to confirm that it wasn't the measles. What occurred 38% of the time was not that he had the measles from the shot, but it was confirmed that he did not have the measles, and was just having a reaction to the vaccine. I'd imagine the other 62% of the time, they just saw the rash and said, ah yeah, thats a rash from the vaccine, here have some benadryl.

Everyone that has ever received the measles vaccine would test positive for "non-wild" strains of the measles. By the Natural New's perspective, we all have the measles right now.

I should make a correction, I was mistaken, the owner of the website is not a doctor, but he does run his own lab. Lets look at the headline, which I am sure is the center of your criticism because the actual text of the article seems to be very carefully written, but feel free to quote any inconsistencies you spot.

"Genetic sequencing science breakthrough just proved that measles “outbreaks” are caused by the measles vaccine"

If you notice here the word "outbreaks" is in quotes, which clearly indicates the sentence is communicating some of what are called outbreaks are in fact vaccine reactions, which as you stated directly from the source, are indistinguishable from measles if not for using their methodology to determine this. The sentence does not use exclusive language such as "all" or "every", and as far as I can see is 100% factually accurate. Please do explain using specific quotes if you feel otherwise. What I see is you misinterpreting this statement and expecting them to be accountable for your own misinterpretations.

Thank you. Since fevers and rash which could be mistaken for measles occur, how do they know that it isn't measles? So, the safety factor isn't there, because they don't know, or they wouldn't have written the report.

This means that it says that vaccines are giving people measles, because they are admitting that they don't know that it isn't so. But the visual rash, etc., is so similar to measles, that if it isn't measles, it might as well be.

It doesn't matter what the study is about. There are lots of words in the study to describe what the study is about. When it says that they don't know something about vaccines, it means they don't know, even if the study isn't about that particular point. Just because the study isn't about that particular point doesn't nullify that point. In fact, since that point is used to substantiate whatever the focus of the study is, that point is proven to be accepted as fact. After all, as you said, they try not to be deceptive... maybe.

Read what it says. Since approximately 5% of recipients of measles virus-containing vaccine experience rash and fever which may be indistinguishable from measles. They don't know. And that is the point of Natural News. But the abstract is written in such a way that it suggests 38% rather than 5%.

It seems that you would throw the baby out with the bath water, and accuse Natural News of doing it instead of the medical.

Read the reference material yourself... None of this is unclear. It says that the side effects from the shots can be similar to a symptom of the measles. That is true and accurate for nearly all vaccines. Their research states that in 5% of cases, fevers and rashes which could be mistaken for the measles occur. Because that is the case, their new testing method is useful for identifying the cases of false positives, and ruling out that it is a disease quickly, so that people aren't quarantined.

It says nothing about the measles vaccine giving people the measles, it says that you can get a rash or fever as a side effect. It doesn't say that any cases of the measles have ever been attributed to the vaccine. Thats not even the topic of the study.

Maybe you aren't understanding this, but real medical research by definition cannot be deceptive. Conclusions drawn from them can be, but reports are just observations and what those preliminary observations are understood to mean. Natural News made a malicious incorrect statement, as in knowingly reporting false information. Again, read the research for yourself before defending them.

I completely understand the desire to read information for yourself and draw your own conclusions rather than accepting media regurgitation, but when you listen to these jerks, you are doing just that, but worse somehow...

They didn't misquote. The study directly says at one point:
Notice the "... which may be indistinguishable from measles," which shows they don't know, and "it is very important to identify vaccine reactions to avoid unnecessary isolation of the patient" which shows that they at least think that it might be measles.

Since they don't know just by looking at the rash, go back and read the abstract that shows that as much as 38% of measles in vaccinated sick people could be from the vaccination. Since they can't tell - they said so in the quoted part above - they had better assume it is from the vaccine for safety purposes.

So, it isn't the article at Natural News that is deceptive. Rather, it is the wording in the report that is deceptive... just so that medical people can save their jobs - and maybe their lives - when people in general finally realized how unsafe vaccines really are.

That doesn't matter. These are two separate points. They took a study about one thing, then misquoted and manipulated it to intentionally mislead people. The second you do that, you have lost all credibility. No one is debating whether there are side effects to vaccines, but it is beyond irresponsible to tell people that the measles vaccine causes measles while citing information that isn't relevant. If you make the claim, thats fine, but you can't falsify information to support it. Its unforgivable to do what was done. Real medical researchers lose their jobs, and criminal charges can be brought up over things like that. I've been involved in trials over research journal entries that came about partially because it was hard to tell if someone had written a 4 or a 9. This is not a minor thing.


Its not about medicine, its about integrity. As a person in a role of research, you have moral and legal obligations to accurately represent your findings. If natural news is affiliated with real doctors, and they gave the information to write the article, they should lose their license to practice medicine. There is a difference between making a claim that is incorrect, and maliciously lying about a claim as what was done here.

The mainstream media is also garbage at medical studies, I refuse to acknowledge any of them, because they don't follow the proper guidelines either. What they like to do to skirt responsibility for their claims, is to accurately tell the details that they do report on, but leave out anything that they don't have time to report on. They don't tell you that their sample sizes are 10 people, or any other data bias.

IN Croatia we even have one member of the parliament who is strongly against vaccination and promote vitamin C as perfect medicine
So, if such people talks nonsense what ordinary people can think?  

But how can we blame someone who has his hopes set on something that is simply not true? I mean, he was hoping for a medical salvation because he doesn't see any other coming down the pike. And he might even have money in medical stocks. So, who can blame him for trying to be comfortable in life, rather than having no hope?

I know, I know. We all need to wake up to some things. False hopes and dreams are a big letdown in the end. I hope he wakes up to the false hope that vaccines offer... on time, before it really hurts him.

Yeah, after all why would a doctor who runs his own lab know anything about medicine right? The mainstream media are reliable and trustworthy, and anyone who doesn't repeat what they say is misleading. The answer is right in your quote but you want it to not be true. Indistinguishable is a very choice word.

But the source also talks about different varieties of measles, and that not all vaccinations for measles affect every measles variety. The idea is to rapidly determine which measles variety comes about in people who get a particular vaccination, to show if it was induced by the vaccine, because of the timing.

If you walk into a dark room, and flick the light switch, and the light goes on, there seems to be a relationship between you, the light switch, and the light. It can't be coincidences all these billions of times people flick the switch, and the light goes on.

Same with measles and vaccines. Does the vaccine match the measles that one gets immediately after being vaccinated, or not? If it does or if it doesn't, what does that show us? Basically one thing. That vaccines cause or trigger diseases... and sometimes the diseases that they are trying to prevent.

The source they are quoting says absolutely nothing about the measles vaccine causes measles. First, the purpose of the study was a new way to differentiate between the measles and common side effects, there are no statements about the measles vaccine in of itself. This is the main statement to look at,

" An important component of the public health response to a measles outbreak is vaccination of unimmunized contacts (. Since approximately 5%
of recipients of measles virus-containing vaccine experience rash and fever which may be indistinguishable from measles (9), it is very important to identify vaccine reactions
to avoid unnecessary isolation of the patient"

The rest is the method they used to identify false positives, and how it was more effective than whatever they used before. It isn't the result of a misunderstanding, the naturalnews article was maliciously misquoting things to take a study and mislead people.

I now know that I will find all naturalnews sources invalid. I don't blame people for misinterpreting, but knowingly misleading people is inexcusable.

Or see if, by chance, it's the same strain that popped up in the last place where corp/gov/media were pushing hard for mandatory vaccination.

If this is to 'conspiratorial' for some people, so sad.  I'd say to them that they've not had their eyes open.

In what way.

It seems that there are outbreaks of measles from the vaccine. The outbreaks are of a different strain than the one supposedly being vaccinated against. This is why there are outbreaks.

All the article is talking about is that we need to RAPIDLY identify the various strains involved in an outbreak where vaccines were used, to see if the strains are different, so we can prove the efficacy or the danger of the vaccine.

Read the article that they are citing as evidence... It directly contradicts the website's claims https://jcm.asm.org/content/jcm/55/3/735.full.pdf

Something tells me that there will be a crackdown on 'unauthorized use' of PCR machines in the not-to-distant future.

Science just gets better and better. Now, if only they could improve vaccines so that they didn't harm anyone. Or do you think they really want that?


Genetic sequencing science breakthrough just proved that measles “outbreaks” are caused by the measles vaccine




You really need to read more about this - https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-03-06-genetic-sequencing-science-breakthrough-just-proved-that-measles-outbreaks-are-caused-by-the-measles-vaccine.html - with bibliography and sources.

You can't draw a single conclusion about anything to do with vaccines from the abstract alone. It doesn't even clearly outline what the focus of the study was. It seems to be talking about vaccinations made specifically for the purpose of birth control, like birth control pills or insertable semi permanent contraceptives not the side effects of regular vaccinations.



I disagree with just letting diseases run their course. We completely got rid of polio but now its back. Why would we allow it to stick around when we currently have the ability to get rid of it.

I do agree with the sick population, but I don't think its for the same reasons you think. I do not disacknowledged autism and ADHD, but I think they are both WAY over diagnosed, especially in children. I remember being a little bastard as a kid, and taking bets with a friend over whether he could get himself diagnosed with autism (he did). Those aren't the only issues with medicating children, kids with a bit of energy aren't played with, they are diagnosed with something and given pills to shift responsibility from parents. I could go on about that for a while, but instead I'll move onto adults now. I don't know for certain, but if I had to take a stab at it, I'd say that the majority of adults with prescription medications are for diseases of affluence. High cholesterol, blood pressure, etc medications are over prescribed rather than a prescription for exercise and a better diet. With the exception of people who are genetically predisposed to issues, I'd say that lifestyle choices are responsible for a good portion of over medication in adults. If you exclude the population that are obese and on those types of medications, I have a feeling your view of how sick the population is would change dramatically.

I haven't looked at the statistics either, but maybe its worth comparing developed countries with lower rates of obesity to the U.S, and seeing if  we can't find any connections about health and medication to be drawn from that. That'd be an interesting topic for a new thread.