Topic: Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker? - page 16. (Read 45532 times)

Yes that is an interesting point.
He is essentially arguing that we are mismanaging vaccinations much like we are mismanaging antibiotics.

Few people know just how horribly we mismanage antibiotics. 80% of antibiotics are used on farms and normally not even on animals that are actually sick. Farm animals are fed antibiotics round the clock every day so they can survive high density unsanitary and low cost conditions they are kept in.

This is a setup for the development of multi drug resistant bacteria which is what we get. We as a society have chosen to trade away our best antibiotics for low cost burgers and bacon. The result is the growing danger of superbugs resistant to all antibiotics or all accept the latest and most expensive ones.

Antibiotic Use for Farm Animals
https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Antibiotic_Use_for_Farm_Animals

However, this outcome does not mean antibiotics are bad. They are a useful tool. It is the misusing that tool blindly and without wisdom that leads to bad outcomes over time. The same holds true for vaccines.

As I said I sympathize with the anti vaccination crowd. Their rebellion will in the end force the system to become more transparent and to improve.

The long term answer to the problem, however, lies not in stopping all vaccinations any more then the answer to bacterial resistance lies in abandonment of antibiotics. The only long term answer will be found in a return to truth in the science around the issue and the use of vaccination in an intelligent and goal directed manner with a focus on long term aims. It is worth remembering that if we kill the disease then there is no longer any dependency on the vaccine.

These are very complex issues so I will do my best to unpack them to the best of my ability.

The facts presented are by and large factual but a least one of his assumptions is dubious. Overall it was a very interesting video.

To address the points he raises we must first understand herd immunity. Herd immunity is the general resistance to a pathogen that exists in a population because members of that population have been exposed to a disease in the past. It manafests in two ways.

A) In the natural immunity of individuals who can no longer contract the disease because they have already been infected in the past and fought the disease off.

B) In a secondary form passed from mother to child via antibodies in breast milk. A mother with natural immunity can transfer antibodies and temporary protection to a newborn.

It is important to note that this second group infants are not truly immune to the disease. Their protection lasts only as long as they are breastfeed and once they are weaned they have no residual immunity and are 100% vulnerable to the disease. Immunity transferred by the mother is a temporary protection only who's purpose is to protect a newborn until it reaches any age when it's immune system is more developed and better equipped to survive.

Now with that said Dr. Wakefield makes several arguments regarding herd immunity.

1. That our vaccines do not result in as strong of an immunity as natural infection so the transferred protection via breast milk to newborns is weaker. Thus newborns are more at risk if they are exposed to the target disease then they would be if their mother had natural immunity.

This is true. However, it must be noted that under the natural immunity scenario the infant also loses all immunity when he is weaned around age 1. The potential window of heightened vulnerability exists but it lasts only from birth until or the date of weaning or vaccination whichever comes first. After weaning the unvaccinated child has no protection from the disease the vaccinated child does.

2. That mortality rates from measles  was falling already before vaccination so maybe that process alone (better supportive care, health, and nutrition would continue to reduce the fatality rate to zero.

This was the only point he made that is highly speculative and extremely unlikely to be true. Measles is not going to just turn into the common cold because we have good nutrition and are healthy. Unless there is some scientific breakthrough that cures the virus it will always be a very serious potentially fatal illness.

3. That our vaccine policy create a dependency on vaccinations. That there is a possibility that these diseases could mutate around our vaccines or vaccines could suddenly be withdrawn and if that occurs the population could be worse off then if it had maintained its natural immunity to the disease.

This was by far the most interesting of his arguments. Here he presents a powerful argument. This argument can be best understood by looking at antibiotics.

Say you had an individual sick with a deadly bacteria. It would be highly unwise have that individual take just enough antibiotics to keep the disease from killing him but not enough to cure the infection. He becomes dependent on the antibiotic and eventually the bacteria might mutate and your drug won't work anymore. Dr. Wakefield is essentially saying we are doing this with our vaccination policy when we releasing vaccines like the mumps vaccine that are not capable of actually exterminating the disease.

I am sympathetic to this last point. However, it is not an argument against vaccination but against foolish and unwise vaccination.

A vaccination campaign should be a declaration of war against a pathogen an all out attempt to kill a disease worldwide like smallpox was killed. That kind of campaign is akin to giving a big dose of antibiotic (a poison) who's use kills the disease and thus cures the patient. This type of campaign is wholly justified scientifically and morally and we have seen it done in the case of smallpox.

Once you transition from that to a management strategy where you only suppress the disease but allow it to fester and smolder on in the periphery or when you introduce vaccines that are incapable of actually exterminating the disease then you indeed must question what the long term ends of your effort is.

However, all of this does not mean we should not vaccinate, any more then the risks of antibiotic resistance means we should stop using antibiotics. However, it may mean that our current approach is... lacking.

While we don't know for a fact if God created measles, or if it was made by the almost super-intelligent people before the days of the Great Flood, or if it is a Satanic corruption of something good that might no longer exists, what we ARE finding out is that in a perfect world, measles would be part of a balance of a good nature.

The question has to do with the dangers of vaccines. Watch the following video, which applies to measles and other diseases:

Vaccination Destroys Natural Herd Immunity and Weakens The Population

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlqyj_uyzBc

Check the Youtube sidebar (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=andrew+wakefield) to see the many videos by Dr. Wakefield that enlighten a lot more. And watch soon, because one never knows when Youtube will take down a set of videos that contradict mainstream.

There are other threads better suited to debating religion and the problem of evil.

If your question is serious and not simply an attempt to derail this thread away from its intended topic repost it somewhere better suited to such a discussion send me a PM and I will respond with my thoughts.

According to your Christian ideology, didn't God create measles in the first place?  Maybe you should check the Bible for cures?

Or ask BAdecker so that he can ask God why he "designed" measles.

In this my friend despite being correct on other topics you are wrong. Measles infection does indeed grant better immunity to measles then the vaccine. However, if one had to choose between getting vaccinated or a certain exposure to measles the vaccination is by far the wiser course. Avoiding vaccination is only logical if your chance of exposure to measles is low.

The best situation would be if everyone had no immunity to measles at all because measles like smallpox was dead. That outcome is within our power to accomplish.

If I were to argue this from a spiritual perspective it would be as follows:

Measles is not good or evil in itself it is simply a part of nature a parasite that lives off of a host. However, allowing measles to continue to infect humans is evil because it saps our strength dragging us away from the spiritual the good and back into the muck of the the material world and mere survival. It usually weakens us and rarely kills us and the best that can come of such a battle is that we don't die.

Humanity has been given dominion over the earth and with that dominion comes the responsibility to address evils that interfere with our spiritual development. Thus it is ethical to kill diseases like smallpox and measles and we have a duty to do everything in our power to vanquish them. Neglecting that responsibility is to let evil exist unopposed and is wrong.

This does not mean everyone needs to be vaccinated, but if we choose not to it must be with the ultimate aim of eliminating the evil via some other means.

Natural measles is good, provided the people who get it are cared for well. What is proper care? Good resting time with good hygiene and nutrition. Why is measles good? It does a better job of vaccinating than vaccines do... without the deadly after effects. Properly cared for chicken pocks does the same.

Neither of these is deadly when proper care is used with them. And they don't produce the bad after effects of vaccines, yet do a job similar to the one expected from vaccines.

Modern medicine has it wrong, and all to make money.

Your first argument is correct but your second is much weaker.

Vaccination in advance for no reason is indeed stupid but if you don't do it you will need to spend massive amounts of money on the infrastructure needed to tackle outbreaks. Without routine vaccinations for everyone you would need your society to do the following.

1) Have massive stockpiles of vaccine ready to be deployed at a moment's notice.

2) Have and maintain a sufficiently robust enough health care system to rapidly detect outbreaks with the ability to actually administer those vaccines to hundreds of thousands at a moments notice.

3) Institute automatic and prolonged quarantine of anyone who arrives from a foreign country that is not completely clear of disease for up up to a few weeks. These passengers would also need to be almost totally isolated. They cannot be mixed with newer arrivals from foreign countries nor with people who got there earlier a week or two earlier and are about to be released. Alternatively you could make vaccination a prerequisite for traveling to or from countries where the disease has not been eliminated.

4) Have complete control of your boarders dropping your rate of illegal immigration to very low numbers.

Proper hygiene and nutrition will not stop a respiratory disease like measles from spreading like wildfire through a vulnerable population even if that population is in good health with good nutrition. The Amish outbreak a few years ago offers a textbook case of what that looks like. One Amish missionary came back unknowingly with measles to their mostly unvaccinated community leading to 377 cases before the outbreak was contained partially by willingness of that highly ordered community to obey voluntary quarantines and partly by the rapid vaccination of that community.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/18/amish-countrys-forgotten-measles-outbreak.html

Fortunately no one died in that outbreak which is consistent with the reported 0.2% mortality rate in healthy individuals in the first world but some people came near death. Here is a firsthand account from an Amish girl.


It would take billions of dollars, great political will, a population willing to obey quarantines when necessary, and a health care system comprehensive and smart enough to rapidly detect outbreaks in order to successfully shift to a reactionary approach to disease outbreaks instead of a population wide vaccination campaign. Should we do it? Very possibly yes but to know the answer for sure we would need to really know how harmful these vaccines are which we don't because our science is dishonest. We would also need a society ordered enough to accomplish the task. In the USA that seems potentially feasible. In Africa right now not so much.

Vaccinating in advance for no reason, when there is no sign of a major problem, is dangerous and stupid.

Proper hygiene and proper nutrition in a nation make it so that vaccination is not need.

If vaccination is used, the right kind of nutrition is doubly needed, to wash the contaminants from the bodies of those who have been vaccinated, and to rebuild their immune systems.

There have been devastating cases in my country where the parents do not give their children proper vaccination and they get caught in diseases that are not easy to cure for children that are too small. Those children, if survive the diseases, are left with consequences that heavily affect their future lives. Vaccine sure holds certain degree of danger like in all of the shared reports above, but it should definitely be brought into consideration especially for very small children. If it doesn't keep us 100% safe at least it could do like 50-99%, which is still better than nothing.

Very sad story. No reason to doubt it's not true either especially if the vaccine lot was pulled off the market for a fatality. Something probably went badly wrong with that lot of vaccine. How often does that happen? I don't know but probably more often then we think.

Here are some other data points to consider.

Post Measles Encephalitis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODkx89hUZQw

Measles outbreak in Guinea threatens children
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcHTUg-FY7A

The fatality rate of Measles is only 0.2% in healthy well fed people with access to good medical care. In malnourished children without access to supportive care it is much higher.

The question before us is not are vaccines harmful? Yes they in themselves most definitively are.  
The question is are they worth it?

For an individual the short term answer depends on his risk of contracting Measles but if everyone uses that logic the disease will never die simply wax and wane in intensity over time.

Similarly for the individual who falsely believes vaccines are harmless the disease will also never die for they will have no motivation undertake the necessary efforts to truly kill the disease. It will fester on in the periphery of society.

Both approaches fail. That is why we need to return to truth. Truth in the short run leads to the resurgence of disease as people will become fully aware of risks, however, in the long run it will set the stage for the extinction of these disease as the proper effort will be directed both towards identifying and minimizing vaccine risk and towards disease elimination.

It is one thing to ask a man to risk his health and the health of his children to forever kill a horrific disease and free all future humanity from it's tyranny. It is something else entirely to try an achieve that goal by hiding the risks from him, forcing his family to comply, and denying you caused the problem when he is one of the unfortunate one's who suffer terribly as a result. The latter approach is all the more wrong in that it fails in it's actual goal. We have not eliminated any diseases from the planet in the last 40 years. Our failure is nothing short of monumental.

Like, how much more info do you need to see that vaccines have been one of the scourges of the world for decades, now.


Healthy Triplets All Autistic within Hours of Vaccination

Video.

Your underlined statement highlights the fear that drives the anti-vaccine movement. Its a fear that is not entirely unreasonable. How do we know they are not doing it on purpose say for population reduction or elimination of undesirables? Why won't the powerful someday use this forced vector to impose their vision on the rest of us?

Yes this is conspiracy theory and no I don't believe this is currently happening but how to we know it is not happening?

The answer is that such an action would be evil and we trust that honest scientists and vaccine makers would never do such a horrific thing and that if they did other honest scientists would expose them.

But what happens when the vaccine makers and scientists have demonstrated that they are no longer trustworthy? What happens when they have been caught hiding the unpleasant findings of vaccine effects. Well then there is no trust and many choose to reject vaccines.

I sympathize with the anti-vaccine crowd. Their's is something of a rebellion against the corruption of the sciences and the abandonment of truth in favor of expediency. I think they have the wrong answer. I think the correct answer is that we should return to honesty we should fully disclose everything possible and do honest studies that address the fears of those worried about vaccines. My suspicion is that the truth will motivate us to actually eliminate these horrible pathogens.

Our situation is probably much worse then that of the poor soul placed in the position where he can redirect the train so it will kill one or leave it on it's course where it kills five. Our situation is probably much closer that of the poor man who has just made that awful choice killed the one to save the five. He then sits back and relaxes confident he has the solution to such problems unworried that there are a series of identical forks coming up over the next few miles with similar numbers of people on them.

No need work hard and figure out a way to stop the train or get people off the tracks altogether. We already have our solution.

Again this is what comes from dishonesty people lose trust. However, even if we assume the worst case scenario the situation is not so clear. Without the light of honesty everyone is blind.

Lets assume for a moment that the authors suspicion in this case are entirely correct at the MMR vaccine alone has causes autism at a rate of 1 in 250. Now it could be much much lower then that. There are a lot of other toxins that have crept into the western diet particularly pesticides that could be contributing to something like this. There is also an increase in diagnosis motivated by government benefits. For example many children today who are diagnosed today with ADHD for example would have be considered rambunctious boys in the past.

However, for the sake of this discussion lets assume MMR alone causes autism in 1 in 250. We then have to compare that harm to the benefit of suppressing the disease. Without MMR almost everyone would be exposed to Measles Mumps and Rubella at some point in their lives. Measles for example is spread via respiration and has close to a 90% transmission rate to other household members living in the same home.

Measles with current first world medicine has a fatality rate of 0.2%. One in 500 would die if this disease was allowed to rampage unchecked through the population. There is no nutritional cure for viral diseases. Only the majestic workings of the immune system can do that. Things like vitamin C can help the immune system function slightly better especially if an individual is deficient in the necessary vitamin but it is no cure. With a terrible disease like Measles the immune system steps up and does an excellent job. With good nutrition and modern supportive care IV fluids and the like the immune system succeeds 499 out of 500 times 0.2% of the time it fails mostly in young children.  

So now we are comparing 1 in 250 with childhood autism to 1 in 500 dead children. You could argue that maybe the vaccines do other things. Maybe they cause autoimmune disorders, maybe they cause allergies. However, you have to contrast that to the damage of Mumps and Rubella which we have not yet tallied as well as the disabilities that would result from the people who almost died from Measles and suffered some form of organ or brain injury as a result.

The ethical picture is not so clear. This is what comes from working in the dark. When people in power think the masses are too ignorant to kept informed. It is the logical result the erroneous belief that the ends justify the means.

The best course of action at this point given the very real fear of these vaccines is to conduct a large randomized controlled trial in a first world country where these disease are mostly gone. Then the true results and health effects of vaccinated versus vaccinated children could be examined. The raw data should be released to the pubic not just the analysis. Then we could all know and not guess at the harm done. Trust in the scientific community would be somewhat restored. The probable result of this would be somewhere in between the two extremes. Vaccines are probably not nearly as harmful as the anti-vaccine advocates fear but they are probably far more harmful then is commonly believed.

For my own part I have vaccinated my children against the horrible diseases with a high mortality rate. They have been vaccinated against MMR for example. However, I refuse the childhood vaccinations for the less deadly diseases such as the flu as well as those that diseases that can be avoided by behavioral modifications like HPV.  

When I vaccinate my children, however, I rage internally that I live in a society so dishonest that it is not even willing to seriously address either the topic of vaccine danger or even worse undertake seriously the task of exterminating these diseases. Its been 40 years now since we have eliminated one of these deadly disease despite having the technology to do so for generations. That fact more then any other in the entire discussion is symbolic of the rot in our world.

The article says that the medical has been lying about the autism vaccine dangers for at least 14 years, but this is just the tiny tip of the iceberg of medical lies, both about vaccines and other medicine. If you search for it, you will find that chemo has killed more people than cancer has.


Scientific voices speak out unequivocally about vaccines and their dangers




Read the whole article. It's quite interesting, with links included.

How long have vaccines been used? In a big way, only since the discovery of penicillin. However, forms similar to injection have been use for thousands of years in a small way.

In all this time, the immediate benefit of vaccines has been seen along with some immediate failures. But there never was any way to measure the long term effects in the past. Now studies and are showing that vaccines are producing long range defects in people, years down the road after they are vaccinated.

It seems that modern medicine has known or suspected this for decades. Yet rather than finding ways to cure without the use of vaccines, they are promoting vaccines more than ever.

Something that can replace vaccines without the bad side effects is nutritional juicing. The juicing of all kinds of plants can cure without the side effects. Adding some of the pulp simply adds nutrient strength that isn't found in the juice. This is well known among nutritionists, but it is being ignored by the medical.

So, we can see that the medical is out there not to help people, but to farm them to make more money off them. How do they do this? By keeping them sick enough to ask for more medicine, but well enough so that they don't die before they can pay for their medicine.

Vaccines are s*** for healing people.

Just like every pharmaceutical drug, side effects are always there because it's extremely hard to make a drug that works only where it's supposed to work and not affect anything else in your body. Some people have come close and I'm sure in the near future we will have drugs with no side effects but for the time being, anything has side effects, it's a fact.

I don't know about the annual flu vaccine, in my country you don't have to do that, I haven't been vaccinated in decades.