Topic: Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated: Guess who is Sicker? - page 26. (Read 45532 times)

Thousands of children are not getting all their vaccinations, according to a new CDC report. Elizabeth Keatinge has more. Buzz60

PHOENIX – The state of Arizona has canceled a vaccine education program after receiving complaints from parents who don't immunize their school-age children.

The pilot online course, modeled after programs in Oregon and Michigan, was created in response to the rising number of Arizona schoolchildren skipping school-required immunizations against diseases like measles, mumps and whooping cough because of their parents' beliefs.

But some parents, who were worried the optional course was going to become mandatory, complained to the Governor's Regulatory Review Council, which reviews regulations to ensure they are necessary and do not adversely affect the public. The six-member council is appointed by Gov. Doug Ducey, with an ex-officio general counsel.

Members of the council questioned the state health department about the course after receiving the public feedback about it, emails show. The state responded by canceling it.

The complaints that ended the pilot program came from about 120 individuals and families, including 20 parents who said that they don't vaccinate their children, records show.

"We're so sorry we couldn't make a go of this – strong forces against us,"  Brenda Jones, immunization services manager at the Arizona Department of Health Services, wrote in an Aug. 6 email to a Glendale school official, along with a notification about the course's cancellation.

In an email to two Health Department staff members on Aug. 14, Jones wrote that there had been "a lot of political and anti-vaxx" feedback.

"I'm not sure why providing 'information' is seen as a negative thing," said Republican state Rep. Heather Carter, who spent the last three legislative sessions as chairwoman of the House Health Committee and helped create the pilot program.

"Providing information doesn't take away a parent's choice to seek an exemption. ... This is a major concern. Vaccines have saved lives for generations. We all want to live in safe and healthy communities."

Losing 'herd immunity'

Carter hosted meetings attended by physicians, nurses, school administrators, school nurses, naturopaths and public health officials that led to the creation of the 60- to 90-minute evidence-based vaccine education program.

It launched in 17 schools last academic year.

The education program was scheduled to expand to other schools this academic year.

...

'' The thing that vaccines work is bad stuff.'' What?

Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society
Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953

Page 30:

    It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

    This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. . . . It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.

Pages 50-51:

    Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: … In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, INJECTIONS, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.

Page 51:

    Children will, as in Plato’s Republic, be taken from their mothers and reared by professional nurses. Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.

Nobody is stating that vaccines don't work. You can inject just about anything into people and get some kind of results. The thing that vaccines work is bad stuff.

So you admit vaccines work?

Even if that were true, it would be standard... since they all disagree with each other on something.

There are about 99% of scientists that disagree with you.

There are more and more studies being done all the time, that disagree with you.

'''And, what about all the autism, etc., that the vaccines create as are shown by other studies?'' Ah nah, but we don't know that, all we know is that vaccines prevent polio

'''And, what about all the autism, etc., that the vaccines create as are shown by other studies?'' Ah nah, but we don't know that, all we know is that vaccines prevent polio

But we don't know that. All we know is that vaccines exist and that the cases of polio went to zero (if they really did). Polio might have gone to zero a lot faster without the vaccines creating more polio. And the articles says that vaccines create more polio than nature. And, what about all the autism, etc., that the vaccines create as are shown by other studies?

Everything works in cycles. So, nature creates polio more at some times than at other times. As I said in a previous post:

We had 350.000 cases of wild polio, we got to almost zero thanks to vaccines, a few children are paralyzed because of it, how are the vaccines creating more polio than nature if nature created 350.000?

The only thing your point shows is,
somebody was smart enough to notice the natural drop in polio cases,
and that the natural drop was faster than the polio vaccine made new cases of polio,
and they capitalized on the idea.

The article isn't that long. If you had read it, you would have the answer to your question - https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/06/28/534403083/mutant-strains-of-polio-vaccine-now-cause-more-paralysis-than-wild-polio.

''Since the article says that the vaccine creates more polio than does nature, polio is increasing from the vaccine.'' Ok, where does it say this?

Your highlighted part above is double talk. Since the article says that the vaccine creates more polio than does nature, polio is increasing from the vaccine.

Consider this. If everybody who was vaccinated died, would the vaccine have destroyed polio? Yes, of course, at least until another natural case of polio showed up. So, if the vaccine isn't that dramatically bad, and even stopped way more polio than either it or nature started, what is the rest of the damage it did, by poisoning off polio? What else has it poisoned in the inoculated people besides the polio virus?

How much autism has been produced? How much of various other crippling disease have been produced? The particular report might not say all this. Maybe no studies have been done in this instance. But there are other studies that show that vaccination is producing more and worse diseases than it is conquering. The people are getting both happy results, and bad results.

At the very least, stop using the vaccines until they are shown to be safe all around.

''We have proof, now, that the polio vaccine causes more polio than nature, right?'' No? We have the proof that polio vaccines almost eradicated polio and they have some terrible side effects that don't happen to often. The reason polio vaccines paralyze more children now than polio itself is because there is almost no polio, thanks to the VACCINES.

Your article cites: https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/06/28/534403083/mutant-strains-of-polio-vaccine-now-cause-more-paralysis-than-wild-polio

"The fact is this [the live oral polio vaccine] is the only tool that we have that can eradicate the disease," says Zaffran.

That eradication effort has been incredibly successful. In 1988, when the campaign began, there were 350,000 cases of polio around the world each year compared with the six so far this year.

Zaffran credits the oral polio vaccine with getting the world incredibly close to wiping out a terrible disease.

"Four regions of the world have totally eradicated the disease with the use of the oral polio vaccine," he notes. "Of course we need to recognize that there have been a few cases of children paralyzed because of the vaccine virus, which is regrettable. But, you know, from a public health perspective, the benefits far outweigh the risk."

Let me show you where you are mistaken. It's simple.

We have proof, now, that the polio vaccine causes more polio than nature, right? So, what does the fact that polio case numbers are dropping have to do with the idea that polio vaccines are the thing that is doing it?

The only thing your point shows is,
somebody was smart enough to notice the natural drop in polio cases,
and that the natural drop was faster than the polio vaccine made new cases of polio,
and they capitalized on the idea.

In other words, if there never was a polio vaccine, the polio case rate would have dropped even faster. Now we have the proof.

We already discussed that. Let me use simple examples. ''Cases die to wild poliovirus have decreased by over 99% since 1988, from an estimated 350 000 cases then, to 22 reported cases in 2017.''

So let's say, we have 350.000 cases of polio, we use the polio vaccine, we get rid of over 99% of all the polio cases but then we are left with some bad side effects, they don't happen too often but they are there. Your article says 33 cases of paralysis due to the vaccine, let's say it's true.

Do you think it would have been better to leave the 350.000 cases of polio exist and prevent those 33 cases of paralysis in the end?

Or perhaps getting rid of 350.000 cases of polio is better even though the vaccine might cause paralysis rarely?

Yes I know it's not a perfect scenario, as already discussed, drugs/medicine have some terrible side effects, however it's better to use them than not.

Here you go. Even the U.N. is agreeing that polio was started by the polio vaccine.

UN Admits Latest Outbreak of Polio in Syria Was Caused by the Polio Vaccine


"Earlier this summer, NPR reported on this very phenomenon, wherein mutant strains from the polio vaccine caused more paralysis than wild polio. Could it really be that a lab-altered version of a virus is more dangerous than the one found in nature? Absolutely. As Jason Beaubien reports, as of June 2017, there were more cases of child paralysis caused by the polio vaccine than the actual, wild-caught disease itself. At the time of his reporting, just six cases of 'wild' polio, which is naturally occurring in the environment, had been reported worldwide."


Read more at https://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2018/10/un-admits-latest-outbreak-of-polio-in.html.