Erwin, as John carefully explained in the post to whicy you are replying, you vaccinate every child precisely because it doesn't always work. That way, there are fewer sick kids to pass along the disease to those in whom the vaccine isn't effective. You're so delusional you're just trying not to learn anything.
And did you know that they took Thimerosal out of the childhood vaccines and autism rates went up? That blows two holes in your weird little religion: 1. Thimerosol doesn't cause autism. 2. Thimerosal isn't dangerous in the levels used in vaccines.
The truth is that no vaccine has ever protected anyone against any disease or saved anyone's life, let alone the lives of millions, as is often claimed.
John D has already pointed out the recurrence of whooping cough. As a child of the fifties, I want to know where all those cases of the measles, mumps, rubella, polio, etc., that were so prevalent then went. What caused those ubiquitous diseases to decide to not ravage our culture(s) any more? Is it just coincidence that the cases of tetanus declined in a manner that just happened to parallel the use of that vaccine? And people dying of rabies declined because the strains just couldn't stand up to modern dogs, skunks, coyotes, raccoons, and people?
I don't care what your beliefs are -- for you. Just don't expect to be welcomed when your ideas help undermine the social health and cause disease, pain, and death a freer hand. By opting out of the responsible community health portion of our social contract, I think you have forfeited any claims you may have under other portions of that contract. You need to get a real-ity life.
As Dr Herbert Shelton once remarked: "Belief in immunization is a form of delusional insanity."
Most people don't realise that far from vaccines preventing ill-health, it is vaccination which - as you put it Glenn - undermine the social health and cause disease, pain, and death.
"Our society is littered with millions of children who have been harmed in one way or another by vaccines. Also, let us not forget the millions of parents who had to watch helplessly as their children's lives have been destroyed by devastating vaccination programmes."
According to Diamond, Natural Hygiene has ancient roots, but its modern movement began in the United States in about 1850 with the work of Sylvester Graham and three other medical doctors. During the 20th century, the most prominent promoter was Herbert M. Shelton, D.P., N.D., IN.T., D.N.Sc., who from 1928 to 1981 ran a "health school" which included a clinic, laboratory and teaching program in San Antonio, Texas. In An Introduction to Natural Hygiene (1922, 1954, 1963), Shelton said that all medicines are "poisons" and that "any patient who can get well in spite of drugs can get well much sooner and more satisfactorily Hygienically." He advised that eating more than one type of food at a meal is undesirable. He claimed that when people are ill, the food they eat will putrefy and ferment instead of being digested. And he claimed that fasting is a safe and valuable method of ridding the intestines of putrefied and fermented foods. Shelton died on January 1, 1985, at the age of 89.
Like other cults, Natural Hygiene offers simple solutions to life's complex health problems. In Fit for Life, the main problem addressed is unwanted pounds and the simplistic answer is food combining. The book's food plan calls for eating only fruit in the morning and mostly vegetables during the rest of the day. This could lead some people to make a desirable increase in their intake of vegetables. But according to an analysis by Katherine Mulgrave, a nutrition professor at the University of Maine, the Fit for Life diet is low in calcium, zinc, iron, and vitamins B12 and D. Readers inspired to embrace Natural Hygiene by abandoning modern medical care will, of course, be at even greater risk.
On September 21, 1982, the Los Angeles Daily Journal reported that a federal court jury had awarded $873,000 to the survivors of William Carlton, a Los Altos man who died after being on a diet of distilled water for 30 days at Shelton's Health School. According to the article, Carlton had died of bronchial pneumonia resulting from a weakened condition that also caused him to lose 50 pounds during his last month of life. The article also stated that he had been the sixth person in five years to die while undergoing treatment at the school, which closed in 1981.
In 1927, he was arrested, jailed and fined three times for practicing medicine without a license. These arrests continued periodically through the next three decades while he continued to lecture and campaign for his ideas.
In 1932, Shelton was jailed repeatedly for practicing medicine without a license. Found guilty of violating the Medical Practice Act, he served 30 days on Rikers Island.
In 1942, Shelton was charged with negligent homicide and "treating and offering to treat a human being without a state medical license" for starving a patient to death. The case was never tried and charges were dropped.
In 1978, another patient died at one of his schools, this time apparently of a heart attack. After a two-year-long court battle, Shelton lost the lawsuit for negligence and was bankrupted by the judgment. The school closed as a result.
So, can you try and run it by me how you reconcile blind faith in maniacs, despite evidence supporting the fact that they are maniacs, with your own position that theists are stupid for having blind faith god? This is where I get confused.
Erwin -- you have not addressed any of my questions. Following Occam's Razor, it makes sense to assume that if a treatment is given to achieve a desired result and that result occurs, it is reasonable to assume that the treatment was a proximate cause of the result. When this is repeated multiple times in different situations and no other proximate cause is found, it is even more likely that the treatment was the cause. When the treatment has been designed with a theory by which such treatment could work to cause the effects, it is even more likely to be the effective cause.
What I asked for was an explanation of causes and effects that would explain the reduction in disease instances following the vaccine treatments. If one wishes to explain why the treatment doesn't work even though the desired effects occur, one has to do more than stamp one's feet all the whilst repeating "Doesn't work!, Doesn't work!"
Something worked. Vaccine theory (and the supporting germ and virus theories) has an explanation of why it worked as planned. What are your theories of what happened?
When parents say that their children suddently developed a health problem after getting vaccinated, they are told that it was a coincidence and that correlation doesn't equal causation. In other words, just because something happens in sequence doesn't necessarily mean that what happened first caused what happened next.
The graphs clearly show that most of the decline in the deaths from the diseases occurred before vaccines were used, yet in spite of this, the medical profession claims that in the case of disease decline, correlation does equate to causation, even though there is no evidince whatsoever that I can see that supports such a claim.
In the case of polio, vaccinaton was also introduced after cases had peaked, meaning polio was declining anyway. It is therefore IMO wrong to credit the vaccine with the decline of polio.
Smallpox was kept in circulation with vaccination campaigns. The worst outbreaks happened where most vaccinations were carried out. The disease declined on its own after the WHO abandoned its futile mass vacination programmes and instead focused on strict quarantine and disnfection measures.
Vaccination was a failure right from the start (in 1796), but rather than admit it was a failure, to save face and to keep this lucrative racket going, vaccination was declared a triumph of medical science. When Pasteur came up with his germ theory of disease, it was used as a theoretical explanation of how vaccination supposedly works. I used to believe in it myself for the best part of my life, but now I know that it is a scientific fraud. In other words, it is a theory which has little basis in fact or reality. Pasteur has actually been found to have falsified his experiments in order to get the results he was after. Even today, studies are often designed with a predetermined result in mind. Hence, vaccines don't cause autism, vaccines prevent cot deaths and mercury is good for babies' brains!
In practice, it however matters little that vaccines don't immunise, because as long as people can be persuaded to believe that vaccines prevent diseases, profits will keep rolling in. This is the real reason why the medical-pharmaceutical establishment came down on Andrew Wakefield like a ton of bricks: he was undermining public confidence into the vaccination programme.
The best thing that could happen would be to completely abolish vaccination. This however won't happen, because the mafia in charge of this racket doesn't want to see this river of money flowing into its pockets dwindle or even stop. That's why I choose to educate parents about the dangers and the ineffectiveness of vaccines. Once enough parents refuse to hand over their babies and children for these toxic shots, this evil empire will crumble for lack of support.
Very interesting post. I have had this discussion on parenting sites many times. As a "vaxer", I usually say "well, the CDC says...." and the anti-vaxer says, "Are you going to believe the CDC?!" Then I say, "yes, I am going to listen to the Center for Disease Control before Jenny McCarthy or any other person who has not dedicated their life to the study of infectious disease." It usually ends there with the fence sitters erring on the side of caution and getting their kids shots and the anti-vaxers holding steady not getting their kids shots and claiming their kids are every bit as healthy as vaccinated kids.
But I've got to tell you, I had whooping cough as a little kid and it wasn't much fun. If I can prevent suffering in my kids lives through a simple shot, I'm going to. My kids got the chicken pox shot and when they're old enough to get the anti-female cancer shot, they'll get that too.
I've heard about Keene. Is the Psychic Mafia a good book? I'm waffling on reading it."
I have to confess I stole that quote from a no nonsense group article.The book is there as a .pdf - and the .pdf's intro says it's in the public domain as a freebie until a publisher decides to reprint it. There was an old paper copy on Amazon for ~$600 believe it or not.
Nice job, Glen.
The concept of you have no right to murder your children reminded me of the claim by apologists and supporters of the idea that we/they have no right to tell them/us (Islamist males) how to treat their/our women.
I think societies have the right and duty to protect their citizens. Some men may think of their women as property, and some parents may think they have unfettered property rights with regard to children, but if we want to fancy ourselves as enlightened democracies, we need to send a message - a resounding No - to these medieval i----s.
I thought it was a free country? Ever heard of freedom of speech? Ever heard of freedom of choice? Ever heard of the right to make an informed choice, as enshrined in the Nuremberg Code, to stop any further medical experiments without people's consent?
Not that the Nuremberg Code is worth the paper it is written on. As it is, vaccination is a gigantic medical experiment on the human race, without a control group and without informed consent, in direct violation of the Nuremberg Code.
You have all the vaccines you want, but you have no right to decide what is right for anyone else. If you say otherwise, you are IMO nothing but a fascist p*g.
As Dr Herbert Shelton pointed out, "Belief in immunization is a form of delusional insanity."
When I read your rave, I believe it! Makes one wonder whether we'll ever emerge from the Dark Ages!