Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2)

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 21:57
VIEWED: 12509
PAGE 5 of 16

Sheesh - it looks like the nutcases are crawling out of the woodwork now.

Look folks,

Its true that not everything the government does is right. It's also true that not everything the government does is wrong.

If you are so biased as to think the elimination of smallpox and polio are BAD things just because the government did them, you have a severe case of lunacy.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
You apparently wll believe any CLAIM made if it suits your agenda as well.

I posted many many links showing that even in places of squalor, where existing polio is confirmed by PCR, polio vaccines DO indeed eliminate all but a handful of AFP cases - which are confimed by PCR as well.

This is not some strange statistical trick from the US in the 1950's. It's a documented fact over decades of genetic AFP polio surveillance around the globe. How did you miss that? Oh that's right - you don't read things you disagree with.

---

Nowhere in my post did I say that polio vaccinations don't work, all I said was that the severe drop in polio cases was due in large part to the redefinition of polio. It was missleading numbers that made the polio vaccine seem like a wonder drug when in fact, many people that were 'cured' were never infected to begin with. Now, how did you miss that? It seems you like to infer what you want out of a post when what you are going on about was never even implied to begin with. Thanks for skewing my words though. I like word games.

Oh, and it's not a 'claim' as you seem to believe. If you read the post regarding this, and the links that were issued, polio has been redefined by the WHO and similar organizations world wide. So, this 'claim' is in fact, fact. But then I guess the opinions of Big Pharm, with no unbiased studies to back them up, are more credible than facts when it suits ones purpose.

Listen, Rue. We can dance like this from here until the end of times, and it won't make a lick of difference. You obviously have no problem with an organization stripping you of your freedoms for 'the greater good' and I personally think you are a worthless piece of flesh for doing so, whereas you think you are a crusader for the health of the world (or some such) and I am an unrelenting piece of shit for not blindly following Big Pharm. I get that. And you know what? You know what's the greatest thing about this country? We are both within our rights to do so. So why don't we agree to disagree and leave it at that. Just keep your ing needles out of me and mine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Baby,

"Nowhere in my post did I say that polio vaccinations don't work, all I said was that the severe drop in polio cases was due in large part to the redefinition of polio." You mean in the US, a looooong, long time ago, once.

What about the drop in polio around the globe? To the point where total annual polio cases can be counted in the hundreds (if that). That wasn't due to a redefinition. Nor was it due to an improvement in global poverty and sanitation. Nor was it due to misattribution. That was real, it was good, and it was done with polio vaccines. By governments. If you want to argue one small isolated statistical case b/c it proves your point, go right ahead. If you want to ignore a decades-long global success b/c you disagree with the politics, go ahead. You can deny the effectiveness of the polio vaccine all you want.

Arguing the SCIENCE of erradication is exactly what puts you in the nutcase category.



And BTW the lunar landing was faked. And the earth really is flat.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Sheesh - it looks like the nutcases are crawling out of the woodwork now.

---

You seem awfully quick to start calling people who disagree with you names. Maybe you should turn that self-righteous light inwards a little/

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
If you are so biased as to think the elimination of smallpox and polio are BAD things just because the government did them, you have a severe case of lunacy.

---

Never once have any of us said this is a bad thing. I just contest the numbers. Eliminating a disease is a great thing (though both diseases are still active in areas, by your accounts, so they were never in fact, eliminated), but forcing people to take vaccines that have questionable health risks involved when there is no indication or reasonable possability of another outbreak, is lunacy.

And the flu vaccine (as an example) is among the worst out there. The flu is a minor annoyance, sometimes not even requiring time off from work or school. But many people get sick when they get the flu shot because it weakens their immune systems for a time while they combat the 'dead' virus. So I ask you, where is the benefit? Either risk getting the flu or garuntee you're going to get sick. I'm a gambling man, so I'll risk the flu. And the same (or similar) can be said about other vaccines as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"though both diseases are still active in areas, by your accounts, so they were never in fact, eliminated"

No, by my accounts smallpox is gone. And polio nearly so.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

all I said was that the severe drop in polio cases was due in large part to the redefinition of polio.

---

Bullshit.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

You seriously need to learn how to use the quote feature, it makes reading your drivel easier.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
You mean in the US, a looooong, long time ago, once.

What about the drop in polio around the globe? To the point where total annual polio cases can be counted in the hundreds (if that). That wasn't due to a redefinition. Nor was it due to an improvement in global poverty and sanitation. Nor was it due to misattribution. That was real, it was good, and it was done with polio vaccines. By governments. If you want to argue one small isolated statistical case b/c it proves your point, go right ahead. If you want to ignore a decades-long global success b/c you disagree with the politics, go ahead. You can deny the effectiveness of the polio vaccine all you want.

That's excatly what puts you in the nutcase category.

---

No, America wasn't the only one to do it, it was the WHO (World Health Organization, in case you didn't know) that redefined it as well, not just the FDA. So if you're going to be ignorant and debase an argument, please at least get the facts straight. Again, you pull a small snipet out of my post and disregard the rest of it in an attempt to vilify your rant, and it's getting quite amusing. Again, you are accusing me of saying the vaccines don't work, and never once have I said that. All I have said, in all my posts, is that the figures have been skewed to make these vaccines look better than they are. And since there is no impending threat of a global polio epidemic, why is it that I am forced to pump my children full of drugs that have questionable side effects for a disease my children will mostlikely never get? And that is the question you, citizen, and every other supporter for mandatory vaccinations has side stepped. Rather than answer it you throw figures in our faces or call us nutcases and think that ends it. It doesn't.

You think I'm a nutcase lady? Frankly I think you're batshit crazy. But you don't see me attacking you personally, largely in part to the fact that I'm not a child, but you continue to do whatever it is that works for you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
And BTW the lunar landing was faked. And the earth really is flat.

---

So you think that by comparing my desire to keep legislation from forcing me and mine to get vaccines immediately lumps me in a group of conspiracy junkies? What does that make you? You seem to blindly accept the 'facts' presented by Big Pharm and their offhanded dismissals of the dangers of some of their drugs. Give me a factual, independant, unbiased study (if that is even possible) telling my that all the vaccines that are being force fed us today (not in the 1950s, today) work and I'll back down. Until then, keep your needles out of me. It's my body, and I have final say over what can be done with it. End of ing story.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'll be in my bunk.
XO of the 76th Battalion http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html
http://www.myspace.com/babywiththepower

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Bullshit.

---

Bullshit, huh? Maybe you didn't read this in the last thread, so let me put it here for reference:

Vaccine Effectiveness in Question

Prochoice activists question whether the effectiveness of vaccination has been exaggerated. It is not the first time someone exaggerates benefits of a product in order to sell it. If vaccines are not as effective as believed by authorities, herd immunity issues and public health threats blamed on the unvaccinated become less compelling.

Part 1: Polio

The polio vaccine is one of the main success stories of mass vaccination. Or is it?

Ninety-nine percent of polio causes no symptoms/flu symptoms (90%) and non-paralytic symptoms (9%). Of the remaining 1% that get paralysis, half recover fully within days or weeks. Only 0.5% of those who get polio die or remain with prolonged/permanent paralysis. Polio is mostly a benign disease, with even half the paralytic cases resolving themselves within days or weeks. Severe sequelae occurs in a very small fraction of sufferers.

In the 1950's, the normal incidence rate was around 20,000 a year. One year before the introduction of the vaccine, the incidence rates went up to 58,000 in 1952, and 35,000 in 1953. In 1953, Salk tested his vaccine, and mass vaccination was launched in 1955. By 1957, the incidence rate had gone down to 5600 cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio

Pretty impressive, right? Until you find out the definition of polio changed after the vaccine was introduced. Before the vaccine, anyone with non-paralytic symptoms and anyone with paralysis lasting at least 24 hours was diagnosed with polio. After the vaccine was introduced in 1955, the diagnosis was changed to only paralytic cases lasting at least 30 days. The good majority of polio cases, those with nonparalytic symptoms, were renamed something else. A big fraction of paralytic cases recover within days to 2 weeks, so this subset was automatically eliminated as polio cases as well.

People who would have been diagnosed with polio before 1995 were now labeled with Coxsackie virus or aseptic meningitis. Data available from a Los Angeles county during that period showed about an increase in aseptic meningitis very roughly matching the decrease in polio cases. http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf (pg 242)

When diagnostic criteria change, either people were misdiagnosed before, or misdiagnosed afterwards. Was the incidence of polio inflated before the vaccine because of misdiagnosis? Much of the acute flaccid paralysis cases (primary symptom of paralytic polio) is shown today to be not related to the poliovirus. Were they also not related back then, but was mistakenly attributed to polio, then was corrected after the vaccine? http://www.chronicillnet.org/articles/paralyticpolio.html

Was the success of the polio vaccine exaggerated by renaming the disease?

These questions are not to say the vaccine is ineffective. They simply cast reasonable doubt that the vaccine was as effective as it claimed. If the vaccine is less effective than purported, parents should be allowed to decide exactly what the benefits are and if they are worth the risks.

-------References below--------
Definition change in the USA:

Quote:

---

Prior to 1954 any physician who reported paralytic poliomyelitis was doing his patient a service by way of subsidizing the cost of hospitalization and was being community-minded in reporting a communicable disease. The criterion of diagnosis at that time in most health departments followed the World Health Organization definition: "Spinal paralytic poliomyelitis: signs and symptoms of nonparalytic poliomyelitis with the addition of partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups, detected on two examinations at least 24 hours apart." Note that "two examinations at least 24 hours apart" was all that was required. Laboratory confirmation and presence of residual paralysis was not required.

In 1955 the criteria wer

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME