Mandatory Vaccinations (Part 2)
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 21:57
VIEWED: 12509
PAGE 6 of 16
Quote:What? I did NOT abandon it.
Originally posted by rue:
Oh please. This has been already argued - and since abandoned by CTS.
This is it, Rue. I told you, stop telling outright lies about what I say or want to say.
There can be no debate when when you make shit up out of thin air.
This is my last post to you. Period.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
--Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hehe. Oh c'mon Sig. I know you can argue better than that!
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Bullshit.
all I said was that the severe drop in polio cases was due in large part to the redefinition of polio.
I will reiterate. I have never said vaccines are completely ineffective. I simply question the effectiveness rates claimed by mandatory vaccination proponents. Can those rates have been exaggerated? Yes, and I presented evidence on how they were exaggerated. Do we know what effectiveness rates REALLY are? No, because too many confounding variables have been dismissed or ignored outright.
Reality sucks, Sig. Esp when they contradict your cherished beliefs about vaccines. Reality is effectiveness has been exaggerated throughout vaccination history. Effectiveness rates quoted to support mandatory vaccination policies have not taken into account an army of confounders, subclinical diseases, outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations, and changes in definition. Reality is that your cherished beliefs about vaccines being highly effective for an overwhelming majority of recipients is not supported by evidence meeting minimum scientific standards. Those cherished beliefs are just that, your beliefs.
That is fine. Interpret the scanty and confounded evidence that exists however you want. Just allow me to disagree.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
"When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in essence, accept that the state owns our bodies."
--U.S. Representative Ron Paul
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I finally read those pdf files Rue shared. Here are my comments.
Quote:First, for context purposes, this is a research proposal, not a published scientific paper. This little section Rue was kind enough to copy for us was the only relevant section in the entire proposal.
http://awi.vlaanderen.be/documenten/COST_B28_160205.pdf
In the genus Orthhopoxvirus (OPV) camelpox virus (CMPV) is most closely related to variola virus VAR (Gubser and Smith, 2002). Both viruses are host specific. The high frequency of genomic recombination in OPVs or simple mutations in the CMPV genes coding for the virus virulence factors or for virus coat proteins interacting with the cell receptor-binding sites could cause a breakthrough in the host species barrier.
Second, it makes this statement: "Both viruses [camelpox and variola] are host specific." There is no explanation on which hosts they are specific to (though one can make an educated inference). And there is no reference to know how the author came to this conclusion. This paper, therefore, offers no evidence in itself to conclude smallpox has proteins that can only attach to human hosts.
Third, it states the entire genus of Orthopoxviruses (including monkeypox, camelpox, and variola) frequently recombines genetically, which could cause a "breakthrough in the host species barrier." Again, there is no reference so one does not know how this conclusion is supported. But for argument's sake, assuming both statements can be supported, even if smallpox is host-specific, it could breakthrough this host-specific barrier. Who is to say it hasn't already?
I don't have enough information from this paper to come to any conclusions about the claim that smallpox is genetically restricted to human infection, and remained that way in its entire lifetime.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
What the world needs is not dogma but an attitude of scientific inquiry combined with a belief that the torture of millions is not desirable, whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity imagined in the likeness of the believer.
--Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Smallpox historically causing 95 - 99% mortality among Indians.
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/162/16200504.pdf
I read this paper authored by Kenneth Howell for Dialogos Latinoamericanos. I did not find any information in this paper itself that supported the claim that smallpox caused 95-99% mortality among Indians.
The author proposes a theory to explain how infectious diseases wiped out entire Native American civilizations. He states that Europeans brought a host of infections with them to the Americas, including: "smallpox, measles, influenza, typhus, bubonic plague, yellow fever, and malaria." The native population had to fight wave after wave of infections as Europeans continually arrived to the Americas. These relentless infections incapacitated or killed working adults, which then left the rest of the population to starve to death.
In one place, the author states smallpox and measles were the most devastating of all the imported diseases. In another, the author states that in Central Mexico, smallpox had an 80-90% mortality rate. He references two books, "Cambridge World History of Human Disease" and "Epidemics and History," respectively. Without reading these original sources, I don't know how the authors arrived at these conclusions, and how well supported those conclusions are.
It may be that these sources are accurate and these claims are supported. But there is nothing in this paper that supports Rue's claim that smallpox caused 95-99% mortality rate among the Indians (implying the Indians were wiped out because of smallpox). Repeated infections and incapacitation because of disease is not the same thing as a high universal mortality rate of the disease itself.
I do appreciate Rue's effort in digging this up though. It was educational.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.
--Bertrand Russell
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS, BWP- I wonder first of all how old you are? Over 50, like me?
Several of my aunts and uncles never grew up. One died of TB, one of meningitis. One has post-polio syndrome. Maybe I'm just an old fart, but I don't feel like I need complicated statistics to tell me that smallpox is no longer a scourge. That from "thousands" of cases "pox" you'd have to look long and hard to find a few hundred of "possibly" related pox diseases.
I'm really busy right now so I don't have time for a long discussion. But it seems to me that you're rejecting a ton of science: how to make accurate diagnoses, how to distinguish between one etiology and another- in favor of what seems to be exaggerated fear.
What your concerns seems to be lacking is a coherent mechanism to explain HOW vaccines (of ALL types) are "dangerous"
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS - as I indicated before, my sources are books. Specifically they are often microbiology and virology textbooks. I did dig up as much information as I could off the web. Unfortunately I can't reproduce the specific information, and I especially can't reproduce the exhaustive laboratory data that went into that type of post. If you really want to know about how viruses (or bacteria) infect a host you'll just have to get some books. There's simply no way around that. If you want to look up smallpox specifically you'll have to get books on CBW as there are many studies going on now as to how smallpox might be made more deadly and/or escape detection and/or vaccination protection.
-----------
If you want to get a general idea of how viruses (or bacteria) infect cells here is one link:
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/mhunt/replicat.htm
The first step in infection of a cell is attachment to the cell surface. Attachment is via ionic interactions which are temperature-independent. The viral attachment protein recognizes specific receptors, which may be protein, carbohydrate or lipid, on the outside of the cell. Cells without the appropriate receptors are not susceptible to the virus.
----------
I'm presuming you do NOT have a background in biology or medicine, and therefore you are unaware of these very BASIC concepts. But I simply have no interest in trying to educate you.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The thing that almost everybody, on both sides, seems to be largely ignoring is freedom of choice.
Anyone on this thread who is against your choice of what you choose to shoot in your children's veins had better not be Pro-Choice when it comes to abortion. I'm tired of people throwing around our basic freedoms of free thought like it exists only to serve their particular views on things.
Let's say, hypothetically speaking of course, that vaccines did prevent disease "A" 100% of the time. Documented or not, Family "1" decides to get vaccinated while Family "2" chooses not to. Now Disease "A" sweeps through their town and Family "1" is protected completely because they were vaccinated while Family "2"'s members all become very ill and some even die. Looks like Family "1" did the right thing and took the shots. None of them will be getting sick.
Now I ask you... what the hell business is it of yours or Family "1"'s if Family "2" chose not to take the vaccine? No skin off your nose, figuratively or literally. Now you have somebody that you can feel superior to as well.
Bottom Line: It is not centralized Government's place to decide this for us. The Government is there to serve the people, not the other way around.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If it did work that way vaccination would be simple. But since no vaccine is 100% your hypothetical example is moot.
All it takes is about 10% 'defectors' to sustain a polio epidemic - including among the vaccinated. (at a 90% effective rate) A small percentage of unvaccinated can put a number of others at risk.
That changes the calculation considerably.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well cry me a river about it man. You're going to have a hard time convincing the non believers to get injected with your drugs. You can just put that on my long list of offences that the fascists will put me away for when freedom of speech and choice are things of the past.
Welcome to the United States of Rueian Fascism "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, it just changes the calculation.
Let's say you have a dearly loved child not vaccinated against polio. Would you prefer your unvaccinated child to live in a polio-free environment or one where polio is endemic?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME