Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

And regarding 'informed consent', I wonder how many people would be happy to give that consent if their doctor told them "now I'm just going to inject your baby with 50 times the safe level of Aluminium - but don't worry about that".

[husaberg]

And regarding 'informed consent', I wonder how many people would be happy for their doctor to tell them "now I'm just going to inject your baby with 50 times the safe level of Aluminium - but don't worry about that".
Gish galloping again wow who would have guessed
http://www.freshle.de/party-leipzig/images/artikel/distillery011216_01.jpg
Yet you have no children.
The crap that you post might result in deaths of children from fully preventable diseases.
That wouldn't worry you though would it.
You previously said you volunteer for the SPCA, so tell us all again if your dog is vaccinated?
You are just trolling for attention.

[Katman]

You previously said you volunteer for the SPCA,

Well that's odd - considering I've never done any volunteer work for the SPCA.

[husaberg]

Well that's odd - considering I've never done any volunteer work for the SPCA.

Go back to the Rodeo thread you certainly interfed you were associated with the SPCA
But first Answer the question if your dog is vaccinated?
While you are at it. Does your dog have a docked tail?
If you can't answer these two simple questions. the old Katman Hypocrite metter will redline again.

[Katman]

Go back to the Rodeo thread
Then answer the question if your dog is vaccinated.

Really?

Perhaps you might like to point out exactly where I said it - 'cos I sure as fuck can't find it.

And I've previously stated that my dogs are vaccinated.

And no, their tails are not docked (whatever the fuck that has to do with it).

[Katman]

http://ahrp.org/former-merck-scientists-sue-merck-alleging-mmr-vaccine-efficacy-fraud/

[Katman]

<img src="https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/measles-mortality-vs-incidence.jpg"/>

[pritch]

I'm not reading this whole mess but see there is concern about mercury in the flu vaccine. I was wondering if Katman, or anyone else concerned about the mercury, has as much as a single amalgam filling in their head? If so, they're probably worrying about the wrong thing.

That's normal though. Most of the things we worry about don't happen, and the problems that do arise do so unexpectedly. So we're doing the right amount of worrying it's just that we worry about the wrong things.

[Katman]

I'm not reading this whole mess but see there is concern about mercury in the flu vaccine. I was wondering if Katman, or anyone else concerned about the mercury, has as much as a single amalgam filling in their head? If so, they're probably worrying about the wrong thing.

That's normal though. Most of the things we worry about don't happen, and the problems that do arise do so unexpectedly. So we're doing the right amount of worrying it's just that we worry about the wrong things.

People have been getting their amalgam fillings replaced for many years now.

And mercury in fillings is quite a different story to mercury administered parenterally.

[husaberg]

I've previously stated that my dogs are vaccinated.


Where have you previously ever stated that your dog are vaccinated?
Why would you vaccinate your dogs considering you keep telling everyone its not safe to vaccinate afterall?

[husaberg]

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/measles-mortality-vs-incidence.jpg

You do realses that measles vaccination were licienced in 1964
your chart shows this dramatc effect
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/measles-mortality-vs-incidence.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Measles_US_1944-2007_inset.png

your chart refers to deaths /1000 cases.
it is therefore skewed as they were bugger all cases.
Also since 2001 the immunisation rate has gone down as a result of scaremongering cretins such as yourself telling people it is not safe to vaccinate children. But don’t let that get in the way of your paranoia.

[Katman]

You do realses that measles vacination were licienced in 1964
your chart

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you completely missed what the graph I posted shows.

People like to say that the measles vaccine has saved countless lives but the graph clearly shows that measles mortality was rapidly decreasing long before the vaccine was introduced.

The fact is that improvements in sanitation and nutrition is the real reason that the rate of deaths from measles has decreased.

[husaberg]

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you completely missed what the graph I posted shows.

People like to say that the measles vaccine has saved countless lives but the graph clearly shows that measles mortality was rapidly decreasing long before the vaccine was introduced.

The fact is that improvements in sanitation and nutrition is the real reason that the rate of deaths from measles has decreased.

If this is a fact explain why it dropped so dramically in 1964 and never rose again. to the same levels in the USA
If it was as you are stating it is a fact, was the major leap forward in sanitation and nutrition that occured in that year in the USA.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Measles_US_1944-2007_inset.png
If you intend quoting something as a fact show actual evidence to back it up

[Katman]

If this is a fact explain why it dropped so dramically in 1964 and never rose again.

The rate of deaths from measles didn't drop dramatically in 1964.

That's precisely what the graph I posted shows.

[husaberg]

The rate of deaths from measles didn't drop dramatically in 1964.

That's precisely what the graph I posted shows.

The rate of death is listed as per 1000 cases i already explained that to you. the dramatically smaller the number of case skews the results.

You do realses that measles vaccination were licienced in 1964
your chart shows this dramatc effect
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/measles-mortality-vs-incidence.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Measles_US_1944-2007_inset.png

your chart refers to deaths /1000 cases.
it is therefore skewed as they were bugger all cases.
Also since 2001 the immunisation rate has gone down as a result of scaremongering cretins such as yourself telling people it is not safe to vaccinate children. But don’t let that get in the way of your paranoia.



The fact is that improvements in sanitation and nutrition is the real reason that the rate of deaths from measles has decreased.

Please explain the dramatic progress achieved in sanitation and nutrition that occured in Wales and Egland the exact same year the Measles vaccine was licienced there
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Measles_incidence_England%26Wales_1940-2007.png

[Katman]

The rate of death is lissted as per 1000 cases i already explained that to you. the dramatically smaller the number of case skews the results.

Interpreting graphs doesn't seem to be your strongpoint.

[husaberg]

Interpreting graphs doesn't seem to be your strongpoint.

http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/02/measles.jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tiKpRsDD2DM/TyWz98J-dRI/AAAAAAAAAY8/1hGzJH51vxc/s1600/measles_incidence.gif


your chart refers to deaths /1000 cases.
it is therefore skewed as they were bugger all cases.
But don’t let that get in the way of your paranoia.

[Katman]

Do you see how the rate of deaths was decreasing rapidly for a few decades before the vaccine even became available?

[husaberg]

Do you see how the rate of deaths was decreasing rapidly for a few decades before the vaccine even became available?
You are gish galloping again Measles is a disease that distribution of outbreaks flows in waves of outbreaks.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tiKpRsDD2DM/TyWz98J-dRI/AAAAAAAAAY8/1hGzJH51vxc/s1600/measles_incidence.gif

Where have you previously ever stated that your dog are vaccinated?
Why would you vaccinate your dogs considering you keep telling everyone its not safe to vaccinate afterall?



The number of cases didn't drop dramatically in 1964.

Oh really?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Measles_US_1944-2007_inset.png
it dropped by 350000 cases and never rose again above 100000

[Katman]

Oh really?


You do realise that graph isn't showing the rate of deaths from measles, don't you?

[husaberg]

You do realise that graph isn't showing the rate of deaths from measles, don't you?

Nice edit........

[FJRider]

The fact is that improvements in sanitation and nutrition is the real reason that the rate of deaths from measles has decreased.

As measles are a virus ... are you declaring that just "sanitation and nutrition" cures and/or prevent their spread ... ???

[husaberg]

As measles are a virus ... are you declaring that just "sanitation and nutrition" cures and/or prevent their spread ... ???

Shhssssssss it a coincidence that in every country in the world when vaccination was started that the incidence dropped off dramaically:laugh:

[bogan]

As measles are a virus ... are you declaring that just "sanitation and nutrition" cures and/or prevent their spread ... ???

Just prevents the majority of their deaths it would appear.

I'm not sure why the incidence rate is being ignored though, surely how effective a vaccine is should be measured by how effectively it reduced the number of those afflicted by the disease, rather than just those killed by it (which also clearly went down when the number of afflicted dropped over 80% and the deaths per case only continued its slight downward trend).

[Katman]

Nice edit........

What edit?

[Katman]

I'm not sure why the incidence rate is being ignored though, surely how effective a vaccine is should be measured by how effectively it reduced the number of those afflicted by the disease, rather than just those killed by it (which also clearly went down when the number of afflicted dropped over 80% and the deaths per case only continued its slight downward trend).

I'm not ignoring the incident rate.

I'm addressing the claim that the introduction of the vaccine led to a massive decrease in the number dying from the disease.

[Woodman]

And regarding 'informed consent', I wonder how many people would be happy to give that consent if their doctor told them "now I'm just going to inject your baby with 50 times the safe level of Aluminium - but don't worry about that".

On average humans eat,drink and breathe in 30-50mg of aluminium per day which is 20 times the maximum allowed in vaccines. So what is your safe level in relation to ?

[Katman]

On average humans eat,drink and breathe in 30-50mg of aluminium per day which is 20 times the maximum allowed in vaccines. So what is your safe level in relation to ?

Parenteral administraion.

Would you like me to quote the FDA document number?

[Woodman]

Parenteral administraion.

Would you like me to quote the FDA document number?

No, because you are away with the fairies.

[bogan]

I'm not ignoring the incident rate.

I'm addressing the claim that the introduction of the vaccine led to a massive decrease in the number dying from the disease.

But it did, the death rate is based on the number of cases (death to case ratio), which is consistently around 1-2 per 1000 cases over that time, but the number of cases changed from 240 to about 40 per 100,000 population. So pre vaccine, deaths are 0.24 per 100,000 population to 0.08 per 100,000 after the vaccine is introduced; and that was taking worst case error margins on the death to case rate. So just how is 0.24 down to 0.08 not a massive decrease?

[Katman]

But it did, the death rate is based on the number of cases (death to case ratio), which is consistently around 1-2 per 1000 cases over that time, but the number of cases changed from 240 to about 40 per 100,000 population. So pre vaccine, deaths are 0.24 per 100,000 population to 0.08 per 100,000 after the vaccine is introduced; and that was taking worst case error margins on the death to case rate. So just how is 0.24 down to 0.08 not a massive decrease?

The graph I posted shows that the rate of incidence from 1912 through to 1963 would average out to a fairly constant line.

The rate of death per incidence during that same time period shows a dramatic decrease.

[bogan]

The graph I posted shows that the rate of incidence from 1912 through to 1963 would average out to a fairly constant line.

The rate of death per incidence during that same time period shows a dramatic decrease.

The death to case ratio shows a continuous decrease with a good fit to exponential decay, in the decade preceding the vaccine's introduction there is no visible decrease in this rate though. It is illogical to assume that a stabilised exponential decay trend would show another significant decrease unless there was a casual factor. It is also worth noting that nowhere in the death to case ratio 'dramatic decrease' was there ever a drop of even 50%, much less the 80% drop in case incidence seen at the vaccine's introduction.

[husaberg]

But it did, the death rate is based on the number of cases (death to case ratio), which is consistently around 1-2 per 1000 cases over that time, but the number of cases changed from 240 to about 40 per 100,000 population. So pre vaccine, deaths are 0.24 per 100,000 population to 0.08 per 100,000 after the vaccine is introduced; and that was taking worst case error margins on the death to case rate. So just how is 0.24 down to 0.08 not a massive decrease?


The death to case ratio shows a continuous decrease with a good fit to exponential decay, in the decade preceding the vaccine's introduction there is no visible decrease in this rate though. It is illogical to assume that a stabilised exponential decay trend would show another significant decrease unless there was a casual factor. It is also worth noting that nowhere in the death to case ratio 'dramatic decrease' was there ever a drop of even 50%, much less the 80% drop in case incidence seen at the vaccine's introduction.
Your wasting your time Bogan, it appears a 5000 fold decrease in deaths is not a massive decrease in the number of deaths for Katman


I'm not ignoring the incident rate.
I'm addressing the claim that the introduction of the vaccine led to a massive decrease in the number dying from the disease.


USA CDC data In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.


2015 A woman died this spring due to a measles infection, which is the first reported measles-related death in the U.S. since 2003. VPC
Thats without even taking into account the between 1964 and 2015 the population of the USA rose by over 100,000,000 people
USA population 192 million 1964
USA population 319 million 2015

Worldwide

Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.
The disease remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 134 200 people died from measles in 2015 – mostly children under the age of 5.

[Katman]

The death to case ratio shows a continuous decrease with a good fit to exponential decay, in the decade preceding the vaccine's introduction there is no visible decrease in this rate though.

And what do you think would explain the decrease in death to case ratio prior to the introduction of the vaccine?

'Cos it sure can't be due to the vaccine.

[FJRider]

On average humans eat,drink and breathe in 30-50mg of aluminium per day which is 20 times the maximum allowed in vaccines. So what is your safe level in relation to ?

Interesting reading here ...

https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-4715-23-37

[bogan]

And what do you think would explain the decrease in death to case ratio prior to the introduction of the vaccine?

'Cos it sure can't be due to the vaccine.

Healthier population habits, ie, better hygiene and diet. Which in no way means the vaccine didn't cause a massive decrease in incidence or deaths from the disease, both are clearly beneficial.

[Katman]

Healthier population habits, ie, better hygiene and diet.

Thank-you.

That's precisely the point I was making.

[bogan]

Thank-you.

That's precisely the point I was making.

Really?

How does that address this claim then:


I'm addressing the claim that the introduction of the vaccine led to a massive decrease in the number dying from the disease.

Which I've clearly just validated that it indeed did.

[Katman]

And furthermore, statements like "thousands of dead school children from measles outbreaks" is nothing but ridiculous scare-mongering.

The reality is that dying from measles is an extremely uncommon occurrence these days.

[husaberg]

blather..........


I'm not ignoring the incident rate.
I'm addressing the claim that the introduction of the vaccine led to a massive decrease in the number dying from the disease.


USA CDC data In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.


2015 A woman died this spring due to a measles infection, which is the first reported measles-related death in the U.S. since 2003. VPC
Thats without even taking into account the between 1964 and 2015 the population of the USA rose by over 100,000,000 people
USA population 192 million 1964
USA population 319 million 2015

Worldwide

Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.
The disease remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 134 200 people died from measles in 2015 – mostly children under the age of 5.

[FJRider]

And what do you think would explain the decrease in death to case ratio prior to the introduction of the vaccine?

'Cos it sure can't be due to the vaccine.

Perhaps ... measles were identified as a virus ... and treated as a dangerous infectious disease (which it then was) and sufferers with the known symptoms ... were kept in isolation. Thus reducing the spread. Only later was the vaccine discovered.

As as a side note ... the measles vaccine is seldom given as an individual vaccine ... and is often/usually given in combination with a mumps and rubella vaccine.

[Katman]

As as a side note ... the measles vaccine is seldom given as an individual vaccine ... and is often/usually given in combination with a mumps and rubella vaccine.

No shit, Einstein.

[Woodman]

The reality is that dying from measles is an extremely uncommon occurrence these days.

Due to a good vaccination program?

[Katman]

Due to a good vaccination program?

No, due to vastly improved sanitation and nutrition.

(Although the nutrition side could probably be questioned these days).

[Woodman]

No, due to vastly improved sanitation and nutrition.

(Although the nutrition side could probably be questioned these days).

So then what new sanitation and nutrition initiative caused the very very dramatic turnaround in 1964?

You must know as it is that significant, so come on educate me.

[bogan]

No, due to vastly improved sanitation and nutrition.

(Although the nutrition side could probably be questioned these days).

Look at the graphs you posted again, it should be obvious the vaccine caused the massive drop in incidents, and the 'improved sanitation and nutrition' caused the massive drop in deaths/case. Together, they have caused the massive, massive drop in deaths. To say only one of them caused this is most irrational.

[Katman]

Look at the graphs you posted again, it should be obvious the vaccine caused the massive drop in incidents, and the 'improved sanitation and nutrition' caused the massive drop in deaths/case.

I agree completely.


Together, they have caused the massive, massive drop in deaths. To say only one of them caused this is most irrational.

The introduction of the vaccine vastly reduced the rate of incident.

The rate of death had been vastly reduced already.

[husaberg]

I'm not ignoring the incident rate.
I'm addressing the claim that the introduction of the vaccine led to a massive decrease in the number dying from the disease.


USA CDC data In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 4,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.


2015 A woman died this spring due to a measles infection, which is the first reported measles-related death in the U.S. since 2003. VPC
Thats without even taking into account the between 1964 and 2015 the population of the USA rose by over 100,000,000 people
USA population 192 million 1964
USA population 319 million 2015

Worldwide

Measles is a highly contagious, serious disease caused by a virus. In 1980, before widespread vaccination, measles caused an estimated 2.6 million deaths each year.
The disease remains one of the leading causes of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. Approximately 134 200 people died from measles in 2015 – mostly children under the age of 5.



No, due to vastly improved sanitation and nutrition.

(Although the nutrition side could probably be questioned these days).




Look at the graphs you posted again, it should be obvious the vaccine caused the massive drop in incidents, and the 'improved sanitation and nutrition' caused the massive drop in deaths/case. Together, they have caused the massive, massive drop in deaths. To say only one of them caused this is most irrational.


I agree completely.

I'm not ignoring the incident rate.
I'm addressing the claim that the introduction of the vaccine led to a massive decrease in the number dying from the disease.
Come again.......

[bogan]

I agree completely.



The introduction of the vaccine vastly reduced the rate of incident.

The rate of death had been vastly reduced already.

And it was vastly reduced again. Don't confuse the rate of death, with the rate of death per incident.

[Katman]

I should add to the 'improved sanitation and nutrition' - improved medical treatment in the event of a life-threatening situation.

[Katman]

And it was vastly reduced again. Don't confuse the rate of death, with the rate of death per incident.

The graph shows rate of death per incident.

It shows very little change in 1964 compared to the previous 3 decades.

[bogan]

I should add to the 'improved sanitation and nutrition' - improved medical treatment in the event of a life-threatening situation.

Obviously.


The graph shows rate of death per incident.

It shows very little change in 1964 compared to the previous 3 decades.

Again, obviously.

Greatly reducing the incident rate, thusly, greatly reduces the death rate (per population).

[Katman]

Greatly reducing the incident rate, thusly, greatly reduces the death rate (per population).

I thought we were talking rate of death per incident.

The comparison between the 3 decades prior to 1964 and the years after 1964 would suggest otherwise.

[husaberg]

The graph shows rate of death per incident.

It shows very little change in 1964 compared to the previous 3 decades.

Other of course than a figures showing a massive reduced incidence and a massive decrease in the number of deaths by 5000 fold you mean.:doctor:
In the USA 400 -500 deaths per year in 1964 down to 1 in ten years now.:rolleyes:

[bogan]

The comparison between the 3 decades prior to 1964 and the years after 1964 would suggest otherwise.

The death rate on the graph is per incident. Ie, how many people die out of every thousand cases of measels. So to convert that figure to a population based death rate (the standard measure), you have to take into account the incident rate. Do you understand there is a difference between the death rate per incident, and the actual death rate (population based) from the disease?

[Katman]

The death rate on the graph is per incident. Ie, how many people die out of every thousand cases of measels. So to convert that figure to a population based death rate (the standard measure), you have to take into account the incident rate. Do you understand there is a difference between the death rate per incident, and the actual death rate (population based) from the disease?

Like I said, I'm talking about the rate of death per incident.

[Woodman]

The graph shows rate of death per incident.

It shows very little change in 1964 compared to the previous 3 decades.

Well, duh! Some people still got measles and died, probarbly because they were unvaccinated.
The bottomline is that the total actual deaths reduced dramatically because of vaccinations.

[Katman]

If the rate of incident drops dramatically due to the introduction of a vaccine but the rate of death per incident doesn't change fuck all, how can the vaccine possibly be considered a contributor to a reduction in deaths per incident?

[Katman]

The bottomline is that the total actual deaths reduced dramatically because of vaccinations.

Yes, but not the rate of deaths per incident.

[bogan]

Like I said, I'm talking about the rate of death per incident.

Right, which is clearly one not relevant when talking about the effectiveness of the vaccine. It is also clearly one not relevant when you're...


...addressing the claim that the introduction of the vaccine led to a massive decrease in the number dying from the disease.

or trying to say


The rate of deaths from measles didn't drop dramatically in 1964.

The default measure of death rate (unless otherwise specified) being one weighted to population.

Now I think it good that you have changed your mind based on the rational points I've put forward, it would make the discourse clearer if in future if you acknowledge that when it happens, rather than trying to have a discussion talking at cross purposes.

[Woodman]

Yes, but not the rate of deaths per incident.

You are shooting yourself in the foot.

The "incidents" were probarbly unvaccinated people.

[Katman]

Right, which is clearly one not relevant when talking about the effectiveness of the vaccine. It is also clearly one not relevant when you're...



or trying to say



The default measure of death rate (unless otherwise specified) being one weighted to population.

Now I think it good that you have changed your mind based on the rational points I've put forward, it would make the discourse clearer if in future if you acknowledge that when it happens, rather than trying to have a discussion talking at cross purposes.

Like I've already alluded to, I'm addressing the scare-mongering that is attempted with statements like "thousands of dead school children due to measles outbreaks".

[Katman]

You are shooting yourself in the foot.

The "incidents" were probarbly unvaccinated people.

You do realise that even vaccinated people can still contract measles, don't you?

[Woodman]

You do realise that even vaccinated people can still contract measles, don't you?

Yes I do, but bottomline = less people actually dead.

[bogan]

Like I've already alluded to, I'm addressing the scare-mongering that is attempted with statements like "thousands of dead school children due to measles outbreaks".

Why do it by putting forward your own (or Ty's as is more likely the case) shonky stats? The rational way to address such scaremongering claims is to call bullshit, and ask to see the evidence.

[Katman]

Why do it by putting forward your own (or Ty's as is more likely the case) shonky stats? The rational way to address such scaremongering claims is to call bullshit, and ask to see the evidence.

I put forward a graph.

Which are the "shonky stats" that you found in the graph?

[bogan]

I put forward a graph.

Which are the "shonky stats" that you found in the graph?

The misrepresentation of the death rate per incident, as the death rate.

[Katman]

The misrepresentation of the death rate per incident, as the death rate.

I put forward a graph that showed rate of death per incident.

If you misinterpreted anything from that, then it is your failing entirely.

[Woodman]

I put forward a graph.

Which are the "shonky stats" that you found in the graph?

The shonky part was how you used your graph. I can almost guarantee that their is an anti vax site somewhere that uses that graph to "prove" that vaccines are ineffective.

[bogan]

I put forward a graph that showed rate of death per incident.

If you misinterpreted anything from that, then it is your failing entirely.

But you outright said you were


...addressing the claim that the introduction of the vaccine led to a massive decrease in the number dying from the disease.

note, that one says 'number dying from', nothing to do with this death rate per incidence cop out

and then said many things like


The rate of deaths from measles didn't drop dramatically in 1964.

The rate of deaths from measles absolutely did drop dramatically in 1964, when the vaccine was introduced. Why can you not accept this?

Oh, and obviously I didn't misinterpret anything from the graph, since I've been correcting your interpretation of it ever since I saw it.

[Katman]

The shonky part was how you used your graph.

Like I said to bogan, I just posted up a graph.

Your misinterpretation is your responsibility.

[Woodman]

Like I said to bogan, I just posted up a graph.

Your misinterpretation is your responsibility.

Then why did you put the graph up?

[Katman]

The rate of deaths from measles absolutely did drop dramatically in 1964, when the vaccine was introduced. Why can you not accept this?

Oh, and obviously I didn't misinterpret anything from the graph, since I've been correcting your interpretation of it ever since I saw it.

Like I said, right from the outset the graph showed rate of death per incident.

If you choose to suddenly think I'm talking about rate of death per population, that is entirely your failing.

[Katman]

Then why did you put the graph up?

To show that the rate of death per incident barely changed when the vaccine was introduced.

I thought that should have been clear by now.

[Woodman]

To show that the rate of death per incident barely changed when the vaccine was introduced.

I thought that should have been clear by now.

Which actually argues is in favour of vaccination.:facepalm:

[bogan]

Then why did you put the graph up?

To show the vaccine works as expected, and intended, one must assume, since that is exactly what it shows.


Like I said, right from the outset the graph showed rate of death per incident.

If you choose to suddenly think I'm talking about rate of death per population, that is entirely your failing.

So just how do you wrangle "massive decrease in the number dying from the disease" to be something you addressed by showing the death rate per incident remained unchanged?

And where exactly do you see this 'outset'?


The fact is that improvements in sanitation and nutrition is the real reason that the rate of deaths from measles has decreased.

Cos there is no way to rationally interpret that to mean both the improvements and vaccine have lead to a lower rate of deaths from measles; which is clearly the case.

[Katman]

Which actually argues is in favour of vaccination.:facepalm:

No, it doesn't argue one way or the other for vaccination.

[husaberg]

I'm not ignoring the incident rate.

I'm addressing the claim that the introduction of the vaccine led to a massive decrease in the number dying from the disease.

3 to 4 million people in the United States contracted Measles each year prior to the vacination programe starting. of which 400-500 died ever year.
out of a population over 100,000,000 lower than it is today
Yet now 84 people contracted measles in the USA in 2014, only one person has died in the last 10 years. You are a tosser.

[Katman]

So just how do you wrangle "massive decrease in the number dying from the disease" to be something you addressed by showing the death rate per incident remained unchanged?

Because the massive decrease in the number dying from the disease occurred well before the vaccination became available.

[Woodman]

No, it doesn't argue one way or the other for vaccination.

it does when put up against the actual deaths by population. By itself it means fuck all.

[bogan]

Because the massive decrease in the number dying from the disease occurred well before the vaccination became available.

And another massive decrease occurred when the vaccine became available. How are you addressing this one?

[Katman]

it does when put up against the actual deaths by population. By itself it means fuck all.

If it means fuck all, is there a reason you brought it up?

[Katman]

And another massive decrease occurred when the vaccine became available.

Not per incident it didn't.

[FJRider]

Which actually argues is in favour of vaccination.:facepalm:

Prevention is better than a cure ... and save a lot of grief too...

[bogan]

Not per incident it didn't.

Which was not the claim you said you were addressing, now was it?

[Katman]

Which was not the claim you said you were addressing, now was it?

I was addressing the claim that vaccines reduced the rate of death per incident.

If you thought I meant anything else, once again, that's your failing.

[Woodman]

Because the massive decrease in the number dying from the disease occurred well before the vaccination became available.

No it didn't The number of people dieing decreased gradually probarbly due to better hospital and medical care and probarbly an increased understanding of the disease.

[bogan]

I was addressing the claim that vaccines reduced the rate of death per incident.

If you thought I meant anything else, once again, that's your failing.

Who was claiming that then? :laugh: Just grow up KM, the quickest way to become a rational thinker is admit when you are wrong.

[Katman]

No it didn't The number of people dieing decreased gradually probarbly due to better hospital and medical care and probarbly an increased understanding of the disease.

That's what I'm saying.

It didn't decrease due to a vaccine that wasn't even available then.

[Woodman]

If it means fuck all, is there a reason you brought it up?

because I wonder why you even put it up.

[husaberg]

Who was claiming that then? :laugh: Just grow up KM, the quickest way to become a rational thinker is admit when you are wrong.

The fact he vaccinates his dog proves that................

[bogan]

It didn't decrease due to a vaccine that wasn't even available then.

That insightful conclusion probably didn't need graphtacular support dude :killingme

[Katman]

Who was claiming that then? :laugh: Just grow up KM, the quickest way to become a rational thinker is admit when you are wrong.

People use the "thousands of dead school children" argument as a means to support their rabid pro-vaccine stance.

I'm just pointing out what a retarded argument that is.

[FJRider]

No, it doesn't argue one way or the other for vaccination.

Depends ... would you rather be cured of a serious infectious virus ... or prevented from getting a serious infectious virus ... ???

[Katman]

Depends ... would you rather be cured of a serious infectious virus ... or prevented from getting a serious infectious virus ... ???

I'm happy to rely on my natural immune system.

If you feel yours needs outside help, that's entirely your call.

Anyone who believes that mandatory vaccination is the way forward will be treated like the shitforbrains they clearly are.

[husaberg]

People use the "thousands of dead school children" argument as a means to support their rabid pro-vaccine stance.

I'm just pointing out what a retarded stance that is.

http://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ourworldindata_effect-of-vaccine-on-smallpox-%E2%80%93-sweden-fenner-henderson-arita-jezek-and-ladnyi-19880.pnghttp://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/highlights19_smallpox.PNG
The history of smallpox extends into pre-history; the disease likely emerged in human populations about 10,000 BC. The earliest credible evidence of smallpox is found in the Egyptian mummies of people who died some 3000 years ago. Smallpox has had a major impact on world history, not least because indigenous populations of regions where smallpox was non-native, such as the Americas and Australia, were rapidly decimated and weakened by smallpox (along with other introduced diseases) during periods of initial foreign contact, which helped pave the way for conquest and colonization. During the 18th century the disease killed an estimated 400,000 Europeans each year, including five reigning monarchs, and was responsible for a third of all blindness. Between 20 and 60% of all those infected—and over 80% of infected children—died from the disease
Smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300–500 million deaths during the 20th century.
As recently as 1967, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 15 million people contracted the disease and that two million died in that year.After successful vaccination campaigns throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the WHO certified the global eradication of smallpox in December 1979. Smallpox is one of two infectious diseases to have been eradicated, the other being rinderpest, which was declared eradicated in 2011

[bogan]

People use the "thousands of dead school children" argument as a means to support their rabid pro-vaccine stance.

I'm just pointing out what a retarded stance that is.

No, by comparison you make them sound almost rational. As I explained earlier, counter that point by addressing it and showing how retarded it is, not by putting forward your own retardetry.

[Woodman]

I'm happy to rely on my natural immune system.

If you feel yours needs outside help, that's entirely your call.

Anyone who believes that mandatory vaccination is the way forward will be treated like the shitforbrains they clearly are.


Yet you have just spent the last hour or so arguing for vaccinations:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepal m::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

[Katman]

Yet you have just spent the last hour or so arguing for vaccinations

Really?

I think you've mistaken me for someone else.

(Either that or you struggle to understand English).

[husaberg]

Anyone who believes that mandatory vaccination is the way forward will be treated like the shitforbrains they clearly are.


And my dogs are vaccinated.

Yet you vaccinate your dog............ :laugh::
Tetanus

The ntroduction of TT vaccines in the 1930s and 1940s, which led to universal childhood immunization and the addition of decennial TT boosters for adults (2,3). A major contributor to the decline in morbidity was the near elimination of neonatal tetanus, a result attributable to improved childbirth practices and to increased levels of maternal immunity resulting from universal childhood vaccination
Reported tetanus cases have declined >95%, and deaths from tetanus have declined >99% in the United States since 1947, when the disease became reportable nationally. CDC analyzed cases reported to the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System (NNDSS) during 2001--2008. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which found that 233 tetanus cases were reported during 2001--2008; among the 197 cases with known outcomes, the case-fatality rate was 13.2%.
TT vaccination status was reported for 92 (39.5%) of the 233 patients. A total of 37 patients (40.7%) received no TT doses, 26 (28.3%) received 1 dose, five (5.4%) received 3 doses, and 24 (26.1%) received ≥4 doses (Table 2). Among the 36 patients aged ≥50 years, five (13.9%) reported completing the primary 3-dose TT series, compared with 24 (42.9%) of the 56 aged <50 years. Seven (24.1%) of 29 patients with ≥3 doses of TT had received their last dose within 10 years, 18 (62.1%) from 10 to 54 years previously, and four (13.8%) reported an unknown interval since their last dose.

[Katman]

Yet you vaccinate your dog............

Here's a challenge......

Show me a post where I state (or even imply) that everything about vaccinations is entirely wrong and no good has ever come from vaccines - and I'll leave KB for good.

[husaberg]

As i am mentally challenged......
Show me a post where I state (or even imply) that everything about vaccinations is entirely wrong and no good has ever come from vaccines - and I'll leave KB for good.

Sure right after you admit that the real reason most of the diseases incidence has dropped dramatically since vaccinations started, is that we have effective vaccination programes.
then after you answer he thouand or so other questions asked of you on KB are answered.

[FJRider]

I'm happy to rely on my natural immune system.

If you feel your's needs outside help, that's entirely your call.

Anyone who believes that mandatory vaccination is the way forward will be treated like the shitforbrains they clearly are.

In my opinion ... you need all the help you can get. Bogan won't always be there to back you up ... <_<


I got my vaccine shot when I was a kid. No issues then or since. My parents made that call. When you're (eventually) grown-up... you too can choose.


I was never a believer/supporter of mandatory since my army days. But the jabs they gave me without choice in the matter ... would have saved me a power of grief and discomfort.

In a free world ... Informed choice should be the way. But parents not getting their kids the vaccine ... because they didn't get the disease (when they probably got vaccinated as a child) is stupid.

[Katman]

Sure right after you admit that the real reason most of the disease incidences has dropped dramatically since vaccinations started is that we have effective vaccination programes.

And I haven't questioned that.

I do question though whether the current vaccination schedule is aimed towards the well-being of society or the balance sheet of the pharmaceutical industry.

[Woodman]

I do question though whether the current vaccination schedule is aimed towards the well-being of society or the balance sheet of the pharmaceutical industry.

Probarbly both in reality. Whats the problem?

[Katman]

Probarbly both in reality. Whats the problem?

Well for a start, I don't think the betterment of society should be undertaken as a money making venture.

But when money becomes a factor, you can usually guarantee that greed and corruption come soon after.

[husaberg]

Sure right after you admit that the real reason most of the diseases incidence has dropped dramatically since vaccinations started, is that we have effective vaccination programes..

And I haven't questioned that.
.
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;..................;;;;;;;;;;;;;;


The reality is that dying from measles is an extremely uncommon occurrence these days.

Due to a good vaccination program?

No, due to vastly improved sanitation and nutrition.
(Altough the nutrition side could probably be questioned these days).

So then what new sanitation and nutrition initiative caused the very very dramatic turnaround in 1964?
You must know as it is that significant, so come on educate me.

[Katman]

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

What the fuck does that post even mean?

You dumb fuck.

[FJRider]

Sure right after you admit that the real reason most of the diseases incidence has dropped dramatically since vaccinations started, is that we have effective vaccination programes.


Even after the introduction of the vaccines ... and compulsory vaccinations introduced ... there were still outbreaks if the virus. And people died.

To be fair ... to ensure a vaccination program is effective ... everybody must be given or taken for the vaccine program to work. If the vaccine is not available worldwide FREE ... some areas will be more susceptible to infection more than others.

To make a decision to not take a vaccine for any infection ...on the grounds that it is no longer common (or unlikely to be infected) is short-sighted at the very least.

[Katman]

Even after the introduction of the vaccines ... and compulsory vaccinations introduced ... there were still outbreaks if the virus. And people died.

To be fair ... to ensure a vaccination program is effective ... everybody must be given or taken for the vaccine program to work. If the vaccine is not available worldwide FREE ... some areas will be more susceptible to infection more than others.

To make a decision to not take a vaccine for any infection ...on the grounds that it is no longer common (or unlikely to be infected) is short-sighted at the very least.

So what about the people who are vaccinated that end up getting the disease they were vaccinated against?

[husaberg]

Even after the introduction of the vaccines ... and compulsory vaccinations introduced ... there were still outbreaks if the virus. And people died.

To be fair ... to ensure a vaccination program is effective ... everybody must be given or taken for the vaccine program to work. If the vaccine is not available worldwide FREE ... some areas will be more susceptible to infection more than others.

To make a decision to not take a vaccine for any infection ...on the grounds that it is no longer common (or unlikely to be infected) is short-sighted at the very least.

Hes never going to admit hes wrong even when faced with overwelming evidence
I would urge him to personally forgo all vaccinations esp tetanus

[Katman]

I would urge him to forgo all vaccinations

I'm one step ahead of you.

Let's see who lasts the longest.

[Ocean1]

To be fair ... to ensure a vaccination program is effective ... everybody must be given or taken for the vaccine program to work.

Incorrect. effective reported rates range from 85% to 95%, depending on contagion and source.


To make a decision to not take a vaccine for any infection ...on the grounds that it is no longer common (or unlikely to be infected) is short-sighted at the very least.

Aye. But fuckwits don't work any other way.

[FJRider]

What the fuck does that post even mean?

You dumb fuck.

You altered the quote ... and unless English is your second (or third) language ... you should be able to figure out it's meaning.

Or perhaps you're not that smart after all ...

[Katman]

You altered the quote ...

What???

I didn't alter anything you dumb fuck.

[husaberg]

You altered the quote ... and unless English is your second (or third) language ... you should be able to figure out it's meaning.

Or perhaps you're not that smart after all ...

Not the first time he has done that today either.........

[Katman]

Not the first time he has done that today either.........

See, this is what amazes me about this place.....

......retarded cunts that say shit they can't possibly back up.

Show me the last quote I 'altered'.

[FJRider]

So what about the people who are vaccinated that end up getting the disease they were vaccinated against?

I can't recall reading any medical journal stating all the various vaccines work on 100% of people vaccinated. Regardless what they were vaccinated against.

And as it is known that they do not work on some people ... and some areas do not have vaccines ... it could be dangerous to discontinue or halt effective prevention in areas where it IS possible.

Only a Dumb Fuck could not understand that ...

[Woodman]

Well for a start, I don't think the betterment of society should be undertaken as a money making venture.

But when money becomes a factor, you can usually guarantee that greed and corruption come soon after.

So it should be run as a government department? When has that ever been successful? or cost effective?

[FJRider]

Hes never going to admit hes wrong even when faced with overwelming evidence
I would urge him to personally forgo all vaccinations esp tetanus

Or against Lead poisoning ... 'cause some bastard might take a shot at him ... :lol:

[Katman]

Only a Dumb Fuck could not understand that ...

Do you actually understand the fact that I have never called for any sort of 'across the board' halt to vaccinations?

I have only ever put forward the idea that valid questions regarding vaccines should warrant honest answers.

[FJRider]

See, this is what amazes me about this place.....

......retarded cunts that say shit they can't possibly back up.

Show me the last quote I 'altered'.

His post ...



;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;..................;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Your post "quoting" him ...


Originally Posted by husaberk
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

and you didn't alter anything ... :bleh:

[FJRider]

Do you actually understand the fact that I have never called for any sort of 'across the board' halt to vaccinations?

I have only ever put forward the idea that valid questions regarding vaccines should warrant honest answers.

Show me where I said YOU did ... and show me where I argued either way.

And do responsible parents not try to prevent infections .. where they can ... easily effectively and cheaply ... ???

[Katman]

And do responsible parents not try to prevent infections .. where they can ... easily effectively and cheaply ... ???

See, your reference to 'cheaply' adequately defines your dumb fuck approach to vaccination.

[FJRider]

See, your reference to 'cheaply' adequately defines your dumb fuck approach to vaccination.

If the Government wants to fund or discount the vaccination program fees ... only a dumb fuck would say no.

Would YOU still pay full price if you had that choice .. ??? :shifty:

[Katman]

If the Government wants to fund or discount the vaccination program fees ... only a dumb fuck would say no.

Would YOU still pay full price if you had that choice .. ??? :shifty:

When people's safety and well-being is in question, 'cheaply' shouldn't really be used as a supporting feature.

[FJRider]

See, this is what amazes me about this place.....

Most of your posts amaze me ...


......retarded cunts like me that says shit I can't possibly back up. So I red rep them all.

You'll see another by looking in the mirror ...


Show me the last quote I 'altered'.

I DID ... :killingme

[FJRider]

When people's safety and well-being is in question, 'cheaply' shouldn't really be used as a supporting feature.

If cheaply equates to being subsidized ... the tax-payer pays the bill. The people usually needing the vaccinations the most... are usually ... umm ... poor.

Only dumb fucks don't know that ...

[Katman]

I DID ... :killingme

Did you really?

Or did you just point out where berkboy edited his post?

[husaberg]

See, this is what amazes me about this place.....

......retarded cunts that say shit they can't possibly back up.

Show me the last quote I 'altered'.


Did you really?

Or did you just point out where berkboy edited his post?

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/56785704/futurama-fry-methinks-the-lady-doth-protest-too-much.jpg

[Drew]

Gish galloping again wow who would have guessed
http://www.freshle.de/party-leipzig/images/artikel/distillery011216_01.jpg
Yet you have no children.
The crap that you post might result in deaths of children from fully preventable diseases.
That wouldn't worry you though would it.
You previously said you volunteer for the SPCA, so tell us all again if your dog is vaccinated?
You are just trolling for attention.Some retard vet is diagnosing autism in dogs and linking it to vaccines now.




If the rate of incident drops dramatically due to the introduction of a vaccine but the rate of death per incident doesn't change fuck all, how can the vaccine possibly be considered a contributor to a reduction in deaths per incident?It can't. But that doesn't matter does it? The number of people actually dying has been reduced incredibly by the introduction of effective vaccination.

The ethical question as to whether a company should profit doesn't alter the fact that the vaccinations must continue.

Well for a start, I don't think the betterment of society should be undertaken as a money making venture.

But when money becomes a factor, you can usually guarantee that greed and corruption come soon after.
Yeah, that might be true. If only there were governmental agencies to oversee it, and audit it regularly.

[Ocean1]

Yeah, that might be true. If only there were governmental agencies to oversee it, and audit it regularly.

Yeah, 'cause there's a shitload of people making vaccines at a loss. :laugh:

[Katman]

Did you know......?

The multi-dose flu vaccine contains 50,000 parts per billion of thimerosal.

The allowable limit of mercury in water is 2 parts per billion and anything that has over 200 parts per billion is classified as a toxic hazard.

[Katman]

No wonder so many American doctors push the vaccination message.

There is massive financial reward for those who do.

[Woodman]

No wonder so many American doctors push the vaccination message.

There is massive financial reward for those who do.

Yes because their customers don't die of preventable diseases and remain loyal (and alive) customers.

[Drew]

Did you know......?

The multi-dose flu vaccine contains 50,000 parts per billion of thimerosal.

The allowable limit of mercury in water is 2 parts per billion and anything that has over 200 parts per billion is classified as a toxic hazard.
Many things are toxic in medicine. That's because the shit that we catch like similar conditions to is. The goal is to change those conditions enough to kill the bus before killing us.

You are a fucking liar cunt. You said you would look at evidence and be objective. You haven't. You continue to argue in the face of incontrovertible proof that vaccinating as per the program is the best way.

Fuck off and die ya queer shaped cock.

[Drew]

No wonder so many American doctors push the vaccination message.

There is massive financial reward for those who do.
I dunno that the doctors make as much as they would if they let patients get sick, isn't that why you fuckwits claim the cure for cancer is being hidden from us?

[Katman]

You are a fucking liar cunt. You said you would look at evidence and be objective. You haven't. You continue to argue in the face of incontrovertible proof that vaccinating as per the program is the best way.

If you bothered to watch the videos Drew, you could look at the evidence and be objective too.

[Drew]

If you bothered to watch the videos Drew, you could look at the evidence and be objective too.

You wouldn't know objective consideration if it was sucking you off, so eat my excrement and get fucked.

[Katman]

You wouldn't know objective consideration if it was sucking you off, so eat my excrement and get fucked.

The numbers, that seem to have gotten you so upset Drew, are objective.

[Drew]

The numbers, that seem to have gotten you so upset Drew, are objective.

Actually you galloping knob jockey, they are deliberately misleading.

No one argues or has argued that the graph you supplied was wrong. It's completely fucking irrelevant though.

Now fuck off.

[Katman]

Interesting to note too, America has the highest number of vaccines for children within their first 12 months (26 vaccines) and yet they also have one of the highest infant mortality rate for first world countries.

[husaberg]

If you bothered to watch the videos Drew, you could look at the evidence and be objective too.

Spell out all the evidence for us all then.
Afterall It shouldn't be so hard for an expert like yourself on the subject to do.
#Hint A falilure for you, to do so, would clearly indicate both a lack of evidence and lack of understanding by yourself regarding the subject.
If you reply that we should do it ourselves it would indicate that you are not that worried about what is in the video afterall, indicating what most already know, that you are just a massive attention whore.

[husaberg]

Did you know......?
The multi-dose flu vaccine contains 50,000 parts per billion of thimerosal.
The allowable limit of mercury in water is 2 parts per billion and anything that has over 200 parts per billion is classified as a toxic hazard.
Gish gallop away..............
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/83/da/6c/83da6c4d76f5ac07124644b9a2a0aa61.jpg

No wonder so many American doctors push the vaccination message.
There is massive financial reward for those who do.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/83/da/6c/83da6c4d76f5ac07124644b9a2a0aa61.jpg

If you bothered to watch the videos Drew, you could look at the evidence and be objective too.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/83/da/6c/83da6c4d76f5ac07124644b9a2a0aa61.jpg

The numbers, that seem to have gotten you so upset Drew, are objective.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/83/da/6c/83da6c4d76f5ac07124644b9a2a0aa61.jpg

Interesting to note too, America has the highest number of vaccines for children within their first 12 months (26 vaccines) and yet they also have one of the highest infant mortality rate for first world countries.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/83/da/6c/83da6c4d76f5ac07124644b9a2a0aa61.jpg

[Katman]

http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2016/01/polysorbate-80-a-risky-vaccine-ingredient/

[pritch]

Interesting to note too, America has the highest number of vaccines for children within their first 12 months (26 vaccines) and yet they also have one of the highest infant mortality rate for first world countries.

Those two facts would seem to be totally unrelated. We are all hopefully aware that medical treatment in the USA costs, and if you haven't got the cash - tough.
They may have 26 vaccines, or not, but there will be a lot of people who can't afford them and their kids get sick and possibly die. That's OK though, 'cause those people generally don't vote Republican.

[Woodman]

Interesting to note too, America has the highest number of vaccines for children within their first 12 months (26 vaccines) and yet they also have one of the highest infant mortality rate for first world countries.

Just like that graph that meant nothing by itself, this statement also means nothing without a whole lot of other information.

[Katman]

Those two facts would seem to be totally unrelated.

There is a study which indicates they might be more related than you think.

[Katman]

Just like that graph that meant nothing by itself, this statement also means nothing without a whole lot of other information.

Because you asked so nicely.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

[Woodman]

Because you asked so nicely.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/


Interesting (skim)read. Doesn't point to vaccinations causing the higher infant mortality rate though.

[husaberg]

There is a study which indicates they might be more related than you think.

It might if it actually compared apples with apples.
330148
40% of the difference in how the US measures infant motality is due to the different way they measure it compared to the rest of the world
330146

"Extremely preterm births recorded in some places may be considered a miscarriage or still birth in other countries. Since survival before 22 weeks or under 500 grams is very rare, categorizing these births as live births will inflate reported infant mortality rates (which are reported as a share of live births)."
Oster and her colleagues found that this reporting difference accounts for up to 40 percent of the U.S. infant mortality disadvantage relative to Austria and Finland.http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emily.oster/papers/imr.pdf
330147
the rest of the difference is easily explained this is due to lack of ongoing access to free health care,

In fact, infant mortality rates among wealthy Americans are similar to the mortality rates among wealthy Fins and Austrians. The difference is that in Finland and Austria, poor babies are nearly as likely to survive their first years as wealthy ones. In the U.S. - land of opportunity - that is starkly not the case: "there is tremendous inequality in the US, with lower education groups, unmarried and African-American women having much higher infant mortality rates," the authors conclude.
One way of understanding these numbers is by noting that most American babies, regardless of socio-economic status, are born in hospitals. And while in the hospital, American infants receive exceedingly good care - our neo-natal intensive care units are among the best in the world. This may explain why mortality rates in the first few weeks of life are similar in the U.S., Finland and Austria.
But the differences arise after infants are sent home. Poor American families have considerably less access to quality healthcare as their wealthier counterparts.

[Virago]

Did you know......?

The multi-dose flu vaccine contains 50,000 parts per billion of thimerosal.

The allowable limit of mercury in water is 2 parts per billion and anything that has over 200 parts per billion is classified as a toxic hazard.

More meaningless comparison. The average adult consumes a total of 3 litres of water a day. That's in excess of 1,000 litres a year. Compare that to the size of the annual flu jab of around 0.5ml. Toxicity is dependent on dose consumption.


Interesting to note too, America has the highest number of vaccines for children within their first 12 months (26 vaccines) and yet they also have one of the highest infant mortality rate for first world countries.

Official infant mortality rates in the US have little meaning. The main contributing factor to their high rate is the inclusion of early gestational baby deaths, which in other countries are classified as stillborn.

[FJRider]

Did you really?

Or did you just point out where husaberg edited his post?

I trust his word over yours ... :finger:

[husaberg]

I trust his word over yours ... :finger:
Especially considering the post in question caught him in yet another lie.

Sure right after you admit that the real reason most of the diseases incidence has dropped dramatically since vaccinations started, is that we have effective vaccination programes..

And I haven't questioned that.


The reality is that dying from measles is an extremely uncommon occurrence these days.

Due to a good vaccination program?

No, due to vastly improved sanitation and nutrition.(Altough the nutrition side could probably be questioned these days).

So then what new sanitation and nutrition initiative caused the very very dramatic turnaround in 1964?
You must know as it is that significant, so come on educate me.

[FJRider]

Did you know......?

The multi-dose flu vaccine contains 50,000 parts per billion of thimerosal.

The allowable limit of mercury in water is 2 parts per billion and anything that has over 200 parts per billion is classified as a toxic hazard.

thimerosol is not Mercury. It contains compounds of either ethylmercury or methylmercury.

I bet you have no idea what concentration of either compound is ... in each of those doses.

[bogan]

More meaningless comparison. The average adult consumes a total of 3 litres of water a day. That's in excess of 1,000 litres a year. Compare that to the size of the annual flu jab of around 0.5ml. Toxicity is dependent on dose consumption.

Not to mention Thiomersol isn't actually mercury, it's just a thing, with a concentration. I mean fuck, nobody tell him that your average drinking water contains more than 900 million parts per billion of di-hydrogen monoxide

[Katman]

thimerosol is not Mercury. It contains compounds of either ethylmercury or methylmercury.

I bet you have no idea what concentration of either compound is ... in each of those doses.

Thimerosal contains ethylmercury.

49.55% by weight is a figure I've heard.

[Virago]

...di-hydrogen monoxide

Nasty stuff. I know of someone who inhaled large quantities of it, they were dead within five minutes.

[bogan]

Thimerosal contains ethylmercury.

49.55% by weight is a figure I've heard.

Wrong. Thimerosal is a compound, ethylmercury is a different compound.

Then you've heard wrong.

It is metabolised into ethylmercury.


Nasty stuff. I know of someone who inhaled large quantities of it, they were dead within five minutes.

That's not the worst bit, we've confirmed Govt action to fly planes around dropping chemicals which cause droplets of the stuff to rain down on the population, jaw dropping stuff!

[husaberg]

Thimerosal contains ethylmercury.

49.55% by weight is a figure I've heard.
Bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaa
No. Thimerosal hasn’t been used in vaccines for children since 2001.

Ethylmercury clears from blood with a half-life of about 18 days in adults by breakdown into other chemicals, including inorganic mercury. Ethylmercury is eliminated from the brain in about 14 days in infant monkeys. Risk assessment for effects on the nervous system have been made by extrapolating from dose-response relationships for methylmercury
Concerns based on extrapolations from methylmercury caused thiomersal to be removed from U.S. childhood vaccines, starting in 1999. Since then, it has been found that ethylmercury is eliminated from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative. Though inorganic mercury metabolized from ethylmercury has a much longer half-life in the brain, at least 120 days, it appears to be much less toxic than the inorganic mercury produced from mercury vapor, for reasons not yet understood.
Clarkson TW, Magos L (2006). "The toxicology of mercury and its chemical compounds.
Clarkson TW, Vyas JB, Ballatori N (2007). "Mechanisms of mercury disposition in the body".

[Katman]

Wrong. Thimerosal is a compound, ethylmercury is a different compound.

Then you've heard wrong.

It is metabolised into ethylmercury.

Then you might want to let the CDC know their website is wrong.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/

[Katman]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235523750_Toxicity_of_ethylmercury_and_Thimerosal_ A_comparison_with_methylmercury

[Katman]

And I notice nobody has commented on the Polysorbate 80 article yet.

[Katman]

I trust his word over yours ... :finger:

If you can be bothered, go back and count the semi-colons in both versions of the quote. There's 32 in both.

Then ask yourself whether it's likely that I carefully removed a series of full stops (why the fuck I'd bother is anyone's guess) without accidentally deleting a semi-colon in the process, or whether it's more likely that berkboy went back and added some full stops to make it look like the quote had been altered.

[Virago]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2pjI6TOSaSdd0dSgdB3fV_GIL_ubzu q26Cvx3hCG728hCwC_c

[bogan]

Then you might want to let the CDC know their website is wrong.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/

I suspect they're pretty aware of that fact already. It's common for such sites to 'dumb down' the explanations to educate the gullible and counter conspiracy theory nonsense. Did you notice the bit where they said it was safe? or that it was taken out of vaccines in 2001? or that it was never in MMR, IPV, HIV, SRT, GTS, and VFR vaccines at all?

[Katman]

Did you notice the bit where they said it was safe? or that it was taken out of vaccines in 2001? or that it was never in MMR, IPV, HIV, SRT, GTS, and VFR vaccines at all?

Doesn't change the fact that there are still vaccines out there that do contain thimerosal.

[Virago]

And I notice nobody has commented on the Polysorbate 80 article yet.

Vaccines contain a maximum of 100µg of Polysorbate 80, which is roughly 400,000 times less than the LD50 for a newborn. We ingest 1000 times that amount (100mg) per day, since Polysorbate 80 is used as an emulsifier in many foods.

[Katman]

Vaccines contain a maximum of 100µg of Polysorbate 80, which is roughly 400,000 times less than the LD50 for a newborn. We ingest 1000 times that amount (100mg) per day, since Polysorbate 80 is used as an emulsifier in many foods.

I'm well aware of that.

But as I've pointed out many times now, there's a big difference between ingesting a product and injecting it.

Polysorbate 80 is used in vaccines to ensure thorough mixing of the ingredients. But it is also used in pharmacology as a means to transport certain drugs past the blood/brain barrier.

It's not inconceivable that it could be doing just that with some of the toxins found in vaccines.

[husaberg]

Thimerosal contains ethylmercury.
49.55% by weight is a figure I've heard.


Wrong. Thimerosal is a compound, ethylmercury is a different compound.
It is metabolised into ethylmercury.



Then you might want to let the CDC know their website is wrong.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/
shit full of it you are

Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, which is cleared from the human body more quickly than methylmercury, and is therefore less likely to cause any harm.
The human body eliminates thimerosal easily.
Thimerosal does not stay in the body a long time so it does not build up and reach harmful levels. When thimerosal enters the body, it breaks down to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate, which are readily eliminated.

Thimerosal has been shown to be safe when used in vaccines.
Thimerosal use in medical products has a record of being very safe. Data from many studies show no evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines.

There are some side effects of thimerosal in vaccines.
The most common side-effects are minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site. Although rare, some people may be allergic to thimerosal.

Scientific research does not show a connection between thimerosal and autism.
Research does not show any link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder. Many well conducted studies have concluded that thimerosal in vaccines does not contribute to the development of autism. Even after thimerosal was removed from almost all childhood vaccines, autism rates continued to increase, which is the opposite of what would be expected if thimerosal caused autism.https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/

[Katman]

shit full of it you are

I think we've established that the CDC believe thimerosal to be perfectly safe. are intent on having us believe that thimerosal is perfectly safe.

There are others who are not so convinced though.

[husaberg]

I think we've established that the CDC believe thimerosal to be perfectly safe.

There are others who are not so convinced.

So do you actually have any evidence at all that thimerosal is not safe or is it just one of your gut feelings like the shapeshifting lizards elvis being alive 911 and JFK.........
Because the CDC have actual studies that show it to be safe.

[Katman]

So do you actually have any evidence at all that thimerosal is not safe

There is no shortage of evidence showing the toxicity of thimerosal.

I'm sure you can find it if you're sufficiently interested.

[husaberg]

There is no shortage of evidence showing the toxicity of thimerosal.

I'm sure you can find it if you're sufficiently interested.

If there is no shortage of evidence you will have no trouble posting it then.
So post it or shut up.

[Katman]

If there is no shortage of evidence you will have no trouble posting it then.
So post it or shut up.

Fuck off and find it yourself.

[husaberg]

Fuck off and find it yourself.

So i take it, as per normal, you don't have any actual evidence then, gee thats a surprise:lol:
It make this post all the more hypocritical

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with my opinion

Gremlin summed you up nicely

Free speech. Spouting crap.
Not the same and shouldn't be confused with each other.

[Woodman]

So what problems has this thimerasshole actually caused?

[Katman]

Because the CDC have actual studies that show it to be safe.

If you truely believe that, you should show the studies to Robert F Kennedy.

There's $100,000 up for grabs to anyone who can do just that.

[Virago]

I'm well aware of that.

But as I've pointed out many times now, there's a big difference between ingesting a product and injecting it.

Polysorbate 80 is used in vaccines to ensure thorough mixing of the ingredients. But it is also used in pharmacology as a means to transport certain drugs past the blood/brain barrier.

It's not inconceivable that it could be doing just that with some of the toxins found in vaccines.

There is no doubt that subcutaneous injection is a more efficient method of delivering the product into the bloodstream. But that doesn't mean that oral ingestion is 100% ineffective for the same result, otherwise oral medications wouldn't work. The suggestion that consuming a thousand times as much Polysorbate 80 via a nice bowl of ice-cream will not result in it reaching the blood/brain barrier is hopelessly delusional. and clutching at straws.

[Katman]

The suggestion that consuming a thousand times as much Polysorbate 80 via a nice bowl of ice-cream will not result in it reaching the blood/brain barrier is hopelessly delusional. and clutching at straws.

There might just be a reason why, in 2014, the E.U. prohibited the use of food colourings containing aluminium in ice cream production.

[husaberg]

I think we've established that the CDC believe thimerosal to be perfectly safe. are intent on having us believe that thimerosal is perfectly safe.
There are others who are not so convinced though.

So do you actually have any evidence at all that thimerosal is not safe or is it just one of your gut feelings like the shapeshifting lizards elvis being alive 911 and JFK.........
Because the CDC have actual studies that show it to be safe.

There is no shortage of evidence showing the toxicity of thimerosal.I'm sure you can find it if you're sufficiently interested.

If there is no shortage of evidence you will have no trouble posting it then.So post it or shut up.

Fuck off and find it yourself.

So i take it, as per normal, you don't have any actual evidence then, gee thats a surprise:lol:
So instead of producing the evidence that likely doesnt exist, You instead go on yet another Gish gallop.
http://www.freshle.de/party-leipzig/images/artikel/distillery011216_01.jpg

If you truely believe that, you should show the studies to Robert F Kennedy.
There's $100,000 up for grabs to anyone who can do just that.
http://www.freshle.de/party-leipzig/images/artikel/distillery011216_01.jpg

There might just be a reason why, in 2014, the E.U. prohibited the use of food colourings containing aluminium in ice cream production.

[Katman]

Did you know.....?

When testing was being done on the Gardasil vaccine (which contains a high level of aluminium) they compared it against a placebo which also contained aluminium.

They then stated that the side-effects of the vaccine were the same as the side-effects of the placebo - and therefore the vaccine was as safe as the placebo.

[bogan]

Did you know.....?

When testing was being done on the Gardasil vaccine (which contains a high level of aluminium) they compared it against a placebo which also contained aluminium.

They then stated that the side-effects of the vaccine were the same as the side-effects of the placebo - and therefore the vaccine was as safe as the placebo.

Not true, that one has been debunked many times. Are you just rattling off Ty's indoctrinating facts of the day now?

[Virago]

Did you know.....?

When testing was being done on the Gardasil vaccine (which contains a high level of aluminium) they compared it against a placebo which also contained aluminium.

They then stated that the side-effects of the vaccine were the same as the side-effects of the placebo - and therefore the vaccine was as safe as the placebo.

More selective presentation.

In fact the Gardasil trials used two placebos, one was the aluminium adjuvant, the other a saline solution placebo. This allowed isolation of any aluminium adjuvant side effects.

[Katman]

Not true, that one has been debunked many times.

Really?

I'd love to read it if you've got a link.

[bogan]

Really?

I'd love to read it if you've got a link.

Start with the journal article itself. If thats a bit over your head, see post #2934...

[Katman]

More selective presentation.

In fact the Gardasil trials used two placebos, one was the aluminium adjuvant, the other a saline solution placebo. This allowed isolation of any aluminium adjuvant side effects.

And am I correct in assuming that a saline placebo shouldn't exhibit any side-effects?

[Katman]

Start with the journal article itself.

Which journal article would that be then?

[Virago]

And am I correct in assuming that a saline placebo shouldn't exhibit any side-effects?

In theory. But clinical trials can elicit a huge variety of reported negative side-effects from placebos - called the "nocebo effect". Results are not of a yes/no presentation.

[Katman]

In theory. But clinical trials can elicit a huge variety of reported side-effects from placebos. Results are not of a yes/no presentation.

So if they determined that the side-effects of the vaccine were the same as the side-effects of the aluminium adjuvant 'placebo', shouldn't they be trying to figure out why an aluminium adjuvant is producing those side-effects?

[bogan]

Which journal article would that be then?

The one published from the study you referred to; I mean shit son, you're the one telling the story here, how is it you don't have any of the detail?

[Katman]

The one published from the study you referred to;

I didn't refer to a study, did I?

[Virago]

So if they determined that the side-effects of the vaccine were the same as the side-effects of the aluminium adjuvant 'placebo', shouldn't they be trying to figure out why an aluminium adjuvant is producing those side-effects?

Do you have the clinic details to hand?

[bogan]

I didn't refer to a study, did I?

Trial, study, testing, journal article, who really gives a shit what it is called; you should be more aware of its content, rather than just parroting back the conclusions some charlatan has misinterpreted or outrightly made up.

[Katman]

Do you have the clinic details to hand?

Clearly I don't.

Did they do any research into why the aluminium adjuvant 'placebo' differed from the saline placebo?

[Katman]

Trial, study, testing, journal article, who really gives a shit what it is called; you should be more aware of its content, rather than just parroting back the conclusions some charlatan has misinterpreted or outrightly made up.

Except it clearly isn't made up.

Virago has just confirmed what the medical specialists stated in the video - that an aluminium adjuvant 'placebo' was used.

[bogan]

Except it clearly isn't made up.

Virago has just confirmed what the medical specialists stated in the video - that an aluminium adjuvant 'placebo' was used.

and.......

[Katman]

and.......

So tell me again how it's been debunked many times.

[bogan]

So tell me again how it's been debunked many times.

Perhaps you need more of a clue?

And, they also used a...

[Katman]

Perhaps you need more of a clue?

And, they also used a...

Are you hard of hearing?

Tell me again how they've debunked the story of the aluminium adjuvant 'placebo'.

[bogan]

Are you hard of hearing?

Tell me again how they've debunked the story of the aluminium adjuvant 'placebo'.

Oh right, you're back to semantics, they debunked the story that the vaccine was concluded to be safe only on the basis of an aluminium placebo.

[husaberg]

Did you know.....?

When testing was being done on the Gardasil vaccine (which contains a high level of aluminium) they compared it against a placebo which also contained aluminium.

They then stated that the side-effects of the vaccine were the same as the side-effects of the placebo - and therefore the vaccine was as safe as the placebo.
It sounds awfully like you don't actually know what an adjuvant does (ie its sole purpose for being in a vaccine). So you are just spouting off...again:msn-wink:
An adjuvant is an ingredient of a vaccine that helps create a stronger immune response in the patient’s body.
This strong immune response preduced by the adjuvant is the symptoms/side effects you think is somehow pertinent
It’s thus therefor only surprising that the side effects were similar but only when you don't know what an adjuvant does:killingme.

Which is clearly obvious you don't.


Clearly I don't.
Did they do any research into why the aluminium adjuvant 'placebo' differed from the saline placebo?

and.......:killingme

So tell me again how it's been debunked many times.

Perhaps you need more of a clue?
And, they also used a... hes giving you a strong clue:whistle:

Are you hard of hearing?
Tell me again how they've debunked the story of the aluminium adjuvant 'placebo'.
You are still not getting it.:2thumbsup

I eagerly await you next instalment of gish galloping floundering and downright stupidity.

[Katman]

It’s thus therefor only surprising that the side effects were similar but only when you don't know what an adjuvant does

Which is clearly obvious you don't.

I suspect you're the only one here retarded enough to actually believe that.

[Virago]

Except it clearly isn't made up.

Virago has just confirmed what the medical specialists stated in the video - that an aluminium adjuvant 'placebo' was used.

In true conspiracy theorist style, you're desperately trying to turn a positive into a negative.

They could have just used a saline placebo against the true vaccine. However in this case they put a third option in the process, which was the aluminium adjuvant placebo. This allowed a three-way comparison, and the ability to isolate the adjuvant response. I would have thought that this process would be lauded by the anti-vaxxers, but it would appear that some are too blinkered in their rabid response to see that.

Your original suggestion was that the adjuvant placebo was used, and you carefully omitted the use of the saline placebo (although your distorted sources may not have provided that important information for you).


Did you know.....?

When testing was being done on the Gardasil vaccine (which contains a high level of aluminium) they compared it against a placebo which also contained aluminium.

They then stated that the side-effects of the vaccine were the same as the side-effects of the placebo - and therefore the vaccine was as safe as the placebo.

As above, you continue to parrot the anti-vax dogma gleaned from seriously unreliable sources, and are quite open about having no data to back your claims. When asked for the data your response is to suggest that we find it ourselves. You're the one making the claims - how about you back yourself?

[Katman]

They could have just used a saline placebo against the true vaccine. However in this case they put a third option in the process, which was the aluminium adjuvant placebo. This allowed a three-way comparison, and the ability to isolate the adjuvant response. I would have thought that this process would be lauded by the anti-vaxxers, but it would appear that some are too blinkered in their rabid response to see that.

The side-effects of aluminium as an adjuvant is already well known.

The inclusion of the third option might just have easily been to provide the convenient fall-back line "look, it's no worse than the placebo".

[Virago]

The side-effects of aluminium as an adjuvant is already well known.

The inclusion of the third option might just have easily been to provide the convenient fall-back line "look, it's no worse than the placebo".

Mindless conjecture.

[Katman]

Mindless conjecture.

Are you actually suggesting that the short term side-effects of aluminium as an adjuvant are still a mystery to them?

[husaberg]

I suspect you're the only one here retarded enough to actually believe that.
Your own posts speak volumes to you having no clue to how an Aduvant works or what it is included in the vaccine for

Did you know.....?
When testing was being done on the Gardasil vaccine (which contains a high level of aluminium) they compared it against a placebo which also contained aluminium.
They then stated that the side-effects of the vaccine were the same as the side-effects of the placebo.


Did they do any research into why the aluminium adjuvant 'placebo' differed from the saline placebo?

and.......

So tell me again how it's been debunked many times.

Perhaps you need more of a clue?
And, they also used a...

Are you hard of hearing?
Tell me again how they've debunked the story of the aluminium adjuvant 'placebo'.
This one is GOLD

So if they determined that the side-effects of the vaccine were the same as the side-effects of the aluminium adjuvant 'placebo', shouldn't they be trying to figure out why an aluminium adjuvant is producing those side-effects?

[Virago]

Are you actually suggesting that the short term side-effects of aluminium as an adjuvant are still a mystery to them?

Lol - what? I'm suggesting that you're indulging in mindless conjecture about their process and motives. As always though, if you have details to back your comments, I'd love to see them.

[Katman]

Your own posts speak volumes to you having no clue to how an Aduvant works or what it is included in the vaccine for

This one is GOLD

Are you under the impression that adjuvants have no side-effects?

I'm struggling to figure out what you're trying to say.

[Katman]

Lol - what? I'm suggesting that you're indulging in mindless conjecture about their process and motives. As always though, if you have details to back your comments, I'd love to see them.

Well, it's quite a valid observation.

If you can offer any other reason why they'd bother to "isolate the adjuvant response" when an aluminium adjuvant response is no mystery to them, I'd love to hear it.

[husaberg]

Are you under the impression that adjuvants have no side-effects?
.

I am well aware of the effects from the use of adjuvants your continued display of total ignorance is however very funny
Would you rather they don't use an aduvant at all, would that make you happy.
imagine no localised swelling, no headaches, no raised temperature, its just one small issue though, you would be left with a vaccine that would not work.:laugh:


Did you know.....?
When testing was being done on the Gardasil vaccine (which contains a high level of aluminium) they compared it against a placebo which also contained aluminium.
They then stated that the side-effects of the vaccine were the same as the side-effects of the placebo.


Did they do any research into why the aluminium adjuvant 'placebo' differed from the saline placebo?

and.......

So tell me again how it's been debunked many times.

Perhaps you need more of a clue?
And, they also used a...

Are you hard of hearing?
Tell me again how they've debunked the story of the aluminium adjuvant 'placebo'.
This one is GOLD

So if they determined that the side-effects of the vaccine were the same as the side-effects of the aluminium adjuvant 'placebo', shouldn't they be trying to figure out why an aluminium adjuvant is producing those side-effects?

[bogan]

Well, it's quite a valid observation.

If you can offer any other reason why they'd bother to "isolate the adjuvant response" when an aluminium adjuvant response is no mystery to them, I'd love to hear it.

It's a control. This is seriously basic test methodology, you need to add control groups to isolate effects from the vaccine being tested. Things that appeared in the saline group are thus not caused by the vaccine or adjuvant placebo, things that appeared in the adjuvant placebo are similarly not cause by the vaccine only.

[Virago]

Well, it's quite a valid observation.

If you can offer any other reason why they'd bother to "isolate the adjuvant response" when an aluminium adjuvant response is no mystery to them, I'd love to hear it.

The test results I've seen make interesting reading. But as you've already claimed knowledge of the test outcome, I'm happy to defer to your detailed information (when it's forthcoming).

[Katman]

It's a control. This is seriously basic test methodology, you need to add control groups to isolate effects from the vaccine being tested. Things that appeared in the saline group are thus not caused by the vaccine or adjuvant placebo, things that appeared in the adjuvant placebo are similarly not cause by the vaccine only.

If a third 'control' group is common place in this sort of testing in order to isolate things that an already commonly used adjuvant causes, then I'll take that as a lesson for today.

Speaking of controls groups, it reminded me of this......

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280369/

[bogan]

If a third 'control' group is common place in this sort of testing in order to isolate things that an already commonly used adjuvant causes then I'll take that as a lesson for today.

Speaking of controls groups, it reminded me of this......

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280369/

Excellent, and it seems you found confirmation of yesterdays lesson as well, good shit :2thumbsup

[Katman]

Excellent, and it seems you found confirmation of yesterdays lesson as well, good shit :2thumbsup

Remind me, what was yesterday's lesson?

[husaberg]

testing in order to isolate things that an already commonly used adjuvant causes, then I'll take that as a lesson for today.
By jove only three pages and it seems he might have figured out what everyone else already knew

Speaking of controls groups, it reminded me of this......
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1280369/
Must be time for yet another Gish gallop then..........
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/684607701200932864/Z730ioe-.jpg

[bogan]

Remind me, what was yesterday's lesson?

That thimersol doesn't contain ethylmercury; fair question though, that was only one of the many lessons.

[husaberg]

Remind me, what was yesterday's lesson?

That thimersol doesn't contain ethylmercury; fair question though, that was only one of the many lessons.


I think we've established that the CDC believe thimerosal to be perfectly safe. are intent on having us believe that thimerosal is perfectly safe.
There are others who are not so convinced though.

So do you actually have any evidence at all that thimerosal is not safe? or is it just one of your gut feelings like the shapeshifting lizards elvis being alive 911 and JFK?.........
Because the CDC have actual studies that show it to be safe.

There is no shortage of evidence showing the toxicity of thimerosal.I'm sure you can find it if you're sufficiently interested.

If there is no shortage of evidence you will have no trouble posting it then?.So post it or shut up.

Fuck off and find it yourself.

So i take it, as per normal, you don't have any actual evidence then? gee thats a surprise:lol:

He never did post that evidence, he claimed there was no shortage of;)

[Katman]

That thimersol doesn't contain ethylmercury

Fair enough, I'll settle on 'produces' ethylmercury.

I hope you've let the CDC know.

[Katman]

He never did post that evidence, he claimed there was no shortage of

Knock yourself out.

https://www.amazon.com/Thimerosal-Supporting-Immediate-Mercury-Neurotoxin/dp/1632206013

[husaberg]

Knock yourself out.

https://www.amazon.com/Thimerosal-Supporting-Immediate-Mercury-Neurotoxin/dp/1632206013

Err...hold your horse there Thats a novel i want a clinical trial, a study, a paper. you said actual evidence, so where is my actual evidence.

Heres a Elvis is alive novel.
https://www.thenile.co.nz/books/xaviant-haze/elvis-is-alive/9781939149398?gclid=CLeG1caAq9MCFYl_vQod36IAoQ


I think we've established that the CDC believe thimerosal to be perfectly safe. are intent on having us believe that thimerosal is perfectly safe.
There are others who are not so convinced though.

So do you actually have any evidence at all that thimerosal is not safe? or is it just one of your gut feelings like the shapeshifting lizards elvis being alive 911 and JFK?.........
Because the CDC have actual studies that show it to be safe.

There is no shortage of evidence showing the toxicity of thimerosal.I'm sure you can find it if you're sufficiently interested.

If there is no shortage of evidence you will have no trouble posting it then?.So post it or shut up.

Fuck off and find it yourself.

So i take it, as per normal, you don't have any actual evidence then? gee thats a surprise:lol:

[Katman]

Err...hold your horse there Thats a novel i want a clinical trial, a study, a paper. you said actual evidence, so where is my actual evidence.

I don't give a fuck what you want.

There's evidence in the book.

[Katman]

And then there's the Hepatitis B vaccine.

Can't have those one day old babies getting into sex, drugs and rock 'n roll unvaccinated now, can we?

[Katman]

Another interesting observation.....

In 1986 the Vaccine Injury Compensation program came into being, when the pharmaceutical industry forced the American Congress to pass a law giving them immunity to lawsuits.

Around the same time the number of vaccines a child receives began to climb from about 10 up to the current 69.

Bear in mind, the compensation fund comes from a levy on each vaccine.

So the taxpayer is paying for any compensation settlement - not the pharmaceutical company.

[husaberg]

I don't give a fuck what you want.

There's evidence in the book.

Evidence in the book well post it then if there is evidence it will be easy for you to do so

here are some actual papers that show it to be safe at the levels used in vaccines
Note how they are medical papers based on actual studies, not novels.
Cox and Forsyth 1988
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3378430
Grabenstein 1996
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/chem_background/exsumpdf/thimerosal_508.pdf
Figueiredo A, Goncalo S.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8833465

I think we've established that the CDC believe thimerosal to be perfectly safe. are intent on having us believe that thimerosal is perfectly safe.
There are others who are not so convinced though.

So do you actually have any evidence at all that thimerosal is not safe? or is it just one of your gut feelings like the shapeshifting lizards elvis being alive 911 and JFK?.........
Because the CDC have actual studies that show it to be safe.


There is no shortage of evidence showing the toxicity of thimerosal.I'm sure you can find it if you're sufficiently interested.

If there is no shortage of evidence you will have no trouble posting it then?.So post it or shut up.

Fuck off and find it yourself.

So i take it, as per normal, you don't have any actual evidence then? gee thats a surprise:lol:

[husaberg]

And then there's the Hepatitis B vaccine.

Can't have those one day old babies getting into sex, drugs and rock 'n roll unvaccinated now, can we?
Another fail by you, its almost like you want to fail.

In those who get infected around the time of birth 90% develop chronic hepatitis B while less than 10% of those infected after the age of five do.
The virus is transmitted by exposure to infectious blood or body fluids. Infection around the time of birth or from contact with other people's blood during childhood is the most frequent method by which hepatitis B is acquired in areas where the disease is common.

In highly endemic areas, hepatitis B is most commonly spread from mother to child at birth (perinatal transmission),
Hepatitis B prevalence is highest in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia, where between 5–10% of the adult population is chronically infected. High rates of chronic infections are also found in the Amazon and the southern parts of eastern and central Europe. In the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs204/en/

[Katman]

And when you think about it, if vaccines are at all contributing to the increasing rates of mentally ill people like husaberk, TDL, bogan and Drew, then the pharmaceutical companies make even more money out of treating their fucked up heads over the years that follow.

It's a fucking win, win.

Nicely played, Big Pharma.

[FJRider]

If you can be bothered ...

Nah ... my statement stands ... (the one you just quoted)

[Katman]

Official infant mortality rates in the US have little meaning. The main contributing factor to their high rate is the inclusion of early gestational baby deaths, which in other countries are classified as stillborn.

Does their definition of early gestational death include SIDS?

[Katman]

And how about when twins die of SIDS within days of being vaccinated?

[husaberg]

And when you think about it, if vaccines are at all contributing to the increasing rates of mentally ill people like husaberk, TDL, bogan and Drew, then the pharmaceutical companies make even more money out of treating their fucked up heads over the years that follow.

It's a fucking win, win.

Nicely played, Big Pharma.
http://zdoggmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/stool.jpg
Funny but We have already arrived at the conclusion you suffer from extreme paranoia...........
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/181959-Nato
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/178730-So-how-much-do-you-know-about-Geo-Engineering
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/181552-Human-microchip
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/169514-Any-one-have-Round-up-shares
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/177417-Oregon-stand-off
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/174599-Alternative-fuels
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/158249-Boston-bombing
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/161517-Are-the-NZ-police-for-real
You are also too thick to figure out it clearly costs more and requires much more pharmaceuticals to treat the disease the vacinations prevent.
but no one ever accused you of being bright.

[Virago]

A bit of an aside. This one time at band-camp...

One thing I have learned in recent times is that you can't underestimate the ethical and professional requirements for medical testing and research.

My future son-in-law completed his Doctorate in Immunology at Otago University a couple of years ago. He was immediately offered a three-year research fellowship at Oxford University in England, to complement a research project.

He talked me through his doctorate topic and his future research direction. I'll admit, my eyes glazed over after about a minute - he lost me completely.

He did impart a lot of information through, about the rigorous process and procedures involved in research and testing. A huge amount of his work time is taken up by detailed compliance matters, with meticulous recording, review, and peer review. This is on top of the ethical issues and process involved with animal or human testing.

He stressed that a researcher only ever has one shot at creating and maintaining a professional reputation. A fudged result or associated figures can destroy a career and reputation. This applies to both the educational and commercial fields.

My point is (finally), is that medical testing and research should not be idly dismissed as false or fraudulent. Some very dedicated and professional people are behind it.

[husaberg]

My point is (finally), is that medical testing and research should not be idly dismissed as false or fraudulent. Some very dedicated and professional people are behind it.

But he said Big Pharma
Big Pharma man;).......
330176

[bogan]

And when you think about it, if vaccines are at all contributing to the increasing rates of mentally ill people like husaberk, TDL, bogan and Drew, then the pharmaceutical companies make even more money out of treating their fucked up heads over the years that follow.

It's a fucking win, win.

Nicely played, Big Pharma.

When you think about it, pharmaceutical companies are making our quality of life better. Anything else is just meaningless conjecture symptomatic of someone whose head is still fucked up...

[bogan]

My point is (finally), is that medical testing and research should not be idly dismissed as false or fraudulent. Some very dedicated and professional people are behind it.

In addition to that, it's very rarely closed science, there is no need for idle dismissal when the testing and research can be so easily independently verified. And in addition to that, it is constantly happening through the peer review process. The absence of a smoking gun through rational peer review, and proliferation of misdirection and indoctrination of the ignorant like katman and the other site conspiracy theorists, tells those of rational mind just how lost the antivaccer cause is.

[Katman]

My point is (finally), is that medical testing and research should not be idly dismissed as false or fraudulent. Some very dedicated and professional people are behind it.

Dare I say it - including Andrew Wakefield.

[husaberg]

Dare I say it - including Andrew Wakefield.

Great example He was proven to be a fraud in case you missed that because his data was shown to be false misleading and made up.
He was struck off the UK medical register for his fraudulent 1998 research paper.

British Administrative Court Justice in a related decision—"There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield's) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked.

He was being paid to conduct the study by solicitors representing parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR"
Ordered investigations "without the requisite paediatric qualifications" including colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures ("spinal taps") on his research subjects without the approval of his department's ethics board and contrary to the children's clinical interests,when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children's symptoms or medical history.
"Act[ed] 'dishonestly and irresponsibly' in failing to disclose ... how patients were recruited for the study"
"Conduct[ed] the study on a basis not approved by the hospital's ethics committee.
Purchased blood samples—for £5 each—from children present at his son's birthday party, which Wakefield joked about in a later presentation.[87]
"[S]howed callous disregard for any distress or pain the children might suffer"
Wakefield denied the charges on 28 January 2010, the GMC ruled against Wakefield on all issues, stating that he had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant"
In addition
In April 2010, it was discovered laboratory aspects of his findings in a report in the BMJ, recounting how normal clinical histopathology results (obtained from the Royal Free hospital) had been subjected to wholesale changes, from normal to abnormal, in the medical school and published in The Lancet.

Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism;
Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were "previously normal", five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns;

Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination;
In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results—noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations—were changed after a medical school "research review" to "non-specific colitis";
The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations—all giving times to onset of problems in months—helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link;
Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation.
There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children's cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross. Moreover, although the scale of the GMC's 217 day hearing precluded additional charges focused directly on the fraud, the panel found him guilty of dishonesty concerning the study's admissions criteria, its funding by the Legal Aid Board, and his statements about it afterwards

On 2 February 2010, The Lancet formally retracted Wakefield's 1998 paper.The retraction states that, "The claims in the original paper that children were 'consecutively referred' and that investigations were 'approved' by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false.

[Virago]

Dare I say it - including Andrew Wakefield.

Refer to my second-last paragraph.

[Katman]

Refer to my second-last paragraph.

I've read the Medical Council verdict.

Have you?

[Virago]

Does their definition of early gestational death include SIDS?

SIDS is included in infant mortality rates (as it should be).

The US's early gestational death rate includes any premature baby that is born alive, no matter how briefly. In other countries babies that are born alive but below certain survival parameters are classified as stillborn. This variance in classification makes an appreciable difference to the US mortality figures.

[Katman]

This variance in classification makes an appreciable difference to the US mortality figures.

Got any actual numbers?

[Virago]

Got any actual numbers?

I've only found estimated numbers. One report I found estimates that the extreme pre-term (non-survivable) births make up 40% of the US infant mortality rate, and that a reclassification would drop their current rating from 6.1 to 4.2 deaths per 1,000.

[Katman]

I've only found estimated numbers. One report I found estimates that the extreme pre-term (non-survivable) births make up 40% of the US infant mortality rate, and that a reclassification would drop their current rating from 6.1 to 4.2 deaths per 1,000.

Come on dude, you know bogan will want to see an actual link to the site of your claimed 'report'.

[husaberg]

SIDS is included in infant mortality rates (as it should be).

The US's early gestational death rate includes any premature baby that is born alive, no matter how briefly. In other countries babies that are born alive but below certain survival parameters are classified as stillborn. This variance in classification makes an appreciable difference to the US mortality figures.


Got any actual numbers?

Up to 40% i already posted it do try and keep up
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emily.oster/papers/imr.pdf

[Katman]

In other countries babies that are born alive but below certain survival parameters are classified as stillborn. This variance in classification makes an appreciable difference to the US mortality figures.

And do I take that to mean other countries don't include stillbirths in their infant mortality figures?

[husaberg]

And do I take that to mean other countries don't include stillbirths in their infant mortality figures?

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Mfw+i+see+a+stupid+status+on+fb+found_a37ac7_38767 71.jpg
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/159661-Thinking-of-getting-vaccinated/page194
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/159661-Thinking-of-getting-vaccinated?p=1131041715#post1131041715
https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/159661-Thinking-of-getting-vaccinated?p=1131041701#post1131041701

Buliding up to another gish gallop are we..............
Before you do how about making good on this post

There is no shortage of evidence showing the toxicity of thimerosal.
.
Provide us all with the evidence.

[Katman]

Building up to another gish gallop are we...............

You should post a picture of a cat riding a unicorn a few more times.

[Katman]

When you think about it, pharmaceutical companies are making our quality of life better. Anything else is just meaningless conjecture symptomatic of someone whose head is still fucked up...

Well, you know what they say - "every person cured is a customer lost".