Vaccinations; recent developments

[sarkeizen]

Vaccine Pandemic Targets the Innocent.

Since SeaMonkey lacks any kind of faculties to actually make an argument but loves to post link after link that he/she has barely read and certainly not taken even the slightest amount of time to try an refute.  I'll read what I can until I read something stupid.   Then I'll explain how stupid it is and why.  Then I'll ignore it unless some individual wants to draw my attention to a specific part.  In which case I'll try to respond.

So again a few sentences in we read this: "After years of mandating the cowpox vaccine in England and Japan, the death rates skyrocketed and the vaccines were eventually stopped."

Like a number of people here there's no reference at all.  It sounds a bit like Gary Null.  Anyway the mention of Japan was interesting...and wrong.  A 1910 public health record shows these numbers for smallpox deaths.

1898 40000
1899 4000
1900 721
1904 237
1905 3388
1906 109
1907 437

Vaccination history in Japan is complicated but before 1857 is was done in secret - Western medicine was still frowned upon (except for specific surgeries).  After it was done through private centers and from what I've read sometime during the Meiji restoration vaccination started to gain ground as a public service - perhaps around the 1890s and as you can see the death rate dropped even as vaccinations probably increased.

[Cap-Z-ro]

Well...somebody prone to fraud sure seems to have a lot of time on his hands.

Or maybe a pipeline to the inbred elite's office staff.

Just sayin'

Regards...

[Pirate88179]

Well...somebody prone to fraud sure seems to have a lot of time on his hands.

Or maybe a pipeline to the inbred elite's office staff.

Just sayin'

Regards...

Wow!  Finally a post with real facts and verifiable citations and links.  What a retort.

Oh wait...

Never mind.

Bill

[sarkeizen]

Well...somebody prone to fraud sure seems to have a lot of time on his hands

Well I'll take that as you admitting you have nothing to say with regard to your prior two points.   Thanks again for embarrassing yourself.

Anytime you want to jump in that ring.  I'll be here to knock you out in one (metaphorical) punch.

[allcanadian]

@Sark

Seriously?  Cap-Z-ro posts a link to an article that he has barely read.  I point out that he didn't even read the parts it linked to which had quotes from the subject of the article saying exactly the opposite of what Cap-Z-ro's article said about her.  Pointing that out adding no information?

I also provided quotes from Ben Goldacre who actually TALKED to the person in question quoted her complaining about the way the article was presented.  Also the article was from a source which gets sued for libel a lot (this information is in a link from the very article that Cap-Z-ro posted).  Was that no information there?

I also provided Dr. Harpers concerns about Gardasil which I got from an anti-vaccine radio interview.  I provided my counter point.  Again you are actually saying there is no information in any of my response(s) at all?  No potential possible alternative viewpoint you could somehow divine from all that?   This is why it's hard to take you seriously.

I read the article and found it interesting and informative as I said then you spam posted it with equally unsubstantiated claims and I ignored them... exactly which part of this do you not understand?. You seem to get all hot and bothered trying to prove yourself to the point of being obsessed by it.. No offence but instead of spam posting why not try to interact on a more personal level like a real person. I understand what your saying however I'm not convinced, no big deal, stay calm.

I also liked the logical fallacy bit, lol, I always get a kick out of that because the context is almost never logic or reason but more so narcissism. I see people trying to use this all the time however it is a bit of an art and to be honest I think you could have done better... something to consider in the future.


You seem to be a logical person so I would like to hear your thoughts on statistics which apply here. We all know about statistics don't we and it seems logical however I always had a problem with it. Now let's say the odds of winning the lottery are ten million to one however we know almost every week someone wins the lottery. So the odds for them on winning are obviously 100% and everyone else zero. Which is a way of saying the odds of statistics do apply up until the point you are actually effected by them directly.


By the same token we could say the odds of a severe reaction to immunizations is extremely low however when your child is in emergency because of a severe reaction then the statistics really don't mean jack shit do they?. As well in those rare cases resulting in death which are about the same as winning the lottery one has to wonder was it really worth it?. You see people love to talk about statistics only because they truly believe they will never be personally effected by them however when they are they are only left with unanswered questions and guilt.


You see statistics are completely impersonal however we are not, we are real people with real feelings who care deeply about the ones we love which is why I research everything and debate these issues with people like you. So tell me something I don't know... convince me otherwise.



AC