Vaccinations; recent developments

[sarkeizen]

https://www.intellihub.com/vaccine-horrors-medical-mutilation-innocent-children-exposed-graphic-photos-safe-vaccines-gone-horribly-wrong/

Any reason they don't link to the actual image sources?  I mean why would they try so hard to avoid giving you some context?  Anti-vaccine people always seem to want you to take immense leaps of faith.  Most of the pictures seem to be some form of severe eczema which is at least a possible vaccine reaction.  If it is, it's a) exceptionally rare and b) usually self-resolves.  The HPV reference is nonsense and the line about: " CDC officials, media newscasters and U.S. lawmakers claim all these photos do not exist" indicates the amount of carelessness used in assembling the article.

[sarkeizen]

The video in my last post is very good.

Are you saying it's very strong evidence of something?  Can you reproduce the evidence here?

Same old. Same old.

[joel321]

Sark, I personally believe that you need to understand the consequentialness of drugs...you just have to understand that drugs do not cure ANYTHING but just ONLY help the immune system.

I was reading today about the malaria virus. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31533559

What the "study" means is that, in south east Asia, the malaria virus is becoming immune to the "vaccination" (artemisinin ) because the the virus is ONLY being "fought" with medicine! What does that mean? = the virus will become immune (mutate) eventually. So what that means is BEAUTIFUL! That drugs don't cure "viruses". The immunity does!

The article goes on to say that Africa is the next to be suffering from malaria. BUT then the study shows that Africans have more immunity for maleria which means that even though Africa may have more malaria cases, their body is becoming immune to it over time. = higher percentage of survivors than just avoiding malaria with drugs/vaccinations.

Just another example how drugs fail and the IMMUNE system works. Did you get that sark? Malaria survivors survive because of their immunity and not because of the vaccination SINCE the virus will ALWAYS become IMMUNE to the vaccine eventually!

Very important thing to learn here....VACCINATIONS are not the key! Since the virus will eventually will mutate to evade the vaccine!

How many times do I have to tell you that not getting sick in the first place surpasses vaccinations in the long run?

If you are really that smart sark, why are people dying from dancing in the middle of the street during rush hour? http://youtu.be/9_zduDy1SoA well, he did not die but can you explain why would someone do that and then explain why would you feel pity for such bundle of atoms? Actually those are the TYPE of people that will kill you passively.  Agree?

[sarkeizen]

Nice to see that you're starting to drop the affectation.

...

So in Africa there are protozoa which are resistant or partially resistant to an very specific anti-microbial called artemisinin.  If these parasites migrate to India we can expect a lot more deaths than in Africa because in Africa so many people have died of the disease there has been a selective pressure on people to develop some greater ability to survive the disease.  This "immunity" (not a very precise word) is in the form of an allele which causes other kinds of illness and death but short-term disease resistance.

While this has very little to do with vaccination being effective and safe compared to being unvaccinated. You seem to want to stretch the analogy.  It's probably just as good a warning against remaining unvaccinated as anything else.  In this case you have a group of people dying - because Joel says so - and over time this selects for disease resistance however that resistance is a trade off making the population MORE SUSCEPTIBLE to longer term illness.

Also you still seem confused that vaccines are preventative measures.

[sarkeizen]

"Ironically, the U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates out of 34 nations surveyed, beating out nations like Slovenia, Singapore, Greece, and Cuba. Correspondingly the U.S. also has the most required childhood immunization doses at 26."

Wow that's a real comedy of errors but you didn't read the study right?  You just read some chiropractor who hopefully read some of it tell you want it said and you swallowed it whole.  The study is by an independent researcher - who I can't find any credentials on at all - and a computer scientist.   So unless the first guy is a statistician they already probably know less than nothing about what they're talking about.

They make no attempt to determine the variance between uptake and the recommended schedules, or the differences in the ways various countries measure infant mortality.  No attempt to look at year to year progression of both variables. They also grouped the values for no adequate reason.  All to explain a correlation of 0.7.

I could do the analysis but considering that would likely be 1,000,000 times the work that you have ever done in investigating vaccine harm.  I'm not going to bother but it's not hard to see that if you were to plot these over time instead of over country you would see a decline in infant mortality as vaccines are introduced.  Then again maybe if someone here offers me a lolipop - like Joel playing me a few games on Kiseido - I'll consider running it through R.