Here is more examples@steemtruth
Vaccines did NOT save us !!
Child Health Safety has compiled an excellent report on data the drug industry do not want you to see. Here are two centuries of UK, USA and Australian official death statistics which show conclusively and scientifically that modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies.
The main advances in combating disease over 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water. Improved sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions also contribute. This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research:
More graphs
http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/Vaccines.html
The only way to eradicate paralytic poliomyelitis is to STOP VACCINATING!!!
Dr Viera Scheibner (PhD)
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2398/rr/578260
In developing countries, polio is blamed on poor sanitation. But in the United States, polio was blamed on lack of immunity due to good sanitation!
LOOK AT THESE GRAPHS
http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/pesticides-and-polio-a-critique-of-scientific-literature/
"The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization..... There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease."
--- Dr Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/decline1.html
Graph showing disease decline (Australia) before introduction of vaccines
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/graph.html
Figures one (1) through eleven (11) graphically illustrate that in North America, Europe, and the South Pacific , major declines in life-threatening infectious diseases occurred historically either without, or far in advance of public immunization efforts for specific diseases as listed. This provides irrefutable evidence that vaccines are not necessary for the effective elimination of a wide range of infectious diseases
Figures eleven (12) through twenty-four (24) graphically illustrate that immunization is not by any means a proven and foolproof measure for protection from various infectious disease conditions. It is often inconsequential epidemiologically, and in some cases it is shown to actually worsen health-care outcomes.
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/ImmunizationGraphs-RO2009.pdf
"The medical historians of our century... agree that the decline of the epidemics which had wrought havoc in the Middle Ages was not due to the introduction of vaccination, but of hygiene, for they had diminished long before large-scale inoculations had begun..." Hans Ruesch, 'History of Medicine', Slaughter of the Innocent, CIVIS, 1991, p.194
http://medicinekillsmillions.com/articles/truth-about-decline-of-the-infectious-diseases.html
Having better food, clean water, better medical technology and proper hygiene have decreased infection rates and mortality rates astronomically.
However it seems like a logical fallacy to take that fact, then assume that because the rates were already in decline, any newly introduced treatment method must be ineffective. It's sort of like saying cars don't need airbags because they have seat-belts.
There have been small regional outbreaks of measles and other diseases that are mostly eradicated. Overwhelmingly those outbreaks have occurred in non-immunized populations.
Example
Most notably, 89% (340 of 383) of the cases of measles infection in this outbreak were in unvaccinated individuals. This seems like evidence that points to the fact that vaccines are working, despite the fact that improvements in nutrition, hygiene and quality of life have had a bigger impact on the rates of infection.
Are there dangers to vaccination? Absolutely - And those side-effects shouldn't be ignored! Research should take place to look into these rare, but serious dangers, and the vaccinations should be modified to reduce these risks!
In my opinion the risk of catching a serious infection far outweighs the risk of side-effects from a vaccination, but I can see how people who have been affected by these serious side-effects of vaccinations might think differently on the subject.
You have to balance the benefits against the risks. That's how you make decisions in medicine.
The point of this article is that deaths from these various diseases had already dropped drastically prior to the introduction of vaccination.
What you don't do with this information is say that vaccines don't work. What you instead do with this information is say that because the risk of mortality from these diseases is now much lower, there is much less reason to use a vaccine to protect against it.
If there is an illness that has, for example, a 50% mortality rate, and a vaccine that runs a 5% chance of a serious, life threatening reaction, then if the disease is very prevalent and the risk of catching it is high, then it makes sense to get the vaccine even given the chance of a bad and possibly dangerous reaction to the vaccine. But if the mortality rate of the disease is 1%, then I'm not at all sure it makes sense to take a 5% risk of a life threatening reaction in order to avoid a 1% risk of mortality, because you'd kill a lot more people with the vaccine than you would if you just let the illness run its course through the society.
How many measles deaths have there been in the US in the last 10 years? Zero. How many deaths from the measles vaccine? 108 according to VAERS.
Given the remarkably low mortality rates for all the above listed illnesses, essentially zero, and given that these low rates were achieved mostly by improvements in sanitation and nutrition -- the vaccines that protect against them had darned well better be no more dangerous than water. Otherwise it makes no sense to use them.
To discuss the 2014 Amish measles outbreak you mentioned, how many deaths were there? Zero. How many people over age 55 got measles in this outbreak in the Amish community? Zero.
Why? Because those people acquired natural immunity from catching the disease prior to the introduction of vaccines, and the immunity is lifelong.
Thus there are two ways to go at protecting a community. One is to allow our immune systems to learn. The other is to try to trick them with vaccines.
Unbiased and honest inquiry into the possibility that vaccines have side effects, that tricking the immune system might have consequences, that injecting proteins directly into the bloodstream to stimulate immunity is not normal or physiologic and might have serious consequences -- these are the questions that our medical system ought to be asking itself. We should be asking if the explosion of food allergies is a result of injecting proteins into the bloodstream.
But, because Pharma makes a killing off of vaccines, and because Pharma and regulatory agencies and the elected officials who fund the regulatory agencies and receive campaign donations from Pharma (a situation called an Iron Triangle) all want to stifle discussion and let the money making continue, we cannot have these discussions that should be had. Instead, the discussions can only happen on the fringes amongst people who don't feel compelled to practice the religion of salvation through blind adherence to bureaucratic protocol.
I couldn't agree more. This is very much needed.
The risks of catching these diseases are low, in part because of herd immunity. With 85 percent plus of the population being vaccinated, these diseases have become far less prevalent, and in cases where infection occurs, it's unlikely to make it through more than a few people before stopping. Taking away that herd immunity would make these diseases more prevalent and the benefits of vaccination might outweigh the complications. I'd be interested in learning more about the rates of complications from vaccines vs the rates of death/complications from infection by the diseases themselves.
Edit:
World Health Organization stats on vaccine complication rates. I'll come back to this for a thorough analysis once I have more time.
Herd immunity ? You mean a measles party ?
Since when are so many people scared of benign microbes ?
Fever and a rash
Vaccinating is definitely more safe than purposely infecting a child at a measles party.
Is vaccinating more safe for an individual than not vaccinating? Is it still more safe if everyone stops immunizing? That's a more interesting analysis, and I do plan on crunching the numbers.
One thing to note however is the definition for “unvaccinated” that some of these reports use. Often times they mean “not fully vaccinated” and most of us stopped getting our booster shots after we graduated from school. If that’s their definition then 89% isn’t surprising since that’s probably close to the number of adults who haven’t had their booster shots.