There are obvious contradictions involved with vaccination as a science and as a belief system. The primary belief based contradiction regarding vaccination is obviously people who believe that vaccines make them immune to disease but that same group believes that non vaccinated people are a threat to them. If vaccines work as the followers of vaccination believe, it means they’re immune so there’s no need to worry about the unvaccinated. That only makes sense if you’re thinking cap is on and if you’re willing to use it. Fear is proven to lower IQ to childlike levels and this is why vaccine promotion is purposely loaded with fear and this is also why the people in fear aren’t aware of the lack of logic inside many vaccine based belief systems.
Another commonly accepted contradiction inside vaccine mythology revolves around unvaccinated health care workers being sent home from their places of employment, if a disease outbreak occurs. Of course this is again a fear based tactic (on an economic level) that’s designed to trigger a childlike reaction to join the herd of non questioning and compliant vaccine takers, in order to literally continue living. Take the vaccine or we take away the fake paper currency that you need to live. That doesn’t sound tyrannical or manipulative in the least, right? If vaccines were so safe and effective….. would you really need to coerce, punish and manipulate people to accept vaccination against their will? The contradictions are obvious inside this belief system because it assumes that non vaccinated health care workers can carry or spread disease to patients or the population in general, if a disease outbreak occurs. Does a vaccinated health care worker develop a viral force field around themselves, where viruses can’t be carried on them or grow inside their body? No, vaccine science doesn’t make such a claim. Vaccine science claims that viruses will be on everyone and multiply in everyone but vaccination makes sure that a vaccinated person themselves doesn’t get sick, even though they carry the virus on them and in them. Theoretical pro vaccine science doesn’t claim that viruses hit a vaccinated person and fall off dead to the ground, on contact with an invisible viral force field that vaccination magically provides. That isn’t the way vaccines are claimed to work. Can vaccinated health care workers carry and spread disease? Of course they can. So why threaten other non vaccinated health care workers economically with fake science theory about them spreading disease more than vaccinated health care workers? The answers to that question should be obvious and it has nothing to do with health, fairness, real science or gender equality inside the health care system. Lets not forget that medical doctors do not have to “prove” they’re vaccinated because in our society the people at the top of the pyramid aren’t held to the same tyrannical standards as the people below them. That’s called a master/slave relationship.
There are very well cloaked vaccine science contradictions that are massive yet very few know anything about. Please sit down before you read this massive contradiction, which is just another word for “lie”, by the way. Lets say you’re sick and you’re believed to have influenza A or B etc etc. There are blood tests to confirm this but oddly enough the blood tests don’t test for the virus itself. The blood tests can only identify if you have antibodies to say influenza A. That’s right, the test to see if you’re sick with influenza A (or any viral disease) has NOTHING to do with the virus itself. HIV tests don’t test directly for HIV. Influenza tests don’t test directly for influenza etc etc. If that’s not shocking enough, just wait, there’s much more. So lets say the doctor takes your blood and then comes back and declares, “Jim, you have influenza A, we need to take action right away with some anti virals and other medication that attack viruses. Those medications are toxic and have massive side effects but you’re testing positive for influenza A“. Here’s what the doctor isn’t telling you and that is 1) the blood test you just took doesn’t test if you’re infected with viruses, it tests for antibodies to those viruses 2) those antibodies could be produced at least a decade prior when the virus was actually in your system at that time 3) the vast majority of viral infections are cleared by the body without incident or sickness of any kind and 4) that means you being sick today can have NOTHING to do with a viral infection and that positive test today could mean you were infected with influenza A ten years ago, when maybe that infection didn’t even make you sick in the first place. So now the doctor has you scared like your infected but he knows that there’s a massive chance you’re ACTUALLY NOT INFECTED and they don’t tell you anything that’s really going on……..plus they’re going to use this faulty test to pump you full of the most toxic anti viral drugs known to mankind like say Tamiflu. But wait, this next contradiction is massive. Please sit down. Guess what measure vaccine science uses to claim people are immune to disease? Vaccine science claims you’re immune to disease when you PRODUCE ANTIBODIES after vaccination. So the blood test for viral infection declares you’re sick if you test positive for antibodies and then vaccine science claims your immune to sickness if you test positive for antibodies. Let that sink in and read that again.
Here’s a good documentary on the insanity of vaccine science and how it makes very little sense when it’s followed with an intelligent eye and mind. This sort of thing is what all the vaccine uproar is about. Vaccine and viral science has been lying to everyone for decades but we’re only catching on now because so many children are being killed and damaged by these lies. Once a parent looks into this issue, these contractions (lies) start to become obvious.
Jason, everyone knows no vaccine is 100% effective, which is why in outbreaks the proportion of unvaccinated people getting the infection is always much higher than those who are vaccinated.
Concerning influenza, if you’re tested in an ER it’s not a blood test for antibodies – it’s a nasal swab for specific influenza viral proteins.
And if you have HIV antibodies you have HIV. After diagnosis and during treatment the CD4 count and HIV RNA levels are monitored.
What books on vaccines, influenza and HIV are you reading at home to lead you so astray?
Bill how does having antibodies for a virus mean you have the virus? How long do antibodies last in the blood Bill? Let us know……….and also Bill I thought antibodies meant you’re immune to disease? Isn’t that what vaccine science declares. So how does viral theory declare that antibodies mean you sick and vaccine theory declares that that antibodies make you immune? Come on Bill?
Hi Bill,
“…which is why in outbreaks the proportion of unvaccinated people getting the infection is always much higher…” Is it? I was curious, so I looked up the latest study that must underly your assertion. I found a large study conducted by Dr. Varun Phadke and his team at Emory University in Atlanta. Now although Phadke et al. believed your assertion as passionately as you do, their conclusions were not backed up by their own data. When they examined data from 10,600 cases of whooping cough they found that 45% had not been vaccinated or had not had booster shots in five of the largest outbreaks. That’s NOT a higher proportion Bill. In fact, it’s much more Fanning than that even for the vaccination lobby. The 45% included people who HAD been vaccinated in some way, so the proportion of unvaccinated people would be lower, and probably MUCH lower. They also restricted their numbers to the five largest outbreaks, can you guess why Bill? I’m sure you can. It’s not because they didn’t know the answer to the question of how many unvaccinated people were infected OVERALL, but because 45% was the most damning number they could get out of the data without outright fraud. This means that OVER 55% of the infected SHOULD have been immune if the vaccination in question were effective.
Do you think Dr. Phadke will get another research grant to continue his stellar scientific enquiries? Unfortunately, I can practically guarantee it.
As a side note, having HIV antibodies has no correlation with CD4 counts. However, that’s for a discussion on the false link between HIV and AIDS.
Influenza and pertussis vaccines have the least efficacy, so naturally you cherry pick a pertussis study. But then you additionally cherry pick only the pertussis data from it but don’t mention measles.
And you’re an AIDS denialist? Do you believe in germ theory?
I mentioned pertussis because it was the most blatently misrepresented by an obviously biased researcher. However, at the end of the day it all means nothing until there is a proper clinical study that compares the health outcomes of vaccinated and non-vaccinated subjects. This has not been done, and because of the useless rhetoric, looks like it will not be done in the near future. Although recent developments like the EU calling for open access to scientific papers by 2020 may culminate in a cultural change that eventually allows this research.
I do not deny AIDS at all. The definition of AIDS is very specific and clever, but I do deny that it is a single disease. There are a raft of reasons why HIV has nothing to do with AIDS, such as instances of AIDS without HIV infection, HIV infection without AIDS developing, the fact that HIV does NOT kill T-cells, and that it does NOT infect enough T-cells.
Do I believe in germ theory? What a strange question, you do realise that this isn’t religion we are discussing, this is science. In science there is no room for belief, only relative certainties. I am relatively certain that germs can and do cause disease. Do I think that’s the end of the story? Hell no.
It’s semantics but people who don’t believe HIV causes AIDS are generally called AIDS denialists.
Do you think a perfectly healthy person can contract an infectious disease?
Every single vaccine on the market has gone through Phase 3 randomized placebo controlled trials to determine the safety and efficacy of the vaccine using thousands of human subjects. What you stated, and what Jason regularly states is just a fabrication. A simple search on pubmed yields thousands of such studies.
Of course no currently approved vaccine is tested using a placebo controlled study because they’ve already been proven safe and effective.
Also, here is an article with links to several vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies that you claim do not exists:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1884314
A great article on the issues surrounding vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-perils-and-pitfalls-of-doing-a-vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated-study/
A randomized placebo controlled study can only be done if unvaccinated people volunteer to be injected with an unknown (vaccine or placebo) substance. Or would anti-vaxxers consider this to be unethical?
Tyler why can’t you give one study to look at? I think you made a mistake on the first link above because it’s a link that shows vaccines don’t work so I assume you didn’t mean to put it up. The second link is a compilation of studies with narrative and old one at that, where the first paragraph cites a study used to detract an autism/vaccine link. This link is firm of course because a coauthor of that study has come forward to say he lied about the data. S0 although a study is in there, pick one and put it up.
I’m sorry Paul, but you are wrong on this one. You are looking at absolute numbers. If the vaccine coverage in the infected population is less than the overall vaccine coverage in the general population then a higher proportion of unvaccinated individuals have contracted the disease.
Let’s look at your example. The pertussis vaccine coverage in the general population in the US is north of 95%. For your assumptions to hold true, the vaccine coverage in the infected population must match the vaccine coverage in the general population. What this study is saying is the exact opposite of what you are trying to prove. Even with the low efficacy rate of the pertussis vaccine, only 55% of the infected are vaccinated.
Here is a good example of what I’m talking about…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1884314
Let me break it down for you. According to your logic vaccinated people are more at risk because 84.5% of infected individuals are vaccinated. This is exactly the logic you are using. Here is the reality:
8931 people in the study population
563 cases of measles
84.5% vaccine coverage in the infected
87 unvaccinated infected
476 vaccinated infected
According to you being unvaccinated means better protection… Not the case.
99% coverage.. Therefore 89 people unvaccinated in the study population.
8841 people vaccinated
476/8841 = ~95% efficacy (very close to the stated efficacy rate of the measles vaccine)
87/89 = almost 100% infection rate.
What group would you rather be in. I think maybe you need to learn some basic math skills before you trot out studies and statistics that actually prove the opposite of what you are trying to say.
Jason, I didn’t say having antibodies to any virus means you have the virus. I said having antibodies to HIV means you have HIV. There are many different viruses and many different human immune responses to them. Immunology is complicated!
How long antibodies last in the blood depends on what class of antibodies you’re talking about and whether the stimulus that triggered them is still present. For example a patient with chronic untreated hepatitis C will always be generating antibodies to it.
Vaccine science does not say that having antibodies to something equals immunity to it (e.g., hepatitis C and HIV). For some infectious diseases, though, vaccines can trigger antibodies that lower a person’s chances of catching them.
I hope that helps clarify things for your readers.
Show us one study that studied vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations, which proved vaccines could help reduce the severity of the disease. We will be waiting…………forever for that one.
What problem do you have with the 1954 Salk vaccine field trial?
The 1954 Salk vaccine field trail was not random. Respondants who gave consent were likely to be from more affluent families. The confounding influences rendered the results useless. It was also conducted under extreme political and public pressure that demanded results.
There were 2 parts to the study. There were over 1.6 million children and overall the risk of polio was reduced 80-90%. About 40% of the study was a classic randomized blinded placebo-controlled prospective study and about 60% was “observed control”, where 2nd graders were vaccinated and 1st and 3rd graders were not and all 3 groups were followed.
Affluence was a risk factor for polio BTW which makes the results even more impressive.
Because of the Salk field trial widespread vaccination programs were eventually adopted worldwide and we’re down to just Pakistan and Afghanistan until polio is eradicated! Just like with smallpox! Why don’t you 2 come on in for the big win?
Thank you Bill, I will.
No, I’m afraid that the affluence factor does not make the result more impressive Bill. The reason that the affluent were over-represented was the simple fact that they had the means to go to the doctor when they were sick.
The reason the incidence of poliomyelitis decreased steadily from 1954 onwards is the direct result of the reclassification of what polio was. Prior to 1954 all cases of polio were reported clinically as the partial or complete paralysis of one or more muscle groups. Thats a hole you could drive a truck through. After 1954, and in successive stages that mirror the vaccine movement, polio was reclassified under stricter and stricter criteria. We still have the polio of 1954, it is called acute flaccid paralysis, and is made up of the following diseases to name a few (often cases are not labelled with a primary cause at all), Guillaine-Barre syndrome, cytomegalovirus polyradiculomyelopathy, acute transverse myelitis, lyme borreliosis, nonpolio enterovirus and toxic myopathies.
The reason the rest of the world, including places like India, are now polio free is because the WHO adopted the same definitions as the CDC. The “polio” of the early 20th century is alive and well, it has simply been reclassified out of public sight. This shouts that the poliovirus was never the culprit.
Smallpox? You really don’t want to go there. The “science” of smallpox vaccination is hard to view as anything but abject stupidity, right up there with running Semelweis out of the medical profession for suggesting that physicians should wash their hands (same era).
One study? How about many studies… The chicken pox vaccine is a great example because it is recent and most of us are old enough to remember getting chicken pox. How do you explain the rapid decline in chicken pox incidence? Did we suddenly get clean water and sanitation in the 90’s?
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/197/Supplement_2/S82.long
I really like this review citing multiple placebo controlled varicella vaccine studies.
http://adc.bmj.com/content/85/2/83.full
The assertion that these studies don’t exist is just a flat out lie. Of course you will not find any reference to these studies in any anti-vaccine book (of which I’ve read multiple) or anti-vax blog post.
Once again every single currently approved vaccine on the market had to go through Phase 3 randomized placebo controlled trials with thousands of subjects proving efficacy and safety.
Again two reviews of many studies. Tyler place one up. Make it one line. Tell me what you think it proves in one line. so we can pin you down a bit. Less talking, more citing of one source and saying “here, this study proves” that a vaccinated group was compared to a non vaccinated group that ended with the vaccinated group being proven more immune (in real life immunity – not antibody production).
One line.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198405313102201
Double-blind placebo controlled study of the chicken pox vaccine effectiveness.
Two groups followed for 9 months. 39 cases of chicken pox. All cases in the unvaccinated.
ZERO cases in the vaccinated.
Not sure you could have a more clear cut case than this. There are so many of these studies for every single vaccine on the market. Easily accessible. That is why I’m amazed that people keep making these claims that these studies don’t exist.
Paul, since there still isn’t a treatment for polio it didn’t really matter when kids saw a doctor. The theory about why affluent children were more susceptible has been that kids from poor families had multiple, small, earlier exposures in life and had more chance to develop resistance.
Now the reclassification thing is just nonsense. The more stringent diagnostic criteria used in the Salk field trials were adopted everywhere once widespread polio vaccination began, so many non-polio cases of paralysis were weeded out. That’s a far cry from renaming polio-induced paralysis.
India is actually a great example, Paul. It’s a country with over a billion people, and part of the successful vaccination campaign involved widespread screening for AFP. Did you know that all cases of AFP in India are screened by PCR of stool samples for polio? And that now, thankfully, they’re all negative? When that happens it’s called non-polio AFP! Because it’s AFP not caused by polio! You should read about it!
What do you think happened to smallpox, Paul? Did all those BigPharma-influenced scientists just rename it too?
However, it does matter if they NEVER saw the doctor. I’m aware of the official theory for why poor children had fewer instances of the disease, but it’s horseshit. A far better theory is that the massive production and use of pesticides like DDT, heptachlor, dieldrin, tetraethyl pyrophosphate (TEPP), malathion, and benzene hexachloride (BHC) beginning in the 1940s contaminated the milk supply. How many poor children were drinking store bought cow’s milk do you think? The widespread use of these pesticides correlates with the sudden increase seen in cases of AFP.
“Now the reclassification thing is just nonsense.” Hard to argue with such wilful ignorance, so I’ll just leave it at that. If you believe that the massive tightening of the criteria for identifying cases of polio had NO effect on the number of reported cases, I’ll walk away with a clear conscience.
Yes, I know how poliomyelitis is screened for, but none of the points made in your second last paragraph address the fact that the definition of polio was narrowed to the point where it was considered eradicated while AFP continued unabated until DDT was banned in 1972. Coincidently, DDT was banned in India in 1989, and India was hyperendemic until the early 1990s: you can do the maths for me.
Perhaps you should avail yourself of the writings of M.S. Biskind and Rachel Carson (the woman who wrote “Silent Spring” and stimulated the creation of the EPA).
I didn’t mention BigPharma at all my paid-troll. You put that strawman down.
So Paul, are you saying polio isn’t an infectious disease? Do you think any diseases are? I’ll ask you again, do you think a perfectly healthy person can catch an infection?
The more stringent diagnostic criteria DID reduce the reported incidence of polio, Paul. But not to zero in all but 2 countries.
And what happened to smallpox, Paul? Are you going to just evade the question forever?