Vaccines are ineffective and dangerous

Post Reply New Topic

I addressed that in my post. Please substantiate your allegations that the drug companies controls medical school curriculum or writes the textbooks. From what I know, textbooks are generally written by experienced university professors, not drug company reps. I will not reject the possibility that drug companies are doing the things you claim offhand, but I would like to see what you're basing those claims on before I believe them.

What are the benefits? I thought they were supposed to make someone immune to the disease they are vaccinated against. I don't see how vaccines can be considered effective when I read stuff like this:



Please answer this for me: What benefits did the people in Ghana receive as a result of getting vaccinated against measles?

The government admits it paid out over $2 billion to victims of vaccine damage. I don't see why any rational person would take that risk unless there's evidence they actually work. When I mention an herbal treatment, I'm asked for double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that show it's effective. When it comes to vaccines, I'm told just take them or you're a conspiracy nut and not given any evidence that they work.

A lot of your examples are really old. Technology has improved a lot since then.

zendell I can turn you spinning on your head, & going into meltdown when I get you to think about this.

If you think what you think about vaccines, how you know where your getting this information from is any more good than someone who has proof that it don't work, last time I looked normally people over look stuff as it will end up decrediting them can happen on both sides ( then someone else changes what course's it, you remove what people say course's it but then your stuck with still having it )... So how do you know that the evidence that say's that it has no effect or benefits is any more valid than that what says its good...

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07 ... dence.html Dr H Albonico

Every single one of them type of sites use examples of past like Dr H albonico

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2 ... t_work.htm

I believe vaccines are in every First World country and in most Third World countries also. I'd be interested in whether chronic diseases are lower in Third World countries and increase when vaccination programs are started.



I always thought immunizations meant you are immune (couldn't get) the disease. If the rate was really lower in the vaccinated group, then there would be some benefit. I'd like to see a good study to see if that's really true.

I'm glad you plan to study to be a doctor to help people. The problem I see with Western medicine is that medical schools (I think I'm not sure) rely on high-quality studies that only drug companies can afford. Drug companies are only interested in treating symptoms because it's more profitable. The system is designed so that no one has an incentive to search for causes and cures of chronic diseases. I talked to my (conventional) doctor and he said it bothers him too that he often can only prescribe drugs to treat his patients symptoms but can't do anything to make them healthy. I asked him about tests alternative doctors use to diagnose treatable problems common in CFS but he can't order them because the alternative tests haven't been adequately studied to confirm they are accurate. It's the same with treatments. People have recovered from CFS with alternative treatments but conventional doctors are taught not to try them because of (a reasonable) concern about a placebo effect. The problem is that the treatments will never be proven effective because no one will spend the money to perform the necessary studies because the treatments are either off-patent drugs or non-patentable herbs. There's no good way to know which treatments are placebos and which are effective if no one ever studies them so there's no hope. Alternative doctors rely on clinical experience and evaluate whether the potential benefit exceeds the risks. They can do this because almost all their patients have the same chronic illnesses.

As far as drug companies, there's evidence they create drugs to provide short-term relief while at the same time causing long-term damage that requires treatment with more drugs. For example, there's evidence that rhumatoid arthritis may be caused by an infection. I saw a commercial on TV for a rhumatoid arthritis drug to treat pain. The commercial said a side-effect is that it suppresses the immune system. The patient's pain is improved but the infection that causes the pain gets worse. The result is the patient is never cured and requires drugs to treat their symptoms for the rest of their life.

As far as vaccines, I read evidence that they shift the immune system toward Th2 which results in allergies and autoimmunity and also, due to Th1 being lessened, results in chronic infections with viruses, yeasts, and intracellular bacteria.

I looked up autoimmune diseases at mayoclinic.com and under research it says most are likely caused by chronic infections. The recommended treatment is steroids and medicine to suppress the immune system. The treatment makes the infections worse and the patient is never cured. I believe the chronic infections and autoimmunity may be caused by vaccines causing a dysfunctional immune system.

Maybe I'm an idiot but that's what I think. I'm also frustrated at having an HMO that won't cover any alternative doctors who specialize in CFS (I have CFS and autism).

I hope you study and become a good doctor and help lots of people.

No, you're certainly not an idiot. There's a lot of information out there, much of it seems contradictory, and our biological knowledge changes almost too fast for people to keep up with. When Jenner began his smallpox vaccinations, he realized that people only got sick from smallpox once- they either died from it or developed an immunity. He also found out, from talking to rural farmers, that people who became infected with cowpox also derived immunity to smallpox from that infection. This was useful to know because cowpox has a lower fatality rate than smallpox. Jenner's first vaccines used cowpox virus and caused recipients to develop a mild case of cowpox, after which they would be immune to smallpox. A very few people would die as a result of this vaccination, but the risk was orders of magnitude less than leaving oneself open to a real smallpox infection. Now, it can be argued if modern vaccines are contaminated/ of inferior quality, but the facts clearly show that vaccination worked extremely well against smallpox. Incidentally, Jenner's work predates that of Lister and Pasteur, so the drop in smallpox from that vaccine can't be attributed to sanitation or better understanding of how disease spreads.

Chronic diseases are undoubtedly lower in Third World countries and probably increase when vaccination programs are started, but remember that correlation does not indicate causation. People who only live to their mid-twenties are not going to have enough time to develop chronic illnesses such as arthritis.

The fact that all First World nations practice vaccination indicates that there may be something to it. We do have pretty decent life expectancies, despite our poor lifestyles (diet and exercise habits) undoubtedly contributing to many medical problems. Vaccines were initially greeted with suspicion and distrust, but proved themselves to the medical community and to the people through their success in preventing disease. They are so broadly accepted that I would say the burden of proof now lies on those who claim vaccines are harmful or ineffective, rather than on those who support vaccination.

Most vaccines today use a deactivated (dead) virus to induce immunity. The immune system will see the virus and develop antibodies to fight it. These antibodies will still be present in the system when the person is later exposed to a live virus, and their immune system will be better able to respond to the infection. No medical process is fool-proof, sometimes the antibodies will no longer work, and of course you have to worry about newer viruses that have evolved to avoid those antibodies.

The specific field of medicine I hope to work in is infectious disease research, most particularly in viruses, which are the targets of vaccination efforts. Vaccines are preventative medicine, they do not treat symptoms but pre-empt the cause. Of course, there is still substantial drug company profiteering from vaccines, because if everyone is vaccinated then a steady demand is assured. There are serious issues within the Western medical system but it is still preferable to many of the alternatives. Remember- Asians come to study in our medical schools more frequently than we go to theirs.

My opinion is that the best way to prevent disease is through sanitation and containment (possibly through quarantine). Sanitation acts against ALL disease, while you need a new vaccine for every virus (or in the case of influenza, 2 new vaccines a year to deal with new strains) and new antibiotics every few years to deal with bacteria. Containment works very well- keep a disease from spreading, and it will die out. Look at HIV/AIDS. All the people who are currently HIV positive will die before a cure is found and successfully implemented. If these people do not spread HIV/AIDS any further than it already is, the disease will die with them. This sounds horrible and callous, but there's really no other way to stop AIDS other than for the people who currently have it to be quarantined or in some way prevented from ever spreading it.

I agree with you that more research needs to be done in what is now termed "alternative" medicine. It's pretty risky to take something that hasn't been tested, but how will we ever know if something works when we refuse to test it? I would like to see some of these methods tested, because either new and potentially life-saving treatment options will be opened or dangerous quackery will be refuted. Either way, patients are better off through more research. I also would like to see more focus on the root cause of disease rather than the symptoms. However, the reason for that emphasis isn't always as simple as Big Pharma profiteering. It is much EASIER to treat the symptoms, thus improving a patients quality of life, while it is extremely difficult to get to the root cause an fix it. The treatments that focus on symptoms are intended as a "quick fix" to assuage a patient's suffering while we wait for a real cure to be developed. Unfortunately, that cure often never comes.

Vaccines have their place, and can certainly help, but shouldn't be the cornerstone of our medicine. I would be interested in seeing any research you have read (preferably from a peer-reviewed source) that discusses the dangers of vaccination and the cause of that danger. Vaccination is not inherently harmful, and is in many cases quite effective, but I could believe that drug companies have failed to make all of their vaccines live up to decent standards of safety and efficacy.

It's always the same strategy - no matter if the topic is moon landing, Area51, Kennedy murder, 9/11 or
vaccination.

Rossi's 8 steps to a successful conspiracy theory

1- Take snippets out of context from scientists and put them in your own agenda to make it look like your argument
would be backed up by science

2- List a huge number of historical data from somewhere from the net, again many times out of context and many
times without critical review of the source and context based alternative conclusions

3- list "reports" from "witnesses", "affected", "cured", "infected", whatever without the slightest critical review
of the source and the method of finding the results, causes, "facts"

4- from your snippets out of context build up the big picture and leave out the large number of other sources that
contradict your theory and actually would build the big picture

5- build up a dark, evil enemy behind it all; preferably secret services, companies or whole industrial sectors who
have banded together, or some other "mysterious evil force n.o.s"

6- defame all groups, scientists, politicians, organizations who contradict your conspiracy theories as fools, who
have sold their souls to the enemy mentioned in step 5 and that way proof that "your scientists" are the only
trustworthy ones, even if they are only a handful

7- provide "evidence" as mentioned in step 1, 2 and 3 to your followers in your "headquarter" (website, forum)
which they can copy and paste to anywhere where they want to spread your "truths" and tell them they should ask for
counter-evidence to refute your theories; as usually this happens in unscientific environment there is no big
danger anyway because for non-scientific people it is hard to impossible to find evidence anyway by a simple and
short web search

8- out of step 7 follows that your theories usually will remain "valid" as no strong counter-evidence was brought
up ; q.e.d.

Congratulations - you've made it !



Ok - back to topic:

A very brief search on the net brought up several sources which support the efficiency of vaccination.
For example this graph from a german wikipedia site



One scale shows the years and the other the number of infections in thousands and the arrow points at the start of vaccination. Coincidence ? Ah no - I forgot, wikipedia has been edited by Big Pharma, right ?

Other tables (which I cannot link, sorry) show a very clear picture of the vaccination rate and the actual rate of infections. In European countries, which are comparable in terms of hygiene, life standard etc, there are big differences in vaccination rate, e.g. scandinavian countries which have a very high vaccination rate the infections are very low to non existent, in Germany e.g. with an immunization rate of only about 45% the number of infections are by far higher and measles epidemics come in regular intervals.

Good for you Helen, I wasn't going to be as nice with some here.

See the thing is, I grew up with kids that had gotten it, polio. When I see this crap about vaccinees it seriously pisses me off. Sure some might not be perfect, yet, and yeah they do make money on them, but if you would care to look at the horrors of not having them... just plain idiotic. I would far rather have AS due to a bad vaccine, even if such s**t were true, then to have the chance to survive polio to begin with. Even if you were to see a survivor of polio today, ask them what it was like when they were younger. They've made huge breakthroughs on just the quality of their lives since the old days..if they made it this far at all. Most people today don't have a clue what an iron lung is anymore. I don't know why I'm still amazed that people think like this, I should know better.

Rossi - I'd just like to point out, before you go and slag us all off, that the 'official line' of what happened on 9/11 is a conspiracy theory in itself.

A 'conspiracy theory' isn't just a bunch of nutters going on about aliens on the moon and men on mars and lizards living in the sewers. A conspiracy theory is a theory of what's gone on to make something - usually bad - happen, when the truth is not necessarily known.

9/11 is probably the most famous conspiracy theory of them all. And most of you seem to believe it.

I never said that in your post you wrote that vaccines cause autism. I see what your point is, how diseases declined over 90% prior to the introduction of these shots. All I am saying is that I have a very hard time beleiving that figure, the 90% decline in deseases prior to the shots. Everyones opinion will naturally be different. I think vaccinations are good for society and will always do more good then bad. Also the quotes, well... while I just dont beleive them they are comming from the mouths of professionals who know a hell of alot more about the subject then I do. I still stick by my beleife that shots prevent epidemics.

First of all, you spelled "formaldehyde" incorrectly.

Second of all, thimerosal only contains 1.25 micrograms of ethylmercury (which is NOT dangerous), not 50 percent.

Third of all, everything else is in such a trace amount that it WILL NOT DO A DAMNED THING.

Alright, I'm sure you'll be saying that when you catch measles or polio.

First, I'm not American.

Secondly, I believe I said 'up to', not 'always'.

Thirdly, it probably won't, no, but when you give those doses repeatedly over the space of a few years when the immune system and brain haven't finished developing yet, and take into account the fact that they're bioaccumulative, then yes, they can do 'a damned thing'.

I believe that not enough is known about them and they should not be injected in brand new babies. I was never given the pertussis vac because when I was newly born, I had seizures and the docs told my mom the p in the DTP could cause further damage so I only got the DT. And then I had a bad reaction to the MMR. And at 12, I had a very negative reaction to the tetanus vaccine (and no, I am not the only one). And my brother had a bad reaction to the pertussis (my sister wasn't given it because my mom was afraid, but decided to do so with my bro). There is also a little girl in our family who the doctors have concluded has permanent damage from vaccines (seizures, low IQ) and another baby who had problems when born and the docs told the parents no vaccines and they did them anyways and he now has a autism diagnosis, but in this case I do not blame the vaccines for that diagnosis--who is to say he didn't have it to begin with?? I don't entirely believe the autism/vaccine link, but don't doubt it couldn't possibly be the case in some situations. The reason being, we are all born with certain tendencies and being exposed to vaccines could push some immune systems over the brink. I also believe some are genetically programed in a way that they have no negative reactions to vaccines. (And yes, dogs are damaged by vaccines too. Only thing is more vets are willing to admit there are problems with overvaccinating.) So, I wonder if we vaccinated later and only gave ones for what a child could be exposed to in their area (and not chicken pox--please!! ) and only one dose--what difference we would see. You absolutely can not predict what reaction any person will have to having foreign stuff injected in their body. There is no way that humans can erradicate disease completely from the planet (nor should we want too--believe it or not, there are some health benefits to having disease). There is no way you can completely prevent your child from suffering either.

Overall--I see genetics plays a big role in all of this. If children are being damaged in one family by vaccines, then don't vaccinate the children and adults in that family. If another family is strong, then perhaps they really have no worries. Besides, there is a percentage that the gov wants vaccinated and it isn't 100%.

Do I think my negative reaction to MMR has anything to do with me having AS? No. And I don't think I have any lasting damage from that (but who knows for sure). But it took years to figure out the extent of what the tetanus did and what to do about that. Doctors are "practicing". Each individual must decide what will and will not be "practiced" on them. Medicine is essentially a guessing game and with time, we figure out what works and what doesn't. But thank goodness what does work, works well. I am thankful for antibiotics, for baby ICUs and respirators (or my nephew wouldn't be here) and many other medications. Just not sure that I am entirely thankful for vaccines.

9/11 was a bunch if Islamist loonies that got lucky. It's only a "conspiracy theory" if you believe the Neocon scaremongering making people think that lucky bunch of Islamist loonies in Afganistan are a "super-powerful terrorist network."

More like a bunch of Islamist loonies that got unlucky in that they were the scapegoat for one of the most blatant 'inside jobs' the world has ever seen...

(Though I do agree, there are some horrendously loonie 'Islamist loonies' in the world ).