Wheeee, I don't know where to start either, LOL. The links in your first paragraph both link to familydoctor.org, which is financed by advertisements mainly from pharmaceutical companies. Ah, if I want to find out about the benefits of becoming a vegetarian, you wouldn't consult a butcher, right? ;)
Yes, I'm aware of all the chemicals that are imposed on us, and I'm aware that I can only do so much to avoid them (rinsing clothes with vinegar rather than adding fabric softener, for example). Food is equally contaminated, as is tap water. Btw, the long-term effects of these chemicals are no less studied than those in vaccines. Some years ago, I learned how Eli-Lily had "studied" the efficacy of thimerosol in the 1920s. They injected it into a terminally ill people who had meningitis. Then, when all those people died, they concluded they had died from meningitis, not from injected mercury. Makes perfect sense, of course, if profit is your god. And the replacement for thimerosol is 2-PE, which isn't any better than thimerosol.
As to viruses in vaccines, yes, most are killed. Not all. The polio vaccine that was given to everyone up until the 1970s and much longer in third-world countries was the only cause of polio occurrences in the US. Other western countries have similar statistics. As to asking a doctor, I've spoken to plenty. Most if not all were plainly arrogant and implied that I have no idea what I'm talking about and how dare I question something so vital as vaccines. However, I never received an actual answer to my questions.
That NYT article shows very nicely why I don't care for such newspaper articles. They throw around numbers, but tell nowhere where these numbers came from. The report forms for a notifiable disease (and measles is one, amongst others) do not ask about the vaccination status of the patient.
If you're questioning the efficacy of childhood vaccines due to people's experience with flu shots, you're missing a fine but critical distinction vis a vis the bug involved.
No. I simply named the flu vaccine as one example, possibly because it is the one that continues to contain 25 mcg of thimerosol. That amount injected into your body cannot possibly be beneficial to your health. And I won't even mention the other ingredients. I doubt MMR is any more effective than any other vaccine. I know for a fact how pediatricians, and in England, GPs, refuse to diagnose measles or whooping cough because they know the patient was fully vaccinated; therefore, it "cannot be that disease". They've come up with colourful new names for the same old diseases. "Viral cough", "temporary asthma", "unidentified rash", to name a few.
Tetanus is extremely rare according to statistics, and for most cases, the vaccination status is unknown. That doesn't tell me a thing about the efficacy of the vaccine. Furthermore, the wording in those reports from the CDC is generally quite interesting: "It is assumed that the high coverage of vaccination contributes to the low occurrence." It never actually says that is is because of it, no, only "assumed".
My only problem with vaccines is that that Gold Standard Study, which is a double-blind study and generally accepted by the scientific community as proof for something, does not exist. And probably never will be carried out because it might very well show that unvaccinated people are a great deal healthier than those who are "protected" from diseases.
no subject
Yes, I'm aware of all the chemicals that are imposed on us, and I'm aware that I can only do so much to avoid them (rinsing clothes with vinegar rather than adding fabric softener, for example). Food is equally contaminated, as is tap water. Btw, the long-term effects of these chemicals are no less studied than those in vaccines. Some years ago, I learned how Eli-Lily had "studied" the efficacy of thimerosol in the 1920s. They injected it into a terminally ill people who had meningitis. Then, when all those people died, they concluded they had died from meningitis, not from injected mercury. Makes perfect sense, of course, if profit is your god. And the replacement for thimerosol is 2-PE, which isn't any better than thimerosol.
As to viruses in vaccines, yes, most are killed. Not all. The polio vaccine that was given to everyone up until the 1970s and much longer in third-world countries was the only cause of polio occurrences in the US. Other western countries have similar statistics. As to asking a doctor, I've spoken to plenty. Most if not all were plainly arrogant and implied that I have no idea what I'm talking about and how dare I question something so vital as vaccines. However, I never received an actual answer to my questions.
That NYT article shows very nicely why I don't care for such newspaper articles. They throw around numbers, but tell nowhere where these numbers came from. The report forms for a notifiable disease (and measles is one, amongst others) do not ask about the vaccination status of the patient.
If you're questioning the efficacy of childhood vaccines due to people's experience with flu shots, you're missing a fine but critical distinction vis a vis the bug involved.
No. I simply named the flu vaccine as one example, possibly because it is the one that continues to contain 25 mcg of thimerosol. That amount injected into your body cannot possibly be beneficial to your health. And I won't even mention the other ingredients. I doubt MMR is any more effective than any other vaccine. I know for a fact how pediatricians, and in England, GPs, refuse to diagnose measles or whooping cough because they know the patient was fully vaccinated; therefore, it "cannot be that disease". They've come up with colourful new names for the same old diseases. "Viral cough", "temporary asthma", "unidentified rash", to name a few.
Tetanus is extremely rare according to statistics, and for most cases, the vaccination status is unknown. That doesn't tell me a thing about the efficacy of the vaccine. Furthermore, the wording in those reports from the CDC is generally quite interesting: "It is assumed that the high coverage of vaccination contributes to the low occurrence." It never actually says that is is because of it, no, only "assumed".
My only problem with vaccines is that that Gold Standard Study, which is a double-blind study and generally accepted by the scientific community as proof for something, does not exist. And probably never will be carried out because it might very well show that unvaccinated people are a great deal healthier than those who are "protected" from diseases.