tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7050119765136077517.post7807603922759145225..comments2015-02-08T09:10:18.672-07:00Comments on Vaccination Debate: Defining the Debate on VaccinesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7050119765136077517.post-77024312421852833622015-02-08T09:10:18.664-07:002015-02-08T09:10:18.664-07:00I have upgraded the comments section with a simple...I have upgraded the comments section with a simple Disqus tool. You can log-in with whatever account you like and can now insert graphics into your commentsRobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13766273934114084265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7050119765136077517.post-72692070677077212492015-02-07T17:02:31.616-07:002015-02-07T17:02:31.616-07:00I will find out a way to insert graphs. Bear with ...I will find out a way to insert graphs. Bear with me. I'm out for this evening, but will get on this later. Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13766273934114084265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7050119765136077517.post-32784676179043656962015-02-07T16:44:43.277-07:002015-02-07T16:44:43.277-07:00OK - how do I insert graphs?????? Lets just go bac...OK - how do I insert graphs?????? Lets just go back to Facebook.Monicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08954569102084877017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7050119765136077517.post-46223592317018814222015-02-07T16:43:18.143-07:002015-02-07T16:43:18.143-07:00The one graph you give that is a reflection of INC...The one graph you give that is a reflection of INCIDENCE and not mortality is the graph regarding the incidence of polio. Conveniently when it was “redrawn” it was changed significantly. By changing the rate per 100,000 axis point to go from 10-40 instead of a more logical .001 to 100 it creates an illusion that there was a significant drop prior to the vaccine which did not exist. Likewise you will notice that the pretty mortality rate graphs also cherry pick their data points. 4 year data points? Why not 1 or 3 or 5? This is to fool the eye into seeing evidence that isn’t there. The graph below shows the EXACT same data – presented in a manner that more accurately reflects the decline due to vaccine.Monicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08954569102084877017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7050119765136077517.post-5891934429555005922015-02-07T16:42:56.975-07:002015-02-07T16:42:56.975-07:00OK – I am going to present a step by step rebuttal...OK – I am going to present a step by step rebuttal of everything you said on your entry above. Unfortunately since you posted that as a blog and this will only be a reply most people won’t ever see my reply. I wish I were as adept at technology as you but I am not. I am also going to set the flu vaccination information aside – that’s another debate for another time.<br /><br />First ALL of your graphs (save one) reflect mortality – not infection. OBVIOUSLY modern medicine will have decreased mortality over time. Pneumonia is no longer a death sentence, for instance. That doesn’t mean you want your infant, or any infant, to get pneumonia from measles. Another perfect example is found in the graph below. There is a dip in the mortality rate of polio right about 1937. That happens to correlate with the introduction of the Both Respirator iron lung as a therapeutic. It was much cheaper and lighter than prior iron lungs and was able to help many more people. Thus the death rate falls more than the incidence rate at that time. Your argument that these diseases were “naturally” declining over time is a fallacy. The RATE of the disease was not declining – the mortality from the disease was but the disease was still very much around and very much deadly. <br />Monicahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08954569102084877017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7050119765136077517.post-79267976989127100342014-12-28T10:02:29.534-07:002014-12-28T10:02:29.534-07:00You're right, Alice.
It is impossible to prov...You're right, Alice.<br /><br />It is impossible to prove one or the other how much, if any, vaccinations play a role in some of these modern day ailments such as autism. That's because we are so brainwashed into believing how necessary they are that there has never really been a long term study. In today's age, it would be considered completely irresponsible and unethical not to vaccinate your child. Therefore, we are not doing the research necessary to really see the long term damage we may doing to our immune systems. That is why I think the place to start is to open people's eyes with the history of the diseases that vaccines were designed to prevent. When you look at the history of these diseases and the very questionable role played by vaccines, the potential rewards don't outweigh the unknown risks - not even close. Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13766273934114084265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7050119765136077517.post-20095849725175067572014-12-27T20:36:04.700-07:002014-12-27T20:36:04.700-07:00After researching this topic for several hours, I ...After researching this topic for several hours, I am in complete agreement with your stance. What's terrible is that supporters of mass vaccinations are fighting to have the current exemption laws refuted. People are arguing telling parents they don't have the legal right to not vaccinate their children for religious or ethical reasons. People are saying parents who choose not to give their child all of the current recommended vaccinations should be charged with child abuse. It is terrible that parents will have to live in fear of government intervention if they want to postpone vaccines for their child or not get all of the recommended vaccines. I found one study that said in comparison to 34 other countries the USA had the highest recommended list of vaccines, yet had the highest infant mortality rate. If that is a true study then that fact is extremely alarming. Here is the article:http://www.rescuepost.com/files/gr-autism_and_vaccines_world_special_report1.pdf. I tried to research the domain name rescuepost.com but google said the domain site was blocked. The study was conducted in 2006 so it also shows the correlation data of vaccines to autism, even though researchers have retracted the Wakefield paper and haven't found a link between vaccines and autism. Although we can't assume correlations in data are related, it's also hard to dispute that they are not. I read that the Dr Paul Offit, a major contributor to the debate on this topic had financial investments in the manufacturing of vaccinations. I also read that a researcher for the CDC admitted to have excluding data from a 2004 study about the safety of the MMR Vaccine. I don't know how many of these sources are true or hype, but I know if I had a child I would definitely take the time to further research the topic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12447435533569022529noreply@blogger.com