elohiym
Well-known member
A greater threat.
10 Vaccines That Saved The World
- Thread starter User Name
- Start date
- Status
A greater threat.
gcthomas
New member
Citation?
elohiym
Well-known member
World Health Organization.
Anaphylaxis occurs in 1.6 per 1,000,000 tetanus vaccinations.
Tetanus occurs in .1 per 1,000,000 of U.S. population, according to the U.S. CDC.
You have a greater chance of being injured by the vaccination than contracting tetanus.
elohiym
Well-known member
Then how will you form an intelligent answer? A few key strokes could have helped you find the information before you responded.
How is potential exposure defined? Clostridium tetani is ubiquitous.
Why do they need any more after the initial five vaccinations if the initial five allegedly confer lifetime immunity?
gcthomas
New member
What is the rate of tetanus in unvaccinated Americans? No point telling me how low the risk of tetanus is in a largely immunised population.
(before mass vaccination the infection rate was 10 to 30 times higher.)
Tyrathca
New member
1) I'm not going to jump down every rabbit home you point at
2) You haven't given me a reason to care what Americans do specifically
3) Until you make a point I think it's a bit silly for me to do your research for you.
4) because of the above I have better/more fun things to do. Especially when I was replying with a phone at the time.
This is well known by the authors of the guidelines. They specify that all wounds other than clean, minor cuts are considered ‘tetanus-prone’.
Because they don't cover lifelong immunity for most. Who says they do? (i feel like this is a strawman argument)
gcthomas
New member
I just followed your link, and you have mistakenly quoted the anaphylaxis rate for a Diptheria vaccine. There is no figure given for the tetanus one.
Here is the rate of vaccine-associated anaphylaxis in the USA:
We identified 5 cases of potentially vaccine-associated anaphylaxis after administration of 7,644,049 vaccine doses, for a risk of 0.65 cases/million doses (95% confidence interval: 0.21-1.53). None of the episodes resulted in death.
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14523172
And here is the case-fatality rate of tetanus in the USA:
"233 tetanus cases were reported during 2001--2008; among the 197 cases with known outcomes, the case-fatality rate was 13.2%."
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6012a1.htm
I'll ask again, Are tetanus vaccine injuries a greater or lesser threat than tetanus?
Last edited:
BigBoof1959
New member
I came across this web page this morning - http://blog.drbrownstein.com/1029-2/ - and when looking into the topic, the three ring circus that has been going on in the vaccine/autism debate reminded me of the time I spent looking into climate change and the various groups using "science" to prove their point.
What most people don't realize is that since the original MMR/Thimerisol/Autism argument got started, the number of vaccines administered to young children has basically tripled. And how many studies have been done to look into the cumulative effects of all of these vaccines, not just singling out the MMR? While searching for other articles on the vaccine/autism debate I came across one - http://vaxtruth.org/2011/08/vaccine-ingredients/ that lists the ingredients for a host of vaccines. People who are gung-ho for vaccinating might want to take a look at some of the ingredients in ALL of the vaccines, but here is what is listed for just the supposedly "well known" MMR vaccine - "Amino Acid, Bovine Albumin or Serum, Chick Embryo Fibroblasts, Human
Serum Albumin, Gelatin, Glutamate, Neomycin, Phosphate Buffers, Sorbitol,
Sucrose, Vitamin" . I was suprised to read that 100 million "bits and strands" of human dna is allowable in vaccine doses. How much study has been done on the effects of injecting an infant or child with foreign dna? I doubt very much that the people who may or may not be checking vaccines to see if they have 100 million bits and strands or less of human dna are also concerned about whether these bits and strands are all from one other individual or from a whole bunch of people. Given the "batch" system used to make vaccines, the 100 million bits of human dna is more than likely a mix coming from several sources. How about the other amino acids taken from monkey kidneys, chick embryo fibroblasts and mouse tissue that are listed as ingredients for several of the vaccines given to infants and young children? How big a challenge can their immune systems handle at one time? In the interest of an informed public (which pro-vaxxers claim to desire), maybe all people receiving vaccines or authorizing them to be administered to children should be required to read a full list of everything that is in the vaccine, where each ingredient is sourced from and check a box on the consent form saying they are fine with all that. Injecting a large number of foreign amino acids into a body that did not produce them would seem to be a risky business, especially for infants whose immune systems have their hands full dealing with what comes their way naturally. I don't suppose this could have anything to do with the increase in the number of children suffering from multiple allergies? Aside from the injecting of a much larger number of different foreign biological elements, some of the chemical ingredients in vaccines are also hair-raising.
While surfing the web and reading about the controversies going on, I found it is very easy to set up "straw-men" to discredit any study that is published or claims which are made by interpreting those study results. Discrediting one shortcoming in a study does not necessarily invalidate the whole thing, but that is what gets done, and it takes a lot of effort to sort through what is coming from both sides of this argument. I read one pro-vax article - http://thoughtscapism.com/2015/04/1...health-of-unvaccinated-and-vaccinated-people/ - supposedly de-bunking the "myth" that there has never been a study done comparing vaccinated children vs unvaccinated. The article lists several studies from countries all over the world, but as it was pointed out in the first comment found after the article, these studies were observational and not rigorous clinical trials. And none of them were done in America where the goal is to give everybody 36 different shots. Is the rest of the world so ignorant and backwards that they don't have such a wonderful vaccination protocol lined up? How can those countries around the world whose student's academic skills have been kicking the pants off of American student's butts for decades be so stupid as to not demand the same 36 shot schedule that we have here? Humm.....
Both sides in the vaccination debate can accuse each other of "cherry-picking" facts and studies to prove a point. The sheer number of vaccines and possible side effects to look for in relation to them makes it impossible to study the whole range of everything at once. But should vaccine manufacturers be allowed to push so many shots on people just because some vaccines have been successful in the past? Is more always better? Safer? How are we supposed to make informed decisions? Who can we trust? The government? I don't think so. The pharmaceutical lobby in Washington ranks as one of the largest, year after year. The media? With so many sources to choose from, and being a very technical subject, most people don't have the time or inclination to get educated and rely on mainstream media to make decisions. Aside from a lot of interesting information and questions that need to be asked, the last sentence found on this page - http://www.fourteenstudies.org/ should show any thinking person why mainstream media should should be considered suspect for information on the topic.
What most people don't realize is that since the original MMR/Thimerisol/Autism argument got started, the number of vaccines administered to young children has basically tripled. And how many studies have been done to look into the cumulative effects of all of these vaccines, not just singling out the MMR? While searching for other articles on the vaccine/autism debate I came across one - http://vaxtruth.org/2011/08/vaccine-ingredients/ that lists the ingredients for a host of vaccines. People who are gung-ho for vaccinating might want to take a look at some of the ingredients in ALL of the vaccines, but here is what is listed for just the supposedly "well known" MMR vaccine - "Amino Acid, Bovine Albumin or Serum, Chick Embryo Fibroblasts, Human
Serum Albumin, Gelatin, Glutamate, Neomycin, Phosphate Buffers, Sorbitol,
Sucrose, Vitamin" . I was suprised to read that 100 million "bits and strands" of human dna is allowable in vaccine doses. How much study has been done on the effects of injecting an infant or child with foreign dna? I doubt very much that the people who may or may not be checking vaccines to see if they have 100 million bits and strands or less of human dna are also concerned about whether these bits and strands are all from one other individual or from a whole bunch of people. Given the "batch" system used to make vaccines, the 100 million bits of human dna is more than likely a mix coming from several sources. How about the other amino acids taken from monkey kidneys, chick embryo fibroblasts and mouse tissue that are listed as ingredients for several of the vaccines given to infants and young children? How big a challenge can their immune systems handle at one time? In the interest of an informed public (which pro-vaxxers claim to desire), maybe all people receiving vaccines or authorizing them to be administered to children should be required to read a full list of everything that is in the vaccine, where each ingredient is sourced from and check a box on the consent form saying they are fine with all that. Injecting a large number of foreign amino acids into a body that did not produce them would seem to be a risky business, especially for infants whose immune systems have their hands full dealing with what comes their way naturally. I don't suppose this could have anything to do with the increase in the number of children suffering from multiple allergies? Aside from the injecting of a much larger number of different foreign biological elements, some of the chemical ingredients in vaccines are also hair-raising.
While surfing the web and reading about the controversies going on, I found it is very easy to set up "straw-men" to discredit any study that is published or claims which are made by interpreting those study results. Discrediting one shortcoming in a study does not necessarily invalidate the whole thing, but that is what gets done, and it takes a lot of effort to sort through what is coming from both sides of this argument. I read one pro-vax article - http://thoughtscapism.com/2015/04/1...health-of-unvaccinated-and-vaccinated-people/ - supposedly de-bunking the "myth" that there has never been a study done comparing vaccinated children vs unvaccinated. The article lists several studies from countries all over the world, but as it was pointed out in the first comment found after the article, these studies were observational and not rigorous clinical trials. And none of them were done in America where the goal is to give everybody 36 different shots. Is the rest of the world so ignorant and backwards that they don't have such a wonderful vaccination protocol lined up? How can those countries around the world whose student's academic skills have been kicking the pants off of American student's butts for decades be so stupid as to not demand the same 36 shot schedule that we have here? Humm.....
Both sides in the vaccination debate can accuse each other of "cherry-picking" facts and studies to prove a point. The sheer number of vaccines and possible side effects to look for in relation to them makes it impossible to study the whole range of everything at once. But should vaccine manufacturers be allowed to push so many shots on people just because some vaccines have been successful in the past? Is more always better? Safer? How are we supposed to make informed decisions? Who can we trust? The government? I don't think so. The pharmaceutical lobby in Washington ranks as one of the largest, year after year. The media? With so many sources to choose from, and being a very technical subject, most people don't have the time or inclination to get educated and rely on mainstream media to make decisions. Aside from a lot of interesting information and questions that need to be asked, the last sentence found on this page - http://www.fourteenstudies.org/ should show any thinking person why mainstream media should should be considered suspect for information on the topic.
"There have been absolutely zero links between autism and vaccinations. Vaccinations do not modify the genetic code. Autism is a genetic disorder." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_injury
Here's another reference:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf
Keep in mind that the list "includes not only vaccine ingredients (e.g., adjuvants and preservatives), but also substances used during the manufacturing process, including vaccine-production media, that are removed from the final product and present only in trace quantities."
elohiym
Well-known member
The incidence in the U.S. was roughly 3/1,000,000 cases when the tetanus vaccine was introduced. Obviously, the risk was low then, too.
Still low.
Last edited:
elohiym
Well-known member
That's not true. See the bottom of page 2 and top of page 3. The 1.6/1,000,000 is specifically in the serious adverse events for the tetanus vaccine.
elohiym
Well-known member
Based on what evidence? I'm skeptical.
elohiym said:
From the BMJ Best Practices guidlines for tetanus prevention:
Active immunisation with tetanus vaccine protects against tetanus. In most cases, 5 intramuscular doses at appropriate intervals give lifelong immunity.
From a World Health Organization tetanus vaccine page:
Five doses probably confer life long immunity.
(Clinical Evidence Issue, 6 December 2001)
(Clinical Evidence Issue, 6 December 2001)
The U.S. the vaccine schedule recommends a tetanus booster every 10 years following the initial five doses given in childhood and adolescence. But ...
- five doses allegedly confer lifelong immunity to most people
- tetanus is extremely rare (.1/1,000,000)
- the risks of adverse events are higher than the risk of infection and are unacceptable if five doses confer lifelong immunity.
Last edited:
Tyrathca
New member
I think mostly from extrapolation from the known pathophysiological mechanism of tetanus infections, data about wounds which we know carry a much high risk and a long history of reports of tetanus from relatively small wounds.
The problem here what is considered "most", and here you have cherry-picked this sentence while ignoring that these authors don't consider this "most" to be an acceptable rate of immunisation since:
"Those travelling to remote areas where medical attention may be delayed should receive a booster before travelling if the last dose of a tetanus-containing vaccine was more than 10 years previously, even if they have already received 5 doses of vaccine."
Key words: "Probably" and "2001"
This statement was not one of confidence but of prediction with the caveat that it needs to be confirmed. Data since 2001 has shown that there is a large cohort who do not get lifelong immunity.
Source:
Immunity to diphtheria and tetanus in Australia: a national serosurvey
Serologic immunity to diphtheria and tetanus in the United States
Both of which show that with increasing age the rate of immunity to tetanus drops substantially to the point of below 50% among the elderly. While this data will be clouded by different schedules, compliance and formulations in the past tetanus immunity does wane with age and we are yet to confirm that the current regimens are sufficiently superior.
BigBoof1959
New member
Ever hear of "epi-genetic switches" where a section of dna coding can be turned on or off through exposure to various chemical triggers?
Have you also heard of this? http://blog.drbrownstein.com/1029-2/
How much is considered "trace" , and what number of different trace elements combined in one syringe do we want to expose infants and young children to at one time? How are their immune systems affected?
Didn't the Dr. William Thompson, mentioned in the link above, work for the CDC and admit that he effectively lied about the results of research he was involved with on the association between the MMR vaccine and autism? How can we trust anything coming out of the CDC? With all of the advertising money going from Big Pharma into the Washington lobby and also the media, how can we trust that the public welfare is their first concern? It used to be illegal to advertise prescription drugs and for good reason.
gcthomas
New member
Is that Dr David Brownstein, the chap that encourages overdosing on iodine as an alternative to surgery, radiation or chemotherapy for cancer?
:think:
Tyrathca
New member
Are you claiming that not only is autism actually an epigenetic condition but also that vaccines affect epigenetic AND it affects epigenetic in such a way as to cause autism? That is some massive evidence free over-reach.
But it's not just the USA. Are all Western countries public health departments corrupt? In Australia advertising of prescription drugs is still heavily regulated and our mainly government funding of healthcare means we have a strong incentive to keep costs down (don't get me started on the USA's broken system, both political and health)
"Largely ignored during this prolonged vaccine-autism controversy was clear evidence of a strong genetic influence on autism. For example, if one identical twin has been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the other twin is from 60% to 90% more likely to also be diagnosed with an ASD. Also known is that males are more likely than females to be diagnosed with autism and that the older a father is, the higher the likelihood of a diagnosis of autism in his offspring...It is now evident that there are many genetic paths to autism, and that some mutations leading to autism are not inherited but arise spontaneously in reproductive cells or during development. These mutations help to explain how autism can appear in families that previously had no history of the condition." -- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/autism-vaccine-myth.html
And here we come to the conspiracy theory: "Big Pharma" is out to make "Big Bucks" off of the "Big Vaccine" industry, and of course they must lie about the safety and efficacy of vaccines in order for them to achieve that goal, because we all know that vaccines are both dangerous and don't actually immunize anyone against anything, right?
Yes, vaccination does turn a profit, just as anything must turn a profit in order to remain in business. But the fact is that "Big Pharma" would actually make much more money by skipping the vaccines totally and just making pharmaceutical drugs to treat people after they've contracted a communicable disease. But if they did that, they'd be living in a much more dangerous world.
Last edited:
Tyrathca
New member
I for one think it is travesty more attention isn't put on Big Pharma's inclusion of the potentially toxic dihydrogen monoxide which has been long known to have a list of potentially lethal side affects including:
- asphyxia
- acute pulmonary oedema
- cerebral oedema
- seizures
- hyponatraemia
- acute decompensated heart failure
- coma
- short-term memory loss
- muscle weakness
- And more!
For more information visit Facts About DHMO. Educate yourself sheeple! The truff is out there!!11one!!
- Status