10 Vaccines That Saved The World
- Thread starter User Name
- Start date
- Status
What are the reasons that have caused this increase in expenditures for prescription medications in recent years?
genuineoriginal
New member
Expenditures for prescription medications have increased in recent years due to surging demand for more expensive new breakthrough drugs which are more effective at treating illnesses.
See here for example: http://blogs.wsj.com/pharmalot/2015...nding-hit-374b-in-the-us-last-year-read-this/
In other words, nothing to do with vaccinations.
genuineoriginal
New member
Many of these more expensive new breakthrough drugs are needed to combat the ailments caused by vaccines.
Yes, it all fits together.
Only in your unique, overly parinoid poorly informed world. In the real world, things are different.
Tyrathca
New member
This does not match any teaching I have recieved in auto-immune diseases (admittedly several years ago now) nor could I a source which even suggested this as a cause of auto-immunity.
Auto-immune disease is largely genetic. In some auto-immune conditions there is an association with some particular infections (i.e. Guillian-Barre and Campylobacgter Jejuni, some influenzae strains and perhaps a few other infections ). Total burden of infections has to my knowledge no support in the literature as a cause, some even suggest a lack of exposure to antigens early in life (i.e. excessive cleanliness and not letting your kids eat dirt etc
) could cause autoimmune disease however to my knowledge that to is also without much evidence/support.A nice theory, did you make it up all by yourself?
Regardless it is stupid and simply shows a lack of awareness of the well known phenomenon of transient bacteraemia by oral flora after dental work or even tooth brushing. Is there a reason your mycoplasma fermentans isn't also introduced into the hosts systemic circulation like other oral pathogens?
Also I've never heard of this mycoplasma fermentans being associated with auto-immunity, is there any evidence to support this or is all theoretical with lots of assumptions?
Auto-immune conditions aren't particularly common among the elderly and those that are (such as those attacking the thyroid) are often fairly easily treated. Other somewhat common ones (such as Type 1 diabetes) have an incidence of onset which decreases with age.
THe burden of disease and our pharmacological treatment of them is not significantly driven by auto-immune diseases.
Ha, only if you are willfully ignorant.
Most of the new drugs, particularly the ones commonly prescribed, are not for any of the ailments you have mentioned as being associated with vaccines. Many auto-immune conditions still often have as their first line therapy dirt cheap of patent drugs(eg prednisolone).
This is laughably amateur. Your evidence for vaccines being bad is that they have some extremely rare rates of complications which according to you become common later in life and your evidence is we are spending more medications in general? Never mind that we known the conditions you mention still aren't common later in life and we have good explanations for why the spending on medication has increased.
How do you know that ailments are caused by vaccines? Do you have any evidence at all that people who have gotten vaccinations are less healthy than people who haven't gotten vaccinations?
Tyrathca
New member
Yes, but they lost it because of mental confusion caused by vaccines their parents have them... therefore proof! (or something like that)
If you don't think about it at all it makes sense.
genuineoriginal
New member
The entire purpose of a vaccination it to create a reaction in the body's immune system.
Many of the ailments attributed to vaccinations are autoimmune diseases or are caused by autoimmune diseases.
However, "Big Pharma" argues that there is no relation between their product that creates a reaction in the body's immune system and the body's immune system attacking the person's healthy cells.
Other ailments are linked to Aluminum, Formaldehyde, and Thimerosal (which contains mercury) that the CDC lists as common substances in vaccines.
You still haven't posted any evidence that people who have never received vaccinations are in any way healthier than people who have had many vaccinations.
It has already been pointed out that the amounts of aluminum, formaldehyde and thimerosal in vaccines is trivial. For example, regarding aluminum:
"The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams* of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the first six months of life." -- http://www.chop.edu/centers-program...ter/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum#.Vj67_eLEbEk
Regarding formaldehyde:
"The amount of formaldehyde present in some vaccines is so small compared to the concentration that occurs naturally in the body that it does not pose a safety concern. Formaldehyde is also produced naturally in the human body as a part of normal functions of the body to produce energy and build the basic materials needed for important life processes. This includes making amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins that the body needs." -- http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm187810.htm
Regarding thimerosal:
"Thimerosal does not stay in the body a long time so it does not build up and reach harmful levels. When thimerosal enters the body, it breaks down to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate, which are readily eliminated." -- http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/
This is not to say that no one has ever had an allergic reaction to any of these substances. Of course a very small fraction of people do. Just like the way some people are also allergic to peanuts, but people still eat peanuts.
genuineoriginal
New member
People that do not receive the vaccinations have a much lower incidence of the ailments associated with vaccinations.
gcthomas
New member
That claim can only be made with large scale data, which you seem reluctant to present.
Otherwise all you have is assertion and a desire that your assertion is true.
Tyrathca
New member
Most of the ailments you associate with vaccinations have other causes and are far FAR more often caused by things other than vaccines (e.g autoimmune diseases). You have however claimed that the incidence of these conditions is still significantly lower among non-vaccinated, how do you know this? Did you assume it based on your little made up theory about vaccines?
You still haven't posted any evidence to support your claim that people who have never received vaccinations are healthier than people who have had many vaccinations.
genuineoriginal
New member
I see you like to claim that the causes of these ailments has been positively identified and a cure has been created to solve them.
However, the truth is that the causes of these ailments is unknown, so the only thing to do is to use expensive medications to treat the symptoms.
Why is the cause of the ailments unknown?
Because "Big Pharma" keeps using the Jedi Mind Trick to say, "These vaccines are not the causes you are looking for."
How do you know that the cause of the ailments is vaccines?
Why won't you post any evidence to show that people who have avoided all vaccinations are healthier than people who have had many vaccinations?
Because "Big Conspiracy" keeps using the Jedi Mind Trick to say, "These vaccines are the cause you are looking for."
genuineoriginal
New member
Why do you rule out vaccines as a cause in the ailments that have only shown up since the creation of vaccines?
Tyrathca
New member
No one has ruled it out, we know vaccines have very rare complications. But to blame vaccines for everything /anything just because the ailment have shown up since vaccinations is stupid. Vaccines have been with us since the birth of modern Western evidence based medicine, so by your measure we can blame everything on vaccines (or combustion engines, or radio, or antibiotics, or... I hope you get the point). We've advanced enormous amounts in the last century, that's why all these ailments seem "new" (before we just lumped them altogether in vague big categories and couldn't see the differences)
Tyrathca
New member
If you were more specific about which condition you were talking about I could actually try and tell you what we know about their causes, whether a cute exists and whether standard medications for it are expensive or not. Though I'm sure you won't like many of the answers
So you're basically saying that because we don't know what causes something then we know it was caused by vaccines? Or a lack of evidence for your idea is just more evidence of a conspiracy and thus still supports your theory.
That a nice unfalsifiable bubble of belief you've constructed yourself, no matter what you see it can be interpreted to support your assumption. Such thinking is antithetical to science. Can you answer this, if you are wrong how would you know? What would you expect to see?
- Status