And I will continue to point out your dishonest use of the terms. Your goal is to get people to believe that an attenuated virus and a wild virus are the same.
How many people actually caught measles from the vaccination?
- Thread starter ebenz47037
- Start date
You are either not reading his posts or are deliberately lying. Oh wait, you're the guy who said is was alright to lie for the right cause. :doh:
elohiym
Well-known member
Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children.
The highest risk of association with aseptic meningitis was observed within the third week after immunisation with Urabe-containing MMR (risk ratio (RR) 14.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) from 7.93 to 25.71) and within the third (RR 22.5; 95% CI 11.8 to 42.9) or fifth (RR 15.6; 95% CI 10.3 to 24.2) weeks after immunisation with the vaccine prepared with the Leningrad-Zagreb strain. A significant risk of association with febrile seizures and MMR exposure during the two previous weeks (RR 1.10; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15) was assessed in one large person-time cohort study involving 537,171 children aged between three months and five year of age. Increased risk of febrile seizure has also been observed in children aged between 12 to 23 months (relative incidence (RI) 4.09; 95% CI 3.1 to 5.33) and children aged 12 to 35 months (RI 5.68; 95% CI 2.31 to 13.97) within six to 11 days after exposure to MMR vaccine. An increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR immunisation in children aged 12 to 23 months was assessed in one case-control study (RR 6.3; 95% CI 1.3 to 30.1) and in one small self controlled case series (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 5.38; 95% CI 2.72 to 10.62). Increased risk of thrombocytopenic purpura within six weeks after MMR exposure was also assessed in one other case-control study involving 2311 children and adolescents between one month and 18 years (odds ratio (OR) 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.7).
elohiym
Well-known member
Specifically what term have I used dishonestly? You don't say.
No. Why would I want to do that?
The more observant of you following this thread will have noted that I have highlighted portions of my posts that were not necessarily pertinent to the issue at hand but did point out what I think is a separate but possibly more important issue as it concerns vaccinations, namely, money. The Bible says that the love of money is the root of all evil. On its face that sounds rather over-broad but, as time has gone on I have have become less and less inclined to argue against the notion.
Profits rule corporate decision making and the good folks who bring you your vaccines work for corporations. There is a long standing tradition that finds government officials, in both regulatory and legislative roles, moving on to or coming from chairs on the boards of directors of corporations in all types of industry and the pharmaceutical industry is no exception. When there is enough money involved in any given industry you may assume that what happens in that industry is not left to chance. Corporations routinely buy legislation to not only maximize their profits but also make it mandatory to purchase their products.
My first encounter with this notion happened when I inherited my grandfather's truck. After driving it for a while and getting tired of getting an inadvertent seat belt buckle suppository whenever I first got in I cut out the seat belts. Two weeks later the insurance industry bought legislation that required I wear a seat belt when driving by law. It was at this point I was unable to avoid the idea that there was something fundamentally amiss in the land of my nativity. I mean, if I understood the risks inherent with not wearing a seat belt that was my business, right? Wrong, apparently.
If the money attendant to the auto insurance industry was sufficient to result in this incursion on human rights you may rest assured that the money involved in the medical industry, which beggars that of the auto industry, attracted the attention of the insurance industry as well. Indeed, emboldened by past successes, the insurance industry has basically paid to be merged with our federal government with the passage of Obama Care which chooses for us what is to be treated, how it is treated and who can treat it in order to receive insurance coverage.
One who balks at the notion that the insurance industry could buy our government might want to consider the ramifications of the fact they have bought our judicial system some time ago. When the price of insurance payouts for vaccine suits reached the point of seriously compromising their profit margin they purchased an entire new judicial system to correct this matter. It is called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), otherwise known as “vaccine court” and it is now your only recourse if you seek a redress of grievances concerning a vaccine. Suffice to say the outcomes of this court routinely favor the pharmaceutical industry and limit their liability ... and sorry, but, the right to trial by jury died here as well.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Vaccine-Court-Americas-Compensation/dp/1629144525
Profits rule corporate decision making and the good folks who bring you your vaccines work for corporations. There is a long standing tradition that finds government officials, in both regulatory and legislative roles, moving on to or coming from chairs on the boards of directors of corporations in all types of industry and the pharmaceutical industry is no exception. When there is enough money involved in any given industry you may assume that what happens in that industry is not left to chance. Corporations routinely buy legislation to not only maximize their profits but also make it mandatory to purchase their products.
My first encounter with this notion happened when I inherited my grandfather's truck. After driving it for a while and getting tired of getting an inadvertent seat belt buckle suppository whenever I first got in I cut out the seat belts. Two weeks later the insurance industry bought legislation that required I wear a seat belt when driving by law. It was at this point I was unable to avoid the idea that there was something fundamentally amiss in the land of my nativity. I mean, if I understood the risks inherent with not wearing a seat belt that was my business, right? Wrong, apparently.
If the money attendant to the auto insurance industry was sufficient to result in this incursion on human rights you may rest assured that the money involved in the medical industry, which beggars that of the auto industry, attracted the attention of the insurance industry as well. Indeed, emboldened by past successes, the insurance industry has basically paid to be merged with our federal government with the passage of Obama Care which chooses for us what is to be treated, how it is treated and who can treat it in order to receive insurance coverage.
One who balks at the notion that the insurance industry could buy our government might want to consider the ramifications of the fact they have bought our judicial system some time ago. When the price of insurance payouts for vaccine suits reached the point of seriously compromising their profit margin they purchased an entire new judicial system to correct this matter. It is called the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), otherwise known as “vaccine court” and it is now your only recourse if you seek a redress of grievances concerning a vaccine. Suffice to say the outcomes of this court routinely favor the pharmaceutical industry and limit their liability ... and sorry, but, the right to trial by jury died here as well.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Vaccine-Court-Americas-Compensation/dp/1629144525
Last edited:
To maintain some small amount of credibility not all findings of the vaccine court have been adversarial to the complainants:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BANKS_CASE.pdf
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/BANKS_CASE.pdf
Last edited:
. I have pointed it out several times.
Fear. You are afraid if the vaccine and want others to be as well.
Did the Jewish hand maidens lie? Was it counted for them or against them?
And I am not lying. As usual, Elo has an agenda and he will interpret every statistic through that filter.
He may well have an agenda ... most all of us do. That said, you have deliberately and repeatedly misstated what he said. Could that be a result of your agenda? And what is that agenda? To convince people there is no danger in vaccinations? And why? To make yourself feel better about your past decisions?
I have long said the only mistake is the one you don't learn from. You might wish to consider this notion when considering the nature of the filter through which you view this subject.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/08/governor-rick-perrys-.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/08/21/us/politics/donate-rick-perry.html?_r=0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-hpv-vaccine/2011/09/13/gIQAVKKqPK_story.html
http://therightscoop.com/rick-perry-i-was-wrong-about-gardasil/
Last edited:
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
Source?
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
That's because you are conflating two different things. Having the measles virus in the body and developing symptoms are two very different things.
No, SYMPTOMS, the wild-strain is always going to produce SYMPTOMS. Whether there are any complications from those symptoms is another matter. But catching measles is always going to give you symptoms, and one of those symptoms is a stepwise fever. This is a virtual certainty, that does not exist with the vaccine. Receiving a vaccine is not going to give you symptoms except under rare conditions, because the vaccine measles is attenuated against chickens, not humans. It is a chicken-specific virus. Which is why it is under the vast majority of cases going to be harmless against people. You and I both know this. It doesn't behoove you to pretend otherwise.
We are seeing the fact that wild-type measles is going to produce a stepwise fever 99.9% of the time and the vaccine will produce a fever 1 to 6% of the time, and you are saying "Ah, ha! See the vaccine causes fever too!"
This is the case by whichever metric you care to assay. Fever, death, hospitalization, pneumonia, etc... The conclusion here is forlorn.
That's exactly what it shows.
BUt I have never said there is no danger. I have said the vaccines do not convey perfect immunity nor are they with out risk.
And what mistake would that be? I was vaccinated. My wife was vaccinated. My children were vaccinated. My brother and sister and all of their kids have been vaccinated. My friends have been vaccinated and their children have been vaccinated. None of the people I know have suffered any complications from being vaccinated. None of the people I know have contracted the disease for which they have been vaccinated. I know there are risks associated with vaccines but comparing those risks to the risks of not being vaccinated are acceptable risks.
As to the money aspect of vaccination, welcome to capitalism. No drug manufacturer or insurance company or politician does what they do for purely egalitarian reasons. That doesn't mean that what they do is bad and evil and corrupt.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
No, you didn't you 'cited' the magazine that the website cites, but you did not cite the webpage that you actually read it from. Since we have no idea what article the webpage is 'citing' it is impossible for us to actually corroborate those claims, or to confirm that the source actually supports the claims made.
You did not offer anything. You said google it. I did, and I did not find anything to corroborate your claim, nor is it my obligation to do so.
So says the plagiarizer.
You sound like a 6 year old with their fingers in their ears going "neener, neener, neener, I can't hear you." Any pretext to avoid addressing the subject. I am done with you.
For those of you with a genuine interest in the latest trends in vaccination ... the beat goes on:
http://www.naturalnews.com/048821_vaccine_database_Texas_legislation.html#
http://www.naturalnews.com/048821_vaccine_database_Texas_legislation.html#
This discussion, on a nation wide level, fascinates me. As I vaccinated my kids, I don't really care how many kids are not vaccinated at my kids schools. The only people who really have a vested interest in finding out how many students are not vaccinated are those who don't vaccinate their kids.
don't forget that many of those who don't vaccinate their kids can't vaccinate their kids, usually due to medical conditions that wipe out their immune systems
This is all to true. I didn't mean to make light of the risks to children in that group. Brings up an interesting question about our responsibilities to our fellow man.
Daedalean's_Sun
New member
The subject, is your claim, which lacks corroboration due to your only source being a ghost citation. It is mere bald assertion until shown otherwise. What is asserted without evidence will be dismissed without it. Beyond that no additional address is required.
Though my umbrage rests on you using the citation of your secondary source, as if it were your own of the primary source. This is plagiarism. It is unsurprising that what you gave was a ghost citation, given the dubious nature of your actual source previously noted.
Yep. These are the kids who have to depend on herd immunity to stay safe. These are also the great majority of kids who have bad reactions to immunizations.