Of course not, and I've said nothing that should cause you to ask.
Its in your tone.
Not my conclusion; you're assumption, scrambling to make up for your fumble with the fictitious Amy Parker story.
It was not a fumble, it was a statement about how life with preventable diseases is. IT was representative and I think people should think about that when deciding to vaccinate their kids or not.
Correlation does not mean causation.
In this case, the vaccine is actually causation. Look at those graphs you make claims about. Look at how jagged they are prior to 1968 and how near they are to zero after. Great swings before 1968, almost none after. And the one uptick after 1968 is nowhere near as bad as the lowest point prior to 1968. The science has been done and the cause is clear - vaccination works.
Some of us also know that measles incidence and death were declining prior to the vaccine. The dramatic drop in measles from the peak in 1940 to post-vaccine-era-like levels in 1945 was not achieved by vaccination but through full employment and publicly funded nutrition programs. Coincidental with the introduction of the measles vaccine there was a war on poverty going on in the U.S. To think food stamps would not have effect on measles incidence is to close one's eyes to the facts of history, how measles was brought to post-vaccine levels without vaccination.
Actually, you don't know this, there is no way for you to know this. This is just you attempting to spin things in favor of your position and it wont work. You need to compare pre 1968 and post 1968 to see what is going on.
There's is also another way to look at this that you obviously haven't considered. Since the introduction of the measles vaccine, cases of measles virus infection have sky-rocketed. Why? A measles vaccine gives a person a measles infection. They call measles infection with one strain a vaccine, and call infection with another strain of the same virus "measles." Whoever is given the MMR is being given a measles infection and can develop the same complications as a wild measles infection. Furthermore, consensus of scientists is that an attenuated virus can become virulent after vaccination.
Well, since that is an incredibly stupid way to look at it, the thought never crossed my mind. The strains of diseases used to create vaccines are developed very carefully so that they are not the virulent forms that make people really sick. Yes, people may feel bad for a few days after but they are not exposed to the full form of measles.
See here.
That's hardly as interesting as the fact several were vaccinated.
It has long been known that the vaccine is not 100% in preventing the disease. It has also long been known that if vaccinated people do get the disease, they get a much milder form and don't suffer the most sever consequences.
We know from adverse events reporting that people who are infected with measles virus through vaccination get really sick and can be left with life changing consequences.
Yes, that can and does happen. Care to tell us are rate that happens for the vaccinated versus the non-vaccinated?
It was obviously fabricated, and I posted a link to a good deconstruction and debunking of the post (some of it I posted).
Yet it may still be an actual account. Your post deconstructed a writen article. It did not hire a private investigator to determine if this person is real or not.
If you get the measles vaccine you are nine times more likely to get a measles infection. Your "fact" relies on a twisted definition of "the disease."
Factually, you are wrong. Vaccines do not use the measles virus directly.
See here. While there is a risk, there is always a risk, the viruses are rendered inactive. The body develops an immunity based on the proteins contained in the sell walls of the virus packet.
Nah. You've just been brainwashed to believe that, so you would intentionally get your child infected with a strain of measles they can sell you and claim the measles infection it causes isn't "measles."
Brainwashed in what way? Is reading the scientific research on the subject somehow brain washing?
I come to a different conclusion and cannot justify intentionally infecting my child (two or more times) with one strain of measles virus that can cause complications and death in order to prevent the slight chance of being infected with another strain of measles virus that can cause complications and death. Frankly, the whole idea strikes me as asinine and dangerous.
Fine. Leaving my children unprotected against easily prevented life threatening diseases strikes me as asinine and dangerous.
Okay. You looked into it and then decided to intentionally give your healthy child a measles infection. Now you are legally allowed to claim your child has never had a measles infection even though you intentionally gave her a measles infection through vaccination.
Since my children never got a measles infection, I can say that my children have never had measles. But then, I actually understand how a vaccine works.
That's all I want, the right to informed consent and the right to refuse consent. Some people want medical tyranny. They want to force my children to get a measles infection despite the risks.
That's fine. Frankly, i don't care if your kid is vaccinated or not as if they get sick, they wont make my kids sick. That said, I would bar your child from attending school or other functions where children with weakend immune systems that cannot be vaccinated may be present. Your right to not vaccinate your child does not give your the right let your children expose other children who are not vaccinated.
If your child is injured by a vaccine and becomes terribly sick because of your decision, will you complain to the vaccine injury court or seek compensation?
Me personally, no. I knew the risks going in and do not have a moral leg to stand on for suing the vaccine manufacturer.
