Scientists have figured out how to use social media. They are using the only tools that anti-vaxxers know how to use, except they are spreading honest information instead of lies. Here’s how you are being lied to PeaceGirl:
It's junk science. .:lol: You don't know what "junk science" is, or what science is. You don't know anything at all. You wouldn't know reality if it bit you in the ass. That's what comes from being home-schooled by your father. "Junk science" is a trope produced by Fox News and their acolytes to spread denialism about global warming and other facts that they find inconvenient to their profits. They are Big Liars, just like you! :lol:
Scientists have figured out how to use social media. They are using the only tools that anti-vaxxers know how to use, except they are spreading honest information instead of lies. Here's how you are being lied to PeaceGirl:The US child mortality rate is worse than many other countries who do not follow this rigid vaccination schedule. Something is wrong here whether you want to see it or not. I, knowing what I know now, would never have vaccinated my children and they didn't have 75% of the vaccines that are being recklessly administered to every baby born. They received a third of them. There are no epidemics going on in the U.S. at this time and no reason to give a shot that contains three diseases. These shots do come with risks, believe it or not. Interestingly, the statistics do show that smallpox was on the decline as well as polio and many other diseases before vaccinations were ever instituted on a mass scale. This is not made up; these statistics were taken from the period of time that these scourges occurred. So don't tell me that vaccinations are the hero here. And please don't label me by calling me an anti-vaxxer. You do that to portray me as someone who should not be taken seriously. It won't work anymore as more and more parents (professionals and lay people alike) are opting out of vaccines for good reason.
It's junk science. .:lol: You don't know what "junk science" is, or what science is. You don't know anything at all. You wouldn't know reality if it bit you in the ass. That's what comes from being home-schooled by your father. "Junk science" is a trope produced by Fox News and their acolytes to spread denialism about global warming and other facts that they find inconvenient to their profits. They are Big Liars, just like you! :lol: I don't care what you have to say David. You are so confused about so many things, there's no point in communicating with you.
Scientists have figured out how to use social media. They are using the only tools that anti-vaxxers know how to use, except they are spreading honest information instead of lies. Here's how you are being lied to PeaceGirl:The US child mortality rate is worse than many other countries who do not follow this rigid vaccination schedule. 1. A country is not a "who." :lol: 2. Do you know what "correlation does not equal causation" means, dumb ass? Do you think the decline in the number of pirates since the mid-19th century is the cause of the global warming observed since then? See: Flying Spaghetti Monster. :lol:
I, knowing what I know now, would never have vaccinated my children…It's unfortunate that you reproduced. Although, I must say, from what you said at FF, you have pretty good kids. A point in their favor is that they refuse to read Seymour's book. Another point is that one of your sons is a radiologist, and could easily disprove to you Lessans' claims about light and sight. That he does not do so, indicates that he does not want to hurt your feelings. I have no such hesitation :-)
And please don't label me by calling me an anti-vaxxer. You do that to portray me as someone who should not be taken seriously. It won't work anymore as more and more parents (professionals and lay people alike) are opting out of vaccines for good reason.You are against vaccinations, what should I call you? I showed you how you are being lied to, you didn't respond. I compared the odds of a vaccine hurting you vs a disease hurting you, you didn't respond, you said "these shots come with risk, believe it or not". I do believe it, I listed what the risk is. Those risks are given to you to read before you get the shot. That's all in the science. So you aren't acting rationally, so I won't call you that, but what would like to be called?
Sorry, I couldn’t get a better picture up there before.
Here’s a link to better see the lie from Sherri Tenpenny the anti-vaxxer. CFI is being really uncooperative with my posts today.
https://www.facebook.com/vaccineinfo/photos/a.408334680890.205178.171964245890/10153188133165891/?type=1&hc_location=ufi
And here’s some sciencey stuff from a group working against her and her lies:
Is the US rate of infant mortality high? Yes it is, compared to most other OECD countries. But that has nothing to do with the number of vaccines given, as anti-vaxxers like Sherri Tenpenny like to claim, and it's a complete lie to suggest that the US has the highest rate of infant mortality in the world. Anti-vaxxers lie - but you knew that, right? There are many factors affecting the rate, including inequitable access to health care, and differences between countries in how live births are defined. But the single biggest cause appears to be that the US has exceptionally high rates of pre-term births - in the industrialized world only Cyprus has a higher rate. And pre-term births are bad news: when 1 in 8 American infants are born between 22 and 37 weeks gestation it's unsurprising that infant mortality is high. If the US had the same rate of pre-term births as Sweden, the US infant mortality rate would drop by around 33%. [Sources in comments] But for anti-vaxxers it's always the vaccines. Always.
Do you think the decline in the number of pirates since the mid-19th century is the cause of the global warming observed since then? See: Flying Spaghetti Monster. :lol:Really? Are you serious? Oh My Goodness, we've got to bring back Piracy real quick, so as to stem the Global Warming Problem.
And please don't label me by calling me an anti-vaxxer. You do that to portray me as someone who should not be taken seriously. It won't work anymore as more and more parents (professionals and lay people alike) are opting out of vaccines for good reason.You are against vaccinations, what should I call you? I showed you how you are being lied to, you didn't respond. I am being lied to regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines. If I knew there was a small risk that my child could have an adverse reaction, I as a parent have the right in a free country to make the decision to vaccinate or not. I am not obliged to sacrifice the health of my child for the greater good. Humans are not cattle.
I compared the odds of a vaccine hurting you vs a disease hurting you, you didn't respond, you said "these shots come with risk, believe it or not". I do believe it, I listed what the risk is. Those risks are given to you to read before you get the shot. That's all in the science. So you aren't acting rationally, so I won't call you that, but what would like to be called?I am acting rationally. I don't trust all of the vaccines that babies are being exposed to. You are entitled to think what you want, and I'm entitled to think what I want.
not much for conversation are you? I asked you what I should call you. no response. Add that to the list of things not responded to.
Instead you bring up your rights. I never said anything about forcing anyone to get vaccinated. You ran out of defenses for your arguments pretty fast. That should make you rethink your stand, but that would be hard, wouldn’t it?
not much for conversation are you? I asked you what I should call you. no response. Add that to the list of things not responded to.Call me peacegirl. Stop telling me I'm not responding to you. Maybe I didn't see the post so stop making premature judgments so quickly.
Instead you bring up your rights. I never said anything about forcing anyone to get vaccinated.You didn't, but that's what government is trying to do; take away a parent's rights to make this most serious decision.
You ran out of defenses for your arguments pretty fast. That should make you rethink your stand, but that would be hard, wouldn't it?I did not run out of defenses Lausten. I am warning parents to be cautious and get the facts (from an unbiased source) which certainly does not come from the vaccine makers, the FDA, or even the pediatricians who could lose their license if they dare open their mouths against the medical mafia.
Sorry, I couldn't get a better picture up there before. Here's a link to better see the lie from Sherri Tenpenny the anti-vaxxer. CFI is being really uncooperative with my posts today. https://www.facebook.com/vaccineinfo/photos/a.408334680890.205178.171964245890/10153188133165891/?type=1&hc_location=ufi And here's some sciencey stuff from a group working against her and her lies:The link is below to read the full study. Human & Experimental Toxicology Hum Exp Toxicol. 2011 Sep; 30(9): 1420–1428. doi: 10.1177/0960327111407644 PMCID: PMC3170075 Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman Abstract The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and those giving 21–23, and 24–26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential. Keywords: infant mortality rates, sudden infant death, SIDS, immunization schedules, childhood vaccines, drug toxicology, synergistic effects, linear regression model Introduction The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important measures of child health and overall development in countries. Clean water, increased nutritional measures, better sanitation, and easy access to health care contribute the most to improving infant mortality rates in unclean, undernourished, and impoverished regions of the world.1–3 In developing nations, IMRs are high because these basic necessities for infant survival are lacking or unevenly distributed. Infectious and communicable diseases are more common in developing countries as well, though sound sanitary practices and proper nutrition would do much to prevent them.1 The World Health Organization (WHO) attributes 7 out of 10 childhood deaths in developing countries to five main causes: pneumonia, diarrhea, measles, malaria, and malnutrition—the latter greatly affecting all the others.1 Malnutrition has been associated with a decrease in immune function. An impaired immune function often leads to an increased susceptibility to infection.2 It is well established that infections, no matter how mild, have adverse effects on nutritional status. Conversely, almost any nutritional deficiency will diminish resistance to disease.3 Despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country,4 33 nations have better IMRs. Some countries have IMRs that are less than half the US rate: Singapore, Sweden, and Japan are below 2.80. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates appears to be worsening."5 There are many factors that affect the IMR of any given country. For example, premature births in the United States have increased by more than 20% between 1990 and 2006. Preterm babies have a higher risk of complications that could lead to death within the first year of life.6 However, this does not fully explain why the United States has seen little improvement in its IMR since 2000.7 Nations differ in their immunization requirements for infants aged less than 1 year. In 2009, five of the 34 nations with the best IMRs required 12 vaccine doses, the least amount, while the United States required 26 vaccine doses, the most of any nation. To explore the correlation between vaccine doses that nations routinely give to their infants and their infant mortality rates, a linear regression analysis was performed. Methods and design Infant mortality The infant mortality rate is expressed as the number of infant deaths per 1000 live births. According to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which keeps accurate, up-to-date infant mortality statistics throughout the world, in 2009 there were 33 nations with better infant mortality rates than the United States (Table 1).8 The US infant mortality rate of 6.22 infant deaths per 1000 live births ranked 34th. Table 1. Table 1. 2009 Infant mortality rates, top 34 nations8 Immunization schedules and vaccine doses A literature review was conducted to determine the immunization schedules for the United States and all 33 nations with better IMRs than the United States.9,10 The total number of vaccine doses specified for infants aged less than 1 year was then determined for each country (Table 2). A vaccine dose is an exact amount of medicine or drug to be administered. The number of doses a child receives should not be confused with the number of ‘vaccines' or ‘injections' given. For example, DTaP is given as a single injection but contains three separate vaccines (for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) totaling three vaccine doses.Is the US rate of infant mortality high? Yes it is, compared to most other OECD countries. But that has nothing to do with the number of vaccines given, as anti-vaxxers like Sherri Tenpenny like to claim, and it's a complete lie to suggest that the US has the highest rate of infant mortality in the world. Anti-vaxxers lie - but you knew that, right? There are many factors affecting the rate, including inequitable access to health care, and differences between countries in how live births are defined. But the single biggest cause appears to be that the US has exceptionally high rates of pre-term births - in the industrialized world only Cyprus has a higher rate. And pre-term births are bad news: when 1 in 8 American infants are born between 22 and 37 weeks gestation it's unsurprising that infant mortality is high. If the US had the same rate of pre-term births as Sweden, the US infant mortality rate would drop by around 33%. [Sources in comments] But for anti-vaxxers it's always the vaccines. Always.
Is there evidence linking SIDS to vaccines?
Although some studies were unable to find correlations between SIDS and vaccines,22–24 there is some evidence that a subset of infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated. For example, Torch found that two-thirds of babies who had died from SIDS had been vaccinated against DPT (diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus toxoid) prior to death. Of these, 6.5% died within 12 hours of vaccination; 13% within 24 hours; 26% within 3 days; and 37%, 61%, and 70% within 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively. Torch also found that unvaccinated babies who died of SIDS did so most often in the fall or winter while vaccinated babies died most often at 2 and 4 months—the same ages when initial doses of DPT were given to infants. He concluded that DPT “may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits. A need for re-evaluation and possible modification of current vaccination procedures is indicated by this study."25 Walker et al. found “the SIDS mortality rate in the period zero to three days following DPT to be 7.3 times that in the period beginning 30 days after immunization.“26 Fine and Chen reported that babies died at a rate nearly eight times greater than normal within 3 days after getting a DPT vaccination.27
Ottaviani et al. documented the case of a 3-month-old infant who died suddenly and unexpectedly shortly after being given six vaccines in a single shot: “Examination of the brainstem on serial sections revealed bilateral hypoplasia of the arcuate nucleus. The cardiac conduction system presented persistent fetal dispersion and resorptive degeneration. This case offers a unique insight into the possible role of hexavalent vaccine in triggering a lethal outcome in a vulnerable baby.” Without a full necropsy study in the case of sudden, unexpected infant death, at least some cases linked to vaccination are likely to go undetected.28
And please don't label me by calling me an anti-vaxxer. You do that to portray me as someone who should not be taken seriously. It won't work anymore as more and more parents (professionals and lay people alike) are opting out of vaccines for good reason.You are against vaccinations, what should I call you? I showed you how you are being lied to, you didn't respond. I am being lied to regarding the safety and efficacy of vaccines. If I knew there was a small risk that my child could have an adverse reaction, I as a parent have the right in a free country to make the decision to vaccinate or not. I am not obliged to sacrifice the health of my child for the greater good. Humans are not cattle.
I compared the odds of a vaccine hurting you vs a disease hurting you, you didn't respond, you said "these shots come with risk, believe it or not". I do believe it, I listed what the risk is. Those risks are given to you to read before you get the shot. That's all in the science. So you aren't acting rationally, so I won't call you that, but what would like to be called?I am acting rationally. I don't trust all of the vaccines that babies are being exposed to. You are entitled to think what you want, and I'm entitled to think what I want. Peacegirl is preaching, watch out for elaboration and outright lies. There is a small percentage of people that are sensitive to something, science and the medical profession have known this for a long time, but till there is some test to determine those risks, the benefit far outweighs the risk. How many people could drink Sanka coffee, I used to get migraine headaches from drinking it, does anyone else get any kind of reaction? to this day I will not touch decaffeinated coffee, it's just not worth the risk for me to find out whether it effects me or not. So Peacegirl, you and the other anti-vaxers should be pushing for research for a test to identify those who are sensitive to the components in the vaccine rather than protesting the vaccine itself. You've got your priorities all wrong.
Let me guess the reaction, Peacegirl and her cronies will protest that the test to determine who is at risk is dangerous and a threat to the safety of the children. Therefore, don’t give the test, don’t give the vaccine, just let the children die of those same childhood diseases, and then scream that they weren’t given the vaccine.
UK Scraps Pneumonia Vaccines Because They ‘Don’t Work’
by Dr. Mercola
The United States requires infants to receive 26 vaccines (the most in the world) yet more than 6 U.S. infants die per every 1,000 live births. In contrast, Sweden and Japan administer 12 vaccines to infants, the least amount, and report less than 3 deaths per 1,000 live births.
The study also found evidence that some infant deaths attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) may actually be vaccine-related.
According to a recent press release:
The current study by Miller and Goldman, “Infant Mortality Rates Regressed Against Number of Vaccine Doses Routinely Given: Is There a Biochemical or Synergistic Toxicity?" found a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates.This raises an important question: Would fewer vaccines administered to infants reduce the number of infant deaths?
Other study findings:
The United States spends more per capita on healthcare than any other country; yet 33 nations have better infant mortality rates. Some infant deaths attributed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) may be due to over-vaccination.
Progress on reducing infant deaths should include monitoring immunization schedules and official causes of death (to determine if vaccine-related infant deaths are being reclassified). Infant mortality rates will remain high in developing nations that cannot provide clean water, proper nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care.
At times it is later revealed that vaccines are not even effective. For instance, pneumonia vaccinations for people over 65 are soon to be halted by the UK government, on the grounds that the injections do not save lives.
Millions of people were injected with the vaccine, which was supposed to offer ten-year protection against an infection that causes pneumonia. But independent expert government advisors say the program has had ‘no discernible impact’ on rates of pneumococcal disease. According to the Daily Mail:
“… [T]he protection provided by the vaccine is poor and not long-lasting in older people."
Sources:
The Daily Mail May 31, 2011
Press Release May 4, 2011
Human and Experimental Technology May 4, 2011
Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) March 16, 2011
Finally, someone’s dared to compare vaccination rates vs. infant mortality numbers and then publicly ask the same questions some of us have been asking for a long time: How can a nation that spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country in the world have 28,000 children die every year before their first birthdays?
And if vaccines are so effective in preventing infant mortality, why does the most-vaccinated country in the world have such an abysmal infant mortality rate?
The rate is so bad that the Centers for Disease Control decided to do its own study on why this could be – but didn’t come up with an answer, although they did point out there’s been an increase in preterm birth babies, and these babies are more likely to die of “preterm-related causes." It didn’t elaborate on what those causes were, but vaccine defenders were quick to claim that preterm births were skewing the numbers… However, the CDC disputed that, saying:
“It appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation of the United States’ relatively low international rating."
Evidence Linking Vaccines to Sudden Infant Deaths
The CDC didn’t mention that U.S. vaccination schedules are not altered for preterm babies, even though their immune systems are severely undeveloped and vulnerable. They also didn’t mention that sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths had skyrocketed exponentially with increasing vaccination rates, or that babies most often die of SIDS from 2 to 4 months old – the same time they begin their primary vaccinations.
But the Miller and Goldman study did look at SIDS – and found that a subset of infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated, particularly after receiving multiple vaccines all at once. Citing several studies on infant deaths after the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccine, Miller and Goldman showed that it’s highly possible that vaccine-related deaths are being misclassified as SIDS.
When you consider that Miller and Goldman also found two other studies have shown that the SIDS mortality is seven to eight times higher for infants within three days of their receiving the DPT, it seems only logical to ask: Would fewer vaccines administered to U.S. infants reduce the number of infant deaths?
In my opinion the only way to determine this would be through a comprehensive study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children, especially since other health data are beginning to link vaccines to an increase in chronic diseases like asthma and disabilities like autism.
More than 32 Million U.S. Children are Chronically Sick
Today, half of all U.S. children are chronically sick with asthma, allergies, learning disabilities and other illnesses such as autism and epilepsy. That’s 32 million U.S. children who are sick all the time, every day. As Barbara Loe Fisher said in a Memorial Day commentary for vaccine-injured children, it wasn’t like this when my generation was growing up. And it just makes you wonder: how is this possible in the United States a decade into the 21st century?
What’s different since 1960,
Peacegirl remember this guy, who teaches biology at the college level?
“The Lone Ranger
Default Re: This Just in! Vaccines STILL Do Not Cause Autism
Sadly, Liberia is currently providing a graphic example of how important immunization can be. With the recent ebola epidemic, immunization against measles, whooping cough, and other common diseases all but stopped. What has been the result?
Well, according to the WHO, the total number of confirmed measles cases in Liberia during 2013 and 2014? Zero. But Liberia has seen more than 500 confirmed cases of measles during just the first quarter of 2015.
Similarly, whooping cough – which had been so rare that most Liberian health workers had reportedly never even seen a case – has also made a huge comeback. Some epidemiologists are warning that measles and other formerly-rare, vaccine-preventable diseases may actually kill more people in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone than the ebola epidemic did.”
on the subject,
“The Lone Ranger
This Just in! Vaccines STILL Do Not Cause Autism
By all means, feel free to re-post it. I’m sure peacegirl will have a carefully-reasoned, well-documented, and thoroughly-researched response.
[Originally Posted by Dingfod View Post
I think continuing immunization programs after a disease has supposedly been eradicated would be a good idea. Do you agree?]
For some time at least, yes. It’s well-documented that infectious diseases can “hide” for some time, because not everyone who gets sick reports it. And someone may get a low-grade infection and quickly fight it off without even realizing that they’d just had a brush with something serious like measles.
In any event, as the current situation in Liberia and Sierra Leone demonstrates, diseases that were thought to have been all but eliminated can come roaring back if and when vaccination programs are halted.
That having been said, if the diseases can be knocked down to such low levels that it cannot effectively spread through the population because of high vaccination levels, and if this continues long-enough, then the disease should die out over time.
If there’s no outside source, that is.
Let’s say that an aggressive vaccination program has completely eliminated a particular disease in the U.S. After a few decades during which there are no detected cases of that disease in the country, we could be reasonably sure that the disease has been eliminated from the U.S. population. Great! Since there’s presumably no need to continue doing so, we stop vaccinating against that disease.
And so, after a few decades, you’ve got millions of Americans who are vulnerable to that disease – either because they’ve never been vaccinated or because their last vaccination was so long ago that their antibody titer has dropped to the point that they’re no longer resistant to the disease.
The moment an infected individual from a country where the disease has not been eliminated boards a plane bound for the U.S., we’ve got a problem …
That having been said, I doubt there’s any reason to vaccinate against diseases like smallpox that have essentially been eliminated from the human population. I’d still keep samples just in case, though. And some diseases that most of us tend to think have been eliminated have not. Polio, for example.
There are still occasional outbreaks of polio in places like India, and the disease is still being transmitted from unvaccinated person to unvaccinated person in Pakistan, Nigeria, and Afghanistan. As such, it seems to me that it’s a good idea to continue vaccinating U.S. children against polio, since it could be catastrophic if an infected person were to bring polio into a large population of people who had never been vaccinated against it.”
As you might guess TLR has dealt with Peacegirl before and is under no delusions that she will read or understand what he has posted.
Today, half of all U.S. children are chronically sick with asthma, allergies, learning disabilities and other illnesses such as autism and epilepsy. That’s 32 million U.S. children who are sick all the time, every day. As Barbara Loe Fisher said in a Memorial Day commentary for vaccine-injured children, it wasn’t like this when my generation was growing up. And it just makes you wonder: how is this possible in the United States a decade into the 21st century? What’s different since 1960,Reporting, - many illnesses went unreported then as opposed to a more thorough level of reporting now.
I have seen many reports of the cause of death of a historic figure that is now suspected to have been a cause that was not listed at the time. Historians with medical background are examining descriptions of the symptoms of these people and are deducing the real cause of death, as opposed the cause listed out of ignorance.
- See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/studies-show-that-the-countries-with-the-most-vaccines-have-the-worst-infant-death-rate/#sthash.W9xXkWkj.dpufCherry picking the data can yield whatever results you want, in this case the results are to show that the US has a bad infant mortality rate. Makes you wonder what the real data would show?