Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Bedrock Of Vaccination Theory Crumbles As Science Reveals Antibodies Not Necessary To Fight Viruses


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
251 replies to this topic

#241 DarthNinja

DarthNinja

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,910 posts
  • Joined: 18-November 08

Posted 05 April 2012 - 12:58 PM

Hey guys! check out my well thought out response......


Spoiler


It's not that well thought-out...it's missing the word "morons". Adding that would then render it an intellectual gem, worthy of lavishing praise thereupon.

**RETIRED...**

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens & the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We (Allah) parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?" (Qur'an 21:30)

        Sig too big, images removed. - SN

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (David Rockefeller)


#242 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 05 April 2012 - 01:00 PM

It's not that well thought-out...it's missing the word "morons". Adding that would then render it an intellectual gem, worthy of lavishing praise thereupon.


I could never call someone that...........










.........because I prefer 'twit' ::D
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#243 g_bassi13

g_bassi13

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,334 posts
  • Joined: 11-December 06

Posted 05 April 2012 - 01:00 PM

It's not that well thought-out...it's missing the word "morons". Adding that would then render it an intellectual gem, worthy of lavishing praise thereupon.


:emot-parrot:

w909Z5O.gif

On the off-chance I die, gbassi, I love you.

 


#244 dank.

dank.

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Joined: 04-February 06

Posted 05 April 2012 - 04:33 PM

:picard:

Posted Image


#245 Hotdawg

Hotdawg

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,096 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 11

Posted 06 April 2012 - 02:20 AM

My arm still throbs at the injection site from a tetanus shot I got four years ago. I'll never take another vaccine again.

#246 wiseupsucker

wiseupsucker

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 09

Posted 06 April 2012 - 02:34 AM

getting flu shots is a very lucrative business....look at all the trendy flus that have passed by, while not really "curing" them, governments all over the world spent a hellava amount of money purchasing the antiviruses while curing nothing

#247 MadMonk

MadMonk

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts
  • Joined: 11-January 03

Posted 06 April 2012 - 03:54 AM

My question to you is if vaccines are beneficial for mankind then why include highly toxic substances in the injections?

What concrete, verifiable example do you have in mind?

We seem to be going in circles as the same data and graphs are being posted over and again.

Simply looking at the graph above that you posted from Sweden, if we were to accept this but also equally consider the graphs from England and Wales, we can say the data regarding vaccination from both nations is contradictory in comparison for the same time periods


Here's a new one for you. This is from the same site where you produced the graph for London.

Top: overall death.
Middle: Zymotic diseases (excluding measles)
Bottom: Measles
Posted Image
Here it says the death in 1800 is 3000+, while your graph suggest that it was around 2300. Clearly there is a contradiction.

You asserted that "death rate of smallpox has been declining at the same from from 1770-1830. The graph above demonstrates clearly that your assertion is false. I've extracted the smallpox data from 1760-1830 for clarity:

Posted Image

Blue: Raw
Green: 5 year running average
Red: 10 year running average

I did a 5 year averaging to reduce the noise due to large epidemics. Looking at the green curve, the death rate decreased from 1760 to 1770, remained flat until 1800 where it drops off significantly. If you try to fit a straight line to the pre-1800 date and the post-1800 data you will find that the trends are significantly different.

Looking at the 10 year averages, you'll see 1800 being lower than the previous three decades is an artifact of averaging. This also perhaps explains the discrepancy I pointed out above: the 2300 deaths in 1800 in your figure is likely the averaged death around 1800, in which case it is of course lower due to the decline that started in 1800. If further you only show 7 data points you can easily create an illusion of a constant decline.

There are several more observations you can draw from the first chart:
1) While it is true that zymotic diseases experienced a decline in the first half, it went back up after 1840 while the smallpox remained low.
2) Save for an epidemic in 1836 and 1870, the overall death rate of small pox is drastically lower in the vaccination era.

You ask me if it weren't for vaccinations, what led to the decline, I ask if it was the vaccination, why the spike in mortality immediately after compulsory vaccinations etc.


Let's get to this now. Here are several reasons why attributing the compulsory vaccination act in 1867 as the reason for the epidemic in 1870 is wrong.

1) We've agreed that the vaccine is made of cowpox/vaccinia virus, not smallpox. There is no biological basis for there to be a causality.
2) The epidemic is in 1870 touched every country in europe. If "compulsory vaccination" is the cause, how do you explain this, when Sweden and Bavaria had compulsory vaccination long before 1870?
3) In a post few pages back, I've compared the death rate between countries with compulsory vaccination law, and countries without a vaccination law:
Average for countries with compulsory vaccination: 339
Average for countries without compulsory vaccination: 1141

If vaccination is useless or compulsory vaccination causes epidemics as you say, why is it that the data is exact reverse of what you'd expect?

4) Here's another blow to the theory: during the 1870 Franco-Prussion war, the French army had voluntary vaccination while the German army had mandatory re-vaccination every 7 years. There is a clear contrast between the two:
French: 125,000 cases out of 1,000,000men (or 12.5%)
German: 8,463 cases out of 800,000men (or 1%)
Source

Edited by MadMonk, 06 April 2012 - 04:04 AM.


#248 mcgillnuck

mcgillnuck

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,506 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 06

Posted 06 April 2012 - 04:24 PM

It's pretty clear that you've simply decided to take the route of ignoring information and fabricating ideas in your mind.

So you want to toss Dr. Russell Blaylock under the bus and it's really nothing new. For example, I remember reading a 'scientific blog' that was nothing more than a rabid attack on the guy; uttering such terms as 'zombie quack'. Yes, it is always both ironic and funny to see so-called 'professionals' and 'academics' dealing and responding to certain individuals in the most unprofessional and unacademic manners.

Let's forget about the fact that he is a neurosurgeon whose work on a specific surgical approach is published in the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. And if it also makes you feel better he has had several articles published in the Journal of Neurosurgery.

And for the record, the International Society for Fluoride Research in my opinion ought to commended for their work and the Society hosts many respected doctors and emeritus professors. But because they don't toe the company line they get referred to as "anti-fluorites".

I think for some reason you took some unfounded personal offense, which led to you forming baseless conclusions.

I don't believe I have ever stated that 'all immunologists are either blind, stupid or corrupt' (this baseless assumption led you to a baseless conclusion). Also baseless was your assertion that I stated anyone was an 'ignorant lemming'.

It seems like you just wanted to go on an emotional diatribe as a result of some unsubstantiated offense you took.

As for the mockery, yes. I am content letting people decide for themselves what they wish to accept, what information (or if they simply with to accept and/or join the mockery). So be it.

In any case, being that there is no point going much further or deeper...

Key scientists advising the World Health Organization on planning for an influenza pandemic had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing. These conflicts of interest have never been publicly disclosed by WHO, and WHO has dismissed inquiries into its handling of the A/H1N1 pandemic as “conspiracy theories.”

'Conspiracy theories'...never heard that one before. They must be batcrap crazy.

http://www.bmj.com/c.../bmj.c2912.full


See, this is what you keep doing. Finding one little shred of hope that your crazy notions are right and then ignoring all the evidence to the contrary. The fact that Dr. Blaylock published a case study on a cancer patient 36 years ago doesn't make him an authority on vaccines, and it's not a good reason to ignore the mountain of evidence that has already been presented by dozens of posters in this thread.

I'm not taking any personal offense from your posts, but I'm not being gentle with you either because these ideas are dangerous and cost lives, People like yourself who have trouble distinguishing fact from fiction and who don't get their children vaccinated put both their health and the health of others at risk.

What you posted at the end there from the BMJ, I have no trouble with that. Conflicts of interest are a real cause for concern in research, and they should be monitored carefully. However:
1) the fact that vaccine experts have often worked for vaccine-creating companies does not mean they are corrupt or biased. That's just where you work if that's your specialty. All you can do is acknowledge potential biases and keep an eye out for any wrongdoing.
2) That article doesn't claim that any wrongdoing occurred, it just points out the potential for bias which should be further explored

The thing about H1N1 that I think a lot of people don't understand is just how badly that situation could have played out. A pandemic on the scale of the spanish influenza would be near-apocalyptic today. And predicting the next pandemic is not an easy thing to do, especially because you have to predict it early enough to get prepared for it.

Props to canuckbuddy for the sig

#249 mcgillnuck

mcgillnuck

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,506 posts
  • Joined: 25-September 06

Posted 06 April 2012 - 04:40 PM

getting flu shots is a very lucrative business....look at all the trendy flus that have passed by, while not really "curing" them, governments all over the world spent a hellava amount of money purchasing the antiviruses while curing nothing


1) An antivirus is something you download on your computer so you can safely watch porn
2) Antivirals are a class of drug, but they have nothing to do with vaccines
3) Vaccines aren't a cure for anything. They're a prophylactic medication
4) Governments spend the money on the flu-shot so they don't lose money due to working days lost ( ~ $1/4 billion in the U.S. in a normal flu year), hospitalizations and drug costs.

Props to canuckbuddy for the sig

#250 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,913 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 07 April 2012 - 05:24 AM

My arm still throbs at the injection site from a tetanus shot I got four years ago. I'll never take another vaccine again.

I'd rather have a throbbing arm than be dead, but that's just me, people say I'm weird.

#251 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,662 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 07 April 2012 - 05:28 AM

I don't believe I have ever stated that 'all immunologists are either blind, stupid or corrupt'


(Perhaps unwittingly) I believe you are hinting at it.

Let's forget about the fact that he is a neurosurgeon whose work on a specific surgical approach is published in the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. And if it also makes you feel better he has had several articles published in the Journal of Neurosurgery.

And for the record, the International Society for Fluoride Research in my opinion ought to commended for their work and the Society hosts many respected doctors and emeritus professors. But because they don't toe the company line they get referred to as "anti-fluorites".


You love listing those credentials, but it doesnt seem to occur to you that the many doctors that oppose Blaylock's views also have a very impressive list of credentials. You seem to put a lot of stock into credentials, but you only acknowledge Blaylock's.

If you only consider them on one side of the debate, then I dont see the point in considering any of them.

And your anti-flourite marginalization thing seems to imply that there might be some corruption going on.

#252 Jaimito

Jaimito

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,145 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 03

Posted 19 April 2012 - 06:06 PM

http://http://video....y-news/47108451
Posted Image




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.