Slashdot Mirror

...hand washing...

Why am I still debating with you as you clearly show mal intent in your dismissive non-arguments. Again you are falsely equating steadily improved hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions with 'hand washing'.

...smallpox is eradicated...

Do you realise that there was a problem with the varicella vaccines? For instance, debunk this.

And yes, the ruling governments prefer to have the poor people, who live in unhygienic conditions with no access to clean water, proper nutrition nor healthcare, vaccinated.
If you would have paid attention to the thread of this discussion you would have found out that I'm not fighting the claim that vaccines may work, but the claim that in the western world, with the improved hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions, the vaccines are the sole cause of the decline in the infectious diseases. Either you failed to read this properly although I have repeatedly stated this, or you didn't want to understand it.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil....

I have to mention that the previous post was sarcasm, because a lot of people can't recognize sarcasm.

On a more sober note, I'm seeing some doctors claim that vaccines cause children to be more susceptible to diseases later in life. Does anyone have background information about this?

To be specific, Pediatricians admit that vaccines do not cause autism, but some are saying that their vaccinated patients tend to catch more *other* diseases than unvaccinated children, and perhaps getting vaccinated isn't quite so black-and-white.

I'm not conversant with either position, and was wondering if anyone with actual knowledge (and not echo-chamber retelling of conventional wisdom) could comment on this.

Do vaccinated children catch other diseases more easily?

And there's this whole thing about getting the flu vaccine, which apparently is only 50% effective (whatever that means), and is even less effective if you get it several years in a row. Then there are sites like this one that certainly *seems* like it makes a fair point, but...

Nowadays, who can you trust online?

Some examples of scientific disinformation:

The world health organization claiming that drinking pure water is dangerous.

Doctors and scientists insisting that vaccines do more harm than good.

Nutritionists claiming that vegan diets create malnutrition

Scientists rejecting the evolution model

Pick any agenda, and you will find respected authorities rejecting it, regardless of the crazy amounts of evidence in support of it.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil....

Your herd mentality will not protect you. You subscribe to buying immunity and forcing your will on others because you are scared. Using fear to motivate someone is called terrorism. "Buy our products and never ever get sick...er...unless your neighbors don't buy it in which case flog them in the public square! While they are tied up we can together force them to buy it! We at VaxCorp care about your immunity and not about anything else. Oh, and you can't sue us for damage caused by our products"

I'll just leave this here for you. How people can maintain a medical license while spewing such nonsense is beyond me.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.... Your herd mentality will not protect you. You subscribe to buying immunity and forcing your will on others because you are scared. Using fear to motivate someone is called terrorism. "Buy our products and never ever get sick...er...unless your neighbors don't buy it in which case flog them in the public square! While they are tied up we can together force them to buy it! We at VaxCorp care about your immunity and not about anything else. Oh, and you can't sue us for damage caused by our products"

Sorry to hear about your co-worker's loss. Still: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/dis...
"Until relatively recently, only a few caught whooping cough, with less than 150 cases being reported in children aged four and under during 2007. Since then cases had been climbing steadily, until the large outbreak outlined above, which affected countries across the world, including USA and Australia. As to why the 2012 outbreak occurred in this way, opinion at the time of writing is divided.
It is possible that the bacteria causing the infection has changed in some way. Conversely, the HPA has conjectured that years of tight control over whooping cough may have led to people's immune systems not being boosted by repeat infections in adulthood, therefore leaving the population as a whole at increased risk."

And also:
http://www.vaccinationcouncil....
"Prior to vaccination, infants were less susceptible to pertussis because real "herd immunity" was in place, and mothers were passing on immunity to their infants during the vulnerable time. Since vaccination, this herd immunity has actually been abolished, and infants are now more susceptible due to their vaccinated or non-immune mothers lacking specific antibody and cellular immunity for pertussis. This can be verified in the medical literature:
"Diminishing maternal immunity increases the risk of infection among the youngest age groups, who have not yet received at least two doses of the vaccine."[3]
When pertussis is left to take its normal course in the community, the supposedly vulnerable infants that the vaccinationists scream and yell about, are protected by maternal antibodies and mother's milk until they are old enough to process the disease on their own. After vaccines were introduced, this protection was vastly reduced, because the mothers were at best, having vaccine antibodies to pass along to their infants, and that defense is neither effective nor long-lasting. The reason for the diminishing maternal immunity is that vaccinated individuals tend to have lower antibody titers long-term, and breast milk antibody (IgA) is not transferred in vaccinated mothers. As we already know, two doses and even three doses of vaccine is far from a guarantee of immunity. In fact that is the exact reason there is a new vaccine in the pipeline to add to the current FAILED pertussis vaccine schedule. This new vaccine will be inhaled, and in this article [4] touting the need for the new vaccine, the authors detail the many problems with the current vaccine. ..."

It's too late to do anything for your co-worker's family, but to prevent such tragedies in the future to others, one might ask (rhetorically, not to the real person):
* was the child breastfed from birth?
* Was the mother vaccinated against pertussis and so had no natural immunity to pass on via breastmilk?
* did they have a home birth and avoid doctors offices and hospitals which spread disease?
* was the mother eating a great diet?
* did both mother and child get adequate sunlight or vitamin D?
* Did both get enough iodine?
* DId other vaccines like HepB at birth weaken the infant?
* DId compulsory work and compulsory schooling practices force the family to be exposed to more diseases (compared to a basic income and homeschooling/unschooling)?
* Did anyone in the family eat junk food, especially with a lot of sugar?
* Were family members getting enough sleep and exercise and laughter (all immune boosters)?
* And so on for other aspects of optimum health, like Dr. Joel Fuhrman talks about in "Disease-proof your Child":
http://www.drfuhrman.com/shop/...

If your co-worker was at all a typical US American, the answers to most of these questions would be unhea

Prior to vaccination, mothers were naturally immune to measles and passed that immunity to their infants via placenta and breast milk. Vaccinated mothers may have vaccine immunity, which is not the same immunologically, as natural immunity. One of the major differences in the vaccine-induced immunity is that it cannot be passed from mother to infant. Since most vaccines are delivered by injection, the mucous membranes are bypassed and thus blood antibodies are produced but not mucosal antibodies. Mucosal exposure is what contributes to the production of antibodies in the mammary gland. A child’s exposure to the virus while being breastfed by a naturally immune mother would lead to an asymptomatic infection that results in long-term immunity to that virus. Vaccinated mothers have lower levels of virus-specific antibodies in the serum and milk compared to naturally immune mothers and thus their infants are unprotected. “Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 had a measles attack rate of 33%, compared to 12% for infants of older mothers.” Infants whose mothers were born after 1963 are more susceptible to measles than are infants of older mothers. An increasing proportion of infants born in the United States may be susceptible to measles.” [7] “Prior to the universal varicella vaccination program, 95% of adults experienced natural chickenpox (usually as school aged children)—these cases were usually benign and resulted in long term immunity. This high percentage of individuals having long term immunity has been compromised by mass vaccination of children which provides at best 70 to 90% immunity that is temporary and of unknown duration—shifting chickenpox to a more vulnerable adult population where chickenpox carries 20 times more risk of death and 15 times more risk of hospitalization compared to children. Add to this the adverse effects of both the chickenpox and shingles vaccines as well as the potential for increased risk of shingles for an estimated 30 to 50 years among adults. The Universal Varicella (Chickenpox) Vaccination Program now requires booster vaccines; however, these are less effective than the natural immunity that existed in communities prior to licensure of the varicella vaccine.” [See following for full article] http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/07/05/herd-immunity-the-flawed-science-and-failures-of-mass-vaccination-suzanne-humphries-md-3/ 7. Papania M. et al. 1999. Increased susceptibility to measles in infants in the United States. Pediatrics. Nov;1045(5):e59 pp 1-6. PMID 19545585.