Any Anti-Vaccine People on MyBB?

[PhleeBag]

main stream feels left out - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRRaZjXqUBY
Vaccines are the new big money spinner.

 

[porchrat]

50 per 100 000... significant in most statistical circles - yes.

Wow...

You should read more. That is all I can say to that.

(the honest answer for those reading was of course "no, 0.05% is not significant")

 

[PhleeBag]

no, not significant... I guess if you are the ANCYL or ANC... maybe not significant.
To the rest of the world - VERY significant!

http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

... actually I am quite speachless at your lack of comprehension of this issue. Basically you are saying SA's murder rate isnt significant. I guess you will also find our farmer's murder rate insignificant...

Makes sense for someone who says that that amount of people are an insignificant sacrifice for your industry's US$100billion

Nice, glad I dont actually know who you are or mix with people like you. Not the kind of person one wants making any decision about people's lives...

Wow...

You should read more. That is all I can say to that.

(the honest answer for those reading was of course "no, 0.05% is not significant")

 

[BCO]

My maths on the HPV numbers:

12k is 0.05% of the 23 million people vaccinated during the period. Of those 12k people, only 6% showed serious symptoms. "An adverse event is considered serious if it is life threatening, or results in death, permanent disability, abnormal conditions at birth, hospitalization or prolonged hospitalization."

So that's 745 people who have had reactions anywhere from hospitalization to death. So 0.003% of people who received the vaccine had serious side effects - that's 3 people per 100 000.

Of the 745 people who had serious side effects, 32 were deaths, that's 0.000013%. So if the HPV death rate was likened to the murder rate of a country it would be the 3rd safest country in the world after Liechtenstein and Monaco at 0.13 deaths per 100 000.

 

[BCO]

My maths on the HPV numbers:

12k is 0.05% of the 23 million people vaccinated during the period. Of those 12k people, only 6% showed serious symptoms. "An adverse event is considered serious if it is life threatening, or results in death, permanent disability, abnormal conditions at birth, hospitalization or prolonged hospitalization."

So that's 745 people who have had reactions anywhere from hospitalization to death. So 0.003% of people who received the vaccine had serious side effects - that's 3 people per 100 000.

Of the 745 people who had serious side effects, 32 were deaths, that's 0.000013%. So if the HPV death rate was likened to the murder rate of a country it would be the 3rd safest country in the world after Liechtenstein and Monaco.

These HPV vaccines can prevent two strains of the virus that are responsible for 70% of the cases of HPV related cervical cancer. 99% of cervical cancers are caused by HPV.

Cancer treatment is very expensive and must make a **** ton of money for big pharma. So my question to Phleebag is: Why would big pharma want to reduce their profitability by preventing cancer? Or is the vaccine big pharma competing with the cancer big pharma?

MAYBE PHLEEBAG IS A CANCER BIG PHARMA SHILL AND THAT IS WHY HE DOESN'T WANT PEOPLE TO GET THE HPV VACCINE!!!!

 

[BCO]

Nice, glad I dont actually know who you are or mix with people like you. Not the kind of person one wants making any decision about people's lives...

The feeling is mutual. Don't want to mix with people that could spread deadly diseases.

 

[porchrat]

no, not significant... I guess if you are the ANCYL or ANC... maybe not significant.
To the rest of the world - VERY significant!

http://chartsbin.com/view/1454

... actually I am quite speachless at your lack of comprehension of this issue. Basically you are saying SA's murder rate isnt significant. I guess you will also find our farmer's murder rate insignificant...

Makes sense for someone who says that that amount of people are an insignificant sacrifice for your industry's US$100billion

Considering that the context is a negative reaction to a therapeutic medication, and not a criminal act, and that only a tiny fraction of the negative reactions result in death (as opposed to 100% of murders), you're damn right that figure is insignificant. The serious adverse reactions to vaccines are eclipsed by a great deal of over the counter medications and yet I don't see Jim Carrey out there ranting incoherently about aspirin. Your entire movement is irrational.

The time, money and effort that goes into ensuring that these vaccines are safe is incredible. Look at the results, a medication that is distributed and administered worldwide to an incredibly genetically diverse species numbering in the billions and we only see a handful of negative reactions. An absolutely amazing feat. To expect even fewer negative reactions than the tiny amount already encountered (orders of magnitude lower than aspirin for example which if I recall correctly sits at about 0.13%) is frankly unreasonable and impractical. All medications have some amount of negative reactions, it is an unavoidable result of our sheer numbers and genetic diversity.

All of this is wasted on you though. See your problem is you don't care about the actual numbers. To you it is about vilifying vaccines even if you come across as an irrational fool, to you this isn't about the truth, about rational thought. You made your mind up through reading garbage like Naturalnews.

Nice, glad I dont actually know who you are or mix with people like you. Not the kind of person one wants making any decision about people's lives...

That you don't mix with rational people is sad to hear. I think I'd shoot myself if I were surrounded by goons with similar ways of thinking to yourself (CHEMTRAILS!!! THE MAYANS WERE RIGHT!!!)

Considering your irrational behaviour with respect to vaccines I don't want you making decisions about people's lives either. You're a freaking nut.

For the love of Pete you can't spell speechless and don't seem to know how to use apostrophes, let alone apply yourself rationally to vaccines.

 

[Swa]

One side has added considerably to our longevity and quality of life. The others are con artists

It's debatable.

Considering Vaccines alone, the pharmaceutical industry's contribution to longevity and quality of life far outweighs the mistakes that occasionally plague human endeavor.

Considering their unethical behaviours I don't trust them with vaccines or anything else.

Yes I did read it properly and it does not confirm what you are saying. You are agreeing with the fact that Flu Vaccines can give you the Flu, the article stipulates that it cannot do that. Showing similar symptoms does not mean that you have the flu or other virus (for which you have taken the vaccine for). In the rare occasions that people do get symptoms of coughing and sore throat could also mean you have streptococcus infection (strep throat) it could also mean that the big penis you had in your mouth last night was just a little bit to big for you and hurt the inside of your mouth, or the more probable cause is due to a slight allergic reaction (which I have mentioned before) to the vaccine since allergens are also based on antigen properties which causes the antibodies in the body to kick into overdrive and before you say it NO... vaccines are not the same as allergens.

Yes it does say what I said. You are just using semantics that the vaccine doesn't give the live replicating virus but the symptoms of the virus that it doesn't give you the flu. To the person that experiences those symptoms it doesn't matter what the mechanism is and only the cause. Also no, the article lists those side effects as problems. Allergic reactions are listed as a separate category of problems. You are labeling them as allergy. They are deliberately trying to avoid terminology because those are in fact symptoms and they are recognised as being caused by the body fighting the vaccine as it would the flu virus.

OK to understand your wording here - once again it is still confusing me because either you are not getting your point across clearly or you are just regurgitating the same garbage you mentioned before.

We have distinguished that vaccines do not give you the virus (I have posted documented evidence of this from CDC site), Yet you still state



what virus does the vaccine give to your body?

Where are these documents that state that this is a documented phenomenon? I tried googling for it but I cannot find any cases (within recent vaccines) that show this phenomenon where the vaccines can cause you to get a virus. I am seriously interested because this would be interesting to share with my immunology laboratory based customers and see what their thoughts are on this.

The problem isn't my wording. The problem is you only seeing infections that come from the vaccine as being caused by the vaccine. If could be any infection and doesn't have to be related to the vaccine. Secondary infection is a real recognised phenomenon. You are more susceptible to another infection when your body's immune system is already taxed by fighting another infection. It's also taxed when you get a vaccination.

 

[SoulTax]

SWA shows a trend of inadequacy in most things scientific on this forum. I think we are all long past surprised at his ignorance.

 

[ISP cash cow]

It's debatable.

So you saying that the improvement in human life longevity is not down to scientific discoveries such as vaccines and other medicines? now this just shows your lack of understanding of anything scientific or is it #goddidit

Considering their unethical behaviours I don't trust them with vaccines or anything else.

Look I agree that Pharma does make a ***** load of money and sometimes some of them can be unethical in trying to make more money but every company in the world will make as much money as they can with the products they have. Big pharma just have people over the barrel because they develop products that save peoples lives, and improve peoples way of living.

If you want go up against pharma because you feel they are unethical and profiteering morons then fine but don't come and try claim that the vaccines that they produce don't work or that the vaccines actually give you the virus that they are there to defend you from. It shows your arrogance and lack of understanding of the sciences if this is the route you want to go.

Yes it does say what I said. You are just using semantics that the vaccine doesn't give the live replicating virus but the symptoms of the virus that it doesn't give you the flu. To the person that experiences those symptoms it doesn't matter what the mechanism is and only the cause. Also no, the article lists those side effects as problems. Allergic reactions are listed as a separate category of problems. You are labeling them as allergy. They are deliberately trying to avoid terminology because those are in fact symptoms and they are recognised as being caused by the body fighting the vaccine as it would the flu virus.

No and no - this is why people should not diagnose themselves on the internet because if you put in all the symptoms you are feeling, you will have a really high chance that you going to diagnose yourself with cancer. just because a person "feels" they have the flu it does not mean they actually have the flu and it is a HUGE difference because when you go the doctor if they try and treat you with an antibiotic course while you have a virus it is not going to work. So for example your sore throat and coughing situation with fever could be a streptococcus infection (of which I have mentioned before) and it shows the same type of symptoms as a flu. treating it as you would for flu is not going to help.

The same goes with allergies - The one time I went to the doctor as I thought I had flu (self diagnosis as I had fever, sore throat, runny nose, red eyes, and the usual symptoms from a flu), when I got to the Doctor she told me, that it was my allergies. I literally told her nonsense because I had never suffered with allergies my whole life and so I thought she was talking hogwash - anyway she gave me antihistamines and sent me on my way while I was grumbling under my breath. True as nuts two days later after taking what she gave me I was right as rain.

Lesson here for you is that symptoms don't make the virus, they are just signs you have that virus.

The problem isn't my wording. The problem is you only seeing infections that come from the vaccine as being caused by the vaccine. If could be any infection and doesn't have to be related to the vaccine. Secondary infection is a real recognised phenomenon. You are more susceptible to another infection when your body's immune system is already taxed by fighting another infection. It's also taxed when you get a vaccination.

This whole paragraph is actually really really funny. Your claim and Patrick's claim to fame on this subject was that Flu vaccines give you flu. you now post in your own paragraph that you can get a secondary infection that is not related to vaccine so basically you are shooting vaccines down because you may get another virus or infection that has nothing to do with the vaccine itself :wtf: please make up your mind of which side of the fence you want to sit on.

We all know about secondary infections and yes they often occur when your bodies immunity is shot due to it fighting a previous infection, a secondary infection would need to come after a "primary" infection. getting a flu jab is not a primary infection and so you would have had to be sick in the first place with a virus or bacterial infection for your body to be attacked again as a secondary infection. Flu vaccines do not protect you like a shield from all infections it will only protect you from the virus's they have included in the flu jab (in fact your flu shot won't even protect you from all the influenza viruses, it will only protect you from the more dangerous variety as well as the most common ones for that season)


Once again I have tried googling articles on people who have got secondary infections from flu vaccines and have come up empty handed - could you please send me the link of this vault of information that I cannot seem to get to. Also you still need to send me the article from the previous post I asked for a link.

 

[ISP cash cow]

Wow, now facts come from the Joker... how ironic!
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/jama.html - "There were a total of 12,424 reports to VAERS of adverse events following HPV vaccination through December 2008"

the key word there is reports. It does not mean that all of them had major adverse symptoms, or that the causes of their grievances had actually anything to with the vaccines. also since it is an open system reporting system you get the vaccines causes autism nutters going on there like this nutter who actually "reported" this on the system

Like other spontaneous reporting systems, VAERS has several limitations, including underreporting, unverified reports, inconsistent data quality, absence of a control group that is not vaccinated, and inadequate data about the number of people vaccinated. Indeed, an autism activist named Jim Laidler once reported to VAERS that a vaccine had turned him into The Incredible Hulk. The report was accepted and entered into the database, but the dubious nature thereof prompted a VAERS representative to contact Mr. Laidler, who then gave his consent to delete the report.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Adverse_Event_Reporting_System

http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2011/10/incredible-hulk-vaccine-side-effect-or.html

he then also went on to get one of his idiot buddies to do the same thing but that the vaccine turned him into wonder woman :erm:

The reporting system is an essential tool to highlight problematic areas with vaccines but then you get the antivax nutters screwing it up.

 

[Swa]

So you saying that the improvement in human life longevity is not down to scientific discoveries such as vaccines and other medicines? now this just shows your lack of understanding of anything scientific or is it #goddidit

No it shows your lack of understanding and not even wanting to consider something that could go against your beliefs. We have no idea if medicine has helped us for the better. There are still today populations without much contact which live more healthy lives than us.

Look I agree that Pharma does make a ***** load of money and sometimes some of them can be unethical in trying to make more money but every company in the world will make as much money as they can with the products they have. Big pharma just have people over the barrel because they develop products that save peoples lives, and improve peoples way of living.

If you want go up against pharma because you feel they are unethical and profiteering morons then fine but don't come and try claim that the vaccines that they produce don't work or that the vaccines actually give you the virus that they are there to defend you from. It shows your arrogance and lack of understanding of the sciences if this is the route you want to go.

The arrogance is in thinking that an industry which has been engaged in routine unethical behaviour can be trusted when they say anything.

No and no - this is why people should not diagnose themselves on the internet because if you put in all the symptoms you are feeling, you will have a really high chance that you going to diagnose yourself with cancer. just because a person "feels" they have the flu it does not mean they actually have the flu and it is a HUGE difference because when you go the doctor if they try and treat you with an antibiotic course while you have a virus it is not going to work. So for example your sore throat and coughing situation with fever could be a streptococcus infection (of which I have mentioned before) and it shows the same type of symptoms as a flu. treating it as you would for flu is not going to help.

The same goes with allergies - The one time I went to the doctor as I thought I had flu (self diagnosis as I had fever, sore throat, runny nose, red eyes, and the usual symptoms from a flu), when I got to the Doctor she told me, that it was my allergies. I literally told her nonsense because I had never suffered with allergies my whole life and so I thought she was talking hogwash - anyway she gave me antihistamines and sent me on my way while I was grumbling under my breath. True as nuts two days later after taking what she gave me I was right as rain.

Lesson here for you is that symptoms don't make the virus, they are just signs you have that virus.

You are still dodging the issue. It is not from strep and it is not from allergies. It is symptoms from the vaccine itself and it matches the symptoms of flu. The article just doesn't want to use the correct terminology and just lists them as problems but the medical profession recognises what they are.

This whole paragraph is actually really really funny. Your claim and Patrick's claim to fame on this subject was that Flu vaccines give you flu. you now post in your own paragraph that you can get a secondary infection that is not related to vaccine so basically you are shooting vaccines down because you may get another virus or infection that has nothing to do with the vaccine itself :wtf: please make up your mind of which side of the fence you want to sit on.

What's really funny is your inability to comprehend. Just because it isn't related to the vaccine doesn't mean the vaccine has got nothing to do with it because it's the cause. I am pretty firm in where I'm sitting thank you.

We all know about secondary infections and yes they often occur when your bodies immunity is shot due to it fighting a previous infection, a secondary infection would need to come after a "primary" infection. getting a flu jab is not a primary infection and so you would have had to be sick in the first place with a virus or bacterial infection for your body to be attacked again as a secondary infection. Flu vaccines do not protect you like a shield from all infections it will only protect you from the virus's they have included in the flu jab (in fact your flu shot won't even protect you from all the influenza viruses, it will only protect you from the more dangerous variety as well as the most common ones for that season)

They occur because your immunity is taxed by the first infection. It is not an endless resource. You are assuming that it's only infections that tax your immune system when it's vaccinations as well. Or do you think they are magic? No they work with the same immune system and through the same mechanism.

Once again I have tried googling articles on people who have got secondary infections from flu vaccines and have come up empty handed - could you please send me the link of this vault of information that I cannot seem to get to. Also you still need to send me the article from the previous post I asked for a link.

You won't find any as there's no research on it. The pharmaceutical industry doesn't care to do that research.

 

[Aghori]

View attachment 199388

 

[alloytoo]

12424/23000000

.05%

Wow fantastic odds.

 

[Swa]

12424/23000000

.0005%

Wow fantastic odds.

0.0005 = 0.05%

 

[alloytoo]

No it shows your lack of understanding and not even wanting to consider something that could go against your beliefs. We have no idea if medicine has helped us for the better. There are still today populations without much contact which live more healthy lives than us.

Complete with high infant mortality and significantly below average lifespans.

oh and imagine if they were exposed to the pox......

 

[alloytoo]

0.0005 = 0.05%

Yes and I corrected the maths, not the comment.

 

[Swa]

Complete with high infant mortality and significantly below average lifespans.

oh and imagine if they were exposed to the pox......

Not so. They live relatively healthy lives into old age. Childhood is your biggest enemy. People think that we used to live in eras where your life expectancy was 40 and then you died. Not the case as these eras had high infant mortalities that skewed the average age significantly. If you survived it you had a good chance of reaching old age. As we became more aware of germs and took steps to avoid them particularly during childbirth and infantility the average lifespan almost doubled. All without the help of vaccines.

Smallpox is an interesting case as we almost wiped out native civilisations with it. Early explorers were carriers of it without becoming sick themselves. This was through natural adaptive immunity and not vaccination. These natives had never been exposed to smallpox before and so had no natural immunity to it but the longer a civilisation lives with a pathogen the more people become immune to it. Diseases will die out all on their own without the help of vaccines and we may just be keeping them around for longer by protecting the genes that have no immunity to them.

 

[alloytoo]

Not so. They live relatively healthy lives into old age. Childhood is your biggest enemy. People think that we used to live in eras where your life expectancy was 40 and then you died. Not the case as these eras had high infant mortalities that skewed the average age significantly.

You only consider them skewed if you don't consider infants people. Do you not consider infants people? Must approve of abortion then? (or perhaps fetus's are people but not dying children don't qualify)

If you survived it you had a good chance of reaching old age.

But not as good a chance as we have today.

As we became more aware of germs and took steps to avoid them particularly during childbirth and infantility the average lifespan almost doubled. All without the help of vaccines.

While sanitation does indeed have a positive effect on the general well being of a populace, it has very little (if any) effect on the diseases we routinely vaccinate for.

Smallpox is an interesting case as we almost wiped out native civilisations with it. Early explorers were carriers of it without becoming sick themselves. This was through natural adaptive immunity and not vaccination.

Sigh.

The carriers were survivors of childhood ailments, meaning their bodies had acquired resistance the old fashion (and life threatening) way by surviving the disease.

That's in essence what immunization does. (without the life threatening part)

These natives had never been exposed to smallpox before and so had no natural immunity to

Without an immunity conveyed by childhood exposure the entire population was at extreme risk.


[/quote]
it but the longer a civilisation lives with a pathogen the more people become immune to it. Diseases will die out all on their own without the help of vaccines and we may just be keeping them around for longer by protecting the genes that have no immunity to them.[/QUOTE]

That's called natural selection.

 

[noxibox]

Complete with high infant mortality and significantly below average lifespans.

Death during childbirth is likely a leading cause of fatalities amongst the women.