I've heard doctors say that vaccines did not eradicate smallpox or polio, and in fact the outbreaks did not decrease after the vaccine was introduced.....what did eradicate those diseases then?
If you could post any sources that would be appreciated.
Thank you
Unfortunatly there is mass ignorance on the subject of vaccinations. Your doctor and the drug companies would like you to believe that vaccinations have indead erradicated serious threats to human health. But that is very wrong.
I do not believe that your average doctor or nurse is intentionally trying to harm you or your child when they suggest vaccinations. They, sadly, are just as ignorant as the mass public, and choose to believe the drug companies claimes that vaccinations are the answer.
Reference the charts below.... In most (if not all cases) these miracle vaccinations that "erradicated" these terrible diseases were only introduced AFTER a major fall in the death rate due to the disease.
Polio deaths were almost nonexistant BEFORE the vaccine was introduced- and there was a minor rise in deaths after the introduction. Several years after the definintion of polio was changed and all deaths were blaimed on other diseases...
The doctors , assuming the vaccination was flawless, saw patients who appeared to have polio and had been vaccinated and thought it couldnt have possibly been polio ! And therefor the diagnosis was not polio
This web site contains some very interesting information about polio
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html
"Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic meningitis.......According to one of the 1997 issues of the MMWR, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis per year in the United States alone. That's where all those 30,000 - 50,000 cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination"---Viera Scheibner
Polio has not been erradicated but meerly redifined. Since the introduction of the vaccine and the supposed "erradication" of this disease new cases of polio are now labeled as other dieseases i am sure you have heard of
Viral or aseptic meningitis, Guillaine Barre Syndrome (GBS), Chinese Paralytic syndrome, CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME, epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal meningitis, spinal apoplexy, inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever, bilious remittent fever, ergotism, ME, post-polio syndrome, acute flaccid paralysis Synonyms for GBS]
There has also been similarity drawn to pellagra, beriberi, and other deficiency diseases.
I encourage you to research polio and some of these other diseases to see the similarities for yourself
Nutritional deficiencies! If you do some of your own research on food around the turn of the last century you will find that for the first time in history of mankind the mass public has turned entirely to store bought processed foods instead of growing raising and making all of their own food.
Outbreaks of Beri beri ( the deficiency disease listed above) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriberi, and mental insanity were reported after wheat processors and distrubuters began to take the wheat germ out of their flour to produce a longer lasting product. The wheat germ contains vital nutrients ( specifically thiamine b1)but also causes the flour to spoil quicker. This also applies to many other grains and foods. As it seems the vitamin rich parts of the food cause spoilage they are removed so that food suppliers can store the items for long peroids of time.
Food companies began to ENRICH ( ever look at your box of morning cereal, it has most likely been enriched) their products with synthetic vitamins to make up for the vitamins lost during processing.
This seems to have cleared up most of the major ( and OBVIOUS) health problems caused by food processing. However i strongly believe that this food enriched with synthetic vitamins still pales in comparison to real whole food
So now , because vaccinations have been touted as the cure for these diseases people get more and more vaccinations instead of strengthening their bodies with good nutrition.
Another note on polio vaccinations.
Between 1955 and 1963 at least 30 million doses of polio vaccination were contaminated with SV40 a monkey virus that has been linked to several times of cancer including brain and mesothelioma
THis is fact check out the information on the CDC website
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/archive/polio_and_cancer.htm#5
There have been many reports of other vaccinations being contaminated
for example recently ( THIS YEAR) there has been pig Virus DNA Found in Rotarix vaccination given to children
http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/April-2010/Vaccine-Contamination-Pig-Virus-DNA-Found-in-Rota.aspx
If you follow your doctors direction in regards to your childs health they will suggest up to 50 doses of vaccination by the age of 5.
If you do your own research you will find that ,like these early vaccinations, there is very little proof that ANY vaccination works, along with lots of proof that vaccines cause many health problems.
The risks outweigh any perceived benefit-- especially when we are dealing with young, developing children
Nutrition is the answer
not vaccination
""Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic meningitis.......According to one of the 1997 issues of the MMWR, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis per year in the United States alone. That's where all those 30,000 - 50,000 cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination"---Viera Scheibner"
if that is true....this will be one of the most horrible scandals of the centruy...regardless of whether big media picks it up or not.
if this is true, what do all these vaccine lovers say to this?
I'm not a "vaccine lover", but I have to concur with Metus and MisguidedOpinions. As vaccines are preventative, one should look at graphs of infection rates instead of death rates. That is to say, were there statistically significant reductions in infection rates immediately following the advent of mass vaccinations?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
To shed more light on this point: With poor nutrition, bad hygiene and tiredness an infection with measles for a child is almost certainly lethal. With good nutrition, good hygiene (to prevent secondary infections) and good rest an infection with measles can be harmless and will be in most cases. But to get rid of the remaining risks like death or whatever vaccination is appropriate. A vaccine is applied for the same reason as a condom: Not to get rid of an STD or unwanted pregnancy but to prevent it.
edit....I don't want this to be about vaccines in general....but specifically about my original question....so i deleted this post.....
"if this is true, what do all these vaccine lovers say to this?"
I'd say it isn't true. First of all, those numbers are way to big. The highest number of paralytic polio cases in the US was about 21,000 in 1952. But I do think I know where he gets the 30-50 thousand figure. You see, most cases of viral meningitis are caused by enteroviruses. A genus which polio is a group of. The CDC has a page which says there are between 25 and 50 thousand hospitalizations per year in the US of non-polio enteroviruses(and yes, it specifically says non-polio), and it also says that there are 10-15 million infections(or "cases", but it should be noted that most of these aren't viral meningitis but milder reactions) per year in the US. That guy is wrong on at least half a dozen levels. And here's a bit of trivia, between 1980 and 1999 all but 8 of the 152 reported cases of polio were caused by vaccines. That's because the less safe pre-Salt oral vaccine was still in use. Now that it's no longer used and foreign polio vaccination programs have made headway, I can safely say there is, on average, less than one case of polio per year.
"
I'd say it isn't true."
sjm442005 what say you to that? is that true or not?
who here even believes in the germ theory of disease?
what is wrong with germ theory? by which i mean the notion that germs are solely responsible for disease (which may strawman more nuanced theories, but humor me).
the problem is that we have symbiotic relationships with many microorganisms, some of which will become harmful germs in the right conditions, but which usually are helpful.
a good example is the stomach bacteria H. pylori, which causes stomach ulcers. but does it really cause stomach ulcers? well, yes, in that it is the proximate cause, but the underlying causes are things like stress, poor nutrition, etc.
you may not have known that H. pylori is very helpful for regulating stomach acid, and that antibiotics that destroy all H. pylori promote obesity.
this is a problem that should be easy for Austrians to wrap their head around: just as greedy companies may be the proximate cause of the subprime problem but not the root cause, H. prlori are the proximate cause of stomach ulcers but not the root cause. we need companies that are "greedy" (pursue their self-interest) to function well as a society, just as we need H. pylori for function well as human beings.
the germ theory is a theory that only looks at proximate causes. Hazzlitt's Economics in One Lesson is the best antidote to this medical silliness.
or in the spirit of Tom Woods's explosion of the fallacy the greed caused the financial crisis, blaming disease on germs is like blaming plane crashes on gravity.
"or in the spirit of Tom Woods's explosion of the fallacy the greed caused the financial crisis, blaming disease on germs is like blaming plane crashes on gravity."
I don't understand how this is relevant to this post...please help me see the light....
i'm saying that vaccines are a red herring; what happened is capitalism raised people's standards of living, so fewer people were living in poverty without emergency care or proper food and water, housing, etc.
the significance of rejecting bright-line germ theory is that you can see the body partly as a system of symbiotic relationships and that germs are only the final cause of disease after your general health has fallen far enough. you probably have the cold virus in your nose right now, but do you have a cold?
so vaccines couldn't do much anyway. the whole vaccine thing is predicated on the germ theory of disease, which is kind of silly. vaccines are like FinReg. they try to attack the proximate causes without realizing that if the root causes are still there a disease condition will manifest one way or another (maybe not the same disease), and often the vaccines themselves will promote other diseases by weakening the person's overall system.
"so vaccines couldn't do much anyway" Then how do you explain this? I just threw it together so the legend is incomplete but the red line marks the introduction of the vaccine.
MisguidedOpinions, that is a much better graph than the previously posted. It shows a much nearer correlation of vaccine deployment and fall in polio cases. Critics who will point out that cases were falling before deployment should consider that polio cases also plummeted before deployment for no apparent reason. Though it is obvious that cases dropped massively and stood low since deployment. I am not aware of any other drastic changes between 1953 and 1963 that would cause such a fall.
Zangelbert Bingledack, the germ theory of disease merely states that germs cause diseases, that is there are no symptoms without the infection with germs. This does not rule out that other conditions have to be met too. The sole practical implication of this is to keep the body away from germs and if not practical or possible provide the body means to prevent the outbreak of the disease, i.e. vaccines.
re: the big graph, correlation is not causation, and even if it were we should expect the slope of the downtrend to increase when the vaccine was disseminated, but it doesn't.
re: Metus, i agree, that is why i said bright-line germ theory, where i explained initially that i am talking about germs being the only cause, as if something just struck down from the heavens. a lot of people still believe this.
Zangelbert Bingledack, no one who performs medical research believes in bright-line germ theory. Immunologic theory is much more intricate nowadays. And intuitively many people know that the bright-line germ theory is wrong. Most people know that bad nutrition, lack of movement, drugs lead to bad health and ultimately higher infection rates. I do not respond to discredit you, I post merely because people can and will misunderstand such statements as yours and wave modern medical research off.
As to your comment on the graph, no we do not have to expect the slope to increase. We would, without vaccine, expect polio infections to rise, but they did not. Now, correlation does not imply causation but together with a plausibly theory of how vaccines and the immune system work we can not dismiss the statement "Vaccination against polio works" but we have stark evidence against "Vaccination against polio does not work".
agree about not being able to dismiss vaccines based on the graph, but also not being able to draw conclusions in favor of them.
as to modern medical science not embracing bright-line germ theory, that may be so, but doctors prescribe and advise as if they did embrace it: except in obvious cases they only give minimal advice, if any, about nutrition, excercise, and so on. they tend to hair-trigger prescribe drugs. a major side effect of both chemotherapy and radiation is increased cancer rates (elsewhere in the body). although bright-line germ theory may be cognitively rejected, its legacy remains dominant.
i have to admit, though, that you could argue that this is more due to corporatism with big pharma influencing doctors than to any vestiges of black-and-white germ theory. but i suspect it's a hearty helping of both.