Social Despite Overwhelming Evidence Vaccines Safe & Effective, "Hysteresis" Endures

[Kalitaur]

Probably because of shit like this:

It was the year 1900, and out of every 100,000 humans, only 13 died from the Measles. Forty years later, that number of deaths went down significantly to less than one person in every 100,000, and on down to barely anyone (0.2 in 100,000) dying from Measles twenty years later in 1960. Just three years after that, in 1963, the so-called Measles vaccine was invented, and “miraculously” it was declared that the immunization wiped out this huge threat to mankind. Amazing....
Measles VACCINE linked to 127 deaths in last 15 years; only two deaths linked to humans who contracted measles naturally in that same period

@Madmick already shit all over your claim, so I'll just add that you really need to stop citing Natural News if you want to look like you have even a shred of credibility.

If the website you are getting your medical information from has an online store that sells alternative medicine, you're doing it wrong. It amazes me how people who criticize the vaccine industry by claiming they're only there to make money from people often get their information from sources that are literally only there to make money from people.

Case in point:

 

[MikeMcMann]

Doubt it will be anywhere close to that. Most newly diagnosed patients will be recommended lifestyle changes. A minority with CVD or a 10-year ASCVD risk of 10%+ will be recommended a single medication. Most of the first-line medications are dirt cheap. HCTZ (diuretic) and lisinopril (ACE-I) are probably two of the most common. Both are free at my local pharmacy. Amlodipine (CCB) is $3 a month. No one is getting rich off of this. Pharmaceutical companies may be actually losing money in the long run when you consider the prevention of more serious conditions.

this makes no sense.

If you have a population of people considered 'at risk' in any area that breaks down such that X% of that population end up taking the primary meds. Y% end up taking supplement meds and so on...

And then you add 30% to that population of considered 'at risk' then you can and should predict with confidence the same curve of medicine take up in both the primary and supplemental meds.

it is not like during the first group they too would would not have a curve of med adoption which would have ALSO been preceded with advice for lifestyle changes, etc. They did not skip all the other steps and just go to meds. Those who END UP on meds are the ones who either do not try the changes or do not get suitable results.

Big Pharma, has that exact data mapped out. They know if they get 'F' Million more people thrown into the 'at risk bucket that G% will not need meds, and H% will, and of those H%, I% will have reactions to the first meds that will require them to need to buy secondary and third or more meds.

All of this was contained in the documentary film that had the internal documents from big Pharma as they were actively lobbying for the next blood pressure threshold range change. Big Pharma was already counting their money before the change happened. That does not mean Big Pharma or the science was wrong. It does mean citizens and politicians and regulatory bodies should remain vigilant, be aware and skeptical but not obstinate.

 

[Lubaolong]

this makes no sense.

If you have a population of people considered 'at risk' in any area that breaks down such that X% of that population end up taking the primary meds. Y% end up taking supplement meds and so on...

And then you add 30% to that population of considered 'at risk' then you can and should predict with confidence the same curve of medicine take up in both the primary and supplemental meds.

it is not like during the first group they too would would not have a curve of med adoption which would have ALSO been preceded with advice for lifestyle changes, etc. They did not skip all the other steps and just go to meds. Those who END UP on meds are the ones who either do not try the changes or do not get suitable results.

Big Pharma, has that exact data mapped out. They know if they get 'F' Million more people thrown into the 'at risk bucket that G% will not need meds, and H% will, and of those H%, I% will have reactions to the first meds that will require them to need to buy secondary and third or more meds.

All of this was contained in the documentary film that had the internal documents from big Pharma as they were actively lobbying for the next blood pressure threshold range change. Big Pharma was already counting their money before the change happened. That does not mean Big Pharma or the science was wrong. It does mean citizens and politicians and regulatory bodies should remain vigilant, be aware and skeptical but not obstinate.

Healthcare expenses are not evenly distributed across everyone with elevated blood pressure. Adding 1% more people in the bottom group is not going to lead to a 1% increase in cost.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Healthcare expenses are not evenly distributed across everyone with elevated blood pressure. Adding 1% more people in the bottom group is not going to lead to a 1% increase in cost.

I am not saying they are. I am saying you will get similar distribution to those in similar profiles within the existing group.

These NEW 'at risk' people fit the profile of many in the pool of PRIOR at risk people. And based on that Big Pharma can use the analysis of their static pools, that they ALWAYS break out to understand just how much med's they expect and know this new 'at risk' group will require and take.

 

[Lubaolong]

I am not saying they are. I am saying you will get similar distribution to those in similar profiles within the existing group.

These NEW 'at risk' people fit the profile of many in the pool of PRIOR at risk people. And based on that Big Pharma can use the analysis of their static pools, that they ALWAYS break out to understand just how much med's they expect and know this new 'at risk' group will require and take.

You said big pharma is going to make another $4.5 billion from these changes.

If an estimated 4 million new prescriptions are added, and if most of these prescriptions cost somewhere between FREE and $3 per month, that’s nowhere close to $4.5 billion.

 

[MikeMcMann]

You said big pharma is going to make another $4.5 billion from these changes.

If an estimated 4 million new prescriptions are added, and if most of these prescriptions cost somewhere between FREE and $3 per month, that’s nowhere close to $4.5 billion.

ok. I will adjust that as the specific dollar amount was never my point. My point is that proportionally if they have 3 million existing clients on drugs because of where the 'at risk' limits are set and the 'at risk' limit is changed such that it adds another 1 Million or 33%, they will expect a similar ADDITIONAL profit win-fall for that group, comparable to the profile of the existing groups in their portfolio or static pools that matched that profile prior.

it is nothing but a big win for Big Pharma to grow their 'at risk' by a huge number and to have them then follow a lifetime profile of medical use and escalation.

 

[Lubaolong]

Small gain in the short-term.

 

[abiG]

INDIANAPOLIS — Health officials are warning people of infections associated with vaccinations given in Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio since September 2018.


According to WRTV, Kentucky Department of Public Health officials said individuals with infections have experienced redness, pain or tenderness, swelling and development of hard lumps, or nodules at the inject site....
https://fox8.com/2019/02/02/officia...-vaccinations-given-in-indiana-kentucky-ohio/

Hmmmm

 

[Piranha1983]

That’s a cluster of the most common injection site reactions. Still better than the alternative, as a risk trade-off.

Before I give people vaccines, I like to thank them for taking care of themselves, and those around them, by ensuring not only a boost to their immunity, but to the ‘herd’ as well.

 

[all caps]

That’s a cluster of the most common injection site reactions. Still better than the alternative, as a risk trade-off.

Before I give people vaccines, I like to thank them for taking care of themselves, and those around them, by ensuring not only a boost to their immunity, but to the ‘herd’ as well.

Thanks, God!

 

[ineverpost]

There is no such thing as bipartisan anymore at the voter level. If one party comes out and takes a stance on something, the other party has to come out and take the opposite stance.

 

[all caps]

There is no such thing as bipartisan anymore at the voter level. If one party comes out and takes a stance on something, the other party has to come out and take the opposite stance.

Some people might even suggest that's by design

Now why would someone EVER design a system like that?

Hmmmmmm hmmmmmm HMMMMMM

 

[PhitePhan]

That’s a cluster of the most common injection site reactions. Still better than the alternative, as a risk trade-off.

Before I give people vaccines, I like to thank them for taking care of themselves, and those around them, by ensuring not only a boost to their immunity, but to the ‘herd’ as well.

How can you claim to know risk trade off when independent research (Cochrane) found research into MMR to be "largely inadequate?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't MMR one of the MOST studied vaccines? This is just one vaccine and doesn't even touch on other research flaws (funding bias, healthy user effect, lack of replication, lack of research of the entire vax schedule, etc)...

 

[abiG]

I'm listening to the M.D.'s. I know my place.

I know how much you like natural news, but see if you can argue their facts here:
VACCINE INSANITY: Multiple strains of deadly pig virus discovered in Rotavirus oral vaccines with no legitimate reason for their use

Isn’t it bad enough that today’s vaccinations contain neurotoxins, extreme allergens, genetically modified organisms, and DNA from abortions? Do we really need to find out that a popular childhood vaccine that’s highly recommended by the CDC contains two strains of a rare and deadly virus that’s killing pigs by the thousands in China? Why the heck is some mad scientist allowed to infect and corrupt a childhood oral vaccine with a foreign virus that has NOTHING to do with the virus the vaccine is supposedly protecting the child against? Just how corrupt is the vaccine industry, and why is the doctor who made the vaccine profiting by the millions as a pediatrician who treats the very children to whom he’s administering a rare and deadly pig virus?

“RotaTeq” and “Rotarix” vaccines are supposed to help prevent rotavirus infection in children, but do they? If a child gets rotavirus, the symptoms are diarrhea, vomiting, sore throat, runny nose, wheezing and coughing. Sounds like the flu. Auspiciously though, the exact same symptoms are the most common side effects listed for RotaTeq and Rotarix oral vaccines.


In addition to fetal bovine serum, RotaTeq vaccine contains 5 LIVE strains of rotavirus, polysorbate 80, and strangely types 1 and 2 of porcine circovirus (PCV) that infects pigs and kills them. The insidious creator of the vaccine, Dr. Paul “Vaccine Industry Puppet” Offit, claims that circovirus is “not known to cause disease in humans,” but he never provides any excuse at all, much less a logical or justifiably medical one, for including this pig virus in a vaccine for children....

Much more here: https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-02...us-discovered-in-rotavirus-oral-vaccines.html

 

[Darkballs]

I know how much you like natural news, but see if you can argue their facts here:
VACCINE INSANITY: Multiple strains of deadly pig virus discovered in Rotavirus oral vaccines with no legitimate reason for their use

Isn’t it bad enough that today’s vaccinations contain neurotoxins, extreme allergens, genetically modified organisms, and DNA from abortions? Do we really need to find out that a popular childhood vaccine that’s highly recommended by the CDC contains two strains of a rare and deadly virus that’s killing pigs by the thousands in China? Why the heck is some mad scientist allowed to infect and corrupt a childhood oral vaccine with a foreign virus that has NOTHING to do with the virus the vaccine is supposedly protecting the child against? Just how corrupt is the vaccine industry, and why is the doctor who made the vaccine profiting by the millions as a pediatrician who treats the very children to whom he’s administering a rare and deadly pig virus?

“RotaTeq” and “Rotarix” vaccines are supposed to help prevent rotavirus infection in children, but do they? If a child gets rotavirus, the symptoms are diarrhea, vomiting, sore throat, runny nose, wheezing and coughing. Sounds like the flu. Auspiciously though, the exact same symptoms are the most common side effects listed for RotaTeq and Rotarix oral vaccines.


In addition to fetal bovine serum, RotaTeq vaccine contains 5 LIVE strains of rotavirus, polysorbate 80, and strangely types 1 and 2 of porcine circovirus (PCV) that infects pigs and kills them. The insidious creator of the vaccine, Dr. Paul “Vaccine Industry Puppet” Offit, claims that circovirus is “not known to cause disease in humans,” but he never provides any excuse at all, much less a logical or justifiably medical one, for including this pig virus in a vaccine for children....

Much more here: https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-02...us-discovered-in-rotavirus-oral-vaccines.html

Naturalnews.com

I am genuinely impressed in your ability to find the shittiest sources the internet has to provide.

 

[ocean size]

In the meantime, know that if are intensely interested in a study like the above, all you have to do to access it for free is email the authors of the study directly (they typically have university email accounts listed at the abstract page) and ask for it directly. They are permitted to distribute any articles they author freely to anyone who requests it.

Or use library Genesis or scihub and get that taxpayer funded info you want pronto

 

[ocean size]

I know how much you like natural news, but see if you can argue their facts here:
VACCINE INSANITY: Multiple strains of deadly pig virus discovered in Rotavirus oral vaccines with no legitimate reason for their use

Isn’t it bad enough that today’s vaccinations contain neurotoxins, extreme allergens, genetically modified organisms, and DNA from abortions? Do we really need to find out that a popular childhood vaccine that’s highly recommended by the CDC contains two strains of a rare and deadly virus that’s killing pigs by the thousands in China? Why the heck is some mad scientist allowed to infect and corrupt a childhood oral vaccine with a foreign virus that has NOTHING to do with the virus the vaccine is supposedly protecting the child against? Just how corrupt is the vaccine industry, and why is the doctor who made the vaccine profiting by the millions as a pediatrician who treats the very children to whom he’s administering a rare and deadly pig virus?

“RotaTeq” and “Rotarix” vaccines are supposed to help prevent rotavirus infection in children, but do they? If a child gets rotavirus, the symptoms are diarrhea, vomiting, sore throat, runny nose, wheezing and coughing. Sounds like the flu. Auspiciously though, the exact same symptoms are the most common side effects listed for RotaTeq and Rotarix oral vaccines.


In addition to fetal bovine serum, RotaTeq vaccine contains 5 LIVE strains of rotavirus, polysorbate 80, and strangely types 1 and 2 of porcine circovirus (PCV) that infects pigs and kills them. The insidious creator of the vaccine, Dr. Paul “Vaccine Industry Puppet” Offit, claims that circovirus is “not known to cause disease in humans,” but he never provides any excuse at all, much less a logical or justifiably medical one, for including this pig virus in a vaccine for children....

Much more here: https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-02...us-discovered-in-rotavirus-oral-vaccines.html

So DNA from a virus that doesn't infect humans was in in the cells used to produce a vaccine ten years ago and was there all the way through the early trials showing efficacy and safety. The vaccine is for a virus that kills 500k children annually. What exactly is the problem?

 

[Blowing Dixie]

So DNA from a virus that doesn't infect humans was in in the cells used to produce a vaccine ten years ago and was there all the way through the early trials showing efficacy and safety. The vaccine is for a virus that kills 500k children annually. What exactly is the problem?

The problem is that our planet is overpopulated. We need less people, not more.

 

[ocean size]

The problem is that our planet is overpopulated. We need less people, not more.

Sorry mate but intentionally not doing something about deadly childhood diarrhea is not effective population control, in fact it would likely be counter productive.

 

[Blowing Dixie]

Sorry mate but intentionally not doing something about deadly childhood diarrhea is not effective population control, in fact it would likely be counter productive.

People would make more babies when they are covered in diarrhea?