| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
Well I did apologise for going off topic but this prompts another thought. If we accept that vaccination is essentially a state-solution, even a multi-state solution, then it may be that it is The State, the nascent New World Order, rather than Big Pharma which is responsible for 'the lies'.
We might even say that academia is essentially a multi-state agency. If they are the true enemy then it is even more important that we do not go down the fashionable route of blaming such relatively minor players as Big Pharma.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
O.k. somebody needs to take the role of Devil's Advocate....
Graphs (being statistical tools) can be compiled to support any argument you wish.
Let's look (for instance) at whooping cough (Pertussis).
The graph in Ishmael's post, showing the decline in mortality from the disease in the U.K. does not reveal the full picture.
Vaccine was not introduced to cut the number of deaths from whooping cough (that was already under control thanks to modern medicine, including antibiotics and general improvements in health care).
It was introduced to cut the incidence of whooping cough in the general population.... and to reduce the cost of treating this debilitating illness.
This graph shows how effective the program was:
http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/pert_uk.jpg
You can see from the blown-up insert that as soon as take-up of the vaccine dropped off the incidence of the disease increased.
Lies, damned lies and.... graphs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
| Big Pharma does not rely on any particular scientific theory |
No but it does rely on one financial theory - "it's only worth inventing drugs which can be sold for a lot of money."
By the law of averages big Pharma should occasionally come up with a drug which is cheap to produce or a medical breakthrough which is - horror! - free. But they never do. Instead a disproportionate amount of research is undertaken on chronic diseases which will earn a fortune because the drugs will have to be taken for years - Alzheimer's, asthma, heartburn. Vaccines are an exception but only because they can get the government to stump up for millions of treatments.
Of course, if you have an unusual disease - screw you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Most judicious, as always, Chad. Grant, why are you blaming pharmaceutical firms for not being philanthropic? If it is true (and I agree that it is) that various categories of needed medicines are not suitable for capitalistic development then it is up to the State(s) and various World Agencies to deal with the problem. Not the pharmaceutical companies. Actually it would be illegal (in Britain anyway) for a publicly-owned company to develop a non-profitable drug.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | We might even say that academia is essentially a multi-state agency. If they are the true enemy then it is even more important that we do not go down the fashionable route of blaming such relatively minor players as Big Pharma. |
I'm even more radical.
I blame no one.
It's just human nature and, as such, we are probably programmed this way for some reason -- though it frustrates me so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | The graph in Ishmael's post, showing the decline in mortality from the disease in the U.K. does not reveal the full picture. |
THIS is the kind of argument I hoped for! Great point!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | This graph shows how effective the program was |
Amazing graph. Love it!
Got more?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Grant wrote: | | Of course, if you have an unusual disease - screw you. |
Yes. And if the pharma companies would only stop producing drugs for the people who can pay for drugs, well then the people with unusual diseases would be a hell of a lot better off!!!
Right!?!?!
Am I right fellas?!?!?
Let's get the wankers! How dare they help people who can afford to pay!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
It's only worth writing books that can be sold for a lot of money!
Let's rid ourselves of all those non-publicly minded writers!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
It's only worth delivering pizza that can be sold for a lot of money!!
Curse you Dominoes and Pizza Hut!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
FREE PIZZA!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
Canadians. They don't do irony.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Chad wrote: | | This graph shows how effective the program was |
Amazing graph. Love it!
Got more? |
It isn't difficult to find very plausible evidence in support of the efficacy of vaccines:
Or if you prefer a textual analysis:
| During the 12 years of the mostly 1-dose US 'varicella' [chicken pox] vaccination program, the annual average mortality rate for 'varicella' listed as the underlying cause declined 88%, from 0.41 per million population in 1990-1994 to 0.05 per million population in 2005-2007. The decline occurred in all age groups, and there was an extremely high reduction among children and adolescents younger than 20 years (97%) and among subjects younger than 50 years overall (96%). |
But before accepting any statistical analysis, it's always best to, firstly, decide what (if any) axe, the presenter has to grind and, secondly, seek out the counter argument, to put you on an even keel. Then gather as much additional data as you deem fit... and do your own analysis.
In the case of vaccines, it's clear that (just like the berries on the trees) some will bestow beneficial effects, while others will do you harm.
We can't tar them all with the same brush, just as we can't sing their universal praises.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| just as we can't sing their universal praises. |
Why not? I find it difficult to believe that anybody would go to the trouble of setting up a vaccination programme that was inefficacious. Perhaps somebody would care to name one that was. With or without graphs. But with their own personal assurance that they had examined the evidence, however cursorily. Après Chad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| I find it difficult to believe that anybody would go to the trouble of setting up a vaccination programme that was inefficacious. |
I'd second that, with regards to current (and recent?) programs, but vaccines have been used now for a good length of time and it's the recent analysis of some earlier efforts that set the anti-vaccine ball rolling (or rather, added to its momentum)... and unleashed the tar brush.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
