Various graphs that PROVE vaccination didn't save us from polio, measles, mumps, etc

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by 18watt_fan on November 2, 2010 at 6:10pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 18watt_fan on November 2, 2010 at 6:10pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 18watt_fan on November 2, 2010 at 6:11pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 18watt_fan on November 2, 2010 at 6:12pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 18watt_fan on November 2, 2010 at 6:13pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 18watt_fan on November 2, 2010 at 6:14pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 18watt_fan on November 2, 2010 at 6:15pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 18watt_fan on November 2, 2010 at 6:16pm

.

It's a 'nutritional' thing as well as a 'sanitation' thing:


Not a 'vaccination' thing:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 18watt_fan on November 2, 2010 at 6:19pm

.

And as we see, even other diseases of which there were no vaccines were in decline long before even antibiotics were available (for those of you who claim antibiotics stopped these particular diseases). They were all declining because of better sanitation/sewage, food availability, hygiene, etc.:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 18watt_fan on November 2, 2010 at 6:22pm

.

I highly recommend this analysis by Meryl Dorey, head of the Australian Vaccination Network:

Whatever happened to Scarlet Fever?

Quote:

Scarlet Fever was a dreaded killer of children (and adults) in the 1800s and the early part of the 1900s. In fact, it regularly killed more people than that disease we have all been taught to believe is such an indiscriminate killer of young and old – measles.

But Scarlet Fever has virtually disappeared. We don’t have scare campaigns telling us that we have to keep our children away from crowds because there is an epidemic of Scarlet Fever. We don’t have stories coming out in the media pointing the finger of blame at those who haven’t been vaccinated against Scarlet Fever and blaming them for the deaths of vaccinated children.

Perhaps that’s because we have never had a vaccine for Scarlet Fever. Never.

So, our learned adversaries who believe – against all of the available evidence, that vaccines have saved the world – how do you explain this decline in the mortality from Scarlet Fever without a Scarlet Fever vaccine? I’m waiting. Let’s hear it. C’mon – don’t be shy…


----------------------------------------------------------------
(end article)

Now check out the comments below the article. "shot info" is Meryl Dorey. The discussion between the two different sides is fascinating:


Keith says:
October 18, 2010 at 4:03 am

Well, that one’s a no-brainer. Unlike the multitude of mainly viruses that we vaccinate against- scarlet fever is a bacterial infection and so managing streptococcal infections with antiobiotic prevents the progression to scarlet fever. Vaccination was never needed for that one because we developed penicillin.

------------------

Chris Higgins says:
October 18, 2010 at 4:11 am

“Husband and wife Gladys Henry Dick and George Frederick Dick developed a vaccine in 1924 that was later eclipsed by penicillin in the 1940s.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlet_fever#History)

That was way too easy, Meryl. Next!

--------------------------------

Christine says:
October 18, 2010 at 5:33 am

To Chris Higgins
You say this couple developed a vaccine in 1924 that was later eclipsed by penicillin in the 1940′s. You poor thing! Looking at the chart (don’t you know how to read one?) even in 1924 the fever incidence had dropped significantly. So what is the point of your response? And penicillin in the 1940′s? It was almost gone by that time. So do you really know more than the chart is showing? Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source either so it doesn’t count. Maybe you could have a centipede for a mascot. You could count the legs then, which might be more reliable. What about whale.to? Oh I guess that isn’t allowed by you!!! Oh well, go back to your Dicks where you will be much happier, while you wait for the next question that maybe you can answer with more relevance.

---------------------------

shotinfo says:
October 18, 2010 at 6:09 am

Awww Chris – you have to stop getting your information from Wikipedia! We never used the scarlet fever vaccine in Australia. Not only that, the vaccine created by the Dicks was not ‘eclipsed by penicillin’ – it was run out on a rail. There were so many cases of serious reactions in vaccine recipients it was decided that the shot was more dangerous than the disease. So no – the scarlet fever vaccine that wasn’t used in Australia was not responsible for the decline in Scarlet Fever deaths in Australia. You will have to try a bit harder.

---------------------------

shotinfo says:
October 18, 2010 at 6:13 am

Keith, I’m sorry but according to the graph, the majority of the decline in scarlet fever mortality took place before mass use of penicillin. This drug was discovered in 1928 and it was another 10 years or so before its use became commonplace. By then, looking at the graph, you will see that the death rate was already very close to 0. Penicillin had no more to do with the decline in mortality from Scarlet Fever than vaccination did.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 18watt_fan on November 2, 2010 at 6:26pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 18watt_fan on November 2, 2010 at 6:29pm

.


“BEYOND ANTIBIOTICS”
By Lawrence Wilson, MD

Excerpts:

In Beyond Antibiotics, the authors use graphs to trace the incidence of the major infectious diseases from 1900 to 1973. The diseases include measles, scarlet fever, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, pneumonia, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria and polio.

All were in decline for several decades before the introduction of antibiotics or vaccines. After reviewing the data, researchers John McKinlay and Sonja McKinlay at Boston University concluded that “.. at most, 3.5% of the total decline in mortality since 1900 could be ascribed to medical measures introduced for the diseases considered here”. Improved nutrition and improved sanitation and hygiene were far more important than the ‘wonder drugs’ or vaccines to reduce these diseases.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page