Two Up

[ash_1050]

I don't know why people are against vaccines, it gets a free wollipop

But you get an ouchy on your arm for the rest of the day

 

[Sublime]

But you get an ouchy on your arm for the rest of the day

Yeah but what about the sweet disney bandaid?

 

[Crankitup]

never claimed it was, didn't care if it wasn't, didn't care to check. it's his site and he's ultimately responsible for its content; if something is worth looking at someone (in this example: you) should be able to find a better source than that hive of nuttery.

When asked for a source for my original statement I provided a government one and then mentioned 3 supplementaries. You cherry picked two you had a problem with and remained silent on the first one I linked to, the government one. Either you don't have a problem with it or you think it's a nuttery too.

Another thing, I want to get this straight once and for all, you have a problem with that article posted on the Mercola site purely because of where it's posted. Are you alleging the author of the article has made up the figures?

I'll refresh your memory about those startling figures now.

The Philippine Islands provide us with the most striking information on record that with much vaccination there is also much smallpox. Since the taking of the islands by the U.S., every attention had been paid to the perfecting of sanitation. But not content with this, their Public Health Service has seen to the thorough systematic vaccination of the population, adding thereto a considerable amount of serum inoculation.

An American paper published in 1922 reported "The Philippines have experienced three smallpox epidemics since the U.S. took over the Islands, the first in 1905-06, the second in 1907-08, and the third and worst of all in 1918-19.

Before 1905 (with no general vaccination) the case-mortality was about 10%. In the 1905-06 epidemic, with vaccination well started, the case-mortality ranged from 25-50%. During the epidemic of 1918-19, with the Philippines supposedly almost universally immunized against smallpox by vaccination, the case-mortality averaged over 65%!

These figures can be verified by reference to the Report of the Philippine Health Service. The statements are accompanied by, "The mortality is hardly explainable." To anyone but a Philippine Medical Health Commissioner, it is plainly the result of vaccination. The highest percentage of mortality, 65.3%, was in Manila, the most thoroughly vaccinated place in the Islands; the lowest percentage of mortality, 11.4%, was in Mindanao, where, owing to religious prejudices of the inhabitants, vaccination had not been practiced as much as in most other parts of the Islands.

Vaccination had been forced on Mindanao since 1918 in the face of this direct proof that their people were safer without it, and with the result of a smallpox mortality increase to above 25% in 1920. In view of the fact that sanitary engineers had probably done more in Manila to clean up the city and make it healthier than in any other part of the islands, vaccination actually brought on the smallpox epidemic in spite of the sanitary measures taken to promote health. It is certain that over ten million vaccinations for smallpox were performed in the Philippines from 1905 to 1917.

In England and Wales, free vaccination was provided for smallpox in 1840, made compulsory in 1853, and in 1867 orders were given to prosecute evaders, therefore, few escaped vaccination. Deaths from smallpox in England and Wales during 1857-59 was recorded at 14,244; in 1863-65, 20,059; and 1870-72, 44,840.

Between the 1st and 2nd epidemic, there was only a 7% increase in population with an increase of smallpox deaths by 40.8%. During the 2nd and 3rd epidemic a 9% increase of population with an increase of smallpox deaths of 123% with an ever-multiplying number of vaccinations! Deaths per year from cancer in England and Wales between 1857-72 also began to rapidly increase.

 

[DemonTim]

When asked for a source for my original statement I provided a government one and then mentioned 3 supplementaries. You cherry picked two you had a problem with and remained silent on the first one I linked to, the government one. Either you don't have a problem with it or you think it's a nuttery too.

Another thing, I want to get this straight once and for all, you have a problem with that article posted on the Mercola site purely because of where it's posted. Are you alleging the author of the article has made up the figures?

I'll refresh you memory about those startling figures now.

Well yes, it appears the numbers were wrong
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2315899/?page=4

 

[Long Live HFC]

have you checked out his posts on global warming, evolution and fluoride? comedy gold.

 

[Crankitup]

Well yes, it appears the numbers were wrong
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2315899/?page=4

Which numbers were wrong? You've just linked to the same article I orginally linked to.

 

[DemonTim]

Which numbers were wrong? You've just linked to the same article I orginally linked to.

The numbers vaccinated, the numbers correctly vaccinated

 

[Crankitup]

The numbers vaccinated, the numbers correctly vaccinated

I've read the whole thing. I think you are wrong.

 

[DemonTim]

I've read the whole thing. I think you are wrong.

They explicitly say it. That the numbers they recorded were wrong (there's multiple reasons). As well as the reasons behind non correct vaccinations
Although I'm unsure what your point of referencing that is

 

[Crankitup]

They explicitly say it. That the numbers they recorded were wrong (there's multiple reasons). As well as the reasons behind non correct vaccinations

How about you quote the bits you're referring to because I think you have misread.

Although I'm unsure what your point of referencing that is

Here was the point. The first post I made in this thread was responding to someone who had advocated the profound success of the smallpox vaccine. I responded that having recently researched the topic what I found was that in the whole history of vaccinination/innocolation programs targeting smallpox, far more people have contracted the disease through them than have been protected from it. I was then asked references/examples.

 

[DemonTim]

How about you quote the bits you're referring to because I think you have misread.



Here was the point. The first post I made in this thread was responding to someone who had advocated the profound success of the smallpox vaccine. I responded that having recetly researched the topic what I found was that in the whole history of vaccinination/innocolation programs targeting smallpox, far more people have contracted the disease through them than have been protected from it. I was then asked references/examples.

You'll have to wait until I'm on a laptop. I'm not searching through it on my phone

Is the vaccine the same now as it was then? If it's not, then the history of a different vaccine is irrelevant.

 

[CM86]

How about you quote the bits you're referring to because I think you have misread.

SUMMARY.
The available data appear to warrant the following provisional conclusions:
1. Small-pox in the Plhilippines is very severe in type, but its natural fatality rates are very considerably overstated by the exclusion of varioloid, the want of skilled treatment and nursing in the homes of the people, and, probably, incomplete notification of cases.
2. The publislhed statistics of vaccination in the Pihilippines are quite unreliable owing to (a) dom-estic resistanc to the operation, (b) inefficiency of the service, (c) falsification of returns, (d) insufficiency of inspection, and (e) tile hihli percentage of negative results in inspected cases, even in infants.
3. The vaccine-which has been used in the Plhilippines is subject to deterioration owing to climatic conditions,defective I- 162 JA.. 27, 19231 ANTHRAX CONTROL. TrMEDICL JOS .- preservation ui-d transit, and want of care by local officers. At least part of it appears to be inefficient or inert. Much in thlis article las been said by way of raising questions rather tlhan of stating conclusions, and much remains obscure whiclh ought to be made clear as respects both small-pox and vaccination. From the point of view of epidemiology it is desirable to know what more may be ascertainable of the history of small-pox in the Philippinesits prevalence, its varieties, from black pox to varioloid, its fatality in the days of the Spanislh posio.ssion and wlhen the United States came into control. Buit the United States Public Health Service appears to be no louger responsible, the Filipino local government lhaving taken over the administrative control. The whole subject calls for inquiry-not merely by study of the Reports, as in this article, but by competent visitation of the islands and skilled investigation of everv essential detail. One body, the Rockefeller Foundation, seems in every respect qualified for the duty. It recently carried out through a specialist an examination of the healtli problems of Mauritius, a British possession much smaller and less important than the Philippines. The Rockefeller Foundation lhad already, in May last, entered on a medical survey of the Plhilippines, and though the GovernorGeneral in mentioning this gives no details, yet it may be assumed that small-pox and vaccination must come under review.

 

[DemonTim]

SUMMARY.
The available data appear to warrant the following provisional conclusions:
1. Small-pox in the Plhilippines is very severe in type, but its natural fatality rates are very considerably overstated by the exclusion of varioloid, the want of skilled treatment and nursing in the homes of the people, and, probably, incomplete notification of cases.
2. The publislhed statistics of vaccination in the Pihilippines are quite unreliable owing to (a) dom-estic resistanc to the operation, (b) inefficiency of the service, (c) falsification of returns, (d) insufficiency of inspection, and (e) tile hihli percentage of negative results in inspected cases, even in infants.
3. The vaccine-which has been used in the Plhilippines is subject to deterioration owing to climatic conditions,defective I- 162 JA.. 27, 19231 ANTHRAX CONTROL. TrMEDICL JOS .- preservation ui-d transit, and want of care by local officers. At least part of it appears to be inefficient or inert. Much in thlis article las been said by way of raising questions rather tlhan of stating conclusions, and much remains obscure whiclh ought to be made clear as respects both small-pox and vaccination. From the point of view of epidemiology it is desirable to know what more may be ascertainable of the history of small-pox in the Philippinesits prevalence, its varieties, from black pox to varioloid, its fatality in the days of the Spanislh posio.ssion and wlhen the United States came into control. Buit the United States Public Health Service appears to be no louger responsible, the Filipino local government lhaving taken over the administrative control. The whole subject calls for inquiry-not merely by study of the Reports, as in this article, but by competent visitation of the islands and skilled investigation of everv essential detail. One body, the Rockefeller Foundation, seems in every respect qualified for the duty. It recently carried out through a specialist an examination of the healtli problems of Mauritius, a British possession much smaller and less important than the Philippines. The Rockefeller Foundation lhad already, in May last, entered on a medical survey of the Plhilippines, and though the GovernorGeneral in mentioning this gives no details, yet it may be assumed that small-pox and vaccination must come under review.

Thanks mate, completely forgot about this

 

[Randy_Marsh]

Responsible parents immunise their children. Irresponsible, tree-hugging, hippie vegan douchebags with their Looney beliefs refuse to immunise their children.

 

[Crankitup]

Thanks mate, completely forgot about this

So before I respond to this ... has he posted the bit you were referring to? If he's missed anything please post it now because if you were basing your argument on the bit he's quoted I was correct in my hunch that you have misread.

 

[DemonTim]

So before I respond to this ... has he posted the bit you were referring to? If he's missed anything please post it now because if you were basing your argument on the bit he's quoted I was correct in my hunch that you have misread.

Go ahead...show me how that doesn't suggest

The numbers vaccinated, the numbers correctly vaccinated

are incorrect

 

[CM86]

So before I respond to this ... has he posted the bit you were referring to? If he's missed anything please post it now because if you were basing your argument on the bit he's quoted I was correct in my hunch that you have misread.

Actually, I'd prefer if you just explained it, rather than make a show of it.

Because with that summary, I'm not sure how you can say that vaccination may be worse than not vaccinating.

Human error has nothing to do with the actual science and evidence behind vaccination.

 

[Crankitup]

Go ahead...show me how that doesn't suggest

are incorrect

The key is one part you highlighted that said the following -'Small-pox in the Philippines is very severe in type, but its natural fatality rates are very considerably overstated by the exclusion of varioloid .....'

So before we go further can you tell me what you understood by the above statement, focusing on - 'NATURAL fatality rates' & 'exclusion of varioloid' ...

This is where you went wrong.

BTW LLHFC where are you? No response to me pointing out your cherry picking?

 

[Crankitup]

...I'm not sure how you can say that vaccination may be worse than not vaccinating.

....

I've never said that. My first post in this thread was responding to (& limited to) what someone said about smallpox and vaccination.

Then again, the more I read about this subject the more alarmed I'm becoming and I probably won't limit my comments to smallpox in the future. I'm reading something right now about a direct correlation between higher infant mortality rates in countries that have higher numbers of vaccine doses adminstered to children before the age of 1.

 

[DemonTim]

The key is one part you highlighted that said the following -'Small-pox in the Philippines is very severe in type, but its natural fatality rates are very considerably overstated by the exclusion of varioloid .....'

So before we go further can you tell me what you understood by the above statement, focusing on - 'NATURAL fatality rates' & 'exclusion of varioloid' ...

This is where you went wrong.

BTW LLHFC where are you? No response to me pointing out your cherry picking?

I didn't quote it, and didn't highlight but you're now picking a part in the section of the research that says the figures were wrong, and telling me the figures aren't wrong and that I misread
Then you completely ignore the second (andobviously bigger) point

 

[Crankitup]

I didn't quote it, and didn't highlight but you're now picking a part in the section of the research that says the figures were wrong, and telling me the figures aren't wrong and that I misread
Then you completely ignore the second (andobviously bigger) point

Yes I forgot you didn't quote it. You promised to and then someone did it for you. It gets a bit confusing this tag team debating. To be fair though I did originally ask you after he'd quoted it for you whether he'd posted the bit you were originally referring to. Anyway just humour me and tell me what you understood by the statement that included the phrases - 'NATURAL fatality rates' & 'exclusion of varioloid' and then I'll address the second point because there's even bigger holes in your conclusions about that.

 

[DemonTim]

Yes I forgot you didn't quote it. You promised to and then someone did it for you. It gets a bit confusing this tag team debating. To be fair though I did originally ask you after he'd quoted it for you whether he'd posted the bit you were originally referring to. Anyway just humour me and tell me what you understood by the statement that included the phrases - 'NATURAL fatality rates' & 'exclusion of varioloid' and then I'll address the second point because there's even bigger holes in your conclusions about that.

Can't say the first point CM made meant much to me. The second was the quote I was going to post
This 'debating' is tiresome. Instead of trying to trap people, just respond

 

[CM86]

The key is one part you highlighted that said the following -'Small-pox in the Philippines is very severe in type, but its natural fatality rates are very considerably overstated by the exclusion of varioloid .....'

So before we go further can you tell me what you understood by the above statement, focusing on - 'NATURAL fatality rates' & 'exclusion of varioloid' ...

This is where you went wrong.

I read it as it saying that lumping all of the results together and putting them across as only being a failing of the vaccine, means it's considerably exaggerated.

That is, the reported fatalities due to small-pox in the Philippines is not only due to the vaccine or the failing of the vaccine, but what is reported as small-pox. It is due to the exclusion of varioloid 'a modified mild form of smallpox occurring in persons who have been vaccinated or who have had smallpox'.
The small-pox vaccine is for small-pox, not varioloid.

There is nothing in the report that concludes that there is any reason to avoid vaccination, that I can see. But you seem to see it differently to me, so could you please explain it?

You seem to keep putting off responding to it. First you wanted DemonTim to attach himself to my post. Then you wanted an explanation of our opinion of the summary.
I'm not sure what you'll do next, but I hope it's engage in the subject and respond factually.

BTW LLHFC where are you? No response to me pointing out your cherry picking?

To tag a poster, you put put an @ in front of the name of the poster.
@Genericposter
I'll tag him for you.
Long Live HFC

There have been a few other posters who have referred to him as LLHFC.

Yes I forgot you didn't quote it. You promised to and then someone did it for you. It gets a bit confusing this tag team debating. To be fair though I did originally ask you after he'd quoted it for you whether he'd posted the bit you were originally referring to. Anyway just humour me and tell me what you understood by the statement that included the phrases - 'NATURAL fatality rates' & 'exclusion of varioloid' and then I'll address the second point because there's even bigger holes in your conclusions about that.

It isn't tag team debating. You asked for some information, I tried to help the discussion by providing the information that you couldn't find.
Now you have interested me, by putting across that my interpretation of what is said is not correct. So I'm asking you to explain your interpretation.

The discussion would be much better if we all just responded to the points rather than what seems like subterfuge to me.

I've never said that. My first post in this thread was responding to (& limited to) what someone said about smallpox and vaccination.

Then again, the more I read about this subject the more alarmed I'm becoming and I probably won't limit my comments to smallpox in the future. I'm reading something right now about a direct correlation between higher infant mortality rates in countries that have higher numbers of vaccine doses adminstered to children before the age of 1.

This post, connected with your other posts, seems to be having a hand in each pot.
You seem to be saying that you are concerned and 'alarmed' about vaccination. But you're also telling us that you've not said specifically that you're against vaccination, or that you doubt the efficacy of vaccination.

It actually seems rather convoluted to me now.
I don't know what your point or even argument is anymore.

 

[Crankitup]

But you seem to see it differently to me, so could you please explain it?

Sure.

During the smallpox epidemic of 1918-1919, there were in the Philippines 107,981 cases with a mortality of 59,741. The highest mortality (65.3%) was in Manila which had the highest rate of vaccination. Conversely the lowest mortality was in Mindano which had the most resistance to the program.

The mortality rate under vaccination went up steadily from 10 per cent to 65 per cent. The Phillipines Health Service stated that the mortality rate was 'hardly explainable'. It was 'hardly explainable' if you look at the issue from the blinkered point of view that no vaccination program can ever do cause any ill effect. To me, along with the Japanese experience it seems pretty simple that vaccination in this case caused more harm than good. That is not to say all vaccines are bad. What is your view though? Are all vaccines good? Have vaccines ever caused any adverse effects?

You seem to be saying that you are concerned and 'alarmed' about vaccination. But you're also telling us that you've not said specifically that you're against vaccination, or that you doubt the efficacy of vaccination.

It actually seems rather convoluted to me now.
I don't know what your point or even argument is anymore.

When made my first post in this thread one week ago I was doing research, specifically on smallpox vaccination/innoculation programs and their relative effectiveness. Why smallpox specifically? Well I had been researching vaccination more generally after my GP recently insisted I get a Tetanus shot after injuring myself quite effectively with a mulching fork. Anyway whilst researching vaccination more generally I came across the claim that Japan had lost 48,000 people to smallpox vaccinations in the late 1800's to early 1900's. I then came across the Philippines figures.

It was at this point I searched Bigfooty for any discussions on the subject and came across the quote I then posted a response too. Much name-calling and hilarity has ensued but little enlightenment. So far it's mostly been a waste of precious time.

 

[CM86]

Sure.

During the smallpox epidemic of 1918-1919, there were in the Philippines 107,981 cases with a mortality of 59,741. The highest mortality (65.3%) was in Manila which had the highest rate of vaccination. Conversely the lowest mortality was in Mindano which had the most resistance to the program.

The mortality rate under vaccination went up steadily from 10 per cent to 65 per cent. The Phillipines Health Service stated that the mortality rate was 'hardly explainable'. It was 'hardly explainable' if you look at the issue from the blinkered point of view that no vaccination program can ever do cause any ill effect. To me, along with the Japanese experience it seems pretty simple that vaccination this case caused more harm than good.

Wait, none of what you've just posted explains how my interpretation of the summary is wrong.

You've just stated what the summary explained is the incorrect interpretation, due to excluding varioloid among other things.

That is, that due to including varioloid cases as cases of small-pox.
The small-pox vaccine does not work on varioloid. It works on small pox.
So including deaths due to something that the vaccine doesn't counter, means your data is incorrect. And in fact the vaccine did not cause more harm than good.

When made my first post in this thread one week ago I was doing research, specifically on smallpox vaccination/innoculation programs and their relative effectiveness. Why smallpox specifically? Well I had been researching vaccination more generally after my GP recently insisted I get a Tetanus shot after injuring myself quite effectively with a mulching fork. Anyway whilst researching vaccination more generally I came across the claim that Japan had lost 48,000 people to smallpox vaccinations in the late 1800's to early 1900's. I then came across the Philippines figures.

It was at this point I searched Bigfooty for any discussions on the subject and came across the quote I then posted a response too. Much name-calling and hilarity has ensued but little enlightenment. So far it's mostly been a waste of precious time.

Sorry to hear about your injury. I hope you got the Tetanus shot.