Dr Andrew Wakefield and the MMR vaccine

[mikeey84]

Not my fault you can't read properly John

http://preventdisease.com/images/mmp55eqd-1.jpg

That is not an ONS URL.

I'm disappointed that you didn't read my post before throwing in your smart-alec non-reply.

You asked to see the measles mortality graph you couldn't make legible. If not this graph, which graph are you referring to ? I posted just this one ...

Still waiting for the citation for your assertion that sanitation not vaccines are responsible for the reduced prevalence of diseases.

In the words of another poster on a different forum:

Citation or gtfo

 

[HawkEye244]

Not my fault you can't read properly John

http://preventdisease.com/images/mmp55eqd-1.jpg

That is not an ONS URL.

I'm disappointed that you didn't read my post before throwing in your smart-alec non-reply.

You asked to see the measles mortality graph you couldn't make legible. If not this graph, which graph are you referring to ? I posted just this one ...

Still waiting for the citation for your assertion that sanitation not vaccines are responsible for the reduced prevalence of diseases.

In the words of another poster on a different forum:

Citation or gtfo

''Still waiting for the citation for your assertion that sanitation not vaccines are responsible for the reduced prevalence of diseases.''

I can't make it any simpler for you. You must learn to read and process information.

 

[mikeey84]

---
It can, it also cannot. The mortality rate of measles is approximately 1 in 5,000, according to your link to a generic, general info NHS page. Sounds statistically similar to that of the complications a child WILL develop from having the vaccination

If the child WILL get complications (1 in 5000 chance you say- the same as dying) then it stands to reason the child WILL die. What you are saying makes no sense.

 

[mikeey84]

Not my fault you can't read properly John

http://preventdisease.com/images/mmp55eqd-1.jpg

That is not an ONS URL.

I'm disappointed that you didn't read my post before throwing in your smart-alec non-reply.

You asked to see the measles mortality graph you couldn't make legible. If not this graph, which graph are you referring to ? I posted just this one ...

Still waiting for the citation for your assertion that sanitation not vaccines are responsible for the reduced prevalence of diseases.

In the words of another poster on a different forum:

Citation or gtfo

''Still waiting for the citation for your assertion that sanitation not vaccines are responsible for the reduced prevalence of diseases.''

I can't make it any simpler for you. You must learn to read and process information.

Citation or gtfo

 

[mikeey84]

What health officials are also doing is relying on very old and unreliable data

You have posted articles that cite studies from 1890s.

 

[HawkEye244]

Mikeey84 you are well out of your depth with this. I suggest you take the time to read what I've taken many hours to research and post here. If you don't take the time to read what I've written I'm not wasting any more of my time with you.

Please do not fill up this thread with any more pointless spam.

 

[mikeey84]

A dramatic fall in the numbers of reported measles cases would be expected

Yes, because of the use of a vaccine.

 

[mikeey84]

Mikeey84 you are well out of your depth with this. I suggest you take the time to read what I've taken many hours to research and post here. If you don't take the time to read what I've written I'm not wasting any more of my time with you.

Please do not fill up this thread with any more pointless spam.

How many people died of smallpox or polio in the UK last year?

 

[mikeey84]

Mikeey84 you are well out of your depth with this. I suggest you take the time to read what I've taken many hours to research and post here. If you don't take the time to read what I've written I'm not wasting any more of my time with you.

Please do not fill up this thread with any more pointless spam.

I don't reason with anti vaxxers.

You lot are like flat earthers, climate change deniers or YECs. No matter how many studies prove you wrong you pick and choose misleading information, often completely out of context and then twist words, ignore questions or just plain lie.

Everything you say here related to the science aspect has been debunked many many times. I will not be getting into an argument about it with you as you will just copy and paste from someone else's website some outdated studies that don't actually agree with the point you are trying to make. But then you probably don't read the actual papers, you just rely on some nutter like Mike Adams to make some **** up.

 

[mikeey84]

I've taken many hours to research and post here

BTW did it really take you hours to Google "bulls hit anti vax propaganda" and then copy and paste it here?

Ctrl+v should help you

 

[wobs]

It can, it also cannot. The mortality rate of measles is approximately 1 in 5,000, according to your link to a generic, general info NHS page. Sounds statistically similar to that of the complications a child WILL develop from having the vaccination. I would need to see a statistical comparison, but oh, we can't, again, nobody has done a credible and long-term study into vaccination death/injury rates. Don't rock the money boat.

WHO has some easy to access info on risks of vaccines:
http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/tools/MMR_vaccine_rates_information_sheet.pdf

Would you rather die from measles or have a seizure from a vaccine?

Overall, the risks of vaccines are tiny in comparison to the actual disease they are preventing. If this wasn't the case, the scientific world would not support them. Not just Big Pharma (who aren't above criticism BTW), but academics, WHO, sceptics such as Ben Goldacre and anyone with an ounce of sense.

 

[wobs]

...
In reply to these speculative aspersions I present you with this :

http://vaxtruth.org/2011/09/how-can-it-be-about-the-money-immunizations-are-free-right/

An anti-vaxxer site with all the reliance on lies and misinformation one would expect.

You want another source for the economics of drugs v vaccines? No problem:
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9833.pdf
From the NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
Which is:
"Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals. NBER-affiliated researchers study a wide range of topics and they employ many different methods in their work. Key focus areas include developing new statistical measurements, estimating quantitative models of economic behavior, and analyzing the effects of public policies."

Conclusion:
"Drug treatments turn out to be better tools to extract consumer surplus than vaccines."

Its just not your day is it.

Total rubbish.

Here : http://preventdisease.com/news/10/102510_vaccines_did_not_save_us.shtml

You're right, your link is total rubbish. A site based upon "natural fallacy"... its actually trying to argue that the smallpox vaccine was ineffective! unbelievable. When you have something approaching a credible source, let me know. I won't hold my breathe.

 

[wobs]

More on the risks of vaccines:
https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/faqs-about-vaccines#risks
And a handy chart:

 

[mikeey84]

More on the risks of vaccines:
https://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/faqs-about-vaccines#risks
And a handy chart:

notice the huge amount of pertussis cases in 2014- because of people like Hawkeye peddling pseudoscience and lies and confusing parents.

There were actually less cases in 2011 than in 2014, but because of the idiots that either don't understand epidemiology or just make stuff up, they was a spike in 2012 and 2013 (where 3 babies died, and 14 died in 2012). Those deaths were almost entirely preventable, and should be laid at the door of the anti vax morons.

 

[wobs]

This graph fits nicely with the Government's own chart showing the introduction of measles vaccinations, and the sudden drop of measles in the early 70s:

From here:
http://pcouk.org/chapter.aspx?sectionid=78927680&bookid=1353
And Government figures confirm here:
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02581/SN02581.pdf
(Chart 1).

Basically, MMR works, and HE244 is wrong.