Dad
12-06-2001, 06:16 AM
What do you do when confidence in the government gets eroded? How are people going to continue to believe in programs and policies when it becomes apparent that they are being either misled or lied to?
One of the key components to vaccination program is the assurance that they are responsible for the tremendous decrease in the fatalities of childhood diseases, one of the most wicked of which is/was the measles. More than pertussis, more than varicella, more than smallpox or polio, the measles infected and killed more people annually than any of the childhood diseases besides diphtheria. The IOM, AAP, AMA, CDC and FDA all tout the success of the mass vaccination program against measles as being a critical component to dramatic drop in the mortality of this once common place disease.
But this may not be the case at all.
Many very outspoken proponents of the mass vaccination program will repeat this line as tho people who would question the trade of protection versus adverse reaction were missing the basic point. But if one looks just a little bit deeper into the situation, a glimmer of the truth comes to light.
Not being one to give carte blanche acceptance to any position (perhaps I was a Missourian in a previous life), I looked up the records of measles as tallied by the US govt. We shall have to accept something on face value, and unfortunately, as sloppy as medical reporting is, we shall have to accept the numbers provided here, or else neither side shall have a leg to stand on, and we shall have to throw out both positions. These numbers are the ones accepted by the CDC and therefore by the professional organizations, the AMA, AAP and IOM. So they too must accept these numbers as accurately reflecting the historic impact of measles in this country.
Below is a table that I have compiled based upon the reported numbers of measles in this country from 1915 to 1970. The measles vaccine was first developed and tested in the 50's (upon an unidentified target population of children, presumably inner city minorities which is the standard O.M. of the FDA), and the mass inoculation began in 1960. The first column of figures shows the incidence of measles per 100,000 persons, the second the deaths by measles per 100,000 people and the third the mortality rate of deaths by measles per people who contracted it. This presents a couple of very interesting points.
year incidence/100K deaths/100k mortality rate
1915 254.1 7.3 2.87%
1920 480.5 9.1 1.89%
1925 194.3 8.4 4.32%
1930 340.8 3.3 0.97%
1935 584.6 0.8 0.14%
1940 220.7 0.3 0.13%
1945 110.2 0.2 0.18%
1950 210.1 <0.05 <0.02%
1955 337.9 0.4 0.12%
1960 245.4 0.1 0.16%
1965 135.1 0.1 0.07%
1970 23.2 <0.05 <0.02%
From this we can see that the rate of incidence fluctuated over the years, which would correspond with the natural cycle of occurrence that happens with viral or microbial infections. This is supported by all of the infectious diseases (with the possible exceptions of Herpes, Hep B and C and Aids), including the grand daddy of them all, the Black Death.
But when we look at the deaths from measles, we see something different come to light. Here we can see that the decrease n mortality came not after the introduction of vaccination (1960) but at some point in the 1930,s some 20 odd years prior to the event that some would say achieved this miracle. How can that possibly be, when even the strongest proponents of vaccines will admit that it takes years, sometimes a decade or more to see the impact that vaccination protection will bring (which is the current argument used to continue the Hep B program, despite a growing body of evidence that there are some very serious adverse reactions to jabbing a baby that is less than a week old with the Hep B vaccine)?
And if we look at the rate of mortality, which is the percentage of those people who caught the disease who were killed while they had it, we can see that the numbers also support a drastic reduction in the impact of measles at some point during the thirties. This is completely contrary to what the vaccines proponents are saying, and one can only wonder what they are basing their opinion upon, and what else they are either mistaken or lying about.
So what happened during the 30's that could account for the huge drop in the impact of the measles? Well, the US (and world) were in the midst of the Great Depression. The US govt. spent enormous sums of money (in relative terms) upon a great many domestic programs, including providing electricity to rural America (the TVA, Hoover Dam), built scores of hospitals and clinics, upgraded or created many public sanitation facilities providing better elimination of sewage, and in general the overall cleanliness of life in America occurred.
When "experts" tell you that "1 in 500 people die from the measles", before you accept that as proof of the impelling need for mass vaccination you must ask "what are your figures based upon?" Clearly, 1 in 500 people never dies from the measles ever, or the column for deaths from measles in the table above would have looked more like the column of incidence. Not even 1 in 500 people contracted the measles, with the exception of the peak years 1916, 1917, 1923, 1934 and 1935. 1 in 500 (or higher) of the people who contracted the measles DID die prior to 1930, but better overall living conditions, including better nutrition and sanitation reduced that by nearly 80% long before the introduction of vaccines.
If the experts are basing their numbers on worldwide figures, their argument is false. When they say that nearly 1.2 million people die from the measles in Sub-Saharan Africa for instance, they are not accurately reflecting the picture their, they are using false testimony to push their agenda. 1.2 million people in tropical Africa may have the measles when they die, but what killed them really was famine and general living conditions which would be toxic in the complete absence of the measles.
When people in a position of authority clearly use false information to press their agenda, it is time to ask some very serious questions, and a good place to start is "what is in it for them?"
One of the key components to vaccination program is the assurance that they are responsible for the tremendous decrease in the fatalities of childhood diseases, one of the most wicked of which is/was the measles. More than pertussis, more than varicella, more than smallpox or polio, the measles infected and killed more people annually than any of the childhood diseases besides diphtheria. The IOM, AAP, AMA, CDC and FDA all tout the success of the mass vaccination program against measles as being a critical component to dramatic drop in the mortality of this once common place disease.
But this may not be the case at all.
Many very outspoken proponents of the mass vaccination program will repeat this line as tho people who would question the trade of protection versus adverse reaction were missing the basic point. But if one looks just a little bit deeper into the situation, a glimmer of the truth comes to light.
Not being one to give carte blanche acceptance to any position (perhaps I was a Missourian in a previous life), I looked up the records of measles as tallied by the US govt. We shall have to accept something on face value, and unfortunately, as sloppy as medical reporting is, we shall have to accept the numbers provided here, or else neither side shall have a leg to stand on, and we shall have to throw out both positions. These numbers are the ones accepted by the CDC and therefore by the professional organizations, the AMA, AAP and IOM. So they too must accept these numbers as accurately reflecting the historic impact of measles in this country.
Below is a table that I have compiled based upon the reported numbers of measles in this country from 1915 to 1970. The measles vaccine was first developed and tested in the 50's (upon an unidentified target population of children, presumably inner city minorities which is the standard O.M. of the FDA), and the mass inoculation began in 1960. The first column of figures shows the incidence of measles per 100,000 persons, the second the deaths by measles per 100,000 people and the third the mortality rate of deaths by measles per people who contracted it. This presents a couple of very interesting points.
year incidence/100K deaths/100k mortality rate
1915 254.1 7.3 2.87%
1920 480.5 9.1 1.89%
1925 194.3 8.4 4.32%
1930 340.8 3.3 0.97%
1935 584.6 0.8 0.14%
1940 220.7 0.3 0.13%
1945 110.2 0.2 0.18%
1950 210.1 <0.05 <0.02%
1955 337.9 0.4 0.12%
1960 245.4 0.1 0.16%
1965 135.1 0.1 0.07%
1970 23.2 <0.05 <0.02%
From this we can see that the rate of incidence fluctuated over the years, which would correspond with the natural cycle of occurrence that happens with viral or microbial infections. This is supported by all of the infectious diseases (with the possible exceptions of Herpes, Hep B and C and Aids), including the grand daddy of them all, the Black Death.
But when we look at the deaths from measles, we see something different come to light. Here we can see that the decrease n mortality came not after the introduction of vaccination (1960) but at some point in the 1930,s some 20 odd years prior to the event that some would say achieved this miracle. How can that possibly be, when even the strongest proponents of vaccines will admit that it takes years, sometimes a decade or more to see the impact that vaccination protection will bring (which is the current argument used to continue the Hep B program, despite a growing body of evidence that there are some very serious adverse reactions to jabbing a baby that is less than a week old with the Hep B vaccine)?
And if we look at the rate of mortality, which is the percentage of those people who caught the disease who were killed while they had it, we can see that the numbers also support a drastic reduction in the impact of measles at some point during the thirties. This is completely contrary to what the vaccines proponents are saying, and one can only wonder what they are basing their opinion upon, and what else they are either mistaken or lying about.
So what happened during the 30's that could account for the huge drop in the impact of the measles? Well, the US (and world) were in the midst of the Great Depression. The US govt. spent enormous sums of money (in relative terms) upon a great many domestic programs, including providing electricity to rural America (the TVA, Hoover Dam), built scores of hospitals and clinics, upgraded or created many public sanitation facilities providing better elimination of sewage, and in general the overall cleanliness of life in America occurred.
When "experts" tell you that "1 in 500 people die from the measles", before you accept that as proof of the impelling need for mass vaccination you must ask "what are your figures based upon?" Clearly, 1 in 500 people never dies from the measles ever, or the column for deaths from measles in the table above would have looked more like the column of incidence. Not even 1 in 500 people contracted the measles, with the exception of the peak years 1916, 1917, 1923, 1934 and 1935. 1 in 500 (or higher) of the people who contracted the measles DID die prior to 1930, but better overall living conditions, including better nutrition and sanitation reduced that by nearly 80% long before the introduction of vaccines.
If the experts are basing their numbers on worldwide figures, their argument is false. When they say that nearly 1.2 million people die from the measles in Sub-Saharan Africa for instance, they are not accurately reflecting the picture their, they are using false testimony to push their agenda. 1.2 million people in tropical Africa may have the measles when they die, but what killed them really was famine and general living conditions which would be toxic in the complete absence of the measles.
When people in a position of authority clearly use false information to press their agenda, it is time to ask some very serious questions, and a good place to start is "what is in it for them?"