Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[onewheeldave]

 

Ok. Go prove it. Honestly, go and find evidence to support that theory. As I've said I'm clearly pro-vaccine, but not so blinkered that I'll ignore valid scientific evidence that shows my view is wrong.

 

It's not a theory, it's a fact.

 

The graphs you linked show massive drops before vaccinations were brought in.

 

Clearly vaccinations cannot be responsible for drops in polio before the vaccines were administered.

 

Therefore, other factors must have caused those drops.

 

Go look at the graphs again- they show massive drops starting before vaccination.

[JFKvsNixon]

It's not a theory, it's a fact.

 

The graphs you linked show massive drops before vaccinations were brought in.

 

Clearly vaccinations cannot be responsible for drops in polio before the vaccines were administered.

 

Therefore, other factors must have caused those drops.

 

Your logic is flawed. You're are seeing what you want to believe. The graphs clearly show the trend of disease rates dropping post inoculation.

[sgtkate]

It's not a theory, it's a fact.

 

The graphs you linked show massive drops before vaccinations were brought in.

 

Clearly vaccinations cannot be responsible for drops in polio before the vaccines were administered.

 

Therefore, other factors must have caused those drops.

 

Go look at the graphs again- they show massive drops starting before vaccination.

 

I'm saying find out what caused that drop. I'm not blind! I'm interested.

[truman]

I can't help noticing that, on the first graph, prior to the commencement of the vaccine in 1955, polio cases had fallen by a massive 30,000 from the previous high of 60,000.

 

In the second graph, cases fell from a high of 3,000, to 1,000, again, before vaccinations.

 

Massive drops starting before the vaccinations.

 

Other factors than vaccines were clearly behind those drops- those factors may well account for the continuing drops post vaccination.

 

In the first graph the definite trend of cases is undeniably up....after vaccination was introduced it was definitely down..by a huge amount..in the second graph the number of deaths from polio was dropping but that was probably due to better care..

[sgtkate]

Your logic is flawed. You're are seeing what you want to believe. The graphs clearly show the trend of disease rates dropping post inoculation.

 

No, I think he's right. There is a clear drop starting from 1952 when the vaccine was only released in 1955. I'm saying to find out what caused that drop. It might well be just a blip as indeed the trend was upwards prior to that and clearly so. Still it's interesting to find out if there was something else at play as that drop cannot be based on a vaccine that doesn't yet exist. We can be equally blinkered when we think we are right as well. I'm not saying it's magic or that a vaccine doesn't work (clearly I'm not saying that!) but I'm still curious. And that's a good thing to be. It means hopefully we don't just believe the hype and we challenge assumptions for the better.

 

However, I can show other graphs showing the increased rates of polio infection in Pakistan since the Taliban effectively outlawed polio infections. So unless you can think of other reasons why polio infections have increased there unless it's directly down to a lack of a vaccination population then we have all the correlation we need.

[JFKvsNixon]

No, I think he's right. There is a clear drop starting from 1952 when the vaccine was only released in 1955. I'm saying to find out what caused that drop.

 

However, I can show other graphs showing the increased rates of polio infection in Pakistan since the Taliban effectively outlawed polio infections. So unless you can think of other reasons why polio infections have increased there unless it's directly down to a lack of a vaccination population then we have all the correlation we need.

 

Are we looking at different graphs? The trend was clearly increasing. There had been spikes with the infection rates that had calmed down, but the overall trend is clearly increasing.

Edited February 18, 2016 by JFKvsNixon

[Cyclone]

I can't help noticing that, on the first graph, prior to the commencement of the vaccine in 1955, polio cases had fallen by a massive 30,000 from the previous high of 60,000.

 

They had previously bounced up and down by similar amounts prior to that as well.

What they had never done was fallen to zero and then stayed there.

[truman]

No, I think he's right. There is a clear drop starting from 1952 when the vaccine was only released in 1955.

 

There were peaks and troughs before the vaccine..after the vaccine there are no more peaks..the rate drops quickly and doesn't rise...

[sgtkate]

Sgtkate......you first appeared to have an open mind.

 

Through more brainwashing propaganda your mind has unfortunately returned to a closed state. Some call them the living dead or a zombie state-- no offence.

 

I strongly urge you to open up your mind again and see thru the BS.

 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v8OwwDP-Xkg

 

I have watched that video and it's just not believable. I'm not closed minded at all (well I probably am in many ways if I'm honest!) I just believe in science and for me to change my mind on this topic you need to give me PROVABLE independent EVIDENCE that is not a youtube video or a single doctor making a statement. A study with repeatable methods and results submitted to a respected medical journal to allow it to be peer reviewed is all I'm asking for. And you cannot seem to provide that. Whereas all the pro-vexers can provide numerous independent double blind studies, that have been repeated by multiple doctors around the world to confirm their results. You cannot forge a double blind study.

 

So let's say I have stories that the sun didn't rise in Japan yesterday. Yet you can see hundreds of pictures showing that it did, including a live web cam. You also know people in Japan who confirm the sun did indeed rise. Do you simply believe me or do you ask me for my evidence to prove it didn't?

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 10:09 ----------

 

Are we looking at different graphs? The trend was clearly increasing. There had been spikes with the infection rates that had calmed down, but the overall trend is clearly increasing.

 

I'm playing devil's advocate if I'm honest. The trend is clearly upwards prior to the vaccine, but downwards after. However on both the first 2 graphs, there is a dip in around 1953 which then rises again after 1954 until 1955 when it clearly drops again. I'm curious (that's all, just curious) if there is a specific reason for the drop in 1953 or if it's just an outlier.

[MAC33]

Sgtkate.....you missed reading my earlier post... No studies are done!

 

 

 

“No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines.”

 

Health care seeking behavior? Ethics of studying kids who haven’t gotten vaccines?

 

Let me get this straight: we have the most complex and raging health epidemic amongst our kids in modern times, and no plausible explanation for cause from the mainstream authorities. Meanwhile, we have tens of thousands of case reports of kids regressing into autism after vaccination, but it’s just too complicated and unethical to study unvaccinated kids?

 

 

http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/vac...hy-no-studies/