Max Velocity Tactical



Your Ad Here - Email for Info

You Can Shop At Amazon and Help Support Emergency-Preps.com Without It Costing You One Thin Dime - Click Here to Learn How!

Author Topic: Speaking of vaccines...  (Read 387 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Speaking of vaccines...
« on: February 07, 2013, 01:03:30 AM »
This one's gonna frost ya, Doc.  Wanna play 'find the fallacy'?  Seriously though, Rappoport, in his inimitable and often infuriating style, does raise some interesting questions here...

          
Dumbed-down populations accept outrageous vaccine logic
 
by Jon Rappoport
 
I’ve written articles attacking the theory and practice of vaccination from a variety of angles. But the whole issue also needs to be approached from the perspective of logic.
 
Unfortunately, generations of people have been shut out of learning logic in school. They don’t know what it is. Therefore, vaccine advocates have been able to peddle their basic theory without much challenge.
 
It’s time to put an end to that free ride.
 
First of all, I need to point out a massive contradiction. When a person receives a vaccine, it’s said that his body produces antibodies against a particular germ and this is a good thing. Vaccination thus prepares the body for the day when that germ will really make its attack, at which point the immune system (including antibodies) will mount a successful defense.
 
However, let’s look at another venue: for many diseases, when a person is given a blood test to see if he is infected, quite often the standard for infection is “presence of antibodies.”
 
This makes no sense at all. If vaccination produces those antibodies, it is heralded as protection. But if a diagnostic blood test reveals those same antibodies, it’s a signal of infection and disease.
 
Vaccine-produced antibodies=health. Antibodies naturally produced by the body=illness.
 
Logically speaking, you resolve a contradiction by dropping one of the two sides and admitting it is false. Or you go deeper and reject some prior premise that led to the contradiction in the first place.
 
So let’s go deeper. What does vaccination supposedly do to “prepare” the body against the future invasion of a particular germ? It stimulates the production of antibodies against that germ.
 
Antibodies are immune-system scouts that move through the body, identify germs, and paint them for destruction by other immune-system troops.
 
However, since the entire immune system is involved in wreaking that destruction, why is bulking up one department of the immune system—antibodies—sufficient to guarantee future protection?
 
On what basis can we infer that bulking up antibodies, through vaccination, is enough?
 
There is no basis. It’s a naked assumption. It’s not a fact. Logic makes a clear distinction between assumptions and facts. Confusing the two leads to all sorts of problems, and it certainly does in the case of vaccination.
 
Furthermore, why does the body need a vaccine in order to be prepared for the later invasion of germs? The whole structure/function of the immune system is naturally geared to launch its multifaceted counter-attack against germs whenever trouble arises. The antibodies swing into action when a potentially harmful germ makes its appearance, at age five, eight, 10, 15.
 
It’s said that vaccination is a rehearsal for the real thing. But no need for rehearsal has been established.
 
And why are we supposed to believe that such a rehearsal works? The usual answer is: the body remembers the original vaccination and how it produced antibodies, and so it’s better prepared to do it again when the need is real. But there is no basis for this extraordinary notion of “remembering.”
 
It’s another assumption sold as fact.
 
The terms “prepared for the real thing,” “rehearsal,” and “remember” aren’t defined. They’re vague. One of the first lessons of logic is: define your terms.
 
A baby, only a few days old, receives a Hepatitis B vaccine. This means the actual Hep-B germ, or some fraction of it, is in the vaccine.
 
The objective? To stimulate the production of antibodies against Hep-B. Assuming the baby can accomplish this feat, the antibodies circulate and paint those Hep-B germs for destruction now.
 
From that moment on, the body is ready to execute the same mission, if and when Hep-B germs float in the door.
 
But when they float in the door, why wouldn’t the body produce antibodies on its own, exactly as it did after the vaccination was given? Why did it need the vaccination to teach it how to do what it naturally does?
 
And why should we infer the baby body is undergoing an effective rehearsal when vaccinated, and will somehow remember that lesson years later?
 
The logic of this is tattered and without merit.
 
To these arguments of mine, some vaccine advocates would say, “Well, it doesn’t matter because vaccines work. They do prevent disease.”
 
Ah, but that is a different argument, and it should be assessed separately. There are two major ways of doing that. One, by evaluating claims that in all places and times, mass vaccination has drastically lowered or eliminated those diseases it was designed to prevent. And two, by a controlled study of two groups of volunteers, in which one group is vaccinated and the other isn’t, to gauge the outcome.
 
Let’s look at the first method of assessment. Those who claim that vaccines have been magnificently effective in wiping out disease have several major hurdles to overcome. They have to prove, for each disease in question, that when a vaccine for that disease was first introduced, the prevalence of the disease was on the rise or was at a high steady rate in the population.
 
Why? Because, as many critics have stated, some or all of these diseases were already in sharp decline when the vaccines were introduced for the first time.
 
For example: “The combined death rate from scarlet fever, diphtheria, whooping cough and measles among children up to fifteen shows that nearly 90 percent of the total decline in mortality between 1860 and 1965 had occurred before the introduction of antibiotics and widespread immunization. In part, this recession may be attributed to improved housing and to a decrease in the virulence of micro-organisms, but by far the most important factor was a higher host-resistance due to better nutrition.” Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis, Bantam Books, 1977
 
In other words, for reasons having nothing to do with vaccination, the diseases were on the way out. Nutrition had improved, sanitation was better, etc.
 
So let’s see the proof, for every disease which vaccines are supposed to prevent, that those diseases were significantly raging in the population when the vaccines were first introduced.
 
Then let’s also see proof that, after the introduction of vaccines, the diseases in question weren’t merely given new labels (or redefined) to hide the fact that they weren’t really going away. There is testimony, for example, that in America, the definition of paralytic polio was changed after the introduction of the Salk vaccine, and by the new more restricted definition, far fewer cases of polio could be diagnosed—thus making it seem the vaccine was effective.
 
There are also questions about the success of the famous smallpox vaccine campaign in Africa and Latin America. When all was said and done, were new cases of smallpox then diagnosed as meningitis? Was destruction wreaked by the vaccine then called AIDS?
 
Researchers, including Robert Gallo, have warned that the smallpox vaccine, when given to people whose immune systems are already grossly weakened, can destroy what’s left of the immune system—and immune-defense destruction is the hallmark of the definition of AIDS.
 
The second major way of assessing the success of mass vaccination is through a proper controlled study.
 
For any vaccine, this is how it would be done. Assemble two large groups of people. Total, at least eight thousand. Make sure these two groups are very well matched. That means: similar in age; very similar in medical history and medical drug history; similar exposure levels to environmental chemicals; very close nutritional levels, status, and dietary habits.
 
The first group gets the vaccine. The second group doesn’t. They are tracked, with very few dropouts, for a period of at least eight years. The INDEPENDENT researchers note how many from each group get the disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent. They note what other diseases or health challenges the volunteers encounter.
 
Such a study, using these proper standards, has never been done for any vaccine.
 
If that fact seems rather illogical, you’re right. It is.
 
Finally, vaccine advocates need to prove that substances in vaccines like mercury, formaldehyde, and aluminum, although classified as toxic when studied alone, are somehow exonerated when shot directly into the body through a needle. The (absurd) logic of this needs to be explained fully.
 
This is not a matter of claiming that “a particular disease,” like autism, isn’t caused by a particular chemical, like mercury. That’s a logical ruse all on its own. We are talking about harm caused by toxins under any name or no name. When a person ingests cyanide, do we say he has a disease? Of course not.
 
Children in school, their parents, and teachers have never been exposed to logic, so it’s easy to sell them vaccines as valid. But selling is not the same thing as science.
 
And “being a scientist” is not the same thing as knowing what science and logic actually are. The same fact can be applied to news anchors, public health officials, and politicians. They can say “the evidence for vaccinating is overwhelming,” but so can a parrot in a cage, with enough training.
 
Of course, these so-called experts won’t come out and engage in a serious debate about the theory and practice of vaccination. They refuse to.
 
Millions of people around the world would eagerly watch a true extended debate on the subject. Such debate used to be a standard practice when logic was studied, when it was understood to be vital for deciding the truth or falsity of a position.
 
Now, it’s all about PR and propaganda, the modern version of logic for the dumbed-down crowd.
 
Jon Rappoport
          

I gotta do some fact-checking on Rappoport's claims about the Salk and smallpox vaccines.  I think he's painting with an outrageously broad brush and that as always the Devil is in the details.   Is tetanus vaccine bad?  I get cut enough in the shop and yard that I'm willing to take the infrequent shot rather than risk a lockjaw infection.  Flu shots?  No way...I'll load up on D3 and take my chances.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 01:05:12 AM by ND Martin »

Offline cd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
  • Karma: +10/-2
Re: Speaking of vaccines...
« Reply #1 on: February 07, 2013, 09:36:29 AM »
Unrelated to the topic...

Is there a need for such large fonts in quoted materials? I enjoy scrolling as much as the next guy (sarcasm), but the site has a means of demarking quoted material without resorting to a font I can read across the room.

Carry on...


Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Re: Speaking of vaccines...
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2013, 10:38:37 AM »
Sorry 'bout that, CD.  I don't know your environment, but from here the quoted font is actually the same size as the standard font used in the forum.  It probably has to do with the way that your environment is rendering the fonts.  I used the very common font Times New Roman for the quoted text as it's one of the most readable.  Here is text from 10-22pt with the forum's standard font...

10pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
12pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
14pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
16pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
18pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
20pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
22pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst

Now here's Times New Roman

10pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
12pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
14pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
16pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
18pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
20pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
22pt. Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst


On my Windows system, Times New Roman is displayed slightly smaller than the standard Verdana, so I made the text 18pt and the headline 22pt.  Your environment apparently renders TNR much larger.

I don't like the grey quote function for quoting outside sources.   It's best used to quote from other posts.  I want quoted material to be distinct from my own words and prefer to format with larger left and right margins and a different font from the standard.  

Here are some samples of fonts taken from gmail's list all at the same 16pt size as the standard Verdana used here.  Which looks best to you?

Verdana: Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
Times New Roman: Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
Serif: Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst
Georgia: Hoping For The Best - Prepared For The Worst

I'm gonna guess that you're not using a Windows environment and that whatever you are using doesn't render TNR properly, but it should render the Serif selection ok as that is generic.  If so, I'll use it in future posts.


« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 10:45:30 AM by ND Martin »

Offline cd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1162
  • Karma: +10/-2
Re: Speaking of vaccines...
« Reply #3 on: February 07, 2013, 10:56:49 AM »

Here is what I see:



I'm running IE 10 on Windows 8. Uber-Windows environment.

And it looks like I'm getting a serif font, if not TNR itself.

Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Re: Speaking of vaccines...
« Reply #4 on: February 07, 2013, 12:50:31 PM »
Thanks.  That helps.  Serif will be TNR in W8/IE.  I'm using a W7/Opera environment, but when I load the page with Chrome it looks like what you're seeing.  I'll compensate.  How's this?

          
Murder in the medical Matrix: the FDA
by Jon Rappoport

I have to begin this article with a bow in the direction of a remarkable site, SSRI Stories. There you will find a huge assembly of media articles documenting the death and destruction wrought by psychiatric drugs. In particular, read the index:

http://ssristories.com/index.php

It previews the whole picture. It connects the dots.

Keep in mind that all the indicted psychiatric drugs have been approved by the FDA as safe and effective.

Over the years, I’ve written much about the the FDA. I thought I’d assemble a small fraction of it in one place, to reveal what this federal agency is really all about and why it should be dismantled, amid a blizzard of prosecutions and convictions for negligent homicide and, yes, murder.
          

Rappoport's rants are often right off the wall, but he's just as often right on the mark.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 12:55:28 PM by ND Martin »

Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Re: Speaking of vaccines...
« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2013, 01:05:05 PM »
Wow.  That renders visually correctly in IE/Chrome, but in Opera it's rendered properly.  I had to specify a 12pt font to get TNR to be the same size as the 16pt Verdana in IE/Chrome, so in Opera the 12pt TNR is 25% smaller than the 16pt Verdana which is as it is supposed to be.  Let me try something...

Font change...no size change:

          
Murder in the medical Matrix: the FDA
by Jon Rappoport

I have to begin this article with a bow in the direction of a remarkable site, SSRI Stories. There you will find a huge assembly of media articles documenting the death and destruction wrought by psychiatric drugs. In particular, read the index:

http://ssristories.com/index.php

It previews the whole picture. It connects the dots.

Keep in mind that all the indicted psychiatric drugs have been approved by the FDA as safe and effective.

Over the years, I’ve written much about the the FDA. I thought I’d assemble a small fraction of it in one place, to reveal what this federal agency is really all about and why it should be dismantled, amid a blizzard of prosecutions and convictions for negligent homicide and, yes, murder.
          

Size change...no font change:

          
Murder in the medical Matrix: the FDA
by Jon Rappoport

I have to begin this article with a bow in the direction of a remarkable site, SSRI Stories. There you will find a huge assembly of media articles documenting the death and destruction wrought by psychiatric drugs. In particular, read the index:

http://ssristories.com/index.php

It previews the whole picture. It connects the dots.

Keep in mind that all the indicted psychiatric drugs have been approved by the FDA as safe and effective.

Over the years, I’ve written much about the the FDA. I thought I’d assemble a small fraction of it in one place, to reveal what this federal agency is really all about and why it should be dismantled, amid a blizzard of prosecutions and convictions for negligent homicide and, yes, murder.
          

This is so whacked.  Opera does what it's supposed to do, but both IE and Chrome don't seem to handle the font size changes properly within the table structure.  Probably something to do with the way that SMF constructs the table.  I'll have to get deeper into the page to figure it out, but at least I know how to format so you don't wear out your scroll wheel.  ;-))
« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 01:15:29 PM by ND Martin »

Offline Haverwilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • Karma: +9/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Speaking of vaccines...
« Reply #6 on: February 07, 2013, 01:28:37 PM »
Is Rappoport writing a parody of an ignorant response to pro-vaccine arguments, or is he really that serious.

To use smallpox and polio in an anti-vaccine argument is ludicrous given the success that has been achieved in combating both in this country. Most of you don’t remember the fear of drinking fountains and public swimming pools in the forties and fifties before the polio vaccine was in use. I clearly remember seeing the wheelchaired victims of polio.  My mother contracted a lesser polio strain, and nearly died but was left with only a minor limp.
I still can see the scar on my arm from the smallpox vaccine, and remember the count down on occurrences of smallpox as it appeared likely to be totally eradicated.

He speaks of logic, and then uses none.
Diabolus fecit, ut id facerem!

Offline ND Martin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 250
  • Karma: +12/-1
Re: Speaking of vaccines...
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2013, 02:13:41 PM »
As I wrote, he's painting with an incredibly broad brush.  That's Rappoport's style--hysterical hyperbola.  ;-))  High entertainment value with a tantalizingly almost credible undertone.  That said, he does provide some interesting and often useful linkage.

For example, the SSRI Stories and Rxisk sites in his FDA rant are both worth visiting--very well done and professional in character.

I remember the polio scourge in the 50's.  Lined up to take my sugar cube with the rest of the kids in town.   In the age of duck-and-cover drills, seeing one of my classmates in an iron lung gave polio a presence that was all too real.



Here's an interesting interview about vaccines that's somewhat less hyperbolic than Rappoport's piece.

« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 02:39:06 PM by ND Martin »

Offline Langenator

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1385
  • Karma: +17/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Speaking of vaccines...
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2013, 03:35:10 PM »
BTW, ND, I'm running Win7/Firefox and your original post (and other quoted stuff) looks the same to me as to CD.

Now, back to the discussion of polio...
Fortuna Fortis Paratus
“In the house of a wise man are stores of food, wine, and oil, but the foolish man devours all he has.” Proverbs 21:20
"We are content with discord, we are content with alarms, we are content with blood, but we will never be content with a master." -Pashtun malik, 1815


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
550 Views
Last post February 02, 2011, 12:18:33 PM
by Flight-ER-Doc
0 Replies
437 Views
Last post February 09, 2011, 01:14:44 PM
by Bill Quick
4 Replies
547 Views
Last post August 13, 2011, 12:16:28 PM
by Drang
92 Replies
4687 Views
Last post April 16, 2013, 11:04:05 AM
by Amisheggpicker


Your Ad Here - Email for Info
Help Support E-P.com
Even A Buck Makes A Difference!
Or Make Convenient Monthly
Donations By Selecting
A Payment Option
Payment Options