The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons opposes federally mandated vaccines.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Excluding them from what?

Anywhere that not being vaccinated would provide an in for infection.

Schools already do this.

a reply to: tanstaafl

UTTER BOLLOX - lets look at polio :



the REAL graph for both mortality and morbidity

polio was not on the decline - the vaccine eliminated it

if you wish to argue - please explain what changed in a modern democracy - like the UK ? - we had no change in public health [ the NHS was ubiquitous and had been for over 10 years ] nor sanitation - but we got the vaccine

i grew up in the 60s - and no one of my age group was a polio survivor - the only ones i knew of were all teenagers / young adults

as for your schreechings for " double blind placebo trials " - are you insane ??? - do you REALLY want usch experiments ???

anti vaxx loons often cite the tunguskee experiments as " proof " that they should not trust " big pharma " - the irony is astounding

do you personally approve of the tunguskee experiments ????????????

originally posted by: projectvxn
"
Excluding them from what?
"
Anywhere that not being vaccinated would provide an in for infection.

Ah, so, are you also in favor of quarantining anyone who has had a live vaccine, until the shedding period is over?

Here is the thing, and I don't see why you seem incapable of grasping this, because otherwise you seem like an intelligent fellow...

1. People who are not vaccinated are not, by virtue of simply not being vaccinated, disease carriers. They would only be carriers, if they were in fact infected with something.

2. People who are vaccinated, can just as easily be disease carriers as those who are unvaccinated.

The only way that I can see how/why you wouldn't see that these two facts completely and totally negate your argument that unvaccinated people are any more or less of a danger to 'the public' than the vaccinated, is if you didn't believe #2.

If that is true, please, by all means, explain. Go ask a pro-vaxx doctor - can a vaccinated person, who is exposed to any given disease, be a carrier of that disease?

Schools already do this.

Nope, my daughter has been in school for 3+ years, no vaccines (thank god)...

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: tanstaafl

UTTER BOLLOX - lets look at polio :

the REAL graph for both mortality and morbidity

Source? I have some too...

polio was not on the decline - the vaccine eliminated it

Adventurous enough to accept a challenge?

Watch this video by Dr. Suzanne Humphries on Polio, and learn the truth...

as for your schreechings for " double blind placebo trials " - are you insane ??? - do you REALLY want usch experiments ??? anti vaxx loons

Please stop with the vile name calling.

often cite the tunguskee experiments as " proof " that they should not trust " big pharma "

Yes, that is an excellent example, and there are many more. The Tuskegee (not 'tunguskee') experiments were a vile non-consensual and immoral experiment performed on black males.

- the irony is astounding

do you personally approve of the tunguskee experiments ????????????

Disingenuous, much?

I'm talking about studies using voluntarily consenting participants. If there are not enough people willing to chance not getting the real vaccine, then simply adjust the study to one that simply long term studies of the non-vaccinated vs the vaccinated.

There is simply no way you could equate vile, despicable experiments on unknowing and unwilling people, to studies using fully informed consenting participants, without doing so intentionally and maliciously.

Shame on you.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Your sources are garbage

a reply to: projectvxn

For crying out loud... This has been posted from many different sources. You simply want to dismiss it because you want to "belief on your own biased opinion," and not because of any actual evidence.

Merck Lawsuit Reignites Vaccine Safety Concerns

Posted: 7/30/2012 1:36:10 PM | with 5 comments
By Theresa K. Wrangham, NVIC Executive Director

In 2010 two virologists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, filed a lawsuit against their former employer and vaccine manufacturer Merck. The lawsuit, which was unsealed in late June, alleges that Merck defrauded the U.S. for over 10 years by overstating the MMR vaccine’s effectiveness.

The virologists claim in their lawsuit that they "witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine's efficacy findings."

NVIC’s President and Co-Founder, Barbara Loe Fisher, was interviewed on July 10 by Dr. Joseph Mercola about this most recent lawsuit brought against Merck, which enjoys global vaccine sales totaling over $20 billion a year.
...

www.nvic.org...

Class Says Merck Lied About Mumps Vaccine

United States ex rel Krahling and Wlochowski v. Merck & Co.

Keller Grover LLP represents Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski in a False Claims Act case originally filed in 2010 and now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, United States ex rel. Krahling and Wlochowski v. Merck & Co., Case No. 10-cv-4374. Krahling and Wlochowski allege in their complaint that their former employer, Merck & Co., defrauded the government for more than a decade in an ongoing scheme to sell the government a mumps vaccine that is mislabeled, misbranded, adulterated and falsely certified as having an efficacy rate that is significantly higher than it actually is. The federal government purchases more than half of all vaccines sold in the United States, including the mumps vaccine. While the United States declined to intervene, it filed a Statement of Interest in response to Merck’s motion to dismiss making clear the government has “a strong interest in the outcome, even though it has not intervened in the case.” The government appeared at the hearing on Merck’s motion along with counsel for Krahling and Wlochowski and emphasized its position for the Court. Merck’s motion to dismiss was subsequently denied.
...

United States ex rel Krahling and Wlochowski v. Merck & Co.

BTW, the efficacy rate of the flu vaccine is... 30%... Many times it has been even lower than that.

Study predicts 2018 flu vaccine will have 20 percent efficacy

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: tanstaafl

Your sources are garbage

Yeah, and 'Isabella B' from some random website (medium.com?) is a reliable source.

Why not just either provide links to real evidence - double-blind placebo controlled studies - or admit there is no proof that vaccines are either safe or effective?

Everyone knows vaccines are witchcraft, leeching cures all ailments.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: tanstaafl

Your sources are garbage

Yeah, and 'Isabella B' from some random website (medium.com?) is a reliable source.

Why not just either provide links to real evidence - double-blind placebo controlled studies - or admit there is no proof that vaccines are either safe or effective?

There are thousands and thousands of studies on vaccines safety and effectiveness.

Example one for MMR.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Or if you insist on only double blind studies

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: ScepticScot
There are thousands and thousands of studies on vaccines safety and effectiveness.

Example one for MMR.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

A meta-'study performed by the pharma company lackeys - no, try again...

Or if you insist on only double blind studies

One thing I find hilarious is how the same people who ridicule anyone asking for real studies when it comes to vaccines, opting to rely on anecdotal data provided by the very people who are selling the vaccines, are the same ones who demand those same studies from anyone who suggests that some nutritional or other non-drug method of healing might be better than the conventional drug treatment.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Well well, 1000 points to you. Finally, someone actually provided an actual, real study. I'm impressed. It is tiny, done in Japan, with all adult (many older) participants in nursing homes, using a vaccine I've never heard of (didn't know there was a vaccine for pneumonia), but it did in fact apparently use real placebo (saline solution), and apparently those funding the study didn't have any .

Alas, its results weren't so great (around 50% efficacy)... definitely not enough to justify forced mass vaccinations and calling people who didn't want it vile, despicable names.

Now, how about one done in the USA? And maybe one done for some of the more controversial vaccines?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
There are thousands and thousands of studies on vaccines safety and effectiveness.

Example one for MMR.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

A meta-'study performed by the pharma company lackeys - no, try again...

Or if you insist on only double blind studies

One thing I find hilarious is how the same people who ridicule anyone asking for real studies when it comes to vaccines, opting to rely on anecdotal data provided by the very people who are selling the vaccines, are the same ones who demand those same studies from anyone who suggests that some nutritional or other non-drug method of healing might be better than the conventional drug treatment.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Well well, 1000 points to you. Finally, someone actually provided an actual, real study. I'm impressed. It is tiny, done in Japan, with all adult (many older) participants in nursing homes, using a vaccine I've never heard of (didn't know there was a vaccine for pneumonia), but it did in fact apparently use real placebo (saline solution), and apparently those funding the study didn't have any .

Alas, its results weren't so great (around 50% efficacy)... definitely not enough to justify forced mass vaccinations and calling people who didn't want it vile, despicable names.

Now, how about one done in the USA? And maybe one done for some of the more controversial vaccines?

Neither of the studies is anecdotal. You asked for studies and you have been provided.

If you were honest you would admit that no amount of actual studies, and there are thousands available online, is actually going to convince you as you are just looking for confirmation of you pre existing beliefs.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
[Neither of the studies is anecdotal. You asked for studies and you have been provided.

The first was a 'meta-study', whioch simply goes and picks some data from some database somewhere then performs some 'what-ifs' and 'what-fors''.

'Studies' like these can be designed to show whatever the author wants, depending on what data points they choose to ignore and include.

So, no, I don't just take them at face value.

If you were honest you would admit that no amount of actual studies, and there are thousands available online, is actually going to convince you as you are just looking for confirmation of you pre existing beliefs.

I'm still waiting for you to provide one real (double-blind placebo controlled) study that was done in the USA, on any of the controversial vaccines.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
[Neither of the studies is anecdotal. You asked for studies and you have been provided.

The first was a 'meta-study', whioch simply goes and picks some data from some database somewhere then performs some 'what-ifs' and 'what-fors''.

'Studies' like these can be designed to show whatever the author wants, depending on what data points they choose to ignore and include.

So, no, I don't just take them at face value.

If you were honest you would admit that no amount of actual studies, and there are thousands available online, is actually going to convince you as you are just looking for confirmation of you pre existing beliefs.

I'm still waiting for you to provide one real (double-blind placebo controlled) study that was done in the USA, on any of the controversial vaccines.

Congratulations you have just demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about.

ATTENTION PLEASE:

Any further name calling or personal insults WILL BE met with a Posting Ban. If you can't debate this topic civilly it's best you move on.

Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
"I'm still waiting for you to provide one real (double-blind placebo controlled) study that was done in the USA, on any of the controversial vaccines."

Congratulations you have just demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about.

So now asking for proof means I don't know what I'm talking about.

Got it, thanks...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Merck Lawsuit Reignites Vaccine Safety Concerns

Posted: 7/30/2012 1:36:10 PM | with 5 comments
By Theresa K. Wrangham, NVIC Executive Director

In 2010 two virologists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, filed a lawsuit against their former employer and vaccine manufacturer Merck. The lawsuit, which was unsealed in late June, alleges that Merck defrauded the U.S. for over 10 years by overstating the MMR vaccine’s effectiveness.

The virologists claim in their lawsuit that they "witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine's efficacy findings."

NVIC’s President and Co-Founder, Barbara Loe Fisher, was interviewed on July 10 by Dr. Joseph Mercola about this most recent lawsuit brought against Merck, which enjoys global vaccine sales totaling over $20 billion a year.

Good find. The public needs to realize that money is capable of swaying "science" to fit any sort of narrative they want. I'm not saying vaccines are totally inert, they just aren't nearly as useful as we're led to believe.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
"I'm still waiting for you to provide one real (double-blind placebo controlled) study that was done in the USA, on any of the controversial vaccines."

Congratulations you have just demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about.

So now asking for proof means I don't know what I'm talking about.

Got it, thanks...

No.

Complete misrepresentation of what a meta study is shows you don't know what you are talking about.

Moving the goal goal posts shows you don't really want any evidence, just to have your own world view confirmed.

Cutting your own post to try and make it look like I was saying something different just shows a profound lack of honesty.