# Lifestyles & Discussion > Personal Health & Well-Being >  Revealed: Measles Facts They Dont Want You See

## donnay



----------


## donnay



----------


## donnay

http://experimentalvaccines.org/2015...-with-measles/

----------


## TheCount

As you've been told in dozens of threads, vaccinations are not 100% effective, and no one claims them to be.  It's possible for a person to have been vaccinated and still become ill; this fact shocks no one.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> As you've been told in dozens of threads, vaccinations are not 100% effective, and no one claims them to be.  It's possible for a person to have been vaccinated and still become ill; *this fact shocks no one*.



I would bet there are quite a few people in this world who would be shocked by that.

----------


## donnay

> As you've been told in dozens of threads, vaccinations are not 100% effective, and no one claims them to be.  It's possible for a person to have been vaccinated and still become ill; this fact shocks no one.



Until they make clean vaccines, I'll take my chances on a strong immune system defense.

----------


## Weston White

> It's possible for a person to have been vaccinated and still become ill; this fact shocks no one.


Seriously, you need to sit down with Angela and Zippy and explain this to them in great detail and to great lengths.  They simply don't grasp this teeny factoid.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Odds of getting ill due to a vaccine- practically non existent.  Odds of getting ill with something you were vaccinated against- also very rare.  Odds of getting sick if you were not vaccinated and get exposed- very high.  No- nothing is 100%.  Except death.  That gets everybody eventually.  

You will be sick less if you are vaccinated.  (being vaccinated is also helped by a healthy lifestyle- that is not a mutually exclusive option). But this is not about logic- it is about emotion and fears.

If vaccines don't prevent diseases and they were going away anyways, how is it that as vaccination rates went up, the cases of the diseases went down and now that vaccination rates are going down, the cases are again on the increase?  They should be going away- not rising.

----------


## CPUd

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...r-ball-tonight

----------


## Weston White

> Odds of getting ill due to a vaccine- practically non existent.  Odds of getting ill with something you were vaccinated against- also very rare.  Odds of getting sick if you were not vaccinated and get exposed- very high.  No- nothing is 100%.  Except death.  That gets everybody eventually.  
> 
> You will be sick less if you are vaccinated.  (being vaccinated is also helped by a healthy lifestyle- that is not a mutually exclusive option). But this is not about logic- it is about emotion and fears.
> 
> If vaccines don't prevent diseases and they were going away anyways, how is it that as vaccination rates went up, the cases of the diseases went down and now that vaccination rates are going down, the cases are again on the increase?  They should be going away- not rising.


_I'll tell you, my wife is not going to immunize our kids, because I've got four of them and when I go home, I'm not Dr. Oz, I'm Mr. Oz._

_Forget the conspiracy, listen to our government agencies, these guys  are telling the truth, you know theres no conspiracy here folks  just  get your damn vaccine!_ 

_I mean if you dont believe me look on the CDC website as to what is in  the swine flu vaccine. You know,  aluminum, insect repellent,  formaldehyde, mercury._














YouTube search "autism + following + vaccinations" queries 42,900 results

Still in need of further evidence that you, Angelia, and your online buddies are literally psychotic?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

LRC had an article on this very subject today: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/d...-than-measles/



> Before there was a vaccine for it, just about every person in America  got measles. They would catch this highly communicable childhood  disease usually between the age of 5 and 9. From 1900 to 1960, with  improved sanitation, clean water, and better nutrition fostered by rapid  delivery  of fresh fruits and vegetables along with affordable refrigerators, the  mortality rate from measles in the U.S. dropped more than 95 percent.
>  When I was a child 70 years ago families would have “measles parties”  to expose their kids to another child with measles so they could have  the disease and get it over with, since everybody eventually got measles  anyway.
>  With its 3-week course of high fevers, sore throat, conjunctivitis,  and a rash spreading from the face down one’s arms and legs, the vast  majority of children come through the illness unscathed and without  complications.  But one particular complication of measles,  encephalitis, spurred doctors to develop a vaccine that would provide  protection against this disease, like had been done for diphtheria,  pertussis (whooping cough), tetanus, and polio.
>  After some false starts (in 1963, 1965, and 1967) the live-virus  measles vaccine introduced in 1968 proved highly effective in  eliminating measles outbreaks. In the 1980s drug companies combined the  measles vaccine with the live-virus vaccines for mumps and rubella (some  people object that drug companies grow that one in aborted human fetal  cells); and it is not possible anymore to obtain a single measles  vaccine in the U.S. (single ones are available in the UK and France).  Before there was a vaccine for it, there were about a million cases of measles a year in the U.S. Now with its population vaccinated, measles cases averaged less than 100 a year from 2001-2013.
>  Last year (in 2014) there were 644 cases of measles in the U.S.,  considerably more than usual (although 383 of them were reported in  Amish families who do not vaccinate their children). In January, 2015,  there were 102 measles cases across the country, 67 of them in an  outbreak in Disneyland, which garnered heightened media attention.  (Germany had 254 cases in January with little fanfare.) Emphasizing the  importance of vaccination, one magazine writer  puts it this way: “Turning Walt Disney’s Happiest Place on Earth into  the measles kingdom flipped a switch in our collective brain. The  thought that thousands of people could have been exposed to a virus that  was declared eliminated in the U.S. a decade-and-a-half-ago is scary.  And it drives home the reality that vaccines only fully protect us if  almost everyone uses them.”
> *Benefits*
>  MMR vaccination for measles provides immunity against the virus that  causes this disease, and people are spared having to suffer through its  debilitating manifestations and be subject to possible complications.  The MMR shot, however, does not confer lifelong immunity against  measles. It only lasts for several years. Booster shots are required,  which studies show to be less effective than the initial one.
>  Health officials, both in the U.S. and UK, blame unvaccinated people  and the “anti-vaxxers” for these outbreaks. Assisted by a compliant  media, they downplay the fact that the vast majority of people who are contracting  measles have been fully vaccinated against it—more than 95 percent in  some outbreaks. In the UK, in Northern England, a highly vaccinated part  of the country, there were 757 cases in a measles outbreak there in  2013 (January to August). It went unreported. Health authorities steered  the UK media in another direction and focused instead on a smaller  outbreak in South Wales, which had 40 cases, where vaccine dissenters  are more vocal and fewer people have been vaccinated. Unvaccinated  people make easy scapegoats in today’s climate of vaccine obedience.
>  The key question, of course, which officials and pundits _do not_  ask (preferring instead to censure “anti-vaxxers”), is: Why would an  unvaccinated person pose a danger to the vaccinated population if the  vaccine they had is effective and really works?
> ...

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Autism is just a mystery disorder.  We have absolutely no idea how or why it happens.

More vaccines to make us all happy!

----------


## Zippyjuan

> “I mean if you don’t believe me look on the CDC website as to what is in the swine flu vaccine. You know, aluminum,* insect repellent,* formaldehyde, mercury.”


Insect repellent?  (and again- there is no thimerosol which contains mercury in kid's vaccines) 

Since we have Dr. Oz as a source:  http://www.autismsupportnetwork.com/...cines-39940333




> Dr. Oz says that autism is a neurological disorder that robs a child of an emotional foundation. More and more children are being diagnosed with it each year too. Why is autism on the rise? Mainly because doctors are getting better at diagnosing it, and also because the diagnosis has spread to include children with milder forms of it.
> Alison Singer, President of the Autism Science Foundation, says that there’s a strong genetic component as to the cause of autism. It’s not 100% of the cause though, so they are researching environmental factors that interact with the genes to trigger the disorder.





> Another theory about the cause of autism is environment. Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto from UC Davis talked about a study that showed women who lived within a quarter-mile of a freeway during their pregnancy have about a twice the likelihood of their child having autism. She does not think there’s one cause of autism. She thinks there will eventually be found a number of contributing causes.
> The third theory is the age of the parents…not just the mom. Dr. Brown says the study shows that for every 10 years increase in age of the mom, the risk of having an autistic child goes up by 30%. For fathers, for every 10 year increase, the risk goes up over 20%. Alison Singer also say that science indicates an increased risk of autism with fertility treatments. Dr. Oz pinpointed the age of 35 as being the age over which the risk appears to start growing.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.autismsupportnetwork.com/...#ixzz3RZkoUJn7

----------


## Zippyjuan

More Dr. Oz.  http://health.heraldtribune.com/2012...-vaccinations/




> *Dr. Oz: Don't fear childhood vaccinations*
> 
> Diphtheria, influenza, measles, meningitis, mumps, pertussis (whooping cough), pneumonia, polio, rubella (German measles), tetanus and chickenpox are vaccine-preventable diseases; until the vaccines, they claimed the lives of many thousands annually.
> 
> Unfortunately, there's widespread anxiety about vaccinations.
> 
> Rumors spread across the Internet that vaccines cause diseases, that natural immunity is better and safer than vaccination, and that newborns aren't ready for vaccines.
> 
> We want to be very clear: We interviewed more than 150 "experts" on every side of the issue.
> ...

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> More Dr. Oz.  http://health.heraldtribune.com/2012...-vaccinations/



You make fun of Prison Planet and Natural News, but then post some stuff from some doctor/entertainer.  Your cohort, TheCount, posts vaccine info from Newsweek, an entertainment magazine.

----------


## Zippyjuan

I was not the one who introduced Dr. Oz to the thread.  Video #2 in WestonWhite's thread cites him and asks "we are going to see exactly how he feels about vaccines".  So I provided some additional information. And at least he is a real doctor.  The video is so chopped up it is impossible to tell what Dr. Oz really feels.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> I was not the one who introduced Dr. Oz to the thread.  Video #2 in WestonWhite's thread cites him and asks "we are going to see exactly how he feels about vaccines".  So I provided some additional information. And at least he is a real doctor.  The video is so chopped up it is impossible to tell what Dr. Oz really feels.


Looks to me like his wife won't vaccinate their kids and he goes along with it.  Maybe she has rubbed off on him.  At least she has the common sense to spare her kids some insidious garbage that is unnecessary for them.

----------


## Weston White

> Insect repellent?  (and again- there is no thimerosol which contains mercury in kid's vaccines)


1.  Thimerosal is not the only concern, but one of a myriad of such concerns.
2.  The mother is very likely passing these toxins to her fetus during pregnancy as pregnant mothers are since being instructed to get vaccinated while pregnant.

----------


## donnay

*Dr. Suzanne Humphries, M.D.  Vaccine Strain of Measles Virus Found in Measles Outbreaks* 

Dr. Suzanne Humphries is a practicing nephrologist (kidney physician). In this lecture (video below), she addresses a study done in Croatia [1] where a child who was vaccinated with the MMR vaccine was tested positive for the measles vaccine strain Schwarz eight days after vaccination.

This was a significant finding, because the childs symptoms were thought to be similar to rubella, and without testing, the sickness would have been possibly mis-diagnosed as rubella, or the wild-type strain of measles the vaccine is designed to protect against.

This concept of shedding, where the child comes down with the disease from the virus in the vaccine itself, surprised the researchers:

    Virus excretion in vaccinees has been reported before, but to our knowledge, this is documented for the first time for the Schwarz vaccine strain. [1]

Since 2010, this phenomena of vaccine shedding with measles in the MMR vaccine has been observed in at least two other studies:

Differentiating the wild from the attenuated during a measles outbreak. Paediatrcis and Child Health, 2012:

    In the midst of a local measles outbreak, a recently immunized child was investigated for a new-onset measles-type rash. Nucleic acid testing identified that a vaccine-type measles virus was being shed in the urine. Clinically differentiating measles from a nonmeasles rash is challenging, but can be supported by a thorough medical history evaluation. Rashes are expected to occur after immunization; nucleic acid testing can be used when it is difficult to differentiate between wild and attenuated strains. [2]

Case of vaccine-associated measles five weeks post-immunisation, British Columbia, Canada, Eurosurveillance, 2013:

    We describe a case of vaccine-associated measles in a two-year-old patient from British Columbia, Canada, in October 2013, who received her first dose of measles-containing vaccine 37 days prior to onset of prodromal symptoms. Identification of this delayed vaccine-associated case occurred in the context of an outbreak investigation of a measles cluster. [3]

Are health officials testing cases of measles in the current outbreak in the United States, to determine if the measles strain is the wild strain of the vaccine strain?

Not likely, and it is not likely that the mainstream media TV doctors will even discuss this as they falsely vilify parents who choose not to administer the MMR vaccine to their children as the cause of these outbreaks. Some of these cases are confirmed to be among those who have received the MMR vaccine, and for those who have not been vaccinated, is it possible they were infected from those recently vaccinated when the vaccine was still shedding, and that the vaccine-strain of measles was passed on from the vaccinated child to the unvaccinated child?




References

1. Spotlight on measles 2010: excretion of vaccine strain measles virus in urine and pharyngeal secretions of a child with vaccine associated febrile rash illness, Croatia, March 2010. Croatian Institute of Public Health, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Zagreb, Croatia. Eurosurveillance, Volume 15, Issue 35, 02 September 2010 (Full Text)

2. Differentiating the wild from the attenuated during a measles outbreak. Communicable Disease Control, Alberta Health Services. Pediatricians and Child Health, Apr. 2012; 17(4) (Abstract)

3. Case of vaccine-associated measles five weeks post-immunisation, Eurosurveillance, Volume 18, Issue 49, 05 December 2013 (Full Text)

http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/dr-....RF0f48eV.dpuf

----------


## Zippyjuan

> 1.  Thimerosal is not the only concern, but one of a myriad of such concerns.
> 2.  The mother is very likely passing these toxins to her fetus during pregnancy as pregnant mothers are since being instructed to get vaccinated while pregnant.


How many vaccines are pregnant women required to get?

----------


## Ender

> Odds of getting ill due to a vaccine- practically non existent.  Odds of getting ill with something you were vaccinated against- also very rare.  Odds of getting sick if you were not vaccinated and get exposed- very high.  No- nothing is 100%.  Except death.  That gets everybody eventually.  
> 
> You will be sick less if you are vaccinated.  (being vaccinated is also helped by a healthy lifestyle- that is not a mutually exclusive option). But this is not about logic- it is about emotion and fears.
> 
> If vaccines don't prevent diseases and they were going away anyways, how is it that as vaccination rates went up, the cases of the diseases went down and now that vaccination rates are going down, the cases are again on the increase?  They should be going away- not rising.


Sorry Zip, but vaccines, over-all, destroy the natural immunity that each of us should have. 

You are reading Big Pharma stats- many opposite findings have been stuffed or hidden.

AND I know personally kids who went deaf because of vaxes, adults who died because of vaxes, and kids who are autistic because of vases.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Odds of getting ill due to a vaccine- practically non existent.  Odds of getting ill with something you were vaccinated against- also very rare.  Odds of getting sick if you were not vaccinated and get exposed- very high.  No- nothing is 100%.  Except death.  That gets everybody eventually.  
> 
> You will be sick less if you are vaccinated.  (being vaccinated is also helped by a healthy lifestyle- that is not a mutually exclusive option). But this is not about logic- it is about emotion and fears.
> 
> If vaccines don't prevent diseases and they were going away anyways, how is it that as vaccination rates went up, the cases of the diseases went down and now that vaccination rates are going down, the cases are again on the increase?  They should be going away- not rising.


WHat makes you think vaccination rates are declining?







I'm guessing this "declining vaccination rate" nonsense is just made up out of thin air to try and affix blame on the 5% who do not want them, when in fact people _seem_ to be growing a kind of _tolerance_ to vaccines, perhaps due to too high of a vaccination rate.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Sorry Zip, but vaccines,* over-all, destroy the natural immunity that each of us should have.* 
> 
> You are reading Big Pharma stats- many opposite findings have been stuffed or hidden.
> 
> AND I know personally kids who went deaf because of vaxes, adults who died because of vaxes, and kids who are autistic because of vases.


If that is indeed the case that vaccines destroy immunity then given that 90+% of the population has been vaccinated then 90+% of the population should have no immunity left. Is that indeed the case? We are all sick all of the time?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If that is indeed the case that vaccines destroy immunity then given that 90+% of the population has been vaccinated then 90+% of the population should have no immunity left. Is that indeed the case? We are all sick all of the time?


If 90+% of people are vaccinated, then how is it that diseases like the measles are on the rise?

----------


## Zippyjuan

If you had been reading the stories, nearly all of them are the unvaccinated.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> If you had been reading the stories, nearly all of them are the unvaccinated.


 So, if 90+% are vaccinated, then why is herd immunity starting to fail all of a sudden?

----------


## Zippyjuan

Because in some places, not enough of the "herd" is vaccinated.  There tend to be clusters of non- vaccinated people 

http://www.healthline.com/health-new...ed-kids-012315




> *Measles Spreads in California Due to Clusters of Unvaccinated Kids*
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent study published in the journal Pediatrics, about 3 percent of California’s population opts out of the recommended vaccination schedules. But they are not spread evenly across the state.
> 
> *In certain areas of California, unvaccinated children make up more than 20 percent of the child population.*
> 
> Researchers found that the pockets are often geographically small, such as a 1.8-mile area in Vallejo where 22.7 percent of children were unvaccinated. Other areas at risk include places in or around El Cerrito, San Francisco, and Sacramento.
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

If the vaccination rates are basically static over the last decade, then why are these 'clusters' only starting to appear now?

----------


## Zippyjuan

They didn't "suddenly appear" but grew over time. Orange County- which is where the Disneyland outbreak occurred- is one such cluster area.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlip...ickens-dozens/




> Disneyland is located in *Orange County, Calif., which reported the highest rate of measles in the state last year. It’s also home to some of the state’s highest numbers of unvaccinated children.* Of the 20 people infected by the current outbreak, at least 15 were not vaccinated.

----------


## Working Poor

If they do a dna test on the strain @disneyland and find that it is the vaccine strain will it be reported?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> They didn't "suddenly appear" but grew over time.


While vaccination rates have remained....constant.  How do you suggest that 'unvaccinated clusters' have grown slowly over time, while vaccination rates remain stable and unchanged in the 95%+ range?  Is there some kind of identifying mark that these 5% use to identify one another and form groups amongst themselves where before there were none?

Given that the overall vaccination rates are around 95% and stable, if all the unvaccinated are departing from among the vaccinated and just hanging out together, then wouldn't that make the non-clustered vaccination rates closer to 99%?  

How is it that the alleged 99% vaccination rates amongst those outside of these clusters are failing to protect them?  Does herd immunity not work even at 99% vaccination rates?


Or, far more likely, given that vaccination rates have been constant at around 95% for 20, 30 years now, and the 5% unvaccinated are in fact as mixed in with the population as ever, but old defeated diseases are returning anyway, wouldn't  that suggest that people are gaining a tolerance for vaccinations, and therefore that the over-use of vaccinations are causing a new susceptibility leading to the re-emergence of defeated diseases?

After all, if all other factors remain the same, then once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains (however improbable) must necessarily be true, no?  Therefore, the vaccines themselves are demonstrating a reduction in effectiveness over time, and the most likely explanation is the development of a tolerance.

----------


## donnay

> If they do a dna test on the strain @disneyland and find that it is the vaccine strain will it be reported?


Most likely not.  The media relies on all that Big pHARMa money to keep them afloat.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Because in some places, not enough of the "herd" is vaccinated.  There tend to be clusters of non- vaccinated people 
> 
> http://www.healthline.com/health-new...ed-kids-012315
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent study published in the journal Pediatrics, about 3 percent of California’s population opts out of the recommended vaccination schedules. But they are not spread evenly across the state.
> ...


Do the math, if only 3% of California are unvaccinated, while some areas house a 20% unvaccinated rate, that means that everywhere outside of those areas have nearly 100% vaccination rates, correct?

How is it that a nearly 100% vaccination rate has failed to protect them?

Does herd immunity fail even at 100% vaccination rates?

----------


## GunnyFreedom

If herd immunity fails, even at 100% vaccination rates, wouldn't that make 'herd immunity' a myth?

----------


## Zippyjuan

Herd immunity offers improved protection but no 100% protection.

It just takes one infected person to spread it to others in the group who do not have protection.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Herd immunity offers improved protection but no 100% protection.
> 
> It just takes one infected person to spread it to others in the group who do not have protection.


So near 100% vaccination rates do not create an _effective_ form of herd immunity, but rather an _ineffective_ form.  lol.  You are just abandoning logic altogether in a desperate attempt to retain a specific narrative.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Effective - yes.  Perfect? No. US measles outbreaks have been occurring in places with lower vaccination rates. 



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6581922.html

----------


## GunnyFreedom

No outbreaks in Humboldt, Nevada, Tuolumne, or Mariposa Counties, all with far higher unvaccinated rates.  Instead, the outbreaks are centered in Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Francisco, Kings, Tulare, and Inyo Counties, all of which have very high vaccination rates.  

Why is it that the highly unvaccinated Counties do not have outbreaks, but the highly vaccinated Counties do?

----------


## Zippyjuan

How many cases in counties reporting 100% vaccination rates?  

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...209-story.html




> The California Department of Public Health reported Monday that there are now 107 cases in the state, with one case now confirmed in Solano County.
> 
> Of the 107 cases, at least 39 can be directly linked to visitors or employees at Disneyland during the holidays, 25 were family members or people who came in close contact with someone who had the measles, and at least five caught the measles by being in a public area such as an emergency room where a confirmed case was known to be present, officials said. 
> 
> Cases connected to the California-centered outbreak have also been confirmed in at least seven other states: Arizona (five), Utah (three), Washington (two), Michigan (one), Oregon (one), Colorado (one) and Nebraska (one) -- as well as Mexico (two).
> 
> *Eleven counties in California have confirmed measles cases: Alameda, Los Angeles, Marin, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Ventura.
> *
> 
> ...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> How many cases in counties reporting 100% vaccination rates?  
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...209-story.html


So the unvaccinated in highly vaccinated counties are catching the disease, while the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike in highly unvaccinated counties are not. You are looking right at the data and deliberately refusing to see it. Just because the unvaccinated are clearly the most susceptible, does not mean they are responsible. If they were, then the unvaccinated counties would be the ones getting hit.

----------


## Zippyjuan

It depends on getting exposed.  Measles is only starting to make its way back into the country.  People getting sick and spreading it are the unvaccinated- not the vaccinated (except in rare cases).  More people travel to and from places like San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco areas.  That is why we are seeing it start there.  But it won't end there. This is only the beginning. 


https://uhs.okstate.edu/measles

And the US isn't the only place it is happening. 



http://granades.com/2009/02/09/the-e...es-after-them/

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> It depends on getting exposed.  Measles is only starting to make its way back into the country.  People getting sick and spreading it are the unvaccinated- not the vaccinated (except in rare cases).  More people travel to and from places like San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco areas.  That is why we are seeing it start there.  But it won't end there. This is only the beginning. 
> 
> 
> https://uhs.okstate.edu/measles
> 
> And the US isn't the only place it is happening. 
> 
> 
> 
> http://granades.com/2009/02/09/the-e...es-after-them/


_Nothing_ you have suggested or cited logically explains the sudden rapid spike in cases, when vaccination rates have remained static.  So far in this thread, my tolerance hypothesis is the only hypothesis to account for an increase in measles cases given a static vaccination rate.

----------


## angelatc

> _Nothing_ you have suggested or cited logically explains the sudden rapid spike in cases, when vaccination rates have remained static.  So far in this thread, my tolerance hypothesis is the only hypothesis to account for an increase in measles cases given a static vaccination rate.


Vaccine rates have not remained static.  http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/0...-have-changed/  There are a couple of live maps at the link.    They peaked in 2006 / 2007.


Here's a chart that might be cool to compare to the one you have above:  

Also would be helpful to see where each outbreak occurred.  A non-vaxxing religious community in the middle of a highly vaccinated state was responsible for an outbreak last year or the year before - I forget.    That was traced directly back to a missionary.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Vaccine rates have not remained static.  http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/0...-have-changed/  There are a couple of live maps at the link.    They peaked in 2006 / 2007.
> 
> 
> Here's a chart that might be cool to compare to the one you have above:  
> 
> Also would be helpful to see where each outbreak occurred.  A non-vaxxing religious community in the middle of a highly vaccinated state was responsible for an outbreak last year or the year before - I forget.    That was traced directly back to a missionary.


Alabama, < 1% exemptions
California, < 5% exemptions
Colorado, < 5% exemptions
Connecticut, < 2% exemptions
Hawaii, < 5% exemptions
Illinois, Data N/A
Indiana, < 1% exemptions
Kansas, < 2% exemptions
Massachusetts, < 2% exemptions
Michigan, < 7% exemptions
Minnesota,  Data N/A
Missouri,  Data N/A
Nebraska, < 2% exemptions
New Jersey, < 2% exemptions
New Mexico, < 1% exemptions
New York, < 1% exemptions
North Carolina, < 1% exemptions
Ohio, < 2% exemptions
Oregon, < 7% exemptions
Pennsylvania, < 2% exemptions
South Dakota, < 2% exemptions
Tennessee, < 2% exemptions
Texas, < 2% exemptions
Utah, < 5% exemptions
Virginia, < 1% exemptions
Washington, < 5% exemptions
Wisconsin, < 5% exemptions

Notably missing from the list of Measles victims, Idaho, Vermont, and Maine, 3 States with 5-7% exemptions.  Out of 27 states affected, 2 'black' states are on the majority (affected) list, while three 'black' states are in the minority (unaffected) list.  This skews towards the more-vaccinated States having a higher occurrence of measles.

Alaska, Arizona, and Montana are in the 3-5% exemptions, while 6 states in the 3-5% range had outbreaks. Skewed towards less-vaccinated States having a higher occurrence of measles.

Nevada and New Hampshire are in the 2-3% exemptions range, and neither of them had outbreaks.  Skewed towards more-vaccinated States having a higher occurrence of measles.

Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Oklahoma, South Carolina, 6 states in the 1-2% exemptions range without outbreaks, 10 States in this range had outbreaks.  Skewed towards more-vaccinated States having a higher occurrence of measles.

Kentucky, Louisiana, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland, 5 States in the 0-1% exemptions range without outbreaks, 6 states in this range had outbreaks.  Skewed towards more-vaccinated States having a higher occurrence of measles.



Your chart when taken with Zippy's chart, would seem to indicate that the more highly vaccinated a State is, the more susceptible it is to an outbreak.

Note, I am not actually saying that "more vaccinations = more measles," rather I am demonstrating the deeply flawed rationale behind the thought process that "more exemptions = more measles" by pointing out that the very data being used to make this point, _actually correlates the opposite way._  There is clearly something else driving this.  To look at this data and conclude that "more exemptions = more measles," is wishful thinking at best, particularly if we are going by correlation, the outbreaks are more likely to correlate with more highly vaccinated populations.  

Charts produced by the CDC demonstrate that vaccination rates are indeed static over the last 20, 30 years, as I have posted earlier in the thread.  No amount of anecdotal information will convince me that the CDC is lying about the vaccination rates over time.  If anything, the CDC would have a vested interest in claiming that vaccination rates are declining, yet their own data shows the rates are static.  

Vaccination zealots are simply looking for a convenient scapegoat, which is problematic given that assigning blame to a scapegoat is very likely to cause the real driver behind this to get overlooked.

----------


## Zippyjuan

So  why do you think unvaccinated people are getting the measles?  Vaccinated people are only getting it in rare instances. (yes, vaccines are not 100%- but they are over 95% effective).

----------


## angelatc

> Charts produced by the CDC demonstrate that vaccination rates are indeed static over the last 20, 30 years, as I have posted earlier in the thread. .


But the charts you posted do not show a static rate.  That's where you're losing me. "Static" would be a straight line.  The scientists have long said that if the vaccines rates dipped to around 90% that we would start seeing outbreaks.  I may not have a degree in infectious diseases, but it appears their predictions are right.  When populations are vaxxed at a high rate, measles goes away.  When that rate drops, measles sneaks back in.

Most outbreaks can be traced directly back to a patient zero, and we usually know exactly where the measles came from.  This time we know the outbreak started in Disneyland and we will probably never find the patient zero.  

And Zippy s right - the overwhelming number of people getting sick are not vaccinated.

----------


## Weston White

> So why do you think unvaccinated people are getting the measles? Vaccinated people are only getting it in rare instances. (yes, vaccines are not 100%- but they are over 95% effective).


No, that is not true:




> As with measles or rubella, anyone who becomes infected by the mumps later becomes immune against it. 
> 
> Though getting vaccinated is the best way to prevent against the virus, for some, the shots immunity simply doesnt stick. 
> 
> Two doses of mumps vaccine are said to be 88 percent effective at preventing the illness; one dose is 78 percent effective, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That means if 100 people were to get a single vaccine, as many as 22 people could still become infected with mumps. 
> 
> By comparison, one dose alone of the MMR vaccine is 93 percent effective at preventing measles, according to the CDC, and at least 90 percent effective at warding off rubella, according to the Immunization Action Coalition. Officials have considered both diseases eliminated in the U.S.
> 
> Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at The Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, says the mumps portion of the vaccine also becomes less effective after about 10 years.
> ...


http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...easles-rubella

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> But the charts you posted do not show a static rate.  That's where you're losing me. "Static" would be a straight line.  The scientists have long said that if the vaccines rates dipped to around 90% that we would start seeing outbreaks.  I may not have a degree in infectious diseases, but it appears their predictions are right.  When populations are vaxxed at a high rate, measles goes away.  When that rate drops, measles sneaks back in.
> 
> Most outbreaks can be traced directly back to a patient zero, and we usually know exactly where the measles came from.  This time we know the outbreak started in Disneyland and we will probably never find the patient zero.  
> 
> And Zippy s right - the overwhelming number of people getting sick are not vaccinated.


Well, you apparently do not believe this CDC data, 





so how about getting the data directly from off the CDC website?



Where were all the measles pandemics between 1978 and 1985, when rates were steady under 70%?  Now that they are over the magic number of 90%, how does a 1-2% dip from 92% to 90% lead to all of these outbreaks, when the entire era from 1966 through 1985 were all under 70% without such panic?



What we are actually seeing in the data, is a dip in rates following the Wakefield paper, and then a re-increase in uptakes...



Where were all the measles pandemics between 2001 and 2008, when vaccination rates were much lower than they are now?

I'm just not seeing any evidence for a decline in vaccination rates...



Seriously...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Indeed, as this example from Chicago shows, rates appear to be improving, not declining:

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Face it, there is no statistically significant decline in vaccination rates.  That is a myth, perpetrated to scapegoat the exemptors, and push a solution for mandates.  The danger here, is that *something else* is clearly going on, and the push to scapegoat the exemptors will cause the real issue to go unfound.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> So  why do you think unvaccinated people are getting the measles?  Vaccinated people are only getting it in rare instances. (yes, vaccines are not 100%- but they are over 95% effective).





> And Zippy s right - the overwhelming number of people getting sick are not vaccinated.


Also, if it's really just the unvaccinated getting sick, then why do y'all care?

----------


## osan

> Odds of getting ill due to a vaccine- practically non existent.  Odds of getting ill with something you were vaccinated against- also very rare.  Odds of getting sick if you were not vaccinated and get exposed- very high.  No- nothing is 100%.  Except death.  That gets everybody eventually.  
> 
> You will be sick less if you are vaccinated.  (being vaccinated is also helped by a healthy lifestyle- that is not a mutually exclusive option). But this is not about logic- it is about emotion and fears.
> 
> If vaccines don't prevent diseases and they were going away anyways, how is it that as vaccination rates went up, the cases of the diseases went down and now that vaccination rates are going down, the cases are again on the increase?  They should be going away- not rising.


You assert much, but provide no support.

I have no vaccinations.  I have not been sick since 1979.

----------


## osan

> Also, if it's really just the unvaccinated getting sick, then why do y'all care?


Bingo.  Thread winner.

If I choose no vaccines for myself and fall ill, the actual cause is irrelevant insofar as my choice to assume the risk is concerned.  I chose in accord with my rights.  If someone else does not like it, too bad.  These neurotic, bed-wetting hand-wringers who go on so endlessly about how we must all be vaccinated regardless of one's will on the matter, need to get right-minded about this and accept the fact that life carries all manner of risk and that each of us is entitled by right to assess for ourselves and decide which risks to which to expose ourselves and which not.

Anyone comes near me with a vaccine with the intention to contaminate me is going to have parts of his body broken of which up until that point he was unaware he owned.  It is as simple as that.  

You wanty vaccinny?  You getty.  Me no wanty.  You $#@!y offy... 'K?

----------


## CPUd

> Also, if it's really just the unvaccinated getting sick, then why do y'all care?


The argument is that not all unvaccinated kids have antivaxxer parents.  Some cannot get a vaccine for medical reasons, but having more vaccinated kids in the room decreases the odds of getting the disease.

----------


## osan

> 1.  Thimerosal is not the only concern, but one of a myriad of such concerns.
> 2.  The mother is very likely passing these toxins to her fetus during pregnancy as pregnant mothers are since being instructed to get vaccinated while pregnant.


Squalene is one of the other suspects.  Now, some will immediately retreat into the clapped-out retort that says "but squalene is produced naturally by the body."  While true, bile and urine are also natural (by)products of the body.  Inject either into your living tissues or veins and see how long you remain a happy human camper.  The squalene may, in fact, not even be the cause or even a primary element, but other contaminants common to the isolation and even synthesis of squalene, might.

I am not an expert on how vaccines have been studied, but since adjuvants have come under suspicion, I cannot help but wonder whether an isolation study has ever been conducted where the adjuvants alone have been introduced into subjects' bodies, absent the active vaccine agents in order to determine what effects those agents have on their own.  Absence of any notable result, however, does not clear the adjuvants of suspicion.  There may be synergistic effects resulting from the combination of the primary vaccine agent with the adjuvants.  This introduces an _n_-variant system, and as anyone with the least science background knows, the moment the value of _n_ rises above 3 or 4, the combinatorial complexity for testing the effects of the ratios of the _n_-element system often becomes unmanageable, not only because of the numerically large numbers of test cases, but because of possibly unquantifiable/non-characterizable interactions between the _n_ factors.  This often poses large difficulties in computer-related endeavors, those being many orders of magnitude simpler than what we find in complex organic chemical systems, particularly those of a biochemical nature.  The complexity of such systems is quite staggering and the subtlety of interplay between elements far and away more so.  This is why stabbing people with spikes and introducing foreign biochemical agents into complex living systems like human beings, is ALWAYS a crap-shoot.  Many of the so-called miracle drugs remain as complete mysteries as to how and why they work.  The great scientists have absolutely no idea, and the reason for it is the complexity and subtlety of living systems to which I have referred.

Anyone who thinks this $#@! is understood even poorly is pig-ignorant of the nature of not only complexity in living beings, but of the profound difficulties in divining the ways in which the basic principles of biochemistry interact between each other.  This is profoundly mysterious stuff and may even prove fundamentally impenetrable.  Many people are fond of their habits of folly wherein because they believe themselves to have apprehended some set of fundamental instruments by which "nature" operates, that they can then deconstruct the entire world, analytically, and determine how things operate.  This was the mechanistic/deterministic view of the universe as arose during the "Enlightenment".  This miserably inadequate and wholly rotted worldview has remained with us despite all the hard science that tells us that very little in this world is so simple as may appear in terms of predictability and penetrability.  The quantum mechanical view, for example, chafes the natural mind and men resist it because it demands too much of their thoughts and daily disposition.  The illusion is stronger, and vastly more appealing and, therefore, we cling to our silly half-in/half-out views of things, which is precisely what the determinist worldview is.

My point here is that we don't know $#@!.  We have devised all manner of endlessly clever experiments that have revealed many profound things to our eyes.  Seeing, however, does not equate to understanding, and partial understanding is not the same as full understanding, by a _very_ long margin.

When one thinks on the truer nature of things - of the complexity of living beings and of the actual *work* that went into the design of such things, which I will say is utterly staggering to the point of the mind-numbing, it becomes apparent that whatever it is for which responsibility may be assigned - call it "God" or "kitchen sink", it matters not the label - stands completely beyond the reach of intellect, no matter how powerful.

It is in this context that we should direct our thoughts and tune and edit them to gain what I would call a "right-sized" perspective with regard to the things we think we know about items such as vaccines.  This does not necessarily imply that we abandon their use, but the rise of conditions such as autism should be instructive to all good and honest men of proper humility that perhaps greater care and  a slower pace of advance are well advised, not to mention that the impulse to apply force against one's fellows should be kept on tight restraint and given no opportunity to loose itself.

----------


## Weston White

> The argument is that not all unvaccinated kids have antivaxxer parents.  Some cannot get a vaccine for medical reasons, but having more vaccinated kids in the room decreases the odds of getting the disease.


So every parent living in or around Los Angeles or California's "Valley" with at least one asthma inflicted child should be forced to move to a designated clean air area or otherwise face the full wrath of government, CPS, and lobbyists for inhaler manufacturers, yes?

----------


## CPUd

> So every parent living in or around Los Angeles or California's "Valley" with at least one asthma inflicted child should be forced to move to a designated clean air area or otherwise face the full wrath of government, CPS, and lobbyists for inhaler manufacturers, yes?


It doesn't really matter to me where they live.

----------


## Weston White

> It doesn't really matter to me where they live.


Oh so you are not a pro-vaxxer then?  My mistake.

----------


## KingNothing

> As you've been told in dozens of threads, vaccinations are not 100% effective, and no one claims them to be.  It's possible for a person to have been vaccinated and still become ill; this fact shocks no one.


And it is also an argument in support of herd immunity.  But I guess that is just something THEY want us to think. THEY are really just pure evil.

----------


## KingNothing

> If the vaccination rates are basically static over the last decade, then why are these 'clusters' only starting to appear now?


Why are you asking such stupid questions?  In some areas, vaccination rates are not remaining static because stupid people are doing stupid things like rejecting ALL vaccinations.

----------


## KingNothing

Reading someone attempt to make anti-vaccination arguments is like reading someone attempt to make anti-evolution arguments.  It's just unadulterated stupidity.

Look, I COMPLETELY understand if you are against vaccinating your child for the entire set of diseases.  I COMPLETELY understand if you want to space out when the vaccinations occur.  But dear lord, the science is there.  Vaccination is an overwhelming positive thing for humanity.  Stop trying to deny that.

----------


## angelatc

> Well, you apparently do not believe this CDC data,


 Those charts aren't flat.






> Where were all the measles pandemics between 1978 and 1985, when rates were steady under 70%?


People were still getting the measles.  It wasn't considered eradicated in the US until 2000.   




> There have been several epidemics *in* *the* *United* *States* since 1963: from 1970 to 1972, 1976 to 1978, and 1989 to 1991.In 1997, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported a total of 138 cases of *measles* *in* *the United* *States* .


They were not news worthy then because the infection rates were still trending downward as the vaccine rates increased.  It's apparently newsworthy now because the inverse is true.  

And the unvaccinated get the disease in far far greater numbers than the unvaccinated.

----------


## angelatc

> Also, if it's really just the unvaccinated getting sick, then why do y'all care?



Because as we have explained again and again, the people who can't be vaccinated due to either age or illness are also the most likely to have permanent damage or even die from these diseases.  

It's that  whole "Do unto others" Christian thing.  If getting a shot dramatically decreases the odds that I won't unknowingly pass a deadly disease to some unknown infant or a cancer patient, I will have it on the hopes that other strangers will be willing to do the same for me.    I obviously don't have the right to force them to have the vaccines, but I certainly have an obligation to point out that they do not have a shred of evidence to support their decision when I see them trying to convince others to make the same choice.  

It's a very selfish decision.  Which is allowed in a free society.  But choosing to allow it doesn't mean one has to condone or support it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> As you've been told in dozens of threads, vaccinations are not 100% effective, and no one claims them to be.  It's possible for a person to have been vaccinated and still become ill; this fact shocks no one.


The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> More Dr. Oz.  http://health.heraldtribune.com/2012...-vaccinations/


It must have escaped you what the reference to Dr. Oz was meant to show.

He doesn't practice what he preaches.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If that is indeed the case that vaccines destroy immunity then given that 90+% of the population has been vaccinated then 90+% of the population should have no immunity left. Is that indeed the case? We are all sick all of the time?


Why must you be so obtuse as to take everything so literally?  Obviously Ender didn't mean to imply that the word "destroy" actually meant "completely annihilate until there is absolutely nothing left."  That would be impossible and yet, here you are, being absolutely ri-$#@!ing-diculous.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Effective - yes.  Perfect? No. US measles outbreaks have been occurring in places with lower vaccination rates. 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6581922.html


How do you mean to convince these people?  Do you really think they are just ignorant?  Almost everyone who abstains from vaccinations does so out of informed decision, not uninformed decision.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Reading someone attempt to make anti-vaccination arguments is like reading someone attempt to make anti-evolution arguments.  It's just unadulterated stupidity.
> 
> Look, I COMPLETELY understand if you are against vaccinating your child for the entire set of diseases.  I COMPLETELY understand if you want to space out when the vaccinations occur.  But dear lord, the science is there.  Vaccination is an overwhelming positive thing for humanity.  Stop trying to deny that.


Stop trying to deny that?  Why?  He IS denying it and so are many others, vociferously so.  We're not going to stop trying to deny something that we don't believe to be true.

----------


## KingNothing

> Stop trying to deny that?  Why?  He IS denying it and so are many others, vociferously so.  We're not going to stop trying to deny something that we don't believe to be true.


If you don't think vaccines have been an overwhelmingly positive thing for mankind, you deserve to get measles, smallpox, and mumps because your alleles shouldn't be passed down to burden future generations.

And again, I want to make clear -- vaccinating your children is a personal choice.  It must stay that way.  But we need to be informed.  We need to know what the real risks are.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If you don't think vaccines have been an overwhelmingly positive thing for mankind, you deserve to get measles, smallpox, and mumps because your alleles shouldn't be passed down to burden future generations.
> 
> And again, I want to make clear -- vaccinating your children is a personal choice.  It must stay that way.  But we need to be informed.  We need to know what the real risks are.


Another pro-vaxxer wishing death on anti-vaxxers.  Unbelievable.  You guys are a special breed of hate and fear mongerers.

"It's totally up to you whether you get the vaccine or not, but if you don't, I hope you and your children die horribly of a disease that normally isn't lethal anyway!"

----------


## Weston White

> Effective - yes.  Perfect? No. US measles outbreaks have been occurring in places with lower vaccination rates.


Are kindergartners the only one becoming infected with or spreading measles; is there any evidence of this? (Doubtful.)

You will notice in your Huff-graphic that all of the outbreaks are occurring only within surrounding areas that have an 85% or greater double-jab vaccination rate.

It needs to be realized that California itself represents 12% of America's entire population--and is a prime destination for millions of foreigners throughout the year.

----------


## Weston White

> Reading someone attempt to make anti-vaccination arguments is like reading someone attempt to make anti-evolution arguments.  It's just unadulterated stupidity.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Is it just me or is pro-vaxxers wishing death on anti-vaxxers' kids becoming a disturbing trend?  Of course, it's all done and said in the name of evolution and natural selection, which totally makes it okay.  

Some people sicken me.

----------


## Weston White

> Is it just me or is pro-vaxxers wishing death on anti-vaxxers' kids becoming a disturbing trend?  Of course, it's all done and said in the name of evolution and natural selection, which totally makes it okay.


...That and all the while parading around as if they would not be completely supportive to governmental vaccination mandates--at least for children.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Reading someone attempt to make anti-vaccination arguments is like reading someone attempt to make anti-evolution arguments.  It's just unadulterated stupidity.


Let's see, what do vaccines and evolution have in common... Oh, right!  They're both pushed on young people by the state!  What a coincidence that we have such adamant believers thinking there's some kind of "consensus" behind them even though they don't know the first thing about science.

----------


## donnay

> ...That and all the while parading around as if they would not be completely supportive to governmental vaccination mandates--at least for children.


The vaccine pushers are pushing for a medical tyranny the likes of which we have never seen.  God help us if they get their way.

----------


## Weston White

Since charts are so popular, thought I would post this one here as well:




*Vaccinated Children Have 2 to 5 Times More Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children*

----------


## Zippyjuan

That was not a scientific survey but voluntary reporting from groups which do not trust doctors or vaccines so no surprise their kids went to the doctor less often. 




> The data was collected from parents with vaccine-free children via an internet questionnaire by vaccineinjury.info - See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/new....A7BVBmkA.dpuf

----------


## Eagles' Wings

deleted

----------


## mosquitobite

> That was not a scientific survey but voluntary reporting from groups which do not trust doctors or vaccines so no surprise their kids went to the doctor less often.


Let us know when the scientific community decides to actually "scientifically" study vaccinated versus unvaccinated on overall health.  If they included 2 generations it would be the most comprehensive.  

Can't go digging where you might find results you don't like...

Or we can pretend that injecting diseases and adjuvants directly into our bloodstream has ABSOLUTELY ZERO affect on our DNA.  I mean, we evolved, but well let's not think this far, ok?  Quit being anti-vax!

----------

