RE: Vaccines Kill Children - Here's Proof!
The analysis are statistically weak. The report graphs made up by the meta analysis cover only one year after flu vaccines were mandated. Under 5 deaths compare only developed countries against developed countries. And provide a total number of deaths not rate of deaths. A mini baby boom could invalidate those findings.
That is when I stopped. You need a longitudinal study of at least 30 years to make a case, and if there is already 30 years of information prior with mortality rates and vaccine rates being studied, that prior study wins the validity tests. Given the provided information the argument is, "See the numbers one year after mandatory flu shots!"... which is alarming but not a clear cut case of vaccines being a culprit.
If you study mortality rates from native countries versus immigrant morality you would gain even more insight into the overall effectiveness of vaccines provided you can control for environment.
Best case scenario that supports your reported evidence is that one year after mandatory flu vaccines there was a correlation between vaccine rates and Under 5 Mortality rate but the standard deviation from 30 years prior is not provided so this result might even be with the normal range.
I'm going through this data base. There are over 1,000 matches for influenza vaccination
http://www.mednat.org/vaccini/bibliografia_danni_vaccini.pdf
Well show that there is a molecular reaction or biological pathway between vaccine agents and the hypglossal nerve (I assume the case in point was not a vaccine delivered directly to the hypoglossal nerve which is in the cranium) and it something to look into. You then have a causation argument that has one isolated event as evidence. Still very weak.
When people say trust in science, they are saying trust in the methodology of science, which you have every right to be critical of and by reporting these findings are participating in the very methodology people are asking parents around the world to trust. If the evidence of benefit for an action outweighs the evidence of consequences, then science sides for the action. When the evidence for consequences outweighs the benefits, science sides with non-action. Through the methodology human civilization tunes its understanding of the actions they perpetuate.
Another aspect to look at is, there are more qualified medical professionals to study the effects of vaccines today than there was in 1926... And better record keeping. There may be highly specific circumstances that lead to and adverse result, but by in large using standardized protocols and vaccines, studies support the use and administration of vaccines. The Doctor who led the "Vaccines Cause Autism" studies and alarm was found to be falsifying data to support his hypothesis which lost him his profession. Just because it was published in a journal or by a doctor does not establish a solid conclusion.
That’s just one case out of thousands of papers in this data base that record disease relate to vaccines.
Regarding old case studies, age does not invalidate the findings or study. Regarding falsifying data, I don’t know which doctor you are speaking of ...
Yes. One Isolated case of Hypoglossal nerve damage. If there were hundreds of cases in your database describing hypoglossal nerve damage, you would have something to work with. Here is a Hypoglossal nerve damage case with only the common cold as the originating factor.
I said there were more qualified medical professionals now and better record keeping than in 1926. This means if there are more observers now, there are more articles in journals now. There are even more medical journals now.
You must be very new to this topic. Please read about Andrew Wakefield
No argument there. Someone will have to pay for every batch of medically manufactured vaccine to pass the government standards test. Medical treatment costs in the US are among the highest in the world. You can either fight for better testing or more cost effective healthcare. Up to you, but tough to get both in this case. Show that ending mandatory vaccines will provide both over the course of your average citizens life without creating a public health hazard.
updated: added journal article on "isolated reversible hypoglossal nerve palsy" case from common cold.
It is concerning that you are not as critical over the information you gleaned from the "Vaxxed" movie as you are of medical literature. @reddust or should I say @redhanded??
It’s concerning you don’t care about the millions of vaccine injuries. Bring up the movie rather than content, deflection tactic.
you are trying to reason emmotionally, not based on reasoning. I clearly invited you to be critical of published science and literature and demonstrated that the evidence you are using:
You then showed little knowledge of the events surrounding the anti-vax movements leading researcher, additionally you are unable to defend using the Hypoglosal Nerve paralysis report paper (it is not a study) as evidence for anti vaccination.
Your time is better spend ending private automobiles and guns on the street. Perhaps, you want to divert funding from public health to the military instead to fight proxy wars for business interests. That too should be a concern of yours.
It is concerning how little you actually care to put in the right efforts in making vaccinations cost effective and safe, if millions of children's lives are actually at stake.
I am critical of all sides and when you assume I am reasoning using the emotional fallacy and accusing me of an emotional mind state, I know you are manipulating the argument. Thank you for showing your true colors.
My concern is with the millions of people who have been and are injured or have died by allopathic medicine war on disease. You will not be able to sidetrack this dialogue through condescending remarks. The net has opened up all the information regarding the lies the vaccine industry has sold the general population since 1850s.
You did not attack the Vaccine industry until very late in the argument. Since it was not in your opening remarks, arguing in such a manner is sidetracking.
You have presented evidence that has been specifically refuted. You decline to defend your positions, and instead resort to tit-for-tat commentary. This led me to believe you are just arguing out of emotion instead of putting the right effort into sticking with the evidence that you bring up to support your position.