Vaccinations and health ... for or against?

How to stay healthy and prevent risks and consequences on your health and public health. occupational disease, industrial risks (asbestos, air pollution, electromagnetic waves ...), company risk (workplace stress, overuse of drugs ...) and individual (tobacco, alcohol ...).

vaccinations

You can select 1 option

 
 
Consult the results
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by Obamot » 11/04/21, 22:29

ABC2019 wrote:it is still possible, if the hygienic conditions reduce the disease by 90%
but that we have an irreducible plateau of 10%, defeated thanks to vaccination.


But where can you get these numbers from ? Image Image
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14824
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 11/04/21, 22:37

At least he sources: The figures are coming out of his hat. A tradition ! : Mrgreen:
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by ABC2019 » 11/04/21, 22:48

Obamot wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:it is still possible, if the hygienic conditions reduce the disease by 90%
but that we have an irreducible plateau of 10%, defeated thanks to vaccination.


But where can you get these numbers from ? Image Image

out of nowhere, these are not real figures, it was just to show that it could very well be that vaccination was in the minority in the reduction of mortality, and yet it was essential for eradication disease, on a theoretical example.

Sorry to use reasoning that is beyond your intellectual capacities, I get tricked every time ...
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 14824
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 4302

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 11/04/21, 22:54

ABC2019 wrote:'it could very well be .... I get screwed every time ...

It could very well be that when you get screwed, you owe it only to yourself. : Mrgreen:
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by Obamot » 11/04/21, 23:34

ABC2019 wrote:
Obamot wrote:
ABC2019 wrote:it is still possible, if the hygienic conditions reduce the disease by 90%
but that we have an irreducible plateau of 10%, defeated thanks to vaccination.


But where can you get these numbers from ? Image Image

out of nowhere, these are not real figures, it was just to show that it could very well be that vaccination was in the minority in the reduction of mortality, and yet it was essential for eradication disease, on a theoretical example.

Sorry to use reasoning that is beyond your intellectual capacities, I get tricked every time ...
And I forgive me for asking questions that go beyond yours on the whole. The application of your theoretical theory is already shattered with this https://www.bluewin.ch/fr/infos/faits-d ... 63981.html And if we examine in detail, how can you put forward such a figure “even at minority incidence”, While it is proven that ALL the“ forecasts ”were bogus, so you have no basis - while Pfizer announced an efficiency of 95% - which is even very insufficient since it does not do much better than the immunity of the population “in general” (a result that would be achieved without any vaccine at all). Worse still, the vaccine would be a serious brake on a return to normalcy:

- "We make you make antibodies by vaccines which instead of neutralizing your virus, will help it to enter the cells, sometimes even to replicate itself ..."
https://planetes360.fr/alexandra-henrio ... repliquer/


And while it would take a result> 99%, our great scientist argues with 10% as if it were possibly significant data in his demonstration ... NOT AT ALL: even partial, your figure is useless!

Sorry if my intellectual capacities exceeded, allow me to pierce yours with such a large magnification : Mrgreen:
0 x
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by ABC2019 » 12/04/21, 04:28

Obamot wrote:
Sorry to use reasoning that is beyond your intellectual capacities, I get tricked every time ...
And I forgive me for asking questions that go beyond yours on the whole. The application of your theoretical theory is already shattered with this https://www.bluewin.ch/fr/infos/faits-d ... 63981.html And if we examine in detail, how can you put forward such a figure “even at minority incidence”, While it is proven that ALL the“ forecasts ”were bogus, so you have no basis - while Pfizer announced an efficiency of 95% - which is even very insufficient since it does not do much better than the immunity of the population “in general” (a result which would be achieved without any vaccine at all).

: Shock: the vaccine is not intended to do better than natural immunity, it is intended to immunize without causing death. (and my "fromde", I guess my formula, is not intended to be applied numerically to a real case, it was just an example to show that it could be possible, but ok I shouldn't have used this mode of reasoning which is inaccessible to you).

Worse still, the vaccine would be a serious brake on a return to normalcy:

- "We make you make antibodies by vaccines which instead of neutralizing your virus, will help it to enter the cells, sometimes even to replicate itself ..."
https://planetes360.fr/alexandra-henrio ... repliquer/


: Shock: : Shock: if this were true, then we should observe an increase in cases among vaccinated compared to the rest of the population, is that your prediction?

This Madame Henrion-Caude seems to me to have all the signs of a paranoid psychosis with delirious flashes, but hey she has her audience of fans, those who suffer from the same illness.

But frankly if all these people do not want to be vaccinated, I have absolutely nothing against. It gives us a little chance to stop having to read his bullshit.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by Janic » 12/04/21, 08:20

abc pedro
the vaccine is not intended to do better than natural immunity, it is intended to immunize without causing death. (and my "fromde", I guess my formula, is not intended to be applied numerically to a real case, it was just an example to show that it could be possible, but ok I shouldn't have used this mode of reasoning that is inaccessible to you)
.
Precisely, your stupid reasoning is inaccessible to normal people; So your gibberish at the playground; is only meant to satisfy your narcissistic ego.
You are so bad that you take for granted an American graph not sourced, but not the European statistics not sourced either, (for the moment) but which correspond perfectly, in not truncated to the grah of infovac, "official" site of fakenews, truncated it! You got a hell of a lot of c… nneries!
if this were true, then we should observe an increase in cases among vaccinated compared to the rest of the population, is that your prediction?

Still wanting to stick your fantasies to others. If 95%, and even more, have a sufficient immune system, the vaccines don't make you sicker than a bug bite, a little inflammation and it goes. On the other hand the most fragile, them, do not pass through and break their pipe
This Madame Henrion-Caude seems to me to have all the signs of a paranoid psychosis with delirious flashes, but hey she has her audience of fans, those who suffer from the same illness.
It is sure that you are much more qualified than she, everyone noticed it mister the super specialist in everything… what you do not know!
But frankly if all these people do not want to be vaccinated, I have absolutely nothing against. It gives us a little chance to stop having to read his bullshit.
You mean you stop your bullshit? Phew, finally! : roll:
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by Janic » 12/04/21, 08:51

janic »16 / 12 / 20, 08: 57
so a little reminder on the vaccine myth:

: A critical look at zetetics
by janic »13 / 12 / 20, 13: 57

Diphtheria is a disease that has been vaccinated for decades, even though
vaccine program start dates vary widely from country to country.
The vaccine began to be used in the 20th century, in the 20s. In France, country
pioneer, it has been compulsory since 1938 and in Germany, during the Nazi era and in
the occupied zones it was used massively during the second world war. In
France there were some 15 annual cases in the years preceding the
war and during the war the cases were multiplied by three and the deaths by two. In
Germany the incidence rate in 1940 was 12,4 per 100. In Norway in 000
there were 17 cases and in 000 about 1939; in 54, there were 1908 deaths while in
1939 there were only 2. However, with the decree making the vaccine compulsory in 1941
(it was an area occupied by the Germans), in 1942 there were 22 cases and nearly
of 700 deaths.
In Spain the registers indicate 60 cases at the beginning of the 000th century and nearly 20
death. Concretely, in 1901 there were 6 deaths, in 299 (beginning of the war
civil) there were 1 dead, however in 100 (end of the civil war) there were
4 dead. After the disasters of the war, in 058 there were 1950 deaths and in
1964 only 81. Thus, during the period 1901-1964, the death rate by
diphtheria went down by 98,7% and the morbidity rate by 97,2%.


Whooping cough is a disease that has been vaccinated against for a long time. The
first vaccinations were carried out in the United States in the 40s, so
limited. England approved the vaccine for sale in 1953, but its use
was not massive right away. However, in the middle of the 19th century, in England and
in Wales the death rate in children aged 0 to 15 was close to 1 cases per
million inhabitants, while in 1953 the number of deaths was 25 per million. What
means that the decrease in the incidence of the disease between 1868 (date of the first
censuses) and 1953 (date of introduction of the vaccine) was 98,5%.

In 1906 the total mortality from pertussis in France represented around 3 deaths,
whereas in 1959 (year of marketing of the vaccine) there were 280 deaths; the
decrease was therefore 92% between these two dates. Nevertheless, as in many
other countries, vaccination became generalized in France from 1966 in the form
a multiple vaccine (tetracoq, then pentacoq). If we consider the period 1906-1966, la
decrease in mortality was 96%.

In Spain, pertussis deaths topped 4 at the start of the 000th century
century; in 1931 there were 1 deaths, 114 in 491, 1950 in 33. It is precisely in
1965 that the vaccination campaigns against tetanus, diphtheria,
whooping cough. The decrease in mortality during the period 1901-1965 in Spain has
summer by 99,15%, which means that the mortality in 1965 was 147 times lower than in
1901. If we take into account the fact that in 1965 the Spanish population had
practically doubled compared to the beginning of the century (same thing in France and
England) the decrease is even more significant.
Whooping Cough.PNG
Coqueluche.PNG (91.31 KiB) Viewed 694 times



Measles is a disease which has been systematically vaccinated in some countries for only XNUMX years, usually in combination with
rubella and mumps (MMR in France, MMR in Anglo-Saxon countries, TV in
Spain…). In the case of measles, in England and Wales the rate of
mortality, in children up to 15 years, in the middle of the 19th century was 1 deaths
per million inhabitants, in 1960 there were hardly any more deaths. The first measles vaccines were given in the United States in the 60s.
therefore the decrease in mortality in England and Wales cannot
be attributed to vaccination campaigns.

In France, massive MMR campaigns began in 1983, despite
warnings in 1977 from Professor BASTIN who stated: "[i] It will be difficult to vaccinate
systematically in our country where the disease is mild given that out of 100
hospitalizations mortality is only 0,17%
". In France, the absolute figures of
deaths attributed to measles in 1906 were 3, rising to 756 in 20, what
shows that the decrease in mortality between years 1906-1983 was 99,5%.

In Spain, according to the statistics directory, the number of deaths due to measles in
1901 was 18 and in 463 the figures were around 1907. In 14, we
counted 19 death and vaccination campaigns began in 1982. We can see
therefore, that in Spain, without vaccination, the decrease in mortality between 1901 and 1981
was from 99,9%. As we said before, the numbers are even more
impressive when you consider that the population of most of Europe
doubled between 1900 and 1980.

Epidemics and vaccinations
The examples cited clearly show that in the epidemiological dynamics of these
diseases, the role of vaccinations has been insignificant. This finding applies
also to other diseases: tuberculosis, mumps, rubella, haemophilus, etc ... If we
except polio, a disease for which it would be necessary to devote another study,
the impact of these diseases gradually diminished during the 20th century as
that socio-economic progress transformed the living conditions of citizens
Europeans.

The almost total disappearance of typhoid fever (vaccination has never been
systematic in the general population) as well as the disappearance of the scarlet fever, other
dreaded infectious disease for which no vaccination existed, confirm what
just said. However, and despite the evidence of the data presented here, we continue to
use vaccinations with a kind of ingenuity peculiar to believers in prey
religious fervor.


tiphoid PNG.PNG
tiphoide PNG.PNG (109.19 KiB) Viewed 694 times

In this regard, the case of TB is particularly
dramatic: in almost all European countries, the practice of
BCG in the 70's and 80's due to its ineffectiveness and the many effects
serious secondary effects that it entailed.

If we pay attention to the conclusions, quite official, made after the tests
controlled with BCG, the list of observations is sufficiently explicit to
do without comments.

1. The efficiency oscillates between 80% and 0%. There is even a study that talks about effectiveness
negative (-57%), which means that among the vaccinated there were more than
cases of tuberculosis than in unvaccinated.
2. The explanation for this phenomenon remains a mystery.
3. The vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission.
4. The vaccine would protect by limiting dissemination in the blood and would be
probably effective in cases of endogenous reactivation in the early phase of
life but not in cases of adult reactivation nor in cases of
new re-infections. Note that the italics are there to mark the aspect
very hypothetical of these observations. It should be noted that in Barcelona (Spain) there are
had a very significant decrease in the number of meningitis
tuberculosis in children after the withdrawal of BCG,
vaccine that was
used precisely to make this condition disappear in infants.
5. The protection is limited in time: maximum 10-15 years. Should not
revaccinate (latest recommendations).
6. BCG does not protect infected individuals; it is precisely those who have the
more risk of getting sick.
7. With full immunization coverage, overall tuberculosis mortality could
be reduced, at best, by only 6%.
8. Vaccination does not reduce the annual risk of infection.
(RAI).
9. The fact that it is a vaccine with live bacteria, there are risks
of concern to serious or fatal complications in children and adults
infected with HIV, individuals who represent the highest risk group for
tuberculosis.
10. Hypersensitivity to tuberculin after BCG vaccination makes it impossible to
differentiation between a positive reaction to vaccination and the presence of
natural infection, which leads to the conclusion that
- the tuberculin test has no predictive value
- vaccination hinders the implementation of other prevention strategies
- it makes it difficult to diagnose non-bacillary forms of tuberculosis
- it prevents the use of epidemiological indicators of infection.

In view of what has just been explained, it seems completely absurd that this vaccine
continues to be used in some autonomous communities in Spain and that it is
still compulsory in France. Equally incomprehensible is the fact that WHO has
included this vaccine in its EPI (Extended Vaccination Program), while from the mouth
even of its representatives, it is starvation, misery, undernutrition etc ... that we
owes the emergence of tuberculosis in the world. How to explain that with such
bases, have we vaccinated 1/3 of the world's population?

Vaccination against rubella further reinforces the almost religious belief in the benefits of immunization programs. Yet once again we are faced with
a paradox: vaccineists put forward data that demonstrate the irrationality of
allegedly preventive measures. In Catalonia (Spain), the vaccine sectors
claim that when vaccination campaigns began in the 70s,
90% of European women of childbearing age were immune to rubella.
However, PUMAROLA et al. maintain that today, 97% Catalan women
of childbearing age are immune not through vaccination,
but to traffic
wild virus! In addition, it is recognized that women who are artificially immunized
is likely to be contaminated in the event of exposure in a proportion of 50% to
80%, the
while for women naturally immunized the proportion is only
by 5%. This means that you create a feeling of security that is totally counterproductive.
and which can facilitate contamination between infected people and pregnant women. Yes
to this is added the declarations made at the Glasgow Congress in 1993 highlighting
evidence of the problems of osteoarthritis and neuritis induced by vaccination in
adult women, the question we have to ask ourselves is: why do we persist in
vaccinate with this vaccine which, in addition to the undesirable effects it causes, offers only
false security, which could explain the cases of congenital rubella syndrome in
people vaccinated?
Regarding lflu, Spanish data on morbidity, provided by
the health administration itself, are indisputable. We discover that
in parallel with major vaccination campaigns, the incidence of the disease for
100 inhabitants increased by almost 400%
! This does not prevent vaccineists
to state that influenza vaccination is a good measure to reduce the
influenza morbidity. These claims were made precisely at the time when Spain
was the country in Europe with the highest influenza vaccination rate in
level of the number of doses per capita.
The data we have just provided appear to us sufficient to provide the
proof that vaccines played only a secondary or even an insignificant role in the
control and disappearance of the epidemics which, in the past, decimated populations
Europe. [/ I]
EFVV source
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by Janic » 12/04/21, 10:11

Now a little look at the scarecrow that represents in the collective unconscious, the fear of tetanus

In WHO World Health Statistics Yearbook, we can compare England and France from 1963 to 1972
In 1963 the A had 25.903 vaccinated and 13 died of tetanus, while France had 519.494 vaccinated and 293 dead.
In 1965 the A 351.328 vaccinated and 21 dead; France 682.000 vaccinated and 258 dead
In 1967 the A 849.339 vaccinated or 2.5 times more and ...18 dead for a population of about 55 million h;
France 965.738 vaccinated and 234 dead for 49 million H.

We realize, for the A that with 2.5 times more vaccinated there are only 3 deaths of difference, and therefore that the vaccine has nothing to do with it.
Make your ratios!
Ah, I forgot this graph for the MMR or TV in Spanish

ror.PNG
ror.PNG (108.02 KiB) Viewed 682 times


We will then see polio, which is also scary, and the manipulation of figures by truncated statistics.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: Vaccinations and health ... for or against?




by ABC2019 » 12/04/21, 12:21

Janic wrote:Now a little look at the scarecrow that represents in the collective unconscious, the fear of tetanus

In WHO World Health Statistics Yearbook, we can compare England and France from 1963 to 1972
In 1963 the A had 25.903 vaccinated and 13 died of tetanus, while France had 519.494 vaccinated and 293 dead.
In 1965 the A 351.328 vaccinated and 21 dead; France 682.000 vaccinated and 258 dead
In 1967 the A 849.339 vaccinated or 2.5 times more and ...18 dead for a population of about 55 million h;
France 965.738 vaccinated and 234 dead for 49 million H.

We realize, for the A that with 2.5 times more vaccinated there are only 3 deaths of difference, and therefore that the vaccine has nothing to do with it.


Since other factors are involved, you cannot infer anything at all. But as long as you do not understand this point, it will be a dialogue of the deaf.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)

Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 294 guests