This is the last time that I will reply to vaccine-related posts that totally distort what I have written, and which are really off-topic for this board. The important binary event that is ahead for NNVC is being lost in a sea of misstatements about vaccines and claims that I wrote things that I did not.
First, I did not "focus exclusively on problems with a few vaccines….[to] prove that vaccines in general are bad." I clearly stated that some vaccines are necessary. Therefore, it is evident that I do not believe that all vaccines are bad. I made the point that there have been NO studies on long-term effects, nor on the effect of cumulative exposure to many vaccinations. You fail to acknowledge or address these points.
You present a claim that "vaccines have save (sic) more….lives…. than have drugs." Please provide us with statistical studies proving this premise.
As per the specific case of the measles vaccine: you claim that somehow, had more people been vaccinated against measles, there would be no outbreak now. Yet 2/3 of the measles patients in my state WERE vaccinated, including a college student who was condemned by the media for exposing dozens or hundreds of fellow students -- before it was revealed that indeed he WAS vaccinated. How would vaccinating more people with an ineffective vaccine have prevented this outbreak? How can you say that "the antivaxers…. are directly responsible for the infection" when the people who WERE inoculated are getting sick? It defies logic to claim that "herd immunity" would have prevented this, given that so many who thought they had protection were in fact NOT protected by their (ineffective by definition) vaccination. The vaccinated people who got the disease in my state are not the ones who were exposed to the "few imported cases" to which you refer. They would have gotten sick whether they were exposed to Patient Zero or Patient 100.
You also fail to respond to my points that there are NO vaccines currently approved for many serious diseases, like Ebola, the current flu outbreak, Lyme disease, and various other viral illnesses (like dengue) that we know about. Nor to my point that there is always the possibility of a new virus emerging. Nor to the point that some viruses mutate rapidly, and may make development of a vaccine difficult or impossible. Even with an attempt at rapid development, as in the current Ebola epidemic, it has proven impossible to develop a vaccine fast enough.
You also fail to respond to my point that it would be difficult or impossible to inoculate large populations in third-world countries who believe that illnesses like HIV and Ebola were caused by Westerners who (in their opinions falsely) claimed to be providing medical care. Nor did you address the logistical difficulties and expense of large-scale inoculation programs in such countries.
I think the readers of this board are smart enough to judge someone's statements on the evidence and logic that they present, and are not be impressed by bold print, misstatement of another's positions and beliefs, and unsubstantiated statements.
EDIT: I posted the above before several more posts were made. I think that my points above refute those posts, with this addition: my definition of long-term effects is not a matter of months, or even a matter of a year or two. My definition of long term effects is decades. The epidemiological study which I would like to see, gauging statistical differences in immune-stressing diseases such as MS and cancer, etc., would be the only way to gauge true long-term effects, and there has been no such study.
