Sorry this really is getting very off topic but just wanted to respond to Eric's posts. My heads in a pickle most of the time so I havent yet been able to do enough research into this and check which primary sources are the most credible but thanks very much for posting those links, its obviously not an easy task to get to the truth and I totally appreciate what you say about being conned
For the polio ref I mentioned Miller cites "Eleanor Mc Bean's "The Poisoned Needle" (1974) and notes that this was from US Govt statistics from the Associated Press dispatch from Boston. For the smallpox ref he cites Hannah Allen "Don't Get Stuck! The Case Against Vaccinations and Injections" (1975)
I've just actually ordered those 2 books as I want to do more research and I'd also love to get hold of the History of Poliomyelitis - funny that Miller does not reference the Paul book at all.
Here's a link to some of his research on polio online..
http://www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf
As you will see he cites Dr Robert Mendelsohn ("How to Raise a Healthy Child...In Spite of Your Doctor", 1984) as one source arguing the case for the vaccine having no influence on the decline of polio.
One good point he makes is in regarding the change in the medical definition of polio which he suggests has skewed the figures. For example before 1955 asceptic meningitis and coxsackie virus were included in the defintion of polio, whereas after 1955 (dead vaccine was introduced 1955) asceptic meningitis and coxsackie were recorded as separate diseases. So naturally this would affect the figures. He argues that this was the case with smallpox too. He says for example if a person who was vaccinated contracted the disease they were vaccinated against, it was recorded under a different name. Again I'm too brainfogged to research this thoroughly at the moment.
Another thing that does concern me is defining 'adverse effects' - with a strict definition you would naturally expect the figures to be more conservative but if we expand the definition it becomes more difficult to measure. Adverse effects usually refer to
acute reactions like sickness/vomiting, skin rashes, fever, headaches etc usually in the few days following inoculation. But what if an adverse effect include increased susceptibility to another illness due to too suppression of the immune system...how can that be measured? Adverse effects from the Hep B vaccine according to GlaxoSKline's own research was only based on 4 days monitoring following the vaccination ... so its tough luck if have a reaction on the 5th day! You wouldnt be included in their official stats. Presumably this is the same with most other vaccines too. I'd like to know how do they decide on the time period within which to monitor adverse effects?
And this would obviously exclude incidences where the vaccines may suppress the immune system in a more subtle way eg tipping the immune system too much one way and leaving the individual susceptible to other infections (maybe TH1 controlled infections) and less able to fight them off following this period. This is difficult to ascertain but I do wonder if this is what happened in my case.. I got ill about 10 days following my 4th jab and have never been the same since. I have no proof of a definite link, maybe I was already harbouring other infections but it leaves me with unanswered questions as to why my immune system suddenly decided to pack up.. I have met other people who have had exactly the same response to the Hep B vaccine. I think it is very plausible that the vaccines suppressed my immune system too much. But I wouldnt fit into the statistics of 'adverse effects'. From my research I think adverse effects are much more common than officially acknowledged.
All the best.
That is worth noting. But it is also worth noting that rare adverse effects from vaccines, not including autism, are universally acknowledged.
I dont know what data you are referring to. But beware that there is made-up data in this field, concocted by fanatics. I have fallen for it myself in the past, not knowing what the deal was, leading me to concoct a false theory about the Flynn Effect.
Also, the theory that the general decline of infectious disease was not due to medical intervention, is controversial and probably quite false in the main. See
http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2009/02/21/life-death-pre-vaccination/#comments
And also, including comments by me, here:
http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2009/09/02/measles-deaths-pre-vaccine/
This is totally false. The polio vaccine ended the polio epidemic in north america. Figure 2 here:
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&start=20&um=1
Not really. It depends on how you your source your data and whether the methods were sound in the original production of the data. What is Miller's source for his false statements on polio epidemiology? If there isnt a footnote with a source, there is no reason to believe him rather than other sources.