Bronwyn Hancock has been puking all over The Project page like a dog that just ate an onion.
Not this old chest nut! “Diseases were in rapid decline, puke, vaccines didn’t save us, puke”. Bronwyn plz. Polio was hardly in decline, the disease was following its natural cyclic pattern which diseases tend to do. Why do diseases follow cyclic patterns? Well what happens is they infect a bunch of people, have nobody else to infect, disappear for a while and come back a few years later to pillage the rest of the population.
Where are the cases of tetanus, diphtheria and polio amongst the large numbers of unvaccinated children? NON-EXISTENT.
This gives me a headache. All cases of polio and diphtheria are non existent. Except for this case of diphtheria. Tetanus is not a communicable disease like diphtheria and polio, but in the off chance you do contract it, this is what happens. What will happen with diphtheria and polio if we go back to the glorious golden days that Bronwyn desires? I shudder to think.
Aw snap, Bronny just quoted the Precautionary Principle in relation to vaccine administration. Most references I can find in Australia relate to environmental issues, though Wikipedia gives a succinct summary:
The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.
This would make sense if vaccines were toxic, or that if the components in vaccines were considered toxic at the dosages given. Let’s take formaldehyde for example. The LD50 of formaldehyde in mice is 800mg per kg of body weight. That is in a mouse. Paul Offit writes about it here:
The quantity of formaldehyde contained in individual vaccines does not exceed 0.1 mg (Table 5). This quantity of formaldehyde is considered to be safe for 2 reasons. First, formaldehyde is an essential intermediate in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of thymidine, purines, and amino acids.76 Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of formaldehyde in their circulation (approximately 2.5 μg of formaldehyde/mL of blood).77Assuming an average weight of a 2-month-old of 5 kg and an average blood volume of 85 mL/kg, the total quantity of formaldehyde found naturally in an infant’s circulation would be approximately 1.1 mg—a value at least 10-fold greater than that contained in any individual vaccine. Second, quantities of formaldehyde at least 600-fold greater than that contained in vaccines have been given safely to animals
I actually honestly have no idea what she is saying here. I think she is attempting to imply that if you don’t research vaccines and conclude that they are a toxic soup, that you’re actually legally responsible under the Precautionary Principle for injecting your kids with poison. I think she is saying that we should ignore product inserts because drug companies have worded them in a way that makes it seem legally justifiable to have your kids vaccinated, but she knows the truth? This really has me confused.
Well… yes dummy, I think that is how it works. If you’ve been informed of the risks associated with vaccinating, and you accept those risks but your child is one of the extremely rare number of people that have an AR, then you have no legal recourse. Yes, I think that is what you call informed consent.
It took me a good half an hour to work out what she was saying here, but I figured it out. I can find no information as to where she gets the 1:1000 risk of an unvaccinated child contracting measles. The link she provided actually says nothing about the risk of an unvaccinated child contracting measles. It was notification data. I think she was trying to use Meryl maths to show that if 4% of measles cases result in pneumonia, and measles occurs in 1/1000 people (the rate listed was actually 0.33 per 100,000 population), then 0.04 x 0.001 = 1:25,000. Okay…
She then uses the Priorix Product Insert to prove that the rate of pneumonia post vaccination is much higher, except that’s not what the product insert says at all:
Other unsolicited events reported in clinical trials for PRIORIX are listed below for children
vaccinated according to protocol. Causality has not been established. The incidence of adverse reactions described below were similar to the comparator MMR vaccine.
The events are listed within body systems and categorised by frequency according to the following definitions: common events reported at a frequency of less than 1/10 but greater or equal to 1/100 patients; uncommon events reported at a frequency of less than 1/100 but greater or equal to 1/1,000 patients.
Respiratory: Common: pharyngitis, bronchitis, coughing, respiratory disorder, other upper respiratory tract infection, rhinitis; Uncommon: pneumonia, laryngitis, stridor
… with no pre-occurring infection to which it could be related. Hold on, what? Is she honestly suggesting that pneumonia with no underlying cause must exist in 10% of the unvaccinated population, in order to prove a causal link does not exist? She has research into the number of unvaccinated children with pneumonia? But does not link to or suggest where that information came from?
Just in: Dr Dan Chubb has just given a thorough smack down of the pneumonia link.
From the source you quoted (emphasis mine): “Other unsolicited events reported in clinical trials for PRIORIX are listed below for children vaccinated according to protocol. CAUSALITY HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED.”
So what they are saying is that the reported adverse event may or may not be related to the immunisation given. They are being honest in reporting everything bad that happened. However, there was no control group in the study mentioned – so we don’t really know if the rate of pneumonia was higher than baseline or not.
Given the baseline incidence of pneumonia in children of this age is up to 4/100/year, the incidence of pneumonia in the month or two after vaccination being 1/100 – 1/1000 sounds about right. (Denny FW, Clyde WA Jr. Acute lower respiratory tract infections in nonhospitalized children. J Pediatr. May 1986;108(5 Pt 1):635-46.)
Thank you people much smarter than me, you make life easier.