OK Republican calling for forced vaccininations - as predicted

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

sh00ter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
4,578
Reaction score
3,177
Location
Twilight Zone
Just an opinion by Dr. Blaylock on herd immunity and the lack of epidemics: (in support of no real justification in Oklahoma for mandatory vaccines)


"Herd immunity refers to the idea that, if enough of the population is vaccinated against a disease, there will not be enough vulnerable individuals to allow the disease to spread. This should therefore protect even the unvaccinated population (such as children too young to receive the vaccine). Conversely, many vaccine advocates have argued that people who refuse to get vaccines are threatening the nation's herd immunity and thereby placing the health of young children at risk.

In his article, Blaylock challenges the entire premise of this argument.

"Herd immunity is mostly a myth and applies only to natural immunity – that is, contracting the infection itself," he wrote.

Blaylock notes that the concept of herd immunity was first described in people who had already contracted certain diseases, such as measles, that can only be contracted once. The "natural immunity" acquired from such infections, Blaylock notes, lasts a lifetime. And when vaccines were first introduced, scientists assumed that they would likewise confer lifetime immunity.

This promise has not been borne out, which is why booster shots are now suggested for a wide variety of vaccines. Indeed, vaccine protection only seems to last between 2 and 10 years, Blaylock says.

Where are the epidemics?
Another pertinent fact is that boosters for these vaccines were introduced only relatively recently. Thus, for more than 70 years, doctors assumed that vaccine-induced immunity lasted a lifetime, and no one got booster shots. That means that the first few generations to receive childhood vaccination likely had no resistance left to those diseases by the time they were adults.

"If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%," Blaylock wrote. "Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations."

Blaylock wrote that, when physicians question his reasoning, he replies to them with a simple proof.

"When I was a medical student almost 40 years ago, it was taught that the tetanus vaccine would last a lifetime," he wrote. "Then 30 years after it had been mandated, we discovered that its protection lasted no more than 10 years. Then, I ask my doubting physician if he or she has ever seen a case of tetanus?

"Most have not. I then tell them to look at the yearly data on tetanus infections – one sees no rise in tetanus cases. The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood infections. It was, and still is, all a myth."
 

MadDogs

Sharpshooter
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
2,960
Reaction score
631
Location
Edmond, OK
Abe Lincoln once told me not to believe everything one reads on the internet. To this, what evidence did Blaylock share to back up his claim? Any peer review studies to understand base causes of autism?
 

sh00ter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
4,578
Reaction score
3,177
Location
Twilight Zone
Abe Lincoln once told me not to believe everything one reads on the internet. To this, what evidence did Blaylock share to back up his claim? Any peer review studies to understand base causes of autism?

Well people tend to automatically believe anything a doctor tells them in favor of vaccines...but when a doctor or anyone else says something skeptical, it is automatically dismissed. To answer your question, he did not; perhaps he was speaking from his experience as a doctor, but there obviously has to be some truth to what he is saying if the CDC recommends booster shots for adults for some diseases and I have known since the 1980's myself that tetanus vaccines do not last a lifetime? Do you dispute these two things? If not then why is Blaylock not telling it how it is?

Also, I'd point out that generally everyone knows that there is bad info and fake quotes, etc on the net. Obviously if this is entirely faked (from his website) then that is one thing, but to know the source and say that doesn't quite hold the same water. A known public figure is easier to scrutinize than some information posted by an anonymous person on an anonymous blog right? Not all info on the net is equally suspect in my humble opinion. Finally, I did not mention autism...I am simply citing Blaylock's material in support of the position that mandatory vaccines are not warranted vs. the disease/deaths in our schools. I bet the flu kills more kids each year than these other childhood illnesses and I am thinking the flu shot is not in scope for the intended legislation by Dr. Yen. I certainly hope not.
 

sh00ter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
4,578
Reaction score
3,177
Location
Twilight Zone
nice try sh00ter, but Blaylock is a known quack who sells his own snake oil to "cure" cancer and other disease...here is a little background: http://skepdic.com/blaylock.html

LOL...they say the same about Dr. Ben Carson too....if you don't think nutrition plays a part in keeping people healthy or fighting disease then some might think you are a quack LOL...Man has been here thousands of years and used the earth to provide medicine; many drugs are derived from natural substances. You know this...He is a real doctor more than you or I. You are citing someone's opinion who wishes to discredit him and unless he has been caught selling a fake product that is falsely labeled I can't go that far and say he is a quack or scammer. But I understand the tendency of people to want to discredit anyone who disagrees with them; even if they are less qualified. I do to on Dr. Offit (quack) LOL. (but...if Blaylock did do as you say then of course I would not defend it...I am not familiar with his supplements)

It is funny how the evolution of an idea works...

1.) ignored
2.) attacked
3.) studied
4.) accepted/rejected
5.) "oh everybody knows that"

Trans fats are a good example...they are still serving margarine and fake eggs at the hospital to heart patients! But just yesterday on the news they had some "non-quack" doctor representing the FDA saying they are going to get rid of trans fats from the food supply in the next few years. "it will save thousands of lives" I think the guy said. Yet my mother in law is still eating margarine and fat-free milk think it is "good for her heart" LOL...but now, after years of people like you shouting down people like me on issues like this, and millions dead from heart disease directly caused by trans fats, it is no longer deniable and even the FDA is stepping up and changing their minds. It happened about 15yrs later than it should, but that is the way it works...meanwhile, those quacks who were saying it back then were right all along. I suspect in 20yrs after vaccines have been made safer, they will tout the fact mercury, formaldehyde, etc. are not good for babies and "they found" that they cause cancer and brain damage and we had to change the adjuvants to something safer. But right now, they are the "trans fats" of the vaccine world and still acceptable vs what we are told the risk is...I just wish we could have a little accountability and Nuremberg-style trials for those that later are proven to have mislead us at the gov't level (such as CDC/FDA) once the truth comes out and we realize how many thousands or even millions of people were injured or killed form the wrong information that all the "quacks" tried to point out for years but it was to early in the evolution of the idea. Nobody got in trouble over Rotax or SV40 polio vaccine...why???
 

YukonGlocker

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
14,864
Reaction score
993
Location
OKC
LOL...they say the same about Dr. Ben Carson too....if you don't think nutrition plays a part in keeping people healthy or fighting disease then some might think you are a quack LOL...Man has been here thousands of years and used the earth to provide medicine; many drugs are derived from natural substances. You know this...He is a real doctor more than you or I. You are citing someone's opinion who wishes to discredit him and unless he has been caught selling a fake product that is falsely labeled I can't go that far and say he is a quack or scammer. But I understand the tendency of people to want to discredit anyone who disagrees with them; even if they are less qualified. I do to on Dr. Offit (quack) LOL. (but...if Blaylock did do as you say then of course I would not defend it...I am not familiar with his supplements)

It is funny how the evolution of an idea works...

1.) ignored
2.) attacked
3.) studied
4.) accepted/rejected
5.) "oh everybody knows that"

Trans fats are a good example...they are still serving margarine and fake eggs at the hospital to heart patients! But just yesterday on the news they had some "non-quack" doctor representing the FDA saying they are going to get rid of trans fats from the food supply in the next few years. "it will save thousands of lives" I think the guy said. Yet my mother in law is still eating margarine and fat-free milk think it is "good for her heart" LOL...but now, after years of people like you shouting down people like me on issues like this, and millions dead from heart disease directly caused by trans fats, it is no longer deniable and even the FDA is stepping up and changing their minds. It happened about 15yrs later than it should, but that is the way it works...meanwhile, those quacks who were saying it back then were right all along. I suspect in 20yrs after vaccines have been made safer, they will tout the fact mercury, formaldehyde, etc. are not good for babies and "they found" that they cause cancer and brain damage and we had to change the adjuvants to something safer. But right now, they are the "trans fats" of the vaccine world and still acceptable vs what we are told the risk is...I just wish we could have a little accountability and Nuremberg-style trials for those that later are proven to have mislead us at the gov't level (such as CDC/FDA) once the truth comes out and we realize how many thousands or even millions of people were injured or killed form the wrong information that all the "quacks" tried to point out for years but it was to early in the evolution of the idea. Nobody got in trouble over Rotax or SV40 polio vaccine...why???

That's why we rely on consensus across studies, samples, populations, time, researchers, institutions, etc...to effectively weed out bias and bulls$hit. If Blaylock's snake oil actually worked, every pharmacy, hospital, and children's cancer center would be stocked with it...and, the vast majority of his fellow doctors wouldn't be so critical of him. Every occupation (even "medical doctor") contains some quacks, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything...other than the "funny" observation that you typically cite known quacks in support of your ideology.
 

MadDogs

Sharpshooter
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
2,960
Reaction score
631
Location
Edmond, OK
Well people tend to automatically believe anything a doctor tells them in favor of vaccines...but when a doctor or anyone else says something skeptical, it is automatically dismissed.

As far as sans fact blanket generalizations go, that was a really good one.

To answer your question, he did not; perhaps he was speaking from his experience as a doctor, but there obviously has to be some truth to what he is saying if the CDC recommends booster shots for adults for some diseases and I have known since the 1980's myself that tetanus vaccines do not last a lifetime? Do you dispute these two things? If not then why is Blaylock not telling it how it is?

You answered it and then went two steps back. He did not back up his claims. He has done no critical analysis. If he had, he would have shared his research because that is what people do when they present a critical review on something. Then again, maybe he just wrote what he thought Jenny McCarthy wanted to hear so he could bone the bejezzus out of her.

A known public figure is easier to scrutinize than some information posted by an anonymous person on an anonymous blog right?

You are making excuses. Might want to stop before you step in it.

Not all info on the net is equally suspect in my humble opinion.

D’uh! Too late! So if you emotionally agree you just buy in? Brilliant.

Finally, I did not mention autism...I am simply citing Blaylock's material in support of the position that mandatory vaccines are not warranted vs. the disease/deaths in our schools.

Blaylock has in some of his “essays” and “opinions”.
 

sh00ter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
4,578
Reaction score
3,177
Location
Twilight Zone
That's why we rely on consensus across studies, samples, populations, time, researchers, institutions, etc...to effectively weed out bias and bulls$hit. If Blaylock's snake oil actually worked, every pharmacy, hospital, and children's cancer center would be stocked with it...and, the vast majority of his fellow doctors wouldn't be so critical of him. Every occupation (even "medical doctor") contains some quacks, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything...other than the "funny" observation that you typically cite known quacks in support of your ideology.

As far as sans fact blanket generalizations go, that was a really good one.



You answered it and then went two steps back. He did not back up his claims. He has done no critical analysis. If he had, he would have shared his research because that is what people do when they present a critical review on something. Then again, maybe he just wrote what he thought Jenny McCarthy wanted to hear so he could bone the bejezzus out of her.



You are making excuses. Might want to stop before you step in it.



D’uh! Too late! So if you emotionally agree you just buy in? Brilliant.



Blaylock has in some of his “essays” and “opinions”.

Both fair responses...specifically to your point on quacks; the problem is that anyone who changes their opinion, even doctors who's own kids have experienced serious side effects from vaccines, "become" quacks to the establishment and uniformed public as soon as they change their opinion. Even you guys would admit that? I mean we have seen major changes on various issues but it takes society and the establishment years to accept and no longer ignore something that is not necessarily quackery. burning people at the stake because they thought the earth was round comes to mind LOL. So does the trans fats issue. Inoculation is a great idea, but just like all "technologies", it can always be improved once we acknowledge why it needs improving.

There was an article just today on self driving cars may need to kill you to save others...YOUR life and YOUR child do not matter to the medical establishment or society...vaccines just like many things are done in the name of "the greater good". That is a collectivist/marxist idea...the individual's rights don't matter; the "greeds" of the many out-weight the rights of the few. That isn't what Oklahoman are into...get over the fear mongering and realize we do not have mass carnage in our state that warrants a medial emergency situation to make the 1% who make the choice not to vaccinate be treated as 2nd class citizens and even ruined financially. You can still encourage vaccines without supporting a mandate; it is working okay based on what I see.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom