We have been taught to believe that vaxxines saved us from infectious diseases in the 20th century. Even though there have been scores of credible doctors with dissenting opinions about the role vaxxines played in eradication of diseases from their inception. [THREAD]

The version of history that we are taught ignores empirical data and takes a more faith based approach involving agenda driven motives and dubious studies. Historical revisionism is not a new concept and scholars have been debating the interpretation of history since time.

The difference we see in the vaxxine industry is there are powerful interests with a large stake in making sure the version of history that gets told is in line with their business model. Vaxxines are a business, and the vaxxine market is significant, with enormous potential

An important part of the strategy is that people truly believe that vaxxines saved us from disease because that is the foundation for the whole theory of vaxxines.

This strategy has been very effective & our false belief that vaxxines saved many of us from certain death is the reason most of us don’t question the science behind vaxxines.

It’s a powerful message and we hear it over and over again because they can’t take a chance on us forgetting.  Here is just one example of how the case is carefully crafted to support the flawed theory, however there are many more:

http://vaccines.gov  is run by the National Vaccine Program Office, a division of US Department of Health & Human Services. Their list of identified responsibilities includes “necessity and effectiveness of vaccines”, with no reference to a responsibility for public health btw

The article is titled, “Vaccines are Effective” and it is a very brief treatment of the topic. Like the organization itself, the article approaches disease eradication by vaccine as a foregone conclusion.

It attempts to breezily dismiss the substantial body of evidence that soundly refutes the claim that vaccines were responsible for eradicating diseases in the last century.

This article claims to put vaccines in perspective, but it actually presents limited data which narrows our perspective on the topic.

Instead of using the historical mortality rate charts of infectious diseases, for example, they use an abbreviated version and address only measles cases. Here is the graph from the http://vaccines.gov  site:

Notice how the chart only starts in 1950 and makes it appear as if the measles vaccine was responsible for the the eradication of measles. This hardly gives a proper historical perspective of the risk measles posed to the public in relation to vaccines.

To consider only the # of diagnosed measles cases does not tell us much aboutthe actual threat posed by the disease. We know that after 1950, the measles was a mild virus in countries like the US, it is important to make a distinction btwn measles cases & measles mortality rates

To get a proper perspective on the real medical threat of measles we need to take a broader view using measles deaths, not cases.

The graph above reflects  measles deaths, beginning in 1838.  It is a much more telling visual representation of the history of measles. As you can see, measles deaths were rare by the time the vaccines were introduced.

This reveals that by the time the measles vaccine was introduced, the death rate had declined to fewer than 1 deaths per 100,000 measles cases, or less than 00.001%.

The article also states that the measles vaccine was licensed in 1962 & that’s when measles started to decline. What it fails to mention is that the 1963 version of the measles vaccine was a failure which actually produced a deadlier form of the measles known as atypical measles.

It wasn’t until 1968 that a second version of the vaccine was introduced, and by that time, measles mortality rates had dropped by 98%, making it a benign childhood disease.