/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15877770
Hygiene saves lives.
Vaccines do not work as they claim they do.
No vaccine ever worked.
Never.
They simply replaced treating people with mercury and antimony.
And replaced it with vaccines.
After everyone was vaxxed, people either died from the vax or survived. But noboy was treated with mercury, antimony or bloodletting, which actually saved people from dying of a milt skin rash.

>>15877795
Tetanus and rabies vaccines were not live saving.
Look into the medical history arround 1900-1940.
They literally killed everyone with antiserum therapy and rabies vaccination.
Which lead to the hysteri of tetanus in the forst place.
>some person came to hospital with wound
>quick give him literally 20 vaccines
>if he does not get better increase the dose
>oh no he died, rabies is soooo deadly

Not only did they vaccinate them to death.
They put mercury ointments and gunpowder in wounds if someone was bitten.
And retrospectively they tell the story of the "case mortality rate" back in the days, but leave out that they toertured and poisoned the people for minor wounds.
The "menigitis" during that time was caused because everywhere they sprayed arsenic as pesticides and delicing agent.
And in WW1 the granade shrapenel was made fron cadmium, rasenic and antimony.
Which are all extremly neurotoxic.
Thats why people died of "meningits" in WWI which they called "Tetanus".

>>15861601
You have no arguments.
You do ad hominem.
You do not adress the point of retarded toxic interventions which were worse then the disease.

You pretend like doctors before the 1950s had "proper lab hygiene and techniques" were omnipotent and could do proper "differential diagnostics".
You equivocate the ability of making diagnostics with the "capabilities" of today.
You do not recognise medicine back then was point and declare.
You do not recognise that doctors back then rarely had actually a medical background and were mostly biochemists or alchemists who only got a license because they did a year at a rockefeller institute.

You do not adress a single point.
>muh NPC posts literally the truth
>but because he posted it before, he is wrong
>i win

You have not a single proper argument.

>>15582044
No they did this especcially from 1800-1940s

treatment of rabies is generally funny.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/F205B6F02CD8C7E9BD15F120B2977308/S0025727300040783a.pdf/div-class-title-nineteenth-century-treatments-for-rabies-as-reported-in-the-lancet-div.pdf

>A few physicians recommended that
cauterization be preceded by vigorous ablution by pouring water into the wound from
a great height, sometimes for a period of several hours after the bite
>Lancet recommended that every adult carry caustic at all times so
that cauterization could be carried out immediately after the bite. The
usual caustic was nitrate of silver, but stronger substances such as caustic potash, the strongest nitric acid ), or even sulphuric acid
>one finds recommendations for the use of boiling oil
and of red hot iron, one physician recommended exploding
gunpowder in the wound

"It is generally agreed that medicine became scientific through the course of the
nineteenth century"

And to my astonishment, there is not a single case of rabies documented in which they really observed the natural cause of the disease.
They literally poisoned and tortured the people, with wierd procedures.

And retrospectively they never take these into their view when talking about rabies.
They act like "rabies" alone had this horriffic cause, when it might just be iatrogenic sadistic treatments and overvaccination which lead to the deadliness of the disease.

Then injections, which also killed the people
>25 injections slightly stronger each dose

Big brain time-

Also reread: >>15553456

I mean it is fucking simple.
>anti vaxers claim vaccines correlate with health downgrades and sudden death or disease in formerly healthy recipients

Why don't they do the following with the data that is actually available:
>get vaccination dates
>get onset of new disease dates
>see if there is a clustering of onset of diseases or death closely to the administration of disease
>see if amount of vaccines correlate with all over health of recipients

>if clustering happens it is a indicator for causation because it is strong correlation
>to verify causation or debunk it a few new questions should be answered

>is it really the vaccine or did those people recieved just a bad lot, and the medical oversight did not do a proper quality control?
>meaning with every single vaccine the administered batch is noted down aswell
>so now you take all people who ever received this batch and look at their health outcomes
>investigate what the contamination was that lead to this outcome, and based on that establish safety rules to make sure it does not happen again.

>if all batches have the same amount of undesired outcomes
>then we might still investigate the mechanism of action of that undesired outcome
>for that, we do an additional investigative trial, in which not the manufacturer does the trial, but a publicly funded one
>which contain real saline placebo group and a vaccinated group
>with the only outcome to find risks

And this could be easily be done with all the data available because it gets all collected anyways.
And then boom you can debunk the antivaxers just like that.

>>15544796
>>15544775
Is there any proven case in which a person died from rabies who did not also got a shot?

Because as far as the literature ks giving out cases, every single case I found recieved at least on dose of rabies vaccine.

And in the beginning it was even wors. They gave people 20 doses of vaccine and almost nobody survived.
And I have a really hard time to find the reason why they came up with this as a neccecity.

Is there a experiment in which they transmitted the isolated rabies virus is transmitted via the alleged pathway to show this is not just folklore by hysteric docs?

>>15458322
Deploys product.
Increaded morbidity world wide.
Now sells heart meds and anticuagulants like crazy.

>After exposure to rabies, there is no contraindication to its use, because the untreated virus is overwhelmingly fatal.

>For individuals who have been potentially exposed to the virus, four doses over two weeks are recommended, as well as an injection of rabies immunoglobulin with the first dose.[16] This is known as post-exposure vaccination.[17] >For people who have previously been vaccinated, only a single dose of the rabies vaccine is required.

What is /sci/'s opinion? Sounds like bullshit for me.
Especially the "always fatal" sounds like a smug greenoid typed this. I'm sceptical about the existence of viruses anyway.
>Not gonna get it

>>15417532
Is rabies deadly?
Or is the way giving the rabies vaccine directly after you had an incident, maybe so toxic that it mad the incident deadly?

"The treatment consisted of 25 injections of rabies vaccine: three on the first day, two on the second, two on the third, and one each day after for 18 days. Each dose was slightly stronger, or more virulent, than the preceding"

https://americanhistory.si.edu/blog/2013/10/surviving-rabies-100-years-ago.html

>>15312115
>did you seriously
still not provide a definitive proof?