A rebuttal of Gary Kohls articles:

by Peter Johnson

A rebuttal of Gary Kohls articles:

From the 1st  link above, here’s a statement often quoted by Gary Kohls:
“The mythology surrounding vaccines is still pervasive, the majority of the population still believes, in faith like fashion, that vaccines are the first line of defense against disease. The true story is that nutrition and psychological/emotional health are the first line of defense against disease.”

 And Here is a rebuttal made By Doctor David Gorski linked to by the first URL:
“The “vaccines didn’t save us” strategy, is a distortion, as I will show. The best way to demonstrate this is to go on to the very first website that currently shows up on a Google search for “vaccines didn’t save us.” Although the post is from November, it’s the main post that’s been spreading this lie since then, titled Proof That Vaccines Didn’t Save Us, it’s one of the most breathtakingly spectacularly intellectually dishonest bits of anti-vaccine propaganda that I’ve ever seen!” Gorski also reveals that, many charts used by anti-vaccine people do not truly contain accurate information.
 Below Is one of them:
Fraudulent graphs  one above are provided by Ian Sinclair of Australia, many of which contain misleading data:
 Below is an accurate graph approved by the CDC:

As you can see in this correct chart, after the measles vaccine was actually licensed and used around the mid-1960s, there were indeed dramatic drops in the disease until it was virtually eradicated. But Yes—before that, success resulted due to better health care and nutrition as Kohls says. But as you can see,  when measles vaccines became readily available in the mid-1960s, the number of cases dropped from about 500,000 during that year to nearly none, after 1980.

 Gorski provides other examples of bogus graphs:
“Hib vaccine is another good example, because Hib disease was prevalent until just a few years ago, when conjugate vaccines that can be used for infants were finally developed. But since sanitation is (not) better now than it was in 1990, it’s hard to attribute the near disappearance of Haemophilus influenzae disease in children…. (from an estimated 200,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993 to anything other than the vaccine.”

Here is another intellectually dishonest graph:


 And (directly above) is the source from which the dishonest first graph at the top of this page originated, which was referenced by David Gorski to explain why the first graph is fraudulent, and why the one directly above this paragraph is misleading:
“The reason should be obvious; the decline in measles incidence is far too smooth. Measles incidence typically varies greatly from year to year. Fortunately, in his chutzpah, Dr. Raymond Obomsawin…. included a link to the actual source of the graph. Naturally, I couldn’t resist checking it out…. the link leads to the Canadian Immunization Guide section on the measles vaccine. And this above graph, is the actual graph from which Obomsawin allegedly extracted his data:”
Dr. Kohls may not know his graphs are false, but he has circulated a number of them in his many articles. However, if you look at official graphs done by the CDC, you can see that the incidence of Measles was much higher before the introduction of vaccines, and that the Canadian graph cited by Dr. Raymond Obomsawin has a ten year gap since measles data for those years was not available in Canada, including data from the early 60s to the first years in the 70s—when measles vaccines were used and had very positive results! One can find many other fraudulent graphs that come from anti-vaccine skeptics like Ian Sinclair of Australia, as well as several others, which contain misleading data. 

Here are the actual facts:
“From 1940–1945, over one million cases of pertussis were reported. With the introduction of a vaccine in the late 1940s, the number of reported pertussis cases in the U.S. declined from approximately 200,000 a year in the pre-vaccine era to a low of 1,010 cases in 1976.” But note that death rates on the left vertical axis are not clearly explained in regard to what the numbers represents. The numbers actually denote thousands, so at the beginning of the graph (1880) there were almost a million reported cases—then after a 5 years period in the 1940s, the cases dropped from about 200,000 per year, until in 1976, only about 1000 cases were reported?

 Here is what one of  the official chart from the CDC looks like:

 This graph illustrates the number of pertussis cases reported to CDC from 1922 to 2017. Following the introduction of pertussis vaccines in the 1940s when case counts frequently exceeded 100,000 cases per year. Then these numbers dropped dramatically to fewer than 10,000 by 1965, until the 1980s, when pertussis reports began increasing gradually, and by 2017 more than 18,000 cases were reported nationwide. View data for this chart.”

So, about the persistent meme perpetuated by Gary Kohls—that those of us who disagree are robotically supporting the official Party line of the mainstream media—There’s no official party line—there’s only a scientific consensus and peer reviewed articles. But, Doctors do not blindly accept (any) consensus. They understand that evidence based guidelines also rely on a doctor’s good judgement before they are applied as treatments for individuals. Doctors don’t blindly depend on authorities Just because they were educated at prestigious Universities. However, if one’s car is examined by 10 top mechanics, who all say a battery needs replacing, it would be foolish to disregard their opinions. It’s also true that anti-vaccine advocates frequently rely on experts themselves—who may not know what they’re talking about?

Sadly, one of the most unfair raps laid on Doctors is that they are out to make money and thus, will prescribe treatments for patients that may be harmful. But think about that for a minute!—They must endure 8 years of technical and practical training while constantly maintaining an excellent GPA. And they acquire tons of debt in the process. So it take most of them many years to really prosper from their work. Does anyone really think they are scheming to do all of that just so they can make money on medicines that they know are risky? Obviously, they are most interested in helping people— to heal and recover from illnesses.

 We all know that pharmaceutical companies, are often too hasty about recommending new products, like medications or injections, before they have been adequately tested. However, every medicine we take includes a number of risks, and a good Doctor can alert  patients to ensure their safety. But, when big pharma is caught being too hasty, or grossly overpricing their drugs, they can catch legal hell after being  revealed—not just as monetary fines, but also because their companies reputations may become besmirched. So just think about that.

Most Drs are concerned if patients (don’t) take care of their health, so where is there evidence that they willingly accept kickbacks for prescribing risky drugs?

Maybe the same place that all those bogus charts come from?