I live in Oregon, which has a dismal vaccination rate due to the turbo liberal, crunchy, rich, entitled bunch that buy into the pseudoscientific hype, AND the uneducated science denying conservatives, both of which this state has an abundance of. Fortunately, we've only seen one case of measles so far, though I expect more as the year progresses.
So I belong to another forum for Secular Homeschooling. All the homeschooling groups in my area are VERY Christian oriented, so this online group was the best I could do. Anyway, someone posted some good vaccine information on there, and of course, it started an argument.
One person claimed her son got epilepsy after a vaccine. Another that her son had severe allergic reactions after every vaccine, (why did they keep giving them to him if he had to be hospitalized and almost died after every single one???). I know doctors will stop vaccinating if the person has a history of allergic reactions to vaccines. Those people go on the list of "cannot e vaccinated due to known medical issues", as far as I have ever heard.
And of course, because it's homeschooling and a number of people do that because their child is "on the spectrum" (note: I hate that term), there are a few who think vaccines cause autism....still....grrr.
A number of people who were personally Pro-vaccine also jumped into the debate to argue that it was a personal choice issue. None of our business if parents don't vaccinate their kids! And not all vaccines are 100% effective, so even if you get a shot, you still have a chance to contract the disease.
Another mother pointed out that it was unvaccinated children who were the ones spreading the current outbreak of measles around. Yes, unvaccinated people get it, but there is only one known case EVER where they spread it (vaccinated people, even if they get the disease, get a far less serious case of it and are less infectious).
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that so many people were...pro-choice? But I was surprised that so many were anti-vaccine and believed a lot of misinformation. Like most science deniers, they have a handful of "experts" who will back them up, and they think the rest of the scientists are in with Merc I guess, to make money? I don't even know. But it does really remind me of Climate change deniers. The conversations was very frustrating, because most of the deniers would get angry and leave the conversation after declaring those of us making reasoned arguments to be biased and only looking at one side of the argument, and sometimes accusing us of calling them stupid (which no one ever did). Really. I've looked and looked and LOOKED for any good reasons not to vaccinate. The only good reason I can find is legit health reasons, in which case your doc wouldagree with you. And to protect those people, the ones who cannot get vaccines because they are immune-compromised or prone to seizures or what have you, is the reason the rest of us need to vaccinate our kids and ourselves.
Anyway, the argument died there because one side left (and they were ungracious and snotty about it, too). So I thought I'd stir us some shi...I mean, bring the discussion here, and see what you all think!
You get to send your kids to school so they can play unvaccinated children. I hate stupidity.
Anti-vaxxers are basically self culling their own herds.. I say let em go ahead and die off from perfectly preventable diseases and if they infect the rest of us then go ahead and shoot the dumb motherfuckers..
Fuck (http://www.cfr.org/interactives/GH_Vaccine_Map/#map)
Quote from: Jason78 on February 11, 2015, 04:10:52 PM
Fuck (http://www.cfr.org/interactives/GH_Vaccine_Map/#map)
I see your "Fuck" and raise you a FUCKING HELL! (https://www.facebook.com/jennifer.hibbenwhite/posts/10155168515065632:0)
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on February 11, 2015, 03:50:54 PM
Anti-vaxxers are basically self culling their own herds.. I say let em go ahead and die off from perfectly preventable diseases and if they infect the rest of us then go ahead and shoot the dumb motherfuckers..
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2432/3928388808_259a2e09dd.jpg)
The problem with the "let them be unvaccinated and kill themselves off" is that they endanger people that are not able to be vaccinated... like infants too young and the rare case of someone with a medical issue that makes it dangerous to vaccinate. The second scenario I believe is rare and only pertains to children that are recovering from cancer and similar possibly fatal diseases, but the first one is very common because it is literally every infant. Like the child in the link I just shared (https://www.facebook.com/jennifer.hibbenwhite/posts/10155168515065632:0 ) A child can be exposed to it even if the parents are pro-vaccination. All it takes is one dumbass, moronic, anti-vaxxer to fuck things up for the innocent families around them.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 11, 2015, 04:46:28 PM
The problem with the "let them be unvaccinated and kill themselves off" is that they endanger people that are not able to be vaccinated... like infants too young and the rare case of someone with a medical issue that makes it dangerous to vaccinate. The second scenario I believe is rare and only pertains to children that are recovering from cancer and similar possibly fatal diseases, but the first one is very common because it is literally every infant. Like the child in the link I just shared (https://www.facebook.com/jennifer.hibbenwhite/posts/10155168515065632:0 ) A child can be exposed to it even if the parents are pro-vaccination. All it takes is one dumbass, moronic, anti-vaxxer to fuck things up for the innocent families around them.
I know, and that's part of what makes it so infuriating. My step-father thinks vaccinations are another one of those "my body, my choice" issues. It took a lot of restraint to keep me from telling him to go fuck himself.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 11, 2015, 04:51:44 PM
I know, and that's part of what makes it so infuriating. My step-father thinks vaccinations are another one of those "my body, my choice" issues. It took a lot of restraint to keep me from telling him to go fuck himself.
Plus, in addition to how it's not "my body, my choice" it's also child abuse.
Ask your dad if when you were a toddler, he would willingly leave you with a complete stranger in the park. Then ask him why not? Then ask him if he would be OK with other parents leaving their toddlers with complete strangers in the park.
See if he gets the connection.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 11, 2015, 04:59:03 PM
Plus, in addition to how it's not "my body, my choice" it's also child abuse.
Ask your dad if when you were a toddler, he would willingly leave you with a complete stranger in the park. Then ask him why not? Then ask him if he would be OK with other parents leaving their toddlers with complete strangers in the park.
See if he gets the connection.
STEP-father. My biological father is much more sensible. Although I will be sure and ask him a similar question about his daughter.
Quote from: Jason78 on February 11, 2015, 04:10:52 PMFuck (http://www.cfr.org/interactives/GH_Vaccine_Map/#map)
I'd really like to compare and contrast the health policies of the relatively clean countries with the really dirty ones. Because there are lots of really wealthy countries with lots of outbreaks and some really poor countries with few outbreaks.
Yes, my husband also just says let them earn their Darwin Awards and die off. The problem is, THEY aren't the ones dying. First, it is their children, who might yet grow up to be more intelligent than their parents. Second, for the most part, it really isn't their kids that die. They get the measles or whooping cough and recover, but they spread it to a baby, like the one linked up there (jeeze, that post about made me cry), and to older people, and people who have cancer and are on chemo and have immune issues, and THOSE people are the ones that die.
I'm completely 100% in favor of forced vaccinations, just like we make people wear helmets and seatbelts and stopped them from smoking in public places, we need to force this issue, because as this article explains, NOTHING CHANGES THEIR MINDS:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/anti_vaxxers_resist_persuasion_if_they_refuse_we_have_to_force_them_to_vaccinate.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/anti_vaxxers_resist_persuasion_if_they_refuse_we_have_to_force_them_to_vaccinate.html)
Reason just makes them shrug (Like Christians going LALALA with their fingers in their ears), trying to scare them or make them sympathetic with pictures of dead babies or stories of heartbreak from children lost to preventable disease actually REAINFORCES their beliefs that vaccines are a trick and the government is poisoning us with them, or whatever crazy shit their particular brand of anti-vax is. The only way we will get our number back up is with laws that force the issue. Kid not vaccinated on schedule without good doctor approved reasons? Kid not allowed in public schools or doctors offices. The end.
One of the people I was having this discussion with, a supposed secular humanist, actually said "Herd immunity is just a theory". FFS, sound familiar????
Memes explain all.
It bothers me enough that people don't vaccinate their kids. Whatever. It's a sign of complacency, which, in turn, is due to the success of vaccines in preventing infectious diseases, which USED to be the leading cause of death. It is a symptom of our own success that is probably cyclical in nature.
What REALLY puts sand in my vagina, however, is when people perpetuate absolute falsehoods and state these as facts. ARGH. People are SO FUCKING STUPID, and the internet has only enabled and promoted this stupidity. Uninformed, ludicrous statements are an everyday occurrence due to social media. Why do people have such a propensity to believe any ridiculous lie they read on the internet rather than believing plausible facts?! Is it more fun to be contrarian? Is it a primal fear of being duped? I think it bothers me so much because I work for a pharmaceutical company, and I have seen with my own two eyes how these lies and completely false conclusions (such as a vaccine gave my kid epilepsy) grow legs and cause very real damage. I resent the shit out of it because of the assumption that people who work for these companies have no ethics whatsoever. HELLO! Scientists get cancer too.
Hey if Rick Perry thinks you have the right not to vax,that pretty much proves it is stupid. He is the spokesperson for derp in our nation.
The parents not vaccinating are the first humans ever to grow up in a world with little to none in the way of communicable disease. They never had a friend or sibling die from polio or smallpox. Now they get to watch their own children get diseases because of their ignorance. Instead of having this be a wakeup call though, we have every idiot running for president trying to pander to them.
I am very glad smallpox is eradicated and really hope it stays that way. I am, however nervous about some long-frozen bodies in Siberia that are in danger of surfacing because of climate change. Could they refresh the planet's supply of smallpox now that everyone under 50 is unvaccinated? But I digress.
I read a comment this morning about how measles is "no big deal" and that families should let their kids go to "measles parties" and get it over with.
I think chicken pox and measles are getting crossed here. Meh, what's the difference? A spotty virus is a spotty virus, right? Now don't forget to douse yourself in hand sanitizer, Billy. You don't want to get GERMS.
Anti-vaxers are horrible people.
Even if their position were true, which it isn't, they are saying they'd rather their children were dead.
Whenever they open their horrible mouths, just say that and walk away from them.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 12, 2015, 07:45:56 AM
I read a comment this morning about how measles is "no big deal" and that families should let their kids go to "measles parties" and get it over with.
I think chicken pox and measles are getting crossed here. Meh, what's the difference? A spotty virus is a spotty virus, right? Now don't forget to douse yourself in hand sanitizer, Billy. You don't want to get GERMS.
What idiots. Measles isn't a big deal these days because we have a vaccine for it. Before that, millions died. I hope they get measles and die. One less moron on the planet.
I don't think they are saying they would rather their children be dead. I think they are saying that they do not grasp the reality of infectious diseases and vaccine efficacy. And that they believe things they read on the internet that are completely false.
Interesting times we live in now. With social media and web-based news, information is much more accessible and....pervasive. And a sequella is that MISinformation is also more accessible and pervasive.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 14, 2015, 10:36:57 AM
I don't think they are saying they would rather their children be dead.
I don't think they realize they are saying they would rather their children were dead. But that is what they're saying, even if their position were true. They need a wake up call in this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzxr9FeZf1g
Wait, vaccines aren't really a liberal plot to make people live longer than they normally would if they were say.....hanging out with a bunch of diseased people?
Public health policy is a delicate balance, after all, it is just as much a part of politics as any other part of government. Normally, the benefits outweigh the risks ... regarding vaccination. If the kid has a rare condition, can't they be screened before they are inoculated? This is little different than a kid being allergic to peanuts. Back in the day, surplus peanut butter was forced down every kids throat at the public school kitchen (usually as peanut butter cookies). Probably back then, when we weren't as aware of peanut allergies, some kids died. But I am sure schools health departments are more careful now, and can screen for vaccination allergy too. What to do with kids who are allergic to things that the other kids are exposed to, like vaccinations? Don't know. But this can be handled without the conspiracy nut content ... or the totalitarian neo-lib policy.
I feel sorry for the children. The parents should have to die not the poor kid!
Quote from: Baruch on January 21, 2016, 07:21:16 PM
Public health policy is a delicate balance, after all, it is just as much a part of politics as any other part of government. Normally, the benefits outweigh the risks ... regarding vaccination. If the kid has a rare condition, can't they be screened before they are inoculated? This is little different than a kid being allergic to peanuts. Back in the day, surplus peanut butter was forced down every kids throat at the public school kitchen (usually as peanut butter cookies). Probably back then, when we weren't as aware of peanut allergies, some kids died. But I am sure schools health departments are more careful now, and can screen for vaccination allergy too. What to do with kids who are allergic to things that the other kids are exposed to, like vaccinations? Don't know. But this can be handled without the conspiracy nut content ... or the totalitarian neo-lib policy.
How would you propose to screen people for rare conditions or vaccine allergy? How are you "sure" schools can do this?
Quote from: Mermaid on January 22, 2016, 08:21:50 AM
How would you propose to screen people for rare conditions or vaccine allergy? How are you "sure" schools can do this?
Don't let the parents put their kids in any public school, or pay their property tax etc ... unless they do it. With the IRS, you are a germ until proven otherwise ;-) The school nurse probably can't do this, but she doesn't do brain surgery either.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 11, 2015, 04:38:33 PM
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2432/3928388808_259a2e09dd.jpg)
I've been saying this for a while now. Let's just quarantine them all to an island and let nature take it's course.
Maybe a tropical island with malaria. Speed things up a bit.
Tempting, but not the right solution. Instead, we should consider not vaccinating children against debilitating/deadly diseases as child abuse. And anti-vaxxer talk should be met with ridicule and scorn. Put enough pressure on it, and it'll be less and less common.
Quote from: Baruch on January 22, 2016, 08:09:31 PM
Don't let the parents put their kids in any public school, or pay their property tax etc ... unless they do it. With the IRS, you are a germ until proven otherwise ;-) The school nurse probably can't do this, but she doesn't do brain surgery either.
Do what? Test for rare diseases or allergies? Are there tests for that?
Quote from: Mermaid on January 22, 2016, 09:26:26 PM
Do what? Test for rare diseases or allergies? Are there tests for that?
I certainly hope so ... test for allergies or rare conditions (not diseases ... that would be some microbe). I had an allergy test, using small spots on my back created by little injections of stuff ... kind of like testing for TB. Reaction or not at the injections site. This was 45 years ago. But there is no guarantee that something will never go undetected, leading to a rare but bad reaction. If your body chemistry is rare enough, then you will have medical problems for sure.
Quote from: Baruch on January 23, 2016, 11:16:00 PM
I certainly hope so ... test for allergies or rare conditions (not diseases ... that would be some microbe). I had an allergy test, using small spots on my back created by little injections of stuff ... kind of like testing for TB. Reaction or not at the injections site. This was 45 years ago. But there is no guarantee that something will never go undetected, leading to a rare but bad reaction. If your body chemistry is rare enough, then you will have medical problems for sure.
That is my point: There aren't. It's not that simple. Biology is a mind-blowingly complicated thing, and we understand very little about how cells work and interact. People have extremely unrealistic expectations about medical technology.
(by the way, diseases are not all microbial).
Quote from: Mermaid on January 24, 2016, 10:10:11 AM
That is my point: There aren't. It's not that simple. Biology is a mind-blowingly complicated thing, and we understand very little about how cells work and interact. People have extremely unrealistic expectations about medical technology.
(by the way, diseases are not all microbial).
So. perfection or suicide? Isn't the "perfect" the enemy of "good enough". So if we can't 1000% screen for peanut allergy among school children, we have to shut down all schools, outlaw peanuts, or shoot all the parents? Which one ... I am confused? The shoot all the parents crowd ... reminds me that atheists aren't atheists because they are rational ... there is some other reason, but rationality isn't it.
Yes, medicine isn't perfect ... but I think we should use what we have. Dr McCoy isn't born yet. And yes, some problems are "syndrome" but those are often triggered by prior microbial infections ... that is how my mother-in-law, wife and daughter were ... genetic predisposition gets put out of whack by a microbial infection, leading to a subsequent syndrome.
Quote from: Baruch on January 24, 2016, 10:16:47 AM
So. perfection or suicide? Isn't the "perfect" the enemy of "good enough". So if we can't 1000% screen for peanut allergy among school children, we have to shut down all schools, outlaw peanuts, or shoot all the parents? Which one ... I am confused? The shoot all the parents crowd ... reminds me that atheists aren't atheists because they are rational ... there is some other reason, but rationality isn't it.
Yes, medicine isn't perfect ... but I think we should use what we have. Dr McCoy isn't born yet. And yes, some problems are "syndrome" but those are often triggered by prior microbial infections ... that is how my mother-in-law, wife and daughter were ... genetic predisposition gets put out of whack by a microbial infection, leading to a subsequent syndrome.
I'm sorry, what?
Baruch
QuoteSo. perfection or suicide? Isn't the "perfect" the enemy of "good enough". So if we can't 1000% screen for peanut allergy among school children, we have to shut down all schools, outlaw peanuts, or shoot all the parents? Which one ... I am confused? The shoot all the parents crowd ... reminds me that atheists aren't atheists because they are rational ... there is some other reason, but rationality isn't it.
I would agree and I am not an anti-Vaxer. The numbers published from Health Canada suggest last years flu vaccine was only 15% effective yet cost the taxpayers 1.5 Billion dollars. As well it is known that some people had adverse reactions, some contracted the flu from the vaccine and in some cases led to severe life threatning complications. What disturbs me is one side is screaming people are stupid for not getting vaccinated for the flu, they put everyone at risk and vaccinations should be forced on others. Meanwhile the other group reads some article on the internet and makes a choice not to vaccinate based on heresay not facts. I see no reason or logic in it from both sides of the equation because very few are actually making an informed decision.
When my daughter got vaccinated, MMR, the health nurse did not know what was in the vaccine, she did not know any facts concerning the actual effictivness or the most common severe side effects or who to contact. In effect she didn't know fuck all about anything and yet she is a supposed health care proffessional. My wife is also an RN and strange as it may seem she has less faith in the health care system than I do. She has seen may doctors misdiagnose people who almost died, wrong perscriptions which would have killed the patient if a nurse had not intervened and the list goes on and on. Incompetence is rampant within the system and yet so many would seem to have such extreme faith in it.
Which brings us full circle back to the issue of faith and beliefs in things which are not actually true in reality. Much in science may be sound but that in no way implies the "people" who administer it are, everyone has a vested interest in one way or another and none are truly equal because we are human.
I like this article--http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/november/fraud-science-papers-111615.html , Oh the humanity.
Which raises the question, what are the facts when some 47% have changed them or know someone who has changed them to suit their own vested interests?.
It's definitely a minefield any way we look at it, tread lightly.
I also work in medicine. Doctors and nurses are ordinary people, even somewhat odd people. I just had two teeth pulled yesterday. The oral surgeon likes guns and has them mounted on his exam wall. I was under the influence of nitrous oxide, but I am a pretty funny guy anyway. I jabbered with the surgeon as he worked on me ... and I figured he knew the facts ... how Doc Holliday was both a dentist and a gun man. We both had a good laugh ... ouch!
If one is ideologically opposed to medicine, and some anti-vaxxers are ... then they are wrong ... but that doesn't make the vaccination right. Informed consent is the only way to go. And between med school and ongoing practice certification, hopefully you are under the care of competent people. But just because some remunerated drug production company endorses some medicine or procedure ... caveat emptor. For most of history, TV advertisement of medical drugs to the public was illegal for good reason. Similarly lawyers were not allowed to advertise on TV. All medicine is risky, but in most cases the risk is worthwhile. But for a few patients, they need a second opinion, before a well meaning medical professional injures or kills them.
Other people make an idol out of medicine or providers. I am sorry to hear if some vaccines are so ineffective. Sounds like bad manufacturing or need for new research. I have no problem with a government health agency recommending some things ... but making it mandatory takes away from the doctor. I wouldn't want a politician as a doctor.
I still say quarantine all the antivaxxers to a deserted tropical island so they can start their own civilization... if they survive malaria.
QuoteI also work in medicine. Doctors and nurses are ordinary people, even somewhat odd people
In many ways they/we are actors not unlike politicians and police services. They are ordinary people trained to give others the impression they are more than they are so they feel more secure in the choices being made. However once we get past the facade they are very much ordinary people doing the job they have been trained to do not unlike myself. The problems arise when people believe they are much more than they are and a cult like status evolves around a profession not unlike a religion. Their words are considered gospel beyond question and those who do question it are heretics, I guess I am a heretic because I question everything.
Quote from: Fickle on February 27, 2016, 11:33:34 AMI would agree and I am not an anti-Vaxer. The numbers published from Health Canada suggest last years flu vaccine was only 15% effective yet cost the taxpayers 1.5 Billion dollars.
15%? Wow. That's abnormal. The usual figures are more along the lines of >50%. Even so, I dunno about you, but 15% beats 0% any day.
QuoteAs well it is known that some people had adverse reactions, some contracted the flu from the vaccine and in some cases led to severe life threatning complications.
Is it less than the number of people who die from the flu?
QuoteMy wife is also an RN and strange as it may seem she has less faith in the health care system than I do. She has seen may doctors misdiagnose people who almost died, wrong perscriptions which would have killed the patient if a nurse had not intervened and the list goes on and on. Incompetence is rampant within the system and yet so many would seem to have such extreme faith in it.
While it's true that medical care is not perfect, it beats the alternative. These sorts of horror stories just scare people away from legitimate medical care and towards the waiting arms of unqualified laymen or predatory quacks.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 27, 2016, 02:51:09 PM
15%? Wow. That's abnormal. The usual figures are more along the lines of >50%. Even so, I dunno about you, but 15% beats 0% any day.
Flu vaccine effectiveness:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm
Depends on what happens when it fails. An unrealistic sense of security while wandering around creates a situation where you (if vulnerable) do not take precautions because 'I've had the shot'. Precautions as minimal as not worrying about self to ignoring early symptoms and exposing others because you have no reason to believe it might be the flu.
Maybe we need a new state or at least city called Antivaxerville with one road in and no roads out. If Trump is elected he can make them pay for the giant wall to keep them all in.
Quote from: Fickle on February 27, 2016, 11:33:34 AM
Baruch
I would agree and I am not an anti-Vaxer. The numbers published from Health Canada suggest last years flu vaccine was only 15% effective yet cost the taxpayers 1.5 Billion dollars.
You fail to mention the fact that vaccines are not only for protecting an specific individual but to prevent exponential spread through the population by reducing the amount of people that an infected person can infect. Closing the gap between an average infection of 2 people by one infected person to 1 or less creates herd immunity preventing a pandemic.
Take a look at a class of drugs called statins.. (might be misspelling it) One school of thought is everyone over 50 should take them daily to prevent heart attacks. The other side says that they're ineffective until after you've already had the heart attack. They do cause muscle pain and weakness. My VA doc keeps telling me that I have to take them, but I tell him they make me ache all over and since the same doc refuses to prescribe anything for the pain the statins cause I don't take them.
One huge problem is with doctors who receive kick backs from drug manufacturers so they over prescribe certain drugs that are either ineffective or in many cases more harmful than whatever disease or condition they're intended to treat.
Most doctors I think really want to do what's right for their patients, but there are plenty more who have to make the payments on their new homes so whatever the drug rep says becomes the law as far as they're concerned..
Pick your poison..
Quote from: mauricio on February 27, 2016, 04:34:09 PM
You fail to mention the fact that vaccines are not only for protecting an specific individual but to prevent exponential spread through the population by reducing the amount of people that an infected person can infect. Closing the gap between an average infection of 2 people by one infected person to 1 or less creates herd immunity preventing a pandemic.
There are those among us who believe that no matter what disease they might have nobody should be able to make them get treatment even if the disease is highly contagious and could potentially kill anyone who comes in contact with them. Sometimes I think that they would claim that anyone who gets sick and dies as a result of their negligence did it by choice.. Well, you CHOSE TO get on the crowded elevator with me and my horrible disease. It's your fault..
Seeing that this thread has been necroed, I will add my piece. Anti-vaxxers are scum. I have ended long held friendships with people who turned out to be anti-vax. As an autist, it is really fucking insulting that vaccines causing autism (which they fucking don't), is somehow worse than dying of disease. I'm not much for the government forcing things, but fuck it, force vaccines. Fuck personal choice when millions of lives are at stake.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on February 27, 2016, 04:44:40 PMI'm not much for the government forcing things, but fuck it, force vaccines. Fuck personal choice when millions of lives are at stake.
You'd deprive people of their right to get their friends and family sick with potentially lethal disease? That's sounds pretty totalitarian to me. I mean, what's next? That we mandate that kids go to school or that people in cars wear seatbeats? What sort of future are we leaving to our not-dead-of-preventable-disease children?
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 27, 2016, 05:07:56 PM
You'd deprive people of their right to get their friends and family sick with potentially lethal disease? That's sounds pretty totalitarian to me. I mean, what's next? That we mandate that kids go to school or that people in cars wear seatbeats? What sort of future are we leaving to our not-dead-of-preventable-disease children?
Shit, I might even make it so people can't dump industrial chemicals in rivers.
Not speaking of any poster here. But hypochondriacs would establish a medical dictatorship like in Brave New World ... and that would be a cure worse than the disease ;-( Reasonable patients going to reasonable providers using reasonable procedures and medicines ... given that what works with one patient won't work with another ... that is the best we can do. Medicine can get better over time also in all respects. A bacteriaphobe like Howard Hughes would make us all convert to Mormonism so he would feel protected ;-)
Not all pandemics can be prevented, but most can be suppressed, and it is worth doing so. But we know that today, outbreaks are where this is poverty and war and ignorance. You won't get better medical social results, as long as those other things are neglected.
QuoteNot all pandemics can be prevented, but most can be suppressed, and it is worth doing so.
I agree however the same people who call for forced vaccinations also demand antibiotics for every little thing because their pussies. They believe drugs will solve all their problems and now the experts say within 5-10 years all antibiotics will be ineffective against most all of the new strains. The flu vaccine has also become partially ineffective, 15-40%, because it's mutating faster than new vaccines can be created and dispersed.
Do you see the pattern?, I mean only a blind man could not see the pattern here. We have created this problem through our own ignorance and when antibiotics fail in the near future most are literally screwed. Not to mention the fact the same experts also say cancer and diabetes will reach epidemic proportions within 10-15 years. Now let's suppose that things are getting better as many suggest then why is everything going so terribly wrong?. More and more diseases are becoming stronger as more and more drugs are becoming less effective, do the math.
I think as more people crowd into the cities the problem will get progressively worse and mother nature is going to spank them. They say pollution now kills more people than all diseases combined which is why I live on a farm with miles of open space and fresh air. The city is the last place on Earth I want to be and I would never live there no matter how much anyone paid me.
Quote from: Fickle on February 27, 2016, 08:32:37 PM
I agree however the same people who call for forced vaccinations also demand antibiotics for every little thing because their pussies. They believe drugs will solve all their problems and now the experts say within 5-10 years all antibiotics will be ineffective against most all of the new strains. The flu vaccine has also become partially ineffective, 15-40%, because it's mutating faster than new vaccines can be created and dispersed.
Do you see the pattern?, I mean only a blind man could not see the pattern here. We have created this problem through our own ignorance and when antibiotics fail in the near future most are literally screwed. Not to mention the fact the same experts also say cancer and diabetes will reach epidemic proportions within 10-15 years. Now let's suppose that things are getting better as many suggest then why is everything going so terribly wrong?. More and more diseases are becoming stronger as more and more drugs are becoming less effective, do the math.
I think as more people crowd into the cities the problem will get progressively worse and mother nature is going to spank them. They say pollution now kills more people than all diseases combined which is why I live on a farm with miles of open space and fresh air. The city is the last place on Earth I want to be and I would never live there no matter how much anyone paid me.
If you think an imperfect solution is better than no solution, feel free to walk into a diseased population. I'm sure you'll survive, seeing as you're not a "pussy." As for me, I've had enough experience with Swine Flu to know that any chance I have of not getting it
again is a chance I'm willing to hedge money on.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 12, 2015, 07:45:56 AM
I am very glad smallpox is eradicated and really hope it stays that way. I am, however nervous about some long-frozen bodies in Siberia that are in danger of surfacing because of climate change. Could they refresh the planet's supply of smallpox now that everyone under 50 is unvaccinated? But I digress.
I read a comment this morning about how measles is "no big deal" and that families should let their kids go to "measles parties" and get it over with.
I think chicken pox and measles are getting crossed here. Meh, what's the difference? A spotty virus is a spotty virus, right? Now don't forget to douse yourself in hand sanitizer, Billy. You don't want to get GERMS.
I used to think that chicken pox was not big deal. And it wasn't when I had it. But then, I developed shingles--and that was a very, very big deal. That is hands down, the most pain I've ever felt. Miserable on a good day.
QuoteIf you think an imperfect solution is better than no solution, feel free to walk into a diseased population. I'm sure you'll survive, seeing as you're not a "pussy." As for me, I've had enough experience with Swine Flu to know that any chance I have of not getting it again is a chance I'm willing to hedge money on.
I think it's going play out like the space shuttle.
-we have a problem with the O rings
-we have a problem with the O rings
-we have a problem with the O rings
-BOOM
-Houston we may have a problem
So your experience with swine flu relates to the predicted antibiotic,cancer, diabetes pandemic how exactly?. You know a rock once fell on my foot but I'm not afraid of rocks nor do I wear steel toed boots... I stay away from falling rocks.
Hard to follow video, but reflective of the typical arguments surrounding vaccines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxGqusSlZ2c
Agree or disagree, there is some interesting stuff going on out there.
New York Times article referenced in above video:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/science/scientists-ponder-the-prospect-of-contagious-cancer.html?_r=0
SV40 is real:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40
PubMed 1999- CONCLUSIONS:These data suggest that there may be an increased incidence of certain cancers among the 98 million persons exposed to contaminated polio vaccine in the U.S.; further investigations are clearly justified.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327
PubMed 2004 - quote from article: During the last decade, numerous published studies from independent laboratories, using different molecular biology techniques, have demonstrated SV40 large tumor antigen (T-ag) or DNA in primary human brain and bone cancers and malignant mesothelioma...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC452549/
The anti-vaxers can be extreme, but there are points of truth in some of their concerns.
What does SV40 have to do with poliovirus? They're not even in the same family. Indeed, it suggests that we need to vaccinate against SV40, too.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 11, 2016, 10:02:46 PM
What does SV40 have to do with poliovirus? They're not even in the same family. Indeed, it suggests that we need to vaccinate against SV40, too.
I provide links for a reason.
Paragraph 2 in wiki link -- SV 40 is real...
quote: SV40 discovery revealed that between 1955 and 1963 around 90% of children and 60% of adults in USA were inoculated with
SV40-contaminated polio vaccines.
Sentence 1 (of 2) in Paragraph 3 of Wiki link
quote: SV40 was first identified by Ben Sweet and Maurice Hilleman in 1960 when they found that
between 10-30% of polio vaccines in the USA were contaminated with SV40Hilleman is a noted scientist you can look up on your own. Anti-vax supporters link to this often:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13QiSV_lrDQ
Everything we do is risky. Vaccination is risky, not vaccinating is risky. People usually have very poor estimations of risk. Maniacs think that all risk can be eliminated, or that risky things will go away if we just put our fingers in our ears and go "la la la".
Doctors know this too ... but they aren't in any conspiracy to foist bad medicine/vaccines on people ... that is the job of the drug companies ;-) Insurance companies are the real heroes ... they want to make sure patients don't get any medicines ... because it costs them money.
Quote from: chill98 on March 11, 2016, 10:56:25 PM
I provide links for a reason.
Paragraph 2 in wiki link -- SV 40 is real...
quote: SV40 discovery revealed that between 1955 and 1963 around 90% of children and 60% of adults in USA were inoculated with SV40-contaminated polio vaccines.
Sentence 1 (of 2) in Paragraph 3 of Wiki link
quote: SV40 was first identified by Ben Sweet and Maurice Hilleman in 1960 when they found that between 10-30% of polio vaccines in the USA were contaminated with SV40
Hilleman is a noted scientist you can look up on your own. Anti-vax supporters link to this often:
I watched. The problem is that this video adds in shit that Hilleman categorically
did not say. He
did not say that SV40 was in any final preparation of the Sabin virus. They
were in the Russian
field trial vaccines. But that's as far as the contamination went, as one of Hilleman's projects at Merek was to eliminate or inactivate that SV40 contamination.
While there may have been contamination of SV40 in some of the vaccines, this is a long way from saying that there were live viruses in them, nor does it say how bad the contamination was and by what. Fragments of proteins (still identifiable as SV40 derived but hopelessly broken up) is going to be much less concern than a whole, intact, live SV40 virus.
Yes, fair enough, there may have been some contamination. But there is a difference between contamination and causation. There has yet to be a definitive study that detects any expected "bump" in cancer incidence anywhere in people who received contaminated vaccine. Contaminated vaccine, I may point out, that was made using crude methods that are not used nowadays. Vaccines now are almost surely pure.
Quote from: chill98 on March 11, 2016, 10:56:25 PM
I provide links for a reason.
Paragraph 2 in wiki link -- SV 40 is real...
quote: SV40 discovery revealed that between 1955 and 1963 around 90% of children and 60% of adults in USA were inoculated with SV40-contaminated polio vaccines.
Sentence 1 (of 2) in Paragraph 3 of Wiki link
quote: SV40 was first identified by Ben Sweet and Maurice Hilleman in 1960 when they found that between 10-30% of polio vaccines in the USA were contaminated with SV40
Hilleman is a noted scientist you can look up on your own. Anti-vax supporters link to this often:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13QiSV_lrDQ
This happened at the dawn of vaccines. It does not happen anymore.
The source(s) of contemporary SV40 infections is (are) unknown, but it is presumed that the virus is being transmitted among humans. These serological and molecular findings, coupled with numerous tissue culture studies that have demonstrated that SV40 can replicate in human cells (2), prove that SV40 is able to infect humans. These data suggest, additionally, that SV40 should be considered infectious for both monkeys and humans.
SV40 DNA has been detected in human tumours in numerous independent studies (2,24), with the most commonly involved cancers being paediatric and adult brain tumours, mesotheliomas andosteosarcomas
http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/78%282%29195.pdf
Is Cancer Contagious? NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88131574
discover mag:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2012/05/09/16-of-cancers-are-caused-by-viruses-or-bacteria/#.VuYElG4ppVI
It's well known that some cancers are transmissible. HPV is a very good example of that. (There's a good vaccine for that, incidentally).
SV40 was in cells used to culture polio vaccine when it was first developed. That was more than 50 years ago. It is not an issue any longer.
There are an awful lot of viruses that are passed between humans and other animals.
There is no link between SV40 and cancer in humans. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040825092736.htm
Quote from: Mermaid on March 13, 2016, 08:59:25 PM
It's well known that some cancers are transmissible. HPV is a very good example of that. (There's a good vaccine for that, incidentally).
SV40 was in cells used to culture polio vaccine when it was first developed. That was more than 50 years ago. It is not an issue any longer.
There are an awful lot of viruses that are passed between humans and other animals.
There is no link between SV40 and cancer in humans. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040825092736.htm
An actual scientific study or believe things posted on a wiki page... tough decision on who to believe :-)
Thank you for that link.
I read a CBC article on those dreaded anti-vaxers tonight and the forum was very biased and dominated by the terminally confused as usual. It seems almost everyone believed the science was bulletproof as a matter of faith and that anyone who thought different must be a fool.
However a recent MIT study found 47% of scientists have or have known someone who falsified their data to serve their or their employers best interests. So let's just round it up and say near 50% of scientists are less than honest and willing to fudge their data so they can remain employed. Thus we are left with the question, what is science as it relates to vaccinations when we can assume 50% of the professionals involved are not honest?. How would this relate to a trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry dictated by a few multi-national corporations covering the globe?.
Obviously we here are not self-righteous, immoral bastards who would do something we know is wrong simply to keep our job however the peer reviewed independent study proves almost one half are. So where does that leave us when 47% of science is in fact pseudo-science?. I have one question... where is the data showing who has been harmed, who has died because of adverse effects related to vaccinations and what are the real risks involved one way or the other?.
I understand many think there is no question, no debate required but there is because I can smell BS a mile away as a professional and something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Some science is falsified ... and sometimes this is overcome by later, more honest studies ... though this costs a lot of money, so it doesn't always happen or right away. In that sense science is self correcting. But I would limit this to experimental science ... in theoretical science peer review is much weaker, more brown nosing. You can more easily get away with ... drivel ... in theoretical science than you ever can in experimental science. Even then, confirmation bias can hold things up for decades, as it did with chaos studies.
So this is also a reason why, some science needs to be done by governments ... as a counter to private science ... because presumably the government (if it isn't corrupted by business) will provide an independent check you won't get from a profit oriented organization.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-11/bmj-uss111510.php
Quote from: chill98 on March 13, 2016, 08:46:49 PM
http://www.who.int/bulletin/archives/78%282%29195.pdf
From the abstract: "However, additional studies are necessary to prove that SV40 is the cause of certain human cancers."
Quote from: chill98 on March 13, 2016, 08:46:49 PM
The source(s) of contemporary SV40 infections is (are) unknown, but it is presumed that the virus is being transmitted among humans.
If the virus is transmitted among humans, then you cannot conclude that vaccines are the source, because there's a more straightforward way that SV40 can be out there: it's an endemic infection among humans already. It would explain why people who got contaminated polio vaccines
didn't experience any huge upswing in cancers.
Quote from: chill98 on March 13, 2016, 08:46:49 PM
SV40 DNA has been detected in human tumours in numerous independent studies (2,24), with the most commonly involved cancers being paediatric and adult brain tumours, mesotheliomas andosteosarcomas
Yes, but that doesn't mean anything. It's not even a correlation until you observe a deficiency of SV40 DNA in noncancerous cells on average. Correlation doesn't imply causation and all that, but we haven't demonstrated even that there is even a real correlation yet.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 16, 2016, 12:11:45 PM
From the abstract: "However, additional studies are necessary to prove that SV40 is the cause of certain human cancers."
If the virus is transmitted among humans, then you cannot conclude that vaccines are the source, because there's a more straightforward way that SV40 can be out there: it's an endemic infection among humans already. It would explain why people who got contaminated polio vaccines didn't experience any huge upswing in cancers.
But we have experienced an upswing in cancers. Note, I am not saying all cancer increase is sv40.
If the virus was introduced to humans via the immunization program, that program would remain ground Zero for that introduction.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 16, 2016, 12:11:45 PM
Yes, but that doesn't mean anything. It's not even a correlation until you observe a deficiency of SV40 DNA in noncancerous cells on average. Correlation doesn't imply causation and all that, but we haven't demonstrated even that there is even a real correlation yet.
hmm... sv 40 causes some types of cancers in rodents when introduced in high volume. SV 40 markers are found in human cancers of the same type the rodents get under that high volume.
Yes it does mean something is going on.
Ultimately, per insurance, no corporation or government is responsible for anything, particularly mucking around with the world ecology or the human genome or epidemiology (disease).
When my son was a baby I never questioned whether or not to get him vaccinated. Years later my sister questioned whether to vaccinate her only child because of celebrities coming out saying they caused autism in children. She also had people in her church who were not vaccinating their children but ultimately she vaccinated. All the conflicting information at the time made me question if I had done the right thing because my son has always had mental health issues but I have come to the conclusion that there are so many other factors that could have contributed I don't regret having him vaccinated one bit.
I myself get a flu shot every year while my co workers look down their noses at me for doing so. They are Christian fundamentalists who claim that the government puts something in flu shots so people won't live long enough to collect social security. While I appreciate their commitment to this brand of crazy and can appreciate a good conspiracy theory as well as the next person, I just feel like they are giving the government WAY too much credit.
I know a Jehovah's Witness whose 4 year old had a horrible accident and in order to survive the hospital had to transfuse him several times. I credit the guy with going against his religion to save the life of his child but there are many who would not have done so all because of a man-made doctrine.
Quote from: AllRight on March 19, 2016, 07:52:16 AM
When my son was a baby I never questioned whether or not to get him vaccinated. Years later my sister questioned whether to vaccinate her only child because of celebrities coming out saying they caused autism in children. She also had people in her church who were not vaccinating their children but ultimately she vaccinated. All the conflicting information at the time made me question if I had done the right thing because my son has always had mental health issues but I have come to the conclusion that there are so many other factors that could have contributed I don't regret having him vaccinated one bit.
I did question. At that time (mid 80's) there was questions about the MMR vaccine. Regular tv was running shows (dateline / 60 minutes types) comparing autism rates usa vs uk and the thoughts then were on the ages of the children. UK began the MMR vaccine at a later date than the USA.
These reports brought back memories from youth that had been pushed aside for several to many years.
Discussion with my DR on the issue, I decided to wait with MMR because my kid wasn't in daycare and in general less exposure. I did the polio on time and think the DPT (as it was then) was on-time but can't say for sure. By school age, the shots were up to date as I remember getting one last one to complete the required series.
Quote from: AllRight on March 19, 2016, 07:52:16 AM
I myself get a flu shot every year while my co workers look down their noses at me for doing so. While I appreciate their commitment to this brand of crazy and can appreciate a good conspiracy theory as well as the next person, I just feel like they are giving the government WAY too much credit.
I have not done a flu shot; not at an age where I worry too much about being horribly affected with hospitalization/death potential. Years have gone by without getting the flu but I got nailed big time with the flu dec. 2014 when everyone was getting sick, including those who had the flu shot:
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/effectiveness-studies.htm
23% effectiveness for that one.
However, I know a number of people who have not had good experiences with the flu shot. But they were all older persons anyways, so... was it the shot or their immune system in general? For one, it was the shot, her doctor even said there were problems with 'that particular shot series'. She still got her shot every year and had one other flu shot related problem (got the flu anyways). BUT to this day no one knows for sure whether or not the shot actually prevented anything as it is just as possible she was never exposed to the virus any of those other years. shrug...
This video is long but interesting. I don't agree with everything presented, as in comparing all kinds of allergies to vaccines. I do not see substantial proof of a connection, HOWEVER allergies are an immune system response gone wild so to speak and within the video is some discussion of basic immune response and how developmentally, vaccines leap over steps of immune system response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1m3TjokVU4
After being encouraged by a person who believes vaccines affected one of her kids, to just watch/read what is being said and come to my own conclusions and taking bits and pieces of info given out and reviewing some of the questions being raised, I do HONESTLY wonder if just maybe (for whatever genetic reason) there are some people who have a sensitivity that we cannot yet determine, to something in some of these vaccines. There are videos of children before and after Gardasil (for example).
http://www.tokyotimes.com/side-effects-in-young-girls-take-gardasil-out-from-japanese-market/
MOVED QUOTE:
Quote from: AllRight on March 19, 2016, 07:52:16 AM
While I appreciate their commitment to this brand of crazy and can appreciate a good conspiracy theory as well as the next person, I just feel like they are giving the government WAY too much credit.
The push-back against those who question the safety of vaccines discourages research into whether or not some people should delay/abandon vaccine for their particular circumstance. The government (whether fed or state level) has an interest in not making the connection true after mandating the injections as a school enrollment issue.
And then there is the 'sacrifice a few for the greater good of many' argument. Except there is limited help for those families who have been impacted for that 'greater good'.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/
Older people can have problems with flu vaccine (Guillian-Barre syndrome). Fortunately I have never been sensitive. The blowup on the flu vaccine during the Ford administration was bad for the administration (re-election in 1976) and good for anti-government conspiracy nuts. Ultimately according to one doctor involved, the decision to go ahead and pressure people, was a political decision, not a medical one. As was the Challenger launch was political and not an engineering decision. Politicians are sometimes afraid to do anything, or afraid of doing nothing.
Quote from: Fickle on March 15, 2016, 11:00:38 PM
I read a CBC article on those dreaded anti-vaxers tonight and the forum was very biased and dominated by the terminally confused as usual. It seems almost everyone believed the science was bulletproof as a matter of faith and that anyone who thought different must be a fool.
However a recent MIT study found 47% of scientists have or have known someone who falsified their data to serve their or their employers best interests. So let's just round it up and say near 50% of scientists are less than honest and willing to fudge their data so they can remain employed. Thus we are left with the question, what is science as it relates to vaccinations when we can assume 50% of the professionals involved are not honest?. How would this relate to a trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry dictated by a few multi-national corporations covering the globe?.
Obviously we here are not self-righteous, immoral bastards who would do something we know is wrong simply to keep our job however the peer reviewed independent study proves almost one half are. So where does that leave us when 47% of science is in fact pseudo-science?. I have one question... where is the data showing who has been harmed, who has died because of adverse effects related to vaccinations and what are the real risks involved one way or the other?.
I understand many think there is no question, no debate required but there is because I can smell BS a mile away as a professional and something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
Do you have a link to this study?
I don't think it is as much a question of fraud, as don't see what I am doing over there, concentrate on what I am showing your here.
All the new meds are complicated molecules that didn't exist in nature before. They have various positive and negative effects, that vary greatly between individuals ... the best one can do is administer to a variety of test patients, some of whom get placebo and report the percentages of improvement vs complications. But bad for you if you are an individual that doesn't respond the way the statistical mean did.
Quote from: Fickle on March 15, 2016, 11:00:38 PM
However a recent MIT study found 47% of scientists have or have known someone who falsified their data to serve their or their employers best interests. So let's just round it up and say near 50% of scientists are less than honest and willing to fudge their data so they can remain employed.
Non sequitor.
You ignored the "or have known someone who" part.
If 250 of 500 scientists at a lab know 1 scientist (lets call him John Smith) that has faked (not "falsified", that means something else) data then you have 50% who faked their data to serve their or their employers best interests but only 1% dishonest scientists.
Looking at my own work environment ... the most common misbehavior isn't manipulating statistics for personal gain or to avoid being revealed as a failure. The most common misbehavior is avoiding work, or not doing your best (you have to give 110% not 90%). We work with medical patients. Nobody is out to hurt anyone (though one knows that medicine is limited and potentially hazardous). Coworkers know if you are pulling your share of the load or not. The most common math kabuki is claiming that such and such an innovation, saved XX dollars per year. Those are greatly exaggerated.
In our lab work, great care is taken to avoid contamination, I am sure it is the same elsewhere ... though there are noted failures (DA office in OKC). One shouldn't allow a conflict of interest ... but I can't see how a drug company can avoid it. This is why there is an FDA. Though since medicine can't achieve "zero harm" ... the FDA can't apply that standard.
Quote from: Fickle on March 15, 2016, 11:00:38 PM
I read a CBC article on those dreaded anti-vaxers tonight and the forum was very biased and dominated by the terminally confused as usual. It seems almost everyone believed the science was bulletproof as a matter of faith and that anyone who thought different must be a fool.
However a recent MIT study found 47% of scientists have or have known someone who falsified their data to serve their or their employers best interests. So let's just round it up and say near 50% of scientists are less than honest and willing to fudge their data so they can remain employed. Thus we are left with the question, what is science as it relates to vaccinations when we can assume 50% of the professionals involved are not honest?. How would this relate to a trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry dictated by a few multi-national corporations covering the globe?.
Obviously we here are not self-righteous, immoral bastards who would do something we know is wrong simply to keep our job however the peer reviewed independent study proves almost one half are. So where does that leave us when 47% of science is in fact pseudo-science?. I have one question... where is the data showing who has been harmed, who has died because of adverse effects related to vaccinations and what are the real risks involved one way or the other?.
I understand many think there is no question, no debate required but there is because I can smell BS a mile away as a professional and something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
I am hesitant to comment without an article to read, but there is a fatal flaw in what you are saying here: 47% of scientist polled claim to have falsified or have known someone who has falsified data. This in no way means 47% of data is falsified, or that a rounded 50% of scientists are less than honest and fudge their data.
As a scientist, I know of at least two other scientists I've encountered in my career who have falsified data. Does this mean half of MY data is faked?
Here's how the internet works, you google --"47% of scientists falsified data" and we get 8,900,000 hits. Like this--
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2685008/
or this
http://www.nature.com/news/us-vaccine-researcher-sentenced-to-prison-for-fraud-1.17660
or this
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/november/fraud-science-papers-111615.html
Most are from credible sources who state categorically that a large number of supposed professionals are in fact dishonest and disingenuous. Psychologically I think this relates to the notion of education/entitlement and many of these people have become so psychotic they most likely don't even think they are doing anything wrong.
Here's the catch...
We can presume most all the incompetent/dishonest doctors and scientists would plead innocent in court. What does this tell us of their credibility, What does this tell us of their true honesty and accountability?. Now if they actually had any credibility one would think these people, as supposedly responsible adults, would be compelled to state the truth...so why don't they?. You see I can't tell these professionals apart from any other asshole because psychologically they are no different than any plain old uneducated asshole. I mean they can pretend to be much more than they are however in reality we are judged solely on "WHAT WE DO".
Apparently everyone is innocent, apparently none have ever made a mistake or done anything wrong in their entire life and pigs can fucking fly. Obviously if their wasn't something wrong then I wouldn't be getting almost 9,000,000 hits would I ?.
You won't be seeing any peer-reviewed article .. just investigative journalism. The guilty aren't going to out themselves .. but then it turns into a Twin Peaks episode.
If the fact that 10s of thousands of people die prematurely due to well intentioned intervention mistakes in hospitals, something President Clinton admitted ... then you can't admit to anything. This is a grey area of ethics ... it isn't malignancy, nor negligence, but good people not being perfect.
Quote from: Fickle on March 21, 2016, 12:38:13 AM
Apparently everyone is innocent, apparently none have ever made a mistake or done anything wrong in their entire life and pigs can fucking fly. Obviously if their wasn't something wrong then I wouldn't be getting almost 9,000,000 hits would I ?.
Uh. Nobody said any of that.
She just said she is aware of at least two scientists who manipulated data in the previous page.
Quote from: chill98 on March 18, 2016, 11:13:26 PM
But we have experienced an upswing in cancers. Note, I am not saying all cancer increase is sv40.
No, we're not. It's the same bullshit that anti-vaxers use to justify the autism-vaccine link â€" we're getting better at
diagnosing cancers.
Quote from: chill98 on March 18, 2016, 11:13:26 PM
If the virus was introduced to humans via the immunization program, that program would remain ground Zero for that introduction.
Speculation. You don't even know if it is a ground zero at all.
Quote from: chill98 on March 18, 2016, 11:13:26 PM
hmm... sv 40 causes some types of cancers in rodents when introduced in high volume. SV 40 markers are found in human cancers of the same type the rodents get under that high volume.
Yes it does mean something is going on.
No it doesn't. You find water and protein in all cancer cells, too. Does that mean that water or protein is carcinogenic? Of course not. Water and proteins are part of cancer cells because they're part of
all cells.
You have
one half of a correlation. It doesn't mean
anything until you find an
absence of sv40 in noncancerous cells. Even then, you have a mere correlation.
Because biology is messy.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 23, 2016, 09:54:49 PM
No it doesn't. You find water and protein in all cancer cells, too. Does that mean that water or protein is carcinogenic? Of course not. Water and proteins are part of cancer cells because they're part of all cells.
Because biology is messy.
This part is all I need to realize your bias.
When testing to see if something is a problem for people we often inject non-typical exposures to a questionable substance and watch for the reaction. If no reaction the substance is declared harmless.
Injecting sv40 into various test animal species produces cancers; the same kinds of cancer found in humans and (roughly) half harboring sv40.
For any other substance, the correlation would be recognized.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/IASLC/53476
Biology is messy. So are human rights vs making a profit from those humans.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22
Denmark, not a nation of hysteric's. Subtitled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO2i-r39hok
Arguing by labeling someone anti-vax (when they are not) or comparing water to simian viri makes you look immature.
One can believe everything a medical researcher tells you, everything a doctor tells you, think everything a doctor does to you will work ... but I would think one is a bit gullible, having replaced the Easter Bunny with people in white lab coats. I go to doctors and dentists ... but I also work with them. Most people aren't competent to brush their teeth in the morning, and I remain unconvinced the apes can fully figure out nature or even human biology/psychology. We do what we can do, and hope for the best.
Quote from: chill98 on March 24, 2016, 06:31:07 AMFor any other substance, the correlation would be recognized.
Correlation is not causation.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but when you're presenting evidence it's best to present something that doesn't have more holes in it than swiss cheese.
Well in a court of law, circumstantial evidence is often sufficient to convict. So shall we just shut down the courts? Courts don't follow lab rules ... though they can rely on SME who are from labs.
Other than a row of dominoes ... I rarely see completely convincing cause/effect. There are too many hidden feedback loops.
Chill98
I found that documentary from Denmark disturbing. Even more disturbing is the trend where supposed professionals try to distance themselves from the problem. Were in agreement with others, this cannot be happening, those people are just making this up. Yet the problem does exist and they don't have a god damn clue why or what to do about it.
The issue here is liability and if they admit the problem is real then they have a responsibility to do something about it. Thus instead of doing the right thing like a responsible adult should they act like a 5 year old playing the "let's pretend it doesn't exist" game. I see many supposed adults playing this pretend game all the time and it never ceases to amaze me.
Credentials do not matter, what we say does not matter...What we do matters.
Now if all those professionals kids had the same vaccinations and severe symptoms then of course that would be a different story altogether. They wouldn't be sitting their with that smug fucking look on their face lying through their teeth would they?. Thus we come to the ultimate truth concerning the human condition. It's not a real problem so long as it happens to someone else and does not effect us personally. Such is life.
Fickle ... you probably didn't read my earlier posts on medicine. However well intentioned, medicine is of two kinds ... placebo or poison. Doctors are legally immune from malpractice as long as the administer the placebos or poisons the approved way ... otherwise under common law of (do no fraud and do no harm) medicine would be illegal. Some placebos work on impressionable patients. Also some poisons are better for you than the illness. Unfortunately some individuals have worse reactions than others ... it would be nice to screen them first, to avoid inappropriate medications for those individuals, but that costs money.
Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2016, 06:18:59 PMHowever well intentioned, medicine is of two kinds ... placebo or poison.
This is so wrong that I'm mildly surprised that it didn't include advice on how to balance humors. Substances used to treat disease are not necessarily "poison" or placebo. They're just substances used to produce a desired effect. In large enough doses, almost anything can be dangerous. Placebos are by definition are medically ineffective. So no, your doc is not "poisoning" you.
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 24, 2016, 08:49:07 PM
This is so wrong that I'm mildly surprised that it didn't include advice on how to balance humors. Substances used to treat disease are not necessarily "poison" or placebo. They're just substances used to produce a desired effect. In large enough doses, almost anything can be dangerous. Placebos are by definition are medically ineffective. So no, your doc is not "poisoning" you.
Calling AMA ... your patient has escaped again ;-) What are those side effects again (which often include death)? Any common law jury, back to Hammurabi, would find the doctor guilty of malpractice ... and if death results, the doctor is executed. Not that I would want to do that. There was that dentist who was trying to give all his patients AIDS ... I might make an exception for him. Doctors are human, not gods ... why do I have to tell an atheist that?
Arsenic is a substance (once used to treat syphilis) ... if you give it to someone without a license, you are a killer. If you are a doctor (and you follow approved protocol) then you are a physician. This is a legal distinction, not a medical one. Yes, too much water can kill you ... but you say it is a poison? May the henbane be upon you <sarc>
Quote from: Baruch on March 24, 2016, 10:31:16 PMDoctors are human, not gods ... why do I have to tell an atheist that?
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/2a49ebbcae31dcf38b1a460c6fd83987/tumblr_inline_njm32pCMdG1qczs0e.gif)
I'd point out what's wrong with your post, but the universe might not be around that long. And would it matter anyway? Apparently, me saying that medicine isn't poison is equivalent to saying that doctors are gods. How do you argue with something like that? How do you argue with someone like that?
Straightening out this level of irrational thinking is way beyond my ability. Peace out.
Quote from: Fickle on March 24, 2016, 06:11:36 PM
Chill98
I found that documentary from Denmark disturbing. Even more disturbing is the trend where supposed professionals try to distance themselves from the problem. Were in agreement with others, this cannot be happening, those people are just making this up. Yet the problem does exist and they don't have a god damn clue why or what to do about it...
Now if all those professionals kids had the same vaccinations and severe symptoms then of course that would be a different story altogether.
The video I posted in message #68 has two doctors (married) who's child suffers from what they believe is a reaction to Gardasil. The Gardasil controversy is especially intriguing because we are dealing with
1) children old enough to have a medical history AND
2) able to speak legitimately about what they are feeling and where their problems begin.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/serious-questions-about-hpv-vaccine-07-07-2008/
That video [edit: post #68 ] also talks a bit about the human immune system and its development, with vaccines skipping a step in that immune system process (respiratory/digestive disease introduction) and creating a physical hole (my words) in the immune system recognition process. They link that to allergy problems- holes in the bodies first response system so to speak.
Guinea pigs...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/serious-questions-about-hpv-vaccine-07-07-2008/
QuoteMerck and the CDC say Gardasil is safe and effective, and that they have not found a link to any deaths. They also say illnesses reported after vaccinations may not have been caused by the shot, and that Gardasil appears safer than most vaccines with "half the average" reported serious adverse events.
Let's look at this statement logically:
"Merck and the CDC say Gardasil is safe and effective"
" They also say Gardasil appears safer than most vaccines with "half the average" reported serious adverse events"
So it is "safe" with "half the serious side effects" which is an open admission that there are in fact serious side effects and it is not safe in any sense of the word. I have to wonder, are Merck and the CDC just fucking stupid or do they not understand the english language?.
So yes it's perfectly safe because it only kills half as many people as the other vaccines do but only if your an imbecile.
Quote from: Fickle on March 26, 2016, 08:09:12 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/serious-questions-about-hpv-vaccine-07-07-2008/
Let's look at this statement logically:
"Merck and the CDC say Gardasil is safe and effective"
" They also say Gardasil appears safer than most vaccines with "half the average" reported serious adverse events"
So it is "safe" with "half the serious side effects" which is an open admission that there are in fact serious side effects and it is not safe in any sense of the word. I have to wonder, are Merck and the CDC just fucking stupid or do they not understand the english language?.
So yes it's perfectly safe because it only kills half as many people as the other vaccines do but only if your an imbecile.
Reminds me of Fight Club math:
Narrator: ... Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Quote from: chill98 on March 24, 2016, 06:31:07 AM
This part is all I need to realize your bias.
PFFT!
Quote from: chill98 on March 24, 2016, 06:31:07 AM
When testing to see if something is a problem for people we often inject non-typical exposures to a questionable substance and watch for the reaction. If no reaction the substance is declared harmless.
Injecting sv40 into various test animal species produces cancers; the same kinds of cancer found in humans and (roughly) half harboring sv40.
Well, if you inject sv40 into animals, of course any cancers they develop are going to harbor some sv40 stuff. Not sv40 itself, components of sv40. I read the damn research.
Quote from: chill98 on March 24, 2016, 06:31:07 AM
For any other substance, the correlation would be recognized.
Eh, no. Substances hazardous to humans are not recognized
merely on account of causing cancer in animals. You need epidemiology, too. You also need a clear mechanism of action going from substance to tumor. There are plenty of substances that have a
very different effect on rodents than they do on humans.
And again, the epidemiology and the mechanism are exactly what you are lacking. There's no spike in these cancers in
exactly the population where there
should be such a spike.
Quote from: chill98 on March 24, 2016, 06:31:07 AM
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/IASLC/53476
Biology is messy. So are human rights vs making a profit from those humans.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22
What is either of these links supposed to prove? Yes, lung cancer is on the rise, but that's because we use our air as the industrial sector's garbage can. The link between is pretty damn clear. As to the limited liability of vaccine producers, vaccines have pitiful profit margins. If vaccine manufacturers didn't have this protection, then no one would make vaccines, and we would return to an era where most people would die of communicable diseases long before they had time to worry about cancer.
Get it? Mass vaccinations are so good at preventing epidemics that in the developed world, that we have the
luxury of worrying about chronic diseases like cancer in the first place.
Quote from: chill98 on March 24, 2016, 06:31:07 AM
Denmark, not a nation of hysteric's. Subtitled.
Not wasting 40 minutes of my time. Either give me the run down or walk.
Quote from: chill98 on March 24, 2016, 06:31:07 AM
Arguing by labeling someone anti-vax (when they are not) or comparing water to simian viri makes you look immature.
When you have only one half of a correlation, you're the only one who looks immature.
Hakurei Reimu
QuoteAs to the limited liability of vaccine producers, vaccines have pitiful profit margins. If vaccine manufacturers didn't have this protection, then no one would make vaccines, and we would return to an era where most people would die of communicable diseases long before they had time to worry about cancer.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/merck-profit-more-than-doubles-raises-outlook-2015-10-27
QuoteAlong with the results, Merck raised its annual adjusted earnings forecast to $3.55 to $3.60, from a previous range of $3.45 to $3.55. The company also raised the low end of its revenue forecast to $39.2 billion to $39.8 billion from a previous range of $38.6 billion to $39.8 billion.
As you say pitiful profit margins.
QuoteGet it? Mass vaccinations are so good at preventing epidemics that in the developed world, that we have the luxury of worrying about chronic diseases like cancer in the first place.
More than a few truly independent studies not done by the drug companies themselves show marginal effectiveness in many cases. You see in real science all biased or preferential studies are rejected thus the drug companies have very few credible sources.
However what is never mentioned is my "odd man out" theorem. Now suppose the chances of a severe or fatal reaction to any vaccine or drug are about ten million to one. Kind of like the odds of winning the lottery and it seems pretty safe doesn't it?. Now let's suppose your own child or family member just won our lottery and has a permanent ailment because of the vaccine or drug. Statistically speaking how fucking smart do you feel?. I mean really?, as you sit there looking at ten's or hundred's of thousands of dollars of future medical bills no one will cover watching the one you love suffer how fucking smart would you feel?.
Thus we come full circle, statistics and studies are great until the moment they effect us personally and then obviously they don't mean anything do they?. How about this... when you or the one's you love are lying in bed suffering then we will have a real debate about profit margins, effectiveness and statistics. I mean I would just love to hear your witty debate on the subject in that context.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 26, 2016, 09:06:44 PM
Get it? Mass vaccinations are so good at preventing epidemics that in the developed world, that we have the luxury of worrying about chronic diseases like cancer in the first place.
Not wasting 40 minutes of my time. Either give me the run down or walk.
LoL --
If you want to make your own decision without viewing the videos YOURSELF that is fine by me. Its not my job to read you a bed-time story so you don't have to give up your cartoon viewing...
As I stated when I joined this discussion, I was challenged by someone who believes vaccines harmed one of her children and to make the decision MYSELF.
The 'anti-vax' people have convinced me, via my own pursuit of these issues that Yes, some people are being greatly harmed by some of the vaccines.
Polio:
QUOTE from CDC:
Up to 72% of all polio infections in children are asymptomatic. Infected persons without symptoms shed virus in the stool and are able to transmit the virus to others.
Approximately 24% of polio infections in children consist of a minor, nonspecific illness without clinical or laboratory evidence of central nervous system invasion. This clinical presentation is known as abortive poliomyelitis, and is characterized by complete recovery in less than a week. This is characterized by a low grade fever and sore throat.
~~ Thats over 90% of people infected with wild polio have no issues at all. Naturally. ~~
Nonparalytic aseptic meningitis (symptoms of stiffness of the neck, back, and/or legs), usually following several days after a prodrome similar to that of minor illness, occurs in 1%-5% of polio infections in children. Increased or abnormal sensations can also occur. Typically these symptoms will last from 2 to 10 days, followed by complete recovery.
Fewer than 1% of all polio infections in children result in flaccid paralysis. ~~ One Percent in children. Older you are the higher the probability of long term paralysis...
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/polio.html
HOWEVER ~~~
From Wiki:
In developed countries during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, improvements were made in community sanitation, including better sewage disposal and clean water supplies. These changes drastically increased the proportion of children and adults at risk of paralytic polio infection, by reducing childhood exposure and immunity to the disease
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis#History
Now That is interesting to me. An unintended consequence for sure! But it seems to me you haven't the curiosity to continue a pursuit of the topic, preferring to parrot the party line, loving a life of see, speak, hear no evil like a well trained drone.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/statisticsreport.pdf
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 26, 2016, 09:06:44 PM
Moved Quote Either give me the run down or walk.
You can watch the videos I posted yourself, or turn the channel.
"Merck and the CDC say Gardasil is safe and effective" ... this is a commercial and political decision, not a scientific one. If a perfect "no harm" rule was in place, almost no medicines could be used. It is necessary to harm some more than others, because that is how reality works with drug X. In fact one is harming anyone who takes it, but hopefully for most patients there are few "non curative" phenomena.
If we were cleaning up the sewers today, as a health measure, we would be paying the government a special health tax, thru a health insurance company, each time we had a working toilet or faucet water that wasn't deadly. Capitalism isn't just for Charles Dickens. In fact, that is why all toilets should be pay toilets ... and the poorest will be forced to defecate outside, where they will be arrested as a public nuisance. The real heart of the matter is explained in A Christmas Carol.
Quote from: Fickle on March 26, 2016, 11:22:50 PM
Hakurei Reimu
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/merck-profit-more-than-doubles-raises-outlook-2015-10-27
As you say pitiful profit margins.
You do know Merek doesn't manufacture only vaccines right? This is profit over
all products, not just vaccines.
Good grief, I shouldn't have to point this out, but apparently I need to.
Quote from: Fickle on March 26, 2016, 11:22:50 PM
More than a few truly independent studies not done by the drug companies themselves show marginal effectiveness in many cases. You see in real science all biased or preferential studies are rejected thus the drug companies have very few credible sources.
Dude,
we wiped out fucking smallpox with vaccines. Smallpox, which during the years of WWI wiped out more people than the war itself. Influenza, pertussus, measels, rubella, tetnas and polio were all big killers back in the day, before mass immunization soundly clobbered all of them over the head.
Vaccines are victims of their own success. It is because of the fact that most people are immunized that shields delinquents from harm, as well as people whose vaccinations simply don't take, or people with known allergies to stuff in vaccines (herd immunity). But if everyone followed the advice of the anti-vaxers, there would be
no herd immunity at all, with only sanitation to check the spread of diseases, and these diseases would be scourges upon humanity once again. In fact, still are in underdeveloped countries.
Quote from: Fickle on March 26, 2016, 11:22:50 PM
However what is never mentioned is my "odd man out" theorem. Now suppose the chances of a severe or fatal reaction to any vaccine or drug are about ten million to one. Kind of like the odds of winning the lottery and it seems pretty safe doesn't it?. Now let's suppose your own child or family member just won our lottery and has a permanent ailment because of the vaccine or drug. Statistically speaking how fucking smart do you feel?. I mean really?, as you sit there looking at ten's or hundred's of thousands of dollars of future medical bills no one will cover watching the one you love suffer how fucking smart would you feel?.
Thus we come full circle, statistics and studies are great until the moment they effect us personally and then obviously they don't mean anything do they?. How about this... when you or the one's you love are lying in bed suffering then we will have a real debate about profit margins, effectiveness and statistics. I mean I would just love to hear your witty debate on the subject in that context.
If your criterion for "safe" means that nobody ever suffers side effects, then
literally no medical intervention qualifes. That includes "doing nothing." Immunizing your child bears some risk, but
not immunizing your child
also bears some risk. The reason why we develop these vaccines is
because of the consequences of not doing so. Smallpox vaccine was developed because smallpox was a hideously deadly killer. Measels vaccine was developed because measels was also deadly killer (though not in the same league as smallpox) â€" one out of every thousand kids who get measels
die. If you are bitten by a rabid animal, you
will die unless you get immunized before symptoms show. These are not trivial illnesses; they're serious and deadly and are the root cause of most of human suffering throughout the ages.
So how smart would you feel if your kid dies from measels, knowing that there was a vaccine that, while there was some risk of adverse effects, could have prevented his death? Like with sv40, you are only focusing on the side of what happens when a vaccine fails, and ignoring the side of what might happen if you fail to vaccinate.
Quote from: chill98 on March 27, 2016, 01:15:52 AM
The 'anti-vax' people have convinced me, via my own pursuit of these issues that Yes, some people are being greatly harmed by some of the vaccines.
As would any medical invention,
including doing nothing at all.Quote from: chill98 on March 27, 2016, 01:15:52 AM
Fewer than 1% of all polio infections in children result in flaccid paralysis.
Over the population of the US alone, that would mean several
million people, all of whom would die without continuous medical intervention, to say nothing of underdeveloped countries.
Quote from: chill98 on March 27, 2016, 01:15:52 AM
In developed countries during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, improvements were made in community sanitation, including better sewage disposal and clean water supplies. These changes drastically increased the proportion of children and adults at risk of paralytic polio infection, by reducing childhood exposure and immunity to the disease
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis#History
And at the same time drastically
decreasing and containing the risk of deadly waterborne infections like cholera and dysentery, which can kill very quickly. And quite frankly I don't think the prospect of swimming in shit is appealing to you or me, or laid out in bed worried you're going to die, and at times worrying you're
not going to die.
Read some accounts of the London cholera epidemics. They're
horrifying.Sanitation may be a double-edged sword, but it's a slam-dunk for public health. Vaccinations are also a double-edge sword, but again, a slam-dunk for public health.
Quote from: chill98 on March 27, 2016, 01:15:52 AM
You can watch the videos I posted yourself, or turn the channel.
So it's not even worth it to you to post a one statement summary of your point for posting your videos? That shows me how much worth you place in them.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 27, 2016, 10:56:24 AM
Over the population of the US alone, that would mean several million people, all of whom would die without continuous medical intervention, to say nothing of underdeveloped countries.
Because YOU refuse to read even simple links, AGAIN from the CDC site on POLIO (polio != cholera):
QUOTE -
Many persons with paralytic poliomyelitis recover completely and, in most, muscle function returns to some degree. Weakness or paralysis still present 12 months after onset is usually permanent.
end QUOTE.
BTW it wouldn't be millions!
Further down in the VERY same Link you didn't read (or didn't fully process) is this:
The death-to-case ratio for paralytic polio is generally 2%-5% among children and up to 15%-30% for adults (depending on age). It increases to 25%-75% with bulbar involvement.
SO to translate for you:
Of the 1% of polio cases which result in SOME TYPE of
flaccid paralysis, approx 3.5% of children (age undefined) and A WIDELY VARIABLE adult fluctuation, may die.
2009 - children 11 and under - 55 million.
1% of 55 million = 550,000 develop flaccid paralysis
of that 2 - 5% may die.
http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp
But that isn't even the correct way to calculate the numbers. That is if EVERY child age 11 and under developed some strain of polio in the same year. But it does verify that your belief regarding
MILLIONS is incorrect.
A quick search reveals in 1988 (as the global polio erradication program began) there were approx 350,000 polio cases world wide. Even with assuming that 350K was ALL paralytic, it was never MILLIONS dead in the USA as you allege (without support).
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 27, 2016, 10:56:24 AM
So it's not even worth it to you to post a one statement summary of your point for posting your videos? That shows me how much worth you place in them.
As previously posted, its is not my obligation to think for you. If you find comfort in beeleeving the party doctrine, feel free to let others define what is real and what is questionable for you. The 40 minute video was too much of a bother for you, the CDC link was an interesting 5 minute read and you couldn't be bothered with that.
Or you couldn't process the info due to your own inherent confirmation bias... whatever.
Are you volunteering your kids to contract polio because of what you read on the internet? Your arguments are foolish at best.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 27, 2016, 03:26:12 PM
Are you volunteering your kids to contract polio because of what you read on the internet? Your arguments are foolish at best.
That is what they said about Dr Jenner ... and the whole idea of immunization in the beginning. A few must be sacrificed (particularly back in his day since they didn't know how to stop the virility of the injected virus) so that the majority may gain. A fundamental social principle. Yes, absolutely, I was willing to sacrifice my child to immunizations ... on a general principle ... and that the percentage of bad reaction was low. If the percentage of bad reaction was high, I would reconsider.
Hakurei
QuoteIf your criterion for "safe" means that nobody ever suffers side effects, then literally no medical intervention qualifes. That includes "doing nothing." Immunizing your child bears some risk, but not immunizing your child also bears some risk. The reason why we develop these vaccines is because of the consequences of not doing so. Smallpox vaccine was developed because smallpox was a hideously deadly killer. Measels vaccine was developed because measels was also deadly killer (though not in the same league as smallpox) â€" one out of every thousand kids who get measels die. If you are bitten by a rabid animal, you will die unless you get immunized before symptoms show. These are not trivial illnesses; they're serious and deadly and are the root cause of most of human suffering throughout the ages.
Don't get me wrong I agree with you. However we have two sets of rules here, one for drug companies selling vaccines who assume no liability and purposely mislead the public concerning the real risks involved. As well as a second set of rules for everyone else who are held personally responsible for any action which may do harm.
I agree vaccines are needed and save lives, I disagree that the authorities are lying to people about the real risks involved and offer no compensation when they do harm. In the real world the corporations leave those effected for dead for no other reasons than profit margins and obviously this is morally wrong... isn't it?. I'm not arguing vaccines are bad, that is absurd, I'm saying people are being harmed in the process and nobody has the balls to take responsibility or tell the truth.
Quote from: Fickle on March 27, 2016, 06:43:46 PM
Hakurei
Don't get me wrong I agree with you. However we have two sets of rules here, one for drug companies selling vaccines who assume no liability and purposely mislead the public concerning the real risks involved.
This is false fundamentally.
Mermaid
QuoteThis is false fundamentally.
I don't believe it is. Do you think the upper management and lawyers of the drug companies pay out everyone a drug or vaccine has ever done harm to?. In fact they would seem to do just the opposite and deny every case until the media exposure forces them to do something. All those internal emails, the conversations behind closed doors nobody hears... what do you think they talk about?. In fact most all the facts we have would suggest they are cowards hiding under their corporate skirt not unlike mischievious little children. What matters is what we do in reality... the rest is fluff.
The fact is nobody can say something is safe when it does in fact do harm, that is called a lie by anyone's definition. You see I'm all grown up and if I ever did something that did do harm to someone else then I would take responsibility because that's what grown up's do. I also find it strange that so many find this simple concept strange when it should be normal. The lesson is simple, if people want to be treated as a responsible adult then maybe they should start acting like one.
Let me put it in simple terms, if someone asks you if you are responsible and you say "no" but you are in fact responsible then you are a liar and immature. Simple concept and no real debate is even necessary on this matter in my opinion.
Quote from: Mermaid on March 27, 2016, 06:46:52 PM
This is false fundamentally.
Mermaid ... given The Pill Book and the Internet aren't suppressed ... I have to agree with you.
Finkle ... the FDA doesn't work for you, it works for the government (and the drug companies). Just like the generals work for the government (and the defense contractors). Life isn't fair, and nobody is going to arrest/lawsuit everyone every time harm, even the statistically unlikely, happens. Not even in the case of obvious harm like cigarettes. Integrity is admirable, but is only a goal, not a reality.
I can give you the perspective of a scientist who develops stuff like this. We are carefully and strictly regulated in the US by the FDA, EPA and USDA. We also have ethics and families and we get sick, too. I don't get paid to deliver unsafe and ineffective drugs.
The reality is that there is NO drug that does not have adverse side effects. Even aspirin. The best we can do is to fulfill regulatory guidelines to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs and vaccines. There are no absolutes, just statistical significance. If it doesn't hit a certain threshold, it is not approved. Believe me, don't believe me, whatever. But that's the reality.
It's a symptom of the success of modern medicine that this anti-vaccine movement has so much momentum. 100 years ago, infectious disease was the leading cause of death. That's not the case anymore thanks to the success of vaccines and medicines.
Poliomyelitis was very nearly eradicated from the map in recent decades, but an anti-vaccine movement caused people in a couple of countries in the African continent to stop getting the vaccine, and outbreaks returned. Because it doesn't have a high fatality rate doesn't mean it's not seriously bad and something we need to prevent. People say the same thing about the flu, which causes 200,000 Americans to be hospitalized every year, and causes thousands of deaths. Oh, it's just the flu. It's very easy to be cavalier.
Be happy you have the luxury to complain about vaccines and evil Pharma. That means dangerous infectious diseases aren't running rampant through our populations like they used to. I expect that will change if this trend continues though.
Quote from: Fickle on March 27, 2016, 07:10:32 PM
Do you think the upper management and lawyers of the drug companies pay out everyone a drug or vaccine has ever done harm to?. In fact they would seem to do just the opposite and deny every case until the media exposure forces them to do something. All those internal emails, the conversations behind closed doors nobody hears... what do you think they talk about?..
The fact is nobody can say something is safe when it does in fact do harm, that is called a lie by anyone's definition.
From 2006:
... It was alarmed by the number of vaccine induced polio cases (1,600 last year) that repeated doses of OPV were producing. More alarming were the 27,000 cases of polio-like paralysis in children in whom the polio virus was not cultured in the stools. The government was not willing to even enquire how many were left with residual paralysis in this group. There was also clear evidence that many who were already vaccinated, were getting polio paralysis, suggesting the vaccine was not efficacious. In the face of a bureaucracy that would not even acknowledge the problem, the IMA Sub-Committee was left with the unpleasant task of exposing this farce...
...The incidence of polio fell from 24,000 in 1988 to 4,800 in 1994, well before pulse-polio started...
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/article3232762.ece
From 2012:
Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated.
http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/110/1065
Selecting india and all the years produces a country specific table:
https://extranet.who.int/polis/public/CaseCount.aspx
Back in the pre-vaccine era, polio diagnosis was based on symptoms rather than actual testing. There is quite a bit of controversy over just how much polio was actually part of the epidemics of past and how much was misdiagnosis. The India data lends to that controversy with an +80% testing for confirmation.
Before the polio vaccine:
http://www.polioeradication.org/tabid/408/iid/138/Default.aspx
Quote from: chill98 on March 27, 2016, 02:15:37 PM
The death-to-case ratio for paralytic polio is generally 2%-5% among children and up to 15%-30% for adults (depending on age). It increases to 25%-75% with bulbar involvement.
Think about what having the data on adult deaths means for a minute.
Quote from: chill98 on March 27, 2016, 02:15:37 PM
SO to translate for you:
Of the 1% of polio cases which result in SOME TYPE of flaccid paralysis, approx 3.5% of children (age undefined) and A WIDELY VARIABLE adult fluctuation, may die.
2009 - children 11 and under - 55 million.
Why do you assume that everyone who gets polio is going to be a child? We have statistics for adult paralytic poliomyelitis because
adults got polio, too!Quote from: chill98 on March 27, 2016, 02:15:37 PM
1% of 55 million = 550,000 develop flaccid paralysis
of that 2 - 5% may die.
1% of the remaining 263 million = ~3 million
of that 15-30% = 591,000 may die
So I am within an order of magnitude.
Quote from: chill98 on March 27, 2016, 02:15:37 PM
But that isn't even the correct way to calculate the numbers. That is if EVERY child age 11 and under developed some strain of polio in the same year. But it does verify that your belief regarding MILLIONS is incorrect.
Again, why do you assume that everyone who gets polio is going to be a child under 11 years?
Again, we have those statistics because it happens.Quote from: chill98 on March 27, 2016, 02:15:37 PM
A quick search reveals in 1988 (as the global polio erradication program began) there were approx 350,000 polio cases world wide.
That's right. We're trying to eradicate polio... with vaccines... in hope that we could stop administering polio vaccines altogether, exactly like we did with smallpox.
Quote from: chill98 on March 27, 2016, 02:15:37 PM
Even with assuming that 350K was ALL paralytic, it was never MILLIONS dead in the USA as you allege (without support).
And you seem to
fail to understand what I allege. My analysis assumes that every American is unvaccinated and would get polio
sometime in their lives. It doesn't really matter when they get it, just that everyone gets it sometime. And those figures mean that approximately 1 million people now living in the US will die or suffer some serious complication from polio in their lifetimes.
Quote from: chill98 on March 27, 2016, 02:15:37 PM
As previously posted, its is not my obligation to think for you. If you find comfort in beeleeving the party doctrine, feel free to let others define what is real and what is questionable for you. The 40 minute video was too much of a bother for you, the CDC link was an interesting 5 minute read and you couldn't be bothered with that.
You know, you are the one seeming to parrot the anti-vaxxer lines. On the other hand, I see the very fact that we are eradicating polio with vaccines like we did with smallpox, and it gives me a warm feeling in my heart. When anti-vaxxers manage to make a scourge of mankind go completely extinct (smallpox) and be well on their way to make another go completely extinct (polio), then you
may have a point. Until then, :lol:.
Quote from: chill98 on March 27, 2016, 02:15:37 PM
Or you couldn't process the info due to your own inherent confirmation bias... whatever.
You first.
Quote from: chill98 on March 27, 2016, 08:12:09 PM
From 2006:
... It was alarmed by the number of vaccine induced polio cases (1,600 last year) that repeated doses of OPV were producing. More alarming were the 27,000 cases of polio-like paralysis in children in whom the polio virus was not cultured in the stools. The government was not willing to even enquire how many were left with residual paralysis in this group. There was also clear evidence that many who were already vaccinated, were getting polio paralysis, suggesting the vaccine was not efficacious. In the face of a bureaucracy that would not even acknowledge the problem, the IMA Sub-Committee was left with the unpleasant task of exposing this farce...
...The incidence of polio fell from 24,000 in 1988 to 4,800 in 1994, well before pulse-polio started...
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/article3232762.ece
From 2012:
Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated.
http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/110/1065
Selecting india and all the years produces a country specific table:
https://extranet.who.int/polis/public/CaseCount.aspx
Back in the pre-vaccine era, polio diagnosis was based on symptoms rather than actual testing. There is quite a bit of controversy over just how much polio was actually part of the epidemics of past and how much was misdiagnosis. The India data lends to that controversy with an +80% testing for confirmation.
You don't listen to facts.
Jumping in after a long hiatus and skipping everything until the last few posts of this thread, I just wanted to comment about polio, and I have no idea who I might offend, since I haven't followed this closely. I was in grade school when the first polio vaccine was invented and distributed to schools. I don't know if some kids didn't participate, but I don't recall any. After being vaccinated once, we were vaccinated again with a newer vaccine. One was in sugar cube form. The other was an injection.
Before the vaccines, Polio was not what I would call rampant, but it was not uncommon, and everyone knew kids or adults in wheel chairs or on crutches that had gotten it and were crippled by it. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. Since the vaccines, I don't see those kinds of kids with their useless skinny little legs dragging around anymore. There might be risks with vaccination, but the risks involved with getting polio were frightening. It's hard to imagine people fighting against vaccinations for polio.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on March 28, 2016, 10:47:06 PM
We have statistics for adult paralytic poliomyelitis because adults got polio, too!
1% of the remaining 263 million = ~3 million
of that 15-30% = 591,000 may die
So I am within an order of magnitude.
Again, why do you assume that everyone who gets polio is going to be a child under 11 years?
It is likely this will be the last response to you in this topic. You consistently make unsupported claims.
I did not assume, I decided to use that number for convenience. Most polio cases were in children under 8. Even with adults the information from the CDC was so vague, it is unusable. 15 - 30% of adults?? The CDC hasn't a clue is the fair translation of that particular stat. And that portion itself SHOULD lead one to ponder wtf....
Children who get polio develop a life long immunity. Adults will not get it at the levels children do for that portion. What I am trying to say is your 'within a magnitude' is incorrect.
Quote from: chill98 on March 29, 2016, 06:51:28 PMYou consistently make unsupported claims.
Pot, hello kettle! :lol:
Quote from: SGOS on March 29, 2016, 08:59:11 AMI was in grade school when the first polio vaccine was invented and distributed to schools. I don't know if some kids didn't participate, but I don't recall any. After being vaccinated once, we were vaccinated again with a newer vaccine. One was in sugar cube form. The other was an injection.
Before the vaccines, Polio was not what I would call rampant, but it was not uncommon, and everyone knew kids or adults in wheel chairs or on crutches that had gotten it and were crippled by it.
Since the vaccines, I don't see those kinds of kids with their useless skinny little legs dragging around anymore. There might be risks with vaccination, but the risks involved with getting polio were frightening. It's hard to imagine people fighting against vaccinations for polio.
First, no one is fighting against polio vaccines. Even the majority of 'anti-vaxxers' are not trying to 'ban' vaccines. The majority of them (as I understand it) are trying to bring attention to the side-effects they believe they have suffered in one measure or another.
One of my parents was a polio survivor. Nearly a year in the hospital/rehab. I grew up with polio discussions and even in that parents case (1940s) doctors at the time could only diagnose via symptoms. Doctors discussed other possible sources of that parents paralysis in legs reaching up into lower abdomen; paralysis which reversed over time.
It is true that we do not know how much of that pre-vaccine polio was actually polio.
And thats why I introduced the India information. They have tested for exactly what is and isn't polio paralysis and the numbers are frightening.
In the 1970s, I knew of 2 different people who had adverse vaccine reactions. One died, one developed paralysis-- paralysis so bad breathing had to be assisted -- and lingering effects to this day in extremities. A 3rd was a possible vaccine connection. The one who died, a 10 year old girl; the medical community of that day tried to blame 'egg allergy' in a girl who regularly ate eggs at home without adverse effect.
In the 1970s, it was freely discussed by doctors as a vaccine connection.
Quote from link below:
"The issue is, the old vaccine against whooping cough had a difficult safety profile," explained Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and a professor of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
It could cause high fevers and seizures in young children, he said -- which understandably worried parents. There were also concerns about possible, albeit rare, neurological effects, Offit added.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_157114.html
Hence the political maneuvering by the for-profit vaccine manufacturer's to exempt themselves from responsibility in the mid-eighties. Something one should consider when in fact, they recall medicines all the time when problems arise that were not discovered (or suppressed) during clinical trials.
Fickel brought up the devastating effect it is on the parents of these various kids who are possibly damaged by vaccination. Here's what I would add. If my kid gets whooping cough, or polio, or measles/mumps/ etc. insurance recognizes the disease and pays for treatment. Doctors apply medicine or physical therapy etc to help these sick kids recover.
Not so much for the kids who are harmed by vaccines. Rather the effort is to marginalize these parents.
No amount of successful doctoring, can cover up the brutal reality of for-profit medicine. On the other hand, we probably can't afford free fully patient supportive medicine, since so many people are sick or injured or have bad genes. Eventually someone somewhere has to pay for that free stuff.
Chill98
QuoteFirst, no one is fighting against polio vaccines. Even the majority of 'anti-vaxxers' are not trying to 'ban' vaccines. The majority of them (as I understand it) are trying to bring attention to the side-effects they believe they have suffered in one measure or another.
It is strange how the argument always moves towards the greater good of vaccines in general or the extreme of no vaccinations. It never touches on the individuals who were severerly effected by complications due to vaccinations or the fact there was no compensation. I am by no means against vaccinations, I am against misinformed people who refuse to even acknowledge the downside and pretend it does not exist. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absense and there are many credible studies which show evidence of harm being done. I think I have a fairly high tolerance level concerning other people however popular opinion and stupidity seem to be my weak points.
QuoteNot so much for the kids who are harmed by vaccines. Rather the effort is to marginalize these parents.
Everyones a rocket scientist until they are personally effected then not so much. Then they start pointing fingers and laying blame on others for their own ignorance asking everyone how they could let this happen?.
I thought this was an interesting article:
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/04/02/smallpox-declared-eradicated-while-still-alive-and-well-by-viera-scheibner-phd/
Fickle ... all the old disease strains are kept alive in germ warfare labs, in spite of countries saying they won't do that. China, the US and Russia are big on germ warfare ... just in case the nukes aren't sufficient.
On most issues ... Americans are Black or White ;-(
I could go through a lengthy diatribe, but then I remembered that we have real figures for polio cases/deaths. After all, this was the first mission of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (now the March of Dimes Foundation). So, here's what I was able to find:
(From http://vaccines.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=005964)
(http://vaccines.procon.org/files/1-vaccines-images/polio-cases3.JPG)
(http://vaccines.procon.org/files/1-vaccines-images/polio-deaths2.JPG)
In both graphs, we see a very stark contrast between the pre-vaccine US and the post-vaccine US. Notice that polio was creeping up prior to 1955, the date of the first polio vaccine. Then, afterward, BAM, the incidence of polio drops like a stone. Furthermore, the deaths/yr from polio does the same thing. So, yes, the polio vaccine was extremely effective. Endemic polio is extinct in this country.
Polio went from ~5,000 cases/yr (1938-ish) to ~50,000 cases/yr (1953-ish) â€" that's a ten-fold increase in 15 years, which grossly outstrips population growth. Extrapolating linearly (rough estimate, the relationship may actually be exponential), that would give us ~231,000 cases/yr in 2015. In 1952, there were ~58,000 cases of polio, and of that, there were ~3,125 deaths from all polio complications (not just paralysis). This gives us a real death rate of 5%. If everyone in the US today were infected with polio (unrealistic), then we could expect a death toll of around 16 million. (Again, this is death from all polio complications, not just paralysis.) As such, a more realistic death toll based on projected cases/yr in 2015 would be ~12,000 per year.
Now, mind, this is just amongst the people who happened to be symtomatic, which would be only about 0.07% of the US population. In the 1990's, we achieved somewhere around 80% polio immunization, and in that a five year period there were 540 reported deaths due to the polio vaccine itself (again, all vaccine complications). However, that's in a five year period, so the death toll per year is around a hundred. Around that time, the population of the US was ~250 million, so the actual death rate due to the vaccine is about one in 2 million (0.00005%).
Yes, that means that polio, which would only be symtomatic in 0.07% of the US population, would accrue 120 times the deaths that the polio vaccine would, even with near universal immunization.
The polio vaccine is safe by any reasonable definition of the word. It is effective. It made endemic polio extinct in this country, and it reduced death by 120 times. The anti-vaxxers simply don't have any leg to stand on.
Quote from: Fickle on March 30, 2016, 04:43:38 AM
Chill98
It is strange how the argument always moves towards the greater good of vaccines in general or the extreme of no vaccinations. It never touches on the individuals who were severerly effected by complications due to vaccinations or the fact there was no compensation. I am by no means against vaccinations, I am against misinformed people who refuse to even acknowledge the downside and pretend it does not exist.
No, we're not arguing that the downside "doesn't exist." We acknowledge that there can be severe complications for vaccines, up to and including death. The problem with your side is that this is about what is the smart move. What is the move that,
if followed by everyone, would result in the most favorable outcome? It turns out that universal vaccination does result in the most favorable outcome.
And yes, some people are going to be harmed by that, but
it's not really anyone's fault. There's really no way to know you are going to be allergic to a vaccine (or have any other adverse reaction) until it's given to you. We cannot know who will fall into that category until the vaccine is given. But we do know the odds, and the odds strongly favor giving the vaccines. It's like blaming Hershey's for uncovering your child's chocolate allergy with anaphylactic shock.
Companies like Merek are shielded from lawsuits because it would be bad for
everyone if those lawsuits were to even be brought to court, again because vaccines are so marginal profit-wise (you get maybe five doses of a particular vaccine in your lifetime, compared to hundreds of doses of other drugs). If sued, pharmaceuticals would simply drop vaccines from their product lines, and we'd be stuck with dwindling herd immunity and a triumphal return of the very scourges that we had on the retreat for almost a century.
"If followed by everyone" ... does that mean if one of us eats chitlins, we all have to eat chitlins?
With an infectious disease, "everyone" is a good goal, unless it can be proven harmful to a particular individual, not just because they don't like the idea. Hopefully any residual non-vaxers are free of that disease, otherwise they have to be kept isolated until they are free of it.
Quote from: Fickle on March 30, 2016, 04:43:38 AM
I thought this was an interesting article:
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/04/02/smallpox-declared-eradicated-while-still-alive-and-well-by-viera-scheibner-phd/
Thanks for the link, it was interesting.
Hakurei Reimu
QuoteNo, we're not arguing that the downside "doesn't exist." We acknowledge that there can be severe complications for vaccines, up to and including death. The problem with your side is that this is about what is the smart move. What is the move that, if followed by everyone, would result in the most favorable outcome? It turns out that universal vaccination does result in the most favorable outcome.
I understand what your saying comrade, in your opinion throwing some people under the bus is the smart move.
QuoteAnd yes, some people are going to be harmed by that, but it's not really anyone's fault. There's really no way to know you are going to be allergic to a vaccine (or have any other adverse reaction) until it's given to you. We cannot know who will fall into that category until the vaccine is given. But we do know the odds, and the odds strongly favor giving the vaccines. It's like blaming Hershey's for uncovering your child's chocolate allergy with anaphylactic shock.
Of course, nothing is ever anyone's fault and it must be god or Allah's will. Obviously I'm not even a real person but a number, an odd, a statistical aberration on some scientific chart. Again you make a very compelling argument comrade.
QuoteCompanies like Merek are shielded from lawsuits because it would be bad for everyone if those lawsuits were to even be brought to court, again because vaccines are so marginal profit-wise (you get maybe five doses of a particular vaccine in your lifetime, compared to hundreds of doses of other drugs). If sued, pharmaceuticals would simply drop vaccines from their product lines, and we'd be stuck with dwindling herd immunity and a triumphal return of the very scourges that we had on the retreat for almost a century.
So your basically saying someone seeking justice or compensation for real damage in a court of law is uhm... "bad for everyone" then?. I understand it must be hard being a communist bound to mind-numbing conformity comrade but here in the modern free world that's just not the way it is. Generally were free to reject psychopaths false ideal's under the guise of profit in our democracy because human nature is always a real bitch. You may want to try democracy...you may like it, even if it is a hard pill to swallow for some.
Scientists and academics don't like democracy. Going back to Plato. They want the dictatorship of the "brights". No, not Socrates, Plato used Socrates to wipe his ass, but Archytas the Pythagorean, that was Plato's real mentor. You have been lied to ... but when haven't you?
Quote from: Fickle on March 30, 2016, 10:56:10 PM
Hakurei Reimu
I understand what your saying comrade, in your opinion throwing some people under the bus is the smart move.
"Throwing people under the bus" implies I know who's going to be drawing the short straw and can somehow force the outcome. If I had a crystal ball that could tell me who would suffer the adverse reactions of any pharmaceutical, I would be a millionare telling people their drug/vaccine fortunes. But I don't and I can't.
I could be the one who is unlucky and has a severe reaction to the vaccine I just got. However, I know both the risk of getting the vaccine
and the risk of not getting a vaccine, and I know the perils of a largely unvaccinated population.
I'm taking
exactly the same risk that I urge everyone else to take. And I would own that choice if I suffered a negative outcome, rather than whine about how the mean vaccine companies have hurt me.
Quote from: Fickle on March 30, 2016, 10:56:10 PM
Of course, nothing is ever anyone's fault and it must be god or Allah's will. Obviously I'm not even a real person but a number, an odd, a statistical aberration on some scientific chart. Again you make a very compelling argument comrade.
The world is full of risk that cannot be entirely dispelled. It would literally take infinite time and resources to explore every avenue to make sure any given product is completely and perfectly safe.
No medical product would meet the standard you apparently want to set for vaccines. No product in general would meet that standard. Hell, no
action you may take in the real would would meet that standard.
This is what is meant by the aphorism, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." You cannot have even good products or do even good actions if you will only strive for the perfect solution. Perfect solutions don't exist, and while you are chasing after the perfect solution, you perpetually pass over quite good solutions that only ask you to shoulder little risk in comparison to the benefit they provide.
Quote from: Fickle on March 30, 2016, 10:56:10 PM
So your basically saying someone seeking justice or compensation for real damage in a court of law is uhm... "bad for everyone" then?.
No. It's simply not
justice. Period. Again, it's like blaming a chocolate company for a child's hitherto undetected allergy to chocolate. The child was simply a victim of bad fortune. People in general know that you can be allergic to
any food under the sun, but we don't live in a world where the only thing you could buy is basic nutrient mash and I don't think you would want to live in such a world either.
Doctors know that vaccines have risks. It's their responsibility to let the patient know of those risks. If the patient decides to go for it anyway, how is it the vaccine makers' fault if the patient suffers for that? It's not. It's just bad fortune. Unless you can point to a
specific defect in the vaccine (like improperly inactivated virus), then your bad outcome is simply bad fortune. If you sue because of your bad fortune, you are simply a whiny baby and not an
adult ready to take
adult risks and responsibilites.
Quote from: Fickle on March 30, 2016, 10:56:10 PM
I understand it must be hard being a communist bound to mind-numbing conformity comrade but here in the modern free world that's just not the way it is.
Yes, in the free world, you run away from your own bad outcomes that you knew could have happened but don't want to take responsibility for when they happen to you, so you whine and bawl until somebody hands you money.
Oh wait. That's not the way the free market works. In the free market, you make your own choices and take ownership of the outcome, good or bad. Isn't that right,
comrade?Quote from: Fickle on March 30, 2016, 10:56:10 PM
Generally were free to reject psychopaths false ideal's under the guise of profit in our democracy because human nature is always a real bitch. You may want to try democracy...you may like it, even if it is a hard pill to swallow for some.
Fuck your appeal to emotion bullshit. There is no justice for a company making a product that they have every reason to believe is the safest product they can deliver under the circumstances, with known risks that are clearly communicated to the customer, and then the customer sues them because they happen to be one of the unlucky few to suffer the ill risk that was clearly communicated to them.
When looking for graphs regarding polio, it is difficult to find a gov source including information for the pre-vaccine incidents. Most begin at the peak of the 50's epidemic near the introduction of the vaccines.
This img is from a UK post polio syndrome website:
(http://www.poliosurvivorsnetwork.org.uk/archive/lincolnshire/library/shneerson/images/poliomyelitisfig1.gif)
The above is included simply because it is from a website that is not questioning vaccines; an attempt to find an un-biased source of polio incidents. Just in case the website blocks hotlinking:
http://www.poliosurvivorsnetwork.org.uk/archive/lincolnshire/library/shneerson/poliomyelitis.html
Now moving towards the US version of above graph, I am relying on an anti-vax site - though I am sure they would prefer to be labeled a vaccine awareness site -- . What is clear is the UK rise in polio is aligned with the US polio cases:
(http://www.wellwithin1.com/pol_all.gif)
Again, in-case hotlinking becomes an issue:
http://www.wellwithin1.com/pol_all.htm
In the above webpage, the information on DDT is interesting. I remember these discussions in the late 60s/early 70s regarding the past polio epidemics and questions regarding how much of the paralysis was entirely disease caused. There are fair questions being asked (imo), did DDT exposure increase the chances of polio becoming deadly and/or crippling? How many of the polio cases were actually something else unrelated to the polio virus?
Is it true that only (approx) 1% of polio cases in the 50s were confirmed via lab testing? and if so, then it is true that of that one percent, only 56% of the paralytic cases revealed a polio virus relationship. Not so unbelievable when we have the current WHO database on India (with +80%) of AFP cases being tested and over 47K being confirmed as non-polio related AFP in a single year, with well over 100K since 2000.
Better living thru chemistry ;-( Yes another epidemiological elephant in the room are all the thousands of non-naturally occurring molecules we have dumped into the environment. That couldn't possible cause damage to genetics, to embryos, to growing children. Why is there diagnosis? Because symptoms can have multiple causes ... one has to Sherlock Holmes the various symptoms, to logically rule out all but one cause. And do more testing if that one cause hasn't been isolated.
First off, if DDT was really the cause of all this illness, why does the polio curve seem to lag behind the production of DDT, and lag behind the deposition of DDT derivatives in adipose tissue?
(http://www.whale.to/vaccine/env_pestpolio_adiposddt.gif)
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/west5a.html (http://www.whale.to/vaccine/west5a.html) (Anti-vax site that I'm using to discredit anti-vaxxers. I like irony.)
Seriously, this graph doesn't make sense if DDT and chemicals similar to DDT were the cause of polio. If DDT were really the cause, the peaks in DDT production should lead the polio cases, and with but one exeption, they don't. The adipose graph is even worse in that regard: here we have a significant deposit of DDT residues long after DDT was discontinued, yet polio cases drop off below earlier levels, where there is no significant accumulation of DDT residues. And it's not like cousins of DDT were not produced after DDT was banned, in which case you would see some continued toxicity after DDT was banned instead of dropping completely to near-zero after the fact.
Furthermore, I suspect your wellwithin graph to be a complete fabrication. See, the graph ahead of the polio gap (1970-1982) is spikey. Polio goes through booms and busts just like you expect an endemic disease to do with no reseviours and with strong immunity conveyed with symtomatic illness. (This is what cholera did: London did not become a ghost town after cholera hit. In fact, London was hit multiple times.) But in the case of a mass poisoning, the effects of a poison should track the amount of poison present in the subjects/environment. It does not.
It also incredible that there could be this large spike in polio-like cases in the post-polio era without there being screams of "POLIO RETURNS!" all over the US in newspapers. Especially since the polio peak was still within living memory.
Also, when checking the bibliography for your wellness source... I find no source for where this graph could have come from.
Now, this DDT residuals are probably not doing us any good, but they're not the source of polio. Period. Polio has been known since ancient times.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Polio_Egyptian_Stele.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_poliomyelitis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_poliomyelitis)
And polio followed the course of other endemic diseases that became epidemics, where they concentrated in cities (wouldn't DDT poisoning be mostly present where DDT was used most, on farms?), because that's where the people were.
Seriously. You need to do a much better job of presenting your case. The epidemiology doesn't support your case.
Hakurei Reimu
QuoteFuck your appeal to emotion bullshit. There is no justice for a company making a product that they have every reason to believe is the safest product they can deliver under the circumstances, with known risks that are clearly communicated to the customer, and then the customer sues them because they happen to be one of the unlucky few to suffer the ill risk that was clearly communicated to them.
I would disagree and obviously the known risks are not effectively communicated to the customer. They say it is perfectly safe then one week later little johnny is not himself and he will never be himself again and his parents wonder why. You see nobody told the patents this could happen, they were told it was perfectly safe and this was obviously not true.
What part of "Safe: Free from danger or injury; undamaged or unhurt" do you not understand?. Someone made a medicine which did harm, someone was damaged, and the manufacturer's belief's or intent have nothing to do with it. You cannot just say having good intentions when they did harm excuses them from all responsibility because that is absurd.
Quote from: Fickle on April 04, 2016, 05:58:35 AM
Hakurei Reimu
I would disagree and obviously the known risks are not effectively communicated to the customer. They say it is perfectly safe then one week later little johnny is not himself and he will never be himself again and his parents wonder why. You see nobody told the patents this could happen, they were told it was perfectly safe and this was obviously not true.
What part of "Safe: Free from danger or injury; undamaged or unhurt" do you not understand?. Someone made a medicine which did harm, someone was damaged, and the manufacturer's belief's or intent have nothing to do with it. You cannot just say having good intentions when they did harm excuses them from all responsibility because that is absurd.
Medicine gave up on the Hippocratic oath long ago. Check out the oath of Maimonides. A Jewish doctor doesn't promise no harm (that is unrealistic) but that he/she will improve their skills daily.
Quote from: Fickle on April 04, 2016, 05:58:35 AM
Hakurei Reimu
I would disagree and obviously the known risks are not effectively communicated to the customer. They say it is perfectly safe then one week later little johnny is not himself and he will never be himself again and his parents wonder why. You see nobody told the patents this could happen, they were told it was perfectly safe and this was obviously not true.
What part of "Safe: Free from danger or injury; undamaged or unhurt" do you not understand?. Someone made a medicine which did harm, someone was damaged, and the manufacturer's belief's or intent have nothing to do with it. You cannot just say having good intentions when they did harm excuses them from all responsibility because that is absurd.
It's the law that known risks are communicated. Labels are not randomly generated.
It is the doctor, in my experience, who fails to communicate. The pharmaceutical company is open in what they tell the doctors.
Mermaid
QuoteIt's the law that known risks are communicated. Labels are not randomly generated.
It is also U.S. and internatinal law that torture under any circumstances is inhumane and illegal however that didn't stop the U.S. from torturing illegally detained people did it?. Now if the government and corporations see no problem with blatant violations of human rights then labelling hardly seems like an issue. It's like saying that guy over there just blew that other guys brains out and took his wallet but he told me he would never do that to me... right.
In any case non-vaccinated people are the least of your worries because most bacteria and virus on the planet will be immune to all known antibiotics within 10-15 years. Vaccines are also becoming less effective due to rapid mutations and nobody has a clue what to do. Maybe you could pray, that might help otherwise your just as screwed as everyone else.
...or I could take advantage of modern medicines.
Quote from: Mermaid on April 07, 2016, 07:38:24 PM
...or I could take advantage of modern medicines.
Alas, in a battle between tactics and strategy, strategy wins, even if it is bacterial. Basically we are damned if we do and if we don't.
Quote from: Baruch on April 07, 2016, 07:46:50 PM
Alas, in a battle between tactics and strategy, strategy wins, even if it is bacterial. Basically we are damned if we do and if we don't.
Well, I don't think I agree. Infectious disease ceased to be the #1 killer of humans right around the time that vaccines and antibiotics were invented. I'll continue to benefit from them if it's all the same to you.
Quote from: Mermaid on April 07, 2016, 08:00:42 PM
Well, I don't think I agree. Infectious disease ceased to be the #1 killer of humans right around the time that vaccines and antibiotics were invented. I'll continue to benefit from them if it's all the same to you.
By all means do so. I accidentally witnessed a woman in gut pain/nausea in the waiting room today while I was passing thru to check on the status of the pharmacy (your end product). I hope she got help ;-( Her misery was horrible.
But in the long run, there is no free lunch. Human beings aren't clever enough to overcome all obstacles ... particularly the nemesis we generate on ourselves.
mermaid
Quote...or I could take advantage of modern medicines.
There are quite a few new medicines being researched and in clinical trials. However the fact remains that today if you have a major illness and antibiotics do not work there are very few if any alternatives. It is really no different than most pie in the sky technologies peddled by corporations than never make it to market. If this so called modern medicine is not available for use when we need it then obviously it is of no use to us as individuals. We will be just as dead whether the medicine actually exists or not.
Everyone's a rocket scientist until they are personally effected by something outside the norm then the true state of science and technology rears it's ugly head.
Quote from: Fickle on April 07, 2016, 11:50:47 PM
mermaid
There are quite a few new medicines being researched and in clinical trials. However the fact remains that today if you have a major illness and antibiotics do not work there are very few if any alternatives. It is really no different than most pie in the sky technologies peddled by corporations than never make it to market. If this so called modern medicine is not available for use when we need it then obviously it is of no use to us as individuals. We will be just as dead whether the medicine actually exists or not.
Everyone's a rocket scientist until they are personally effected by something outside the norm then the true state of science and technology rears it's ugly head.
You are not making any sense. But rock on.
Just saying, the person I hate most on this earth is Jenny McCarthy. She was one of the first celebs to push this movement.
I wonder how well she sleeps at night knowing she aided in killing over 9000 people since she began her campaign?
Twelve Monkeys ... there is one person on the loose with a super-bug ... if we don't find him an eliminate him and without releasing the super-bug ... then we all die. Therefore the ends justify the means.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuggl3cZD8A
Law of un-intended consequences is a bitch.
Quote from: chill98 on March 29, 2016, 06:51:28 PMYou consistently make unsupported claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COSeM2EVkDc
I hate to be the guy who just posts nothing but reactions, but what else am I supposed to say to this? In a thread filled to the brim with actual data provided by your opponents, you have the gall to say that they aren't supporting their claims when you yourself barely cite any supporting data at all? (Particularly data that contradicts your position.) Seriously, mate, get over yourself.
I think people should be allowed to not vaccinate. However, if they do, they should be forced to have to disclose that information on job applications, licenses, school applications etc. You can make your choice, but we should be bale to choose to be around you or not.
Quote from: RCnal on April 09, 2016, 10:19:13 AMI think people should be allowed to not vaccinate. However, if they do, they should be forced to have to disclose that information on job applications, licenses, school applications etc. You can make your choice, but we should be bale to choose to be around you or not.
I don't think that'd help very much. They're still spreading disease wherever they go. Disclosing that they're idiots on forms doesn't change that. Besides, a giant dunce hat would be a much better heads-up.
Maybe they should just have their own little island somewhere so that their poor decision-making skills don't adversely affect others. It'd also give the world a chance to what happens when a community completely refuses vaccination. If the antivaxxers are right, they have nothing to worry about.
Quote from: RCnal on April 09, 2016, 10:19:13 AM
I think people should be allowed to not vaccinate. However, if they do, they should be forced to have to disclose that information on job applications, licenses, school applications etc. You can make your choice, but we should be bale to choose to be around you or not.
No. There are too many people that are just too stupid/ignorant to be allowed to make those kinds of decisions for their kids. If they want to off themselves fine, but stupid people shouldn't be allowed to make stupid decisions that could affect the health of their children and others.
The same thing goes for home schooling BTW. If you want to home school your kids fine, but you must teach the same basic curriculum as public schools including so called controversial subjects like evolution and sex education. Someone's kids have a right to know even if their parent's don't like it. No fucking opting out because Gawd says so.
I wish the governments could make it so people who aren't vaccinated are limited in what they are allowed to do.
"Sure, you have the right to not vaccinate your kids. However, we have the right to not allow UN-vaccinated kids into school with other kids. Carry on!"
"Oh, you aren't vaccinated? That's totally your choice. However, we can choose to hire someone who isn't a walking bag of disease! Have a great day!".
Make life just a little tougher without vaccinations.
Quote from: RCnal on April 09, 2016, 11:30:04 AM
I wish the governments could make it so people who aren't vaccinated are limited in what they are allowed to do.
"Sure, you have the right to not vaccinate your kids. However, we have the right to not allow UN-vaccinated kids into school with other kids. Carry on!"
"Oh, you aren't vaccinated? That's totally your choice. However, we can choose to hire someone who isn't a walking bag of disease! Have a great day!".
Make life just a little tougher without vaccinations.
It is called quarantine. Not done much, even with ebola, because it is so unpopular.
Quote from: RCnal on April 09, 2016, 11:30:04 AM
I wish the governments could make it so people who aren't vaccinated are limited in what they are allowed to do.
"Sure, you have the right to not vaccinate your kids. However, we have the right to not allow UN-vaccinated kids into school with other kids. Carry on!"
Australia beat ya to it. (http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/no-childcare-or-kindergarten-unvaccinated-australian-kids)
Quote from: RCnal on April 08, 2016, 01:20:25 PM
Just saying, the person I hate most on this earth is Jenny McCarthy. She was one of the first celebs to push this movement.
I wonder how well she sleeps at night knowing she aided in killing over 9000 people since she began her campaign?
Well, you are only 32 or so; so it is likely McCarthy is your first experience with anti-vax. Personally, I had to look her up because I had no idea who you were talking about. meh, guess its just a matter of interests.
...The Anti Vaccination Society of America was founded in 1879, following a visit to America by leading British anti-vaccinationist William Tebb. Two other leagues, the New England Anti Compulsory Vaccination League (1882) and the Anti-vaccination League of New York City (1885) followed. The American anti-vaccinationists waged court battles to repeal vaccination laws in several states including California, Illinois, and Wisconsin...
In Conclusion
Although the time periods have changed, the emotions and deep-rooted beliefsâ€"whether philosophical, political, or spiritualâ€"that underlie vaccine opposition have remained relatively consistent since Edward Jenner introduced vaccination.
Last update 25 Jan 2016
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movements
Fair enough. But I can continue hating the bitch, right?
Quote from: Baruch on April 09, 2016, 12:12:29 PM
It is called quarantine. Not done much, even with ebola, because it is so unpopular.
I do remember my quarantine. I was 5-ish when I got scarlet fever. We--the family--were quarantined for a week.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 09, 2016, 07:49:13 PM
I do remember my quarantine. I was 5-ish when I got scarlet fever. We--the family--were quarantined for a week.
And well you should be. But if public intoxication is a disease, then where is the quarantine for all the alcohol users, smokers and druggies? If compulsive gambling is a disease, who will be quarantine the Indian casinos?
Quote from: RCnal on April 09, 2016, 11:30:04 AM
"Sure, you have the right to not vaccinate your kids. However, we have the right to not allow UN-vaccinated kids into school with other kids. Carry on!"
Once again parents should not have the right to make that decision for their children. Kids have rights too. Their right to have the best chance to avoid contracting nasty communicable diseases and possibly propagating them to others trumps their parent's right to make ignorant uninformed decisions on behalf of their children. A parent's rights end where their responsibility begins.
Baruch
QuoteAnd well you should be. But if public intoxication is a disease, then where is the quarantine for all the alcohol users, smokers and druggies? If compulsive gambling is a disease, who will be quarantine the Indian casinos?
The next step may be re-defining a disease or abnormal condition, is stupidity a disease of the mind?. Should we quarantine the weak minded as incapable of making rational decisions?. The problem I see is that, as you imply, once one starts pointing fingers where does one stop?. I only have ten fingers... but so many places to point them generally away from myself.
It does seem a little hypocritical, I could be a chain smoking alcoholic who likes to peddle crystal meth to kids and bugger them given the chance but if I do not get vaccinated then apparently I'm are a bad person. I'm not sure I understand the logic here, maybe it's just me.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on April 09, 2016, 08:15:32 PM
Once again parents should not have the right to make that decision for their children. Kids have rights too. Their right to have the best chance to avoid contracting nasty communicable diseases and possibly propagating them to others trumps their parent's right to make ignorant uninformed decisions on behalf of their children. A parent's rights end where their responsibility begins.
But your not talking about a kids right over-riding a parental right to make a decision for a minor. Your using the image of kids to promote what YOU think is right.
Will those children have the right to refuse the vaccine?
At what age will these children be able to give consent to the vaccine injection; as in communicate to the doctor Yes/No I want a shot.
Its not a right if you are compelled by law.
Quote from: Fickle on April 10, 2016, 12:36:39 AM
Baruch
The next step may be re-defining a disease or abnormal condition, is stupidity a disease of the mind?. Should we quarantine the weak minded as incapable of making rational decisions?. The problem I see is that, as you imply, once one starts pointing fingers where does one stop?. I only have ten fingers... but so many places to point them generally away from myself.
It does seem a little hypocritical, I could be a chain smoking alcoholic who likes to peddle crystal meth to kids and bugger them given the chance but if I do not get vaccinated then apparently I'm are a bad person. I'm not sure I understand the logic here, maybe it's just me.
That is the problem with socialist medicine ... ultimately all of your behaviors increase or decrease the costs you put on society for your behavior, and a CPA will decide that you do or don't do, to optimize his expenditure on you. This is the flip side of British Utilitarianism ... the British alternative to Socialism, is the father of Neoliberalism. Socialism per se, comes from the other side of the English Channel, particularly France.
Not accusing anyone, but disease is scary ... but some people are bacteria-phobes, they take precaution too far. One reaction to the ebola epidemic in W Africa, would have been to nuke the area, to prevent its spreading. After all, the Africans brought it on themselves.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on April 09, 2016, 11:13:47 AM
No. There are too many people that are just too stupid/ignorant to be allowed to make those kinds of decisions for their kids. If they want to off themselves fine, but stupid people shouldn't be allowed to make stupid decisions that could affect the health of their children and others.
QUOTE-
However, significant changes in B. pertussis populations have been observed after the introduction of vaccinations, suggesting a role for pathogen adaptation in the persistence and resurgence of pertussis. These changes include antigenic divergence with vaccine strains and increased production of pertussis toxin.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frits_Mooi/publication/235620025_Pertussis_resurgence_waning_immunity_and_Pathogen_Adaptation-Two_Sides_of_the_same_coin/links/0a85e52ffaccb2ec32000000.pdf
Waning immunity has been noted since at least 1996 -
Law of unintended consequences can be applied here. Viri mutation to survive, basic evolution unfolding before the educated eyes of the consensus, and an increase in the production of its toxic waste...
The pertussis vaccine was never as good as marketed. Rather, doctors did not believe people coming in with the symptoms of whooping cough had actual whooping cough because, in general, they believed it was impossible because that kid had been immunized. Misdiagnosis of chronic bronchitis was the mainstay.
The ebola outbreak was an interesting evolution unfolding before our eyes. Mutations creating new strains that kill fewer of the infected because it is not in a virus best interest to kill its host before that virus can find a new home vs pertussis "These changes include antigenic divergence with vaccine strains and increased production of pertussis toxin."
Too stupid to make such decisions? Nope, its Too Arrogant To Remember The Basics Of Evolution.
In the late 50s, approx 1% of alleged polio cases was lab tested. Of that 1% slightly more than 50% did NOT reveal a polio infection.
And I repeat myself:
From 2012:
Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP.
Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated.
http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/110/1065
Selecting india and all the years produces a country specific table:
https://extranet.who.int/polis/public/CaseCount.aspx
Back in the pre-vaccine era, polio diagnosis was based on symptoms rather than actual testing. There is quite a bit of controversy over just how much polio was actually part of the epidemics of past and how much was misdiagnosis. The India data lends to that controversy with an +80% testing for confirmation.
Have a great day!
Quote from: chill98 on April 10, 2016, 08:20:38 AM
QUOTE-
However, significant changes in B. pertussis populations have been observed after the introduction of vaccinations, suggesting a role for pathogen adaptation in the persistence and resurgence of pertussis. These changes include antigenic divergence with vaccine strains and increased production of pertussis toxin.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frits_Mooi/publication/235620025_Pertussis_resurgence_waning_immunity_and_Pathogen_Adaptation-Two_Sides_of_the_same_coin/links/0a85e52ffaccb2ec32000000.pdf
Waning immunity has been noted since at least 1996 -
Law of unintended consequences can be applied here. Viri mutation to survive, basic evolution unfolding before the educated eyes of the consensus, and an increase in the production of its toxic waste...
Pertussus toxin is not "waste." It's a specific adaptation to encourage growth.
Quote from: chill98 on April 10, 2016, 08:20:38 AM
The pertussis vaccine was never as good as marketed. Rather, doctors did not believe people coming in with the symptoms of whooping cough had actual whooping cough because, in general, they believed it was impossible because that kid had been immunized. Misdiagnosis of chronic bronchitis was the mainstay.
Where did you get this? You didn't get this from your cited paper. In fact, the authors encourage vaccination of mothers and changes to the pertussus vaccine to restore its effectiveness.
Quote from: chill98 on April 10, 2016, 08:20:38 AM
The ebola outbreak was an interesting evolution unfolding before our eyes. Mutations creating new strains that kill fewer of the infected because it is not in a virus best interest to kill its host before that virus can find a new home vs pertussis "These changes include antigenic divergence with vaccine strains and increased production of pertussis toxin."
Too stupid to make such decisions? Nope, its Too Arrogant To Remember The Basics Of Evolution.
No, this is still stupid. You advocate taking away any sort of protection short of natural immunity and gambling against uncaring nature, instead of doing something about the problem of infectious illnesses with increased survival prospects. If you really think that some (albeit imperfect) immunity to pertussus is worse than none when facing an actual infection, you
are stupid. Period.
Quote from: chill98 on April 10, 2016, 08:20:38 AM
In the late 50s, approx 1% of alleged polio cases was lab tested. Of that 1% slightly more than 50% did NOT reveal a polio infection.
Which 1% was that?
Quote from: chill98 on April 10, 2016, 08:20:38 AM
And I repeat myself:
From 2012:
Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received.
I'm interested in knowing how a developing country with poor health care in many areas can really assure that it can be "polio-free." Or how it could know that a
clinically indistinguishable case is something not caused by polio rather than just a more serious case of polio.
You know, given that clinical presentations is all you have to go by in most cases in developed countries, let alone a developing country.
Quote from: chill98 on April 10, 2016, 08:20:38 AM
Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated.
Primum-non-nocere is only violated if you know ahead of time that the odds are not in the patient's favor. This is not the case with polio. We have the figures, your DDT and SV40 bullshit notwithsanding.
Quote from: chill98 on April 10, 2016, 08:20:38 AM
http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/110/1065
Indian source. I don't know what its peer review quality is.
Quote from: chill98 on April 10, 2016, 08:20:38 AM
Selecting india and all the years produces a country specific table:
https://extranet.who.int/polis/public/CaseCount.aspx
Back in the pre-vaccine era, polio diagnosis was based on symptoms rather than actual testing. There is quite a bit of controversy over just how much polio was actually part of the epidemics of past and how much was misdiagnosis.
Again, the near total collapse of polio cases following universal immunization in the US puts lie to this, given that the exact same clinical diagnosis would be used. And the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis/March of Dimes would have been keeping track. They would be the first to screech, "Hey, this isn't working!"
Of course, India is quite firmly in the tropics. Lots of wacky and nasty diseases there, perhaps some polio-like in presentation.
Quote from: chill98 on April 10, 2016, 08:20:38 AM
The India data lends to that controversy with an +80% testing for confirmation.
Have a great day!
A developing country tested 80% of its vaccinated population to confirm that they took? Really? I call bullshit.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 12, 2016, 08:08:58 PM
Pertussus toxin is not "waste." It's a specific adaptation to encourage growth.
That's the best you can do when faced with a journal article reflecting evolutionary change in a bacteria that seems to be caused by the very immunization program - via evolution/mutation survival of the fittest - implemented to eradicate the problem?
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 12, 2016, 08:08:58 PMWhere did you get this? You didn't get this from your cited paper.
1. I didn't claim it came from the previous link.
2. How would you know? You refused to read/watch videos I posted previously.
3. Google is your friend. Figure it out for yourself.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4460821?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
The above is of particular note as the study was done on the old vaccine, rather than the newer one (dtap). The waning immunity issue was not explored for many years. Confirmation bias === over confidence in vaccine protection
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 12, 2016, 08:08:58 PM
You advocate taking away any sort of protection short of natural immunity and gambling against uncaring nature, instead of doing something about the problem of infectious illnesses with increased survival prospects.
If you really think that some (albeit imperfect) immunity to pertussus is worse than none when facing an actual infection, you are stupid. Period.
More fallacious responses.
1. No where do I advocate Taking AWAY any sort of protection YOU would choose to undergo for YOURSELF or YOUR child.
2. Informing people that the shot isn't as good as advertised
!= instead of doing something
3. Either you're immune or you're at risk. People walking around with a mild case of whooping cough, beeleeving it must be something else because --wait for it-- they HAD their shots, are not willingly risking the health of their newborn nephew/niece when they all get together at the family function.... Mothers of young children taking them in for their annual check-ups at the clinic are not willingly exposing these kids to whooping cough because -- wait for it -- they think that herd immunity is an actual function of the vaccine programs; after all, the majority (more than 95%) of the people wandering that same clinic have been immunized (depending on location).
4. Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 12, 2016, 08:08:58 PM
I'm interested in knowing how a developing country with poor health care in many areas can really assure that it can be "polio-free." Or how it could know that a clinically indistinguishable case is something not caused by polio rather than just a more serious case of polio.
1. deflection regarding whether or not india is polio free is not the issue we are discussing.
2. Of the
cases of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) TESTED to confirm polio (if you would have retained the info in the links), you would understand how WHO (world health org) obtained their numbers.
3. That's because you have never looked into the issue. As is so typical for people in general, you just parrot what you've been taught.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 12, 2016, 08:08:58 PMI don't know what its peer review quality is...
A developing country tested 80% of its vaccinated population to confirm that they took? Really? I call bullshit.
See, this is a perfect example of your inability to objectively process the information provided. You are confusing the REALITY --> India testing cases of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) to confirm whether or not it was polio vs what you
BEELEEVE YOU READ --> becomes testing 80% of its vaccinated population.
Now to speak to you in a way you are accustomed (ad hominen):
The bullshit is somewhere between your optic nerve and your brain processing/interpreting the written word.... possibly reflected within your attraction to cartoons (unreality -- you can make it up as you go) or possibly it is a psychological thing for you- a need for an absolute right - Do you struggle with multi choice questions; those kinds of questions that have more than one right answer?
Some people have "faith" in nature or medicine. Either nature tends to be supportive of human desires ... or if indifferent to humans or hostile to humans, then that is a good thing for larger ecological reasons or because humans are the enemy. In all cases, I just see human projection ... either self-love projection or self-hate projection.
(http://i.imgur.com/zGc7aP0.jpg)
Fair and balanced (like Fox News).
I don't know why this is an issue. Stuff your religion - and other beliefs - up your ass, the kid is getting vaccinated, whether you like it, whether you agree. END OF STORY. The vaccinations should be mandatory for every child, regardless of how the parents feel about it. If you resist, the child will be taken away, and you will go to prison for child abuse. END OF STORY. The only alternative would be to quarantine the bastards, and that is ridiculous. You will have your kids vaccinated, no matter how you feel about it - that is that and quite that. There is no exception, not for religion, not for political views, not for any reason. Your one option is to leave the country and not come back.
Quote from: marom1963 on April 23, 2016, 02:30:59 PM
I don't know why this is an issue. Stuff your religion - and other beliefs - up your ass, the kid is getting vaccinated, whether you like it, whether you agree. END OF STORY. The vaccinations should be mandatory for every child, regardless of how the parents feel about it. If you resist, the child will be taken away, and you will go to prison for child abuse. END OF STORY. The only alternative would be to quarantine the bastards, and that is ridiculous. You will have your kids vaccinated, no matter how you feel about it - that is that and quite that. There is no exception, not for religion, not for political views, not for any reason. Your one option is to leave the country and not come back.
Dont know where you live but for where I live, your wrong:
http://www.nvic.org/vaccine-laws/state-vaccine-requirements.aspx
You don't know why it is an issue because you have never explored it.
FFS, calm down, kiddies. That means you too, chill98
Quote from: marom1963 on April 23, 2016, 02:30:59 PM
I don't know why this is an issue. Stuff your religion - and other beliefs - up your ass, the kid is getting vaccinated, whether you like it, whether you agree. END OF STORY. The vaccinations should be mandatory for every child, regardless of how the parents feel about it. If you resist, the child will be taken away, and you will go to prison for child abuse. END OF STORY. The only alternative would be to quarantine the bastards, and that is ridiculous. You will have your kids vaccinated, no matter how you feel about it - that is that and quite that. There is no exception, not for religion, not for political views, not for any reason. Your one option is to leave the country and not come back.
Which is why I am antisocial ... sometimes. Society can stuff its rules up its ass. Misanthropy is completely justifiable ... given we are talking about monkey people.
BTW - I support mandatory vaccination in most cases. There are exceptions to every rule, only we don't get to choose them ourselves, there are professionals for that.
Quote from: Baruch on April 23, 2016, 08:59:19 PM
Which is why I am antisocial ... sometimes. Society can stuff its rules up its ass. Misanthropy is completely justifiable ... given we are talking about monkey people.
BTW - I support mandatory vaccination in most cases. There are exceptions to every rule, only we don't get to choose them ourselves, there are professionals for that.
We force people to follow building codes, fire codes, seat-belt laws, all sorts of other laws for the welfare of society. Get the little buggers vaccinated ... I'm told where I can and cannot light my pipe! Say I'm a moron who refuses to believe that smoking and second-hand smoke are bad for you, should I be allowed to light up wherever I please? Only those who believe that smoking is bad for you should have to comply w/the smoking bans in restaurants and bars and public parks?
Building codes... lol...
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-tiny-houses-return-20160421-story.html
Apples and oranges is all you have.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 11:30:45 AM
Building codes... lol...
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-tiny-houses-return-20160421-story.html
Apples and oranges is all you have.
They're both fruits.
Good question. What is the purpose of society? If we answer that, then we can decide what government is good for. My goal is humanitarian ... secular or religious.
For some people the purpose of society is to find a good dictator, that you can goose-step behind with confidence. An elected dictator, for 4-8 years, preferably with a military background as well. I don't want to decide anything for myself, I want someone to tell me what to do. Even how you build your house.
I have no ambitions to tell my neighbors what to do. I don't crave order, don't desire Plato's Republic with Guardians of the Galaxy. For other people, anarchy is anathema, they want to have a centrally planned society where everyone else is a social insect clone, with themselves as the Queen. The communists are like that, we will all have shoes, but only a left shoe, and all the same size. You must make your left foot conform comrade! The Right is just like it, only the right shoe is kosher, not the left shoe.
Good for them ... the USA is a free country, even for uptight folks ... but I reject their totalitarian policies ... I am not going to be Assimilated. I refuse to share their insecurity. If they push too hard, I would strip them of citizenship and ship them off to Australia ;-) The US has millions of laws, the first thing we need to do is cancel most of them. No law is passed for the common good, it is passed to enable a particular constituency that has given campaign contributions (bribes). Sometimes laws are passed to mess with a competitor, rather than to give oneself some unfair advantage.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 11, 2015, 04:36:14 PM
I see your "Fuck" and raise you a FUCKING HELL! (https://www.facebook.com/jennifer.hibbenwhite/posts/10155168515065632:0)
LOL! +1
Anti-Vaxers--monkeys are a superstitious breed! DDOOHH!! :banghead: I suppose that goes without saying, here!
Well I'm no AVer.................I've got a small pox vaccination from a doctor who firmly believed if one was good.........................three (no shit, the guy actually spiked me three times; each one over lapping the other---it's a freakin' huge) was a LOT better. Got the swine flu vax back in the '70s when that was a big deal one flu season. Then when I went over seas on my first project I got two multi spectrum vaxes, for like 8 or 9 things + several tabs of Cipro (in case we came down with Anthrax or something---I figured it was just safer to avoid having sex with sheep :2thumbs:-------but what do I know.) Then when I went to Iraq a few years later, the Army vaxed us for 8 or 9 things again plus one for Anthrax (Damn! What's with these Docs; everyone knows
BBAAHH!! means no!).
Quote from: chill98 on April 23, 2016, 10:52:03 AM
That's the best you can do when faced with a journal article reflecting evolutionary change in a bacteria that seems to be caused by the very immunization program - via evolution/mutation survival of the fittest - implemented to eradicate the problem?
As opposed to what? Not vaccinating? Just letting pertussus run rampant over us unchallenged? Fuck that noise.
Quote from: chill98 on April 23, 2016, 10:52:03 AM
1. I didn't claim it came from the previous link.
2. How would you know? You refused to read/watch videos I posted previously.
3. Google is your friend. Figure it out for yourself.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4460821?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
The above is of particular note as the study was done on the old vaccine, rather than the newer one (dtap). The waning immunity issue was not explored for many years. Confirmation bias === over confidence in vaccine protection
Then let's go with the new one, huh? Still not seeing your point here.
Quote from: chill98 on April 23, 2016, 10:52:03 AM
More fallacious responses.
1. No where do I advocate Taking AWAY any sort of protection YOU would choose to undergo for YOURSELF or YOUR child.
Good.
Quote from: chill98 on April 23, 2016, 10:52:03 AM
2. Informing people that the shot isn't as good as advertised
!= instead of doing something
One would think that the shot is as good as advertised, that is, the shot is advertised to be as good as it's proven to be. If it's not, then the labels need to be corrected and the advice changed. That's it.
Quote from: chill98 on April 23, 2016, 10:52:03 AM
3. Either you're immune or you're at risk. People walking around with a mild case of whooping cough, beeleeving it must be something else because --wait for it-- they HAD their shots, are not willingly risking the health of their newborn nephew/niece when they all get together at the family function.... Mothers of young children taking them in for their annual check-ups at the clinic are not willingly exposing these kids to whooping cough because -- wait for it -- they think that herd immunity is an actual function of the vaccine programs; after all, the majority (more than 95%) of the people wandering that same clinic have been immunized (depending on location).
Herd immunity is a thing. If a diseased person only encounters people who are immune to the disease, then the disease doesn't get passed on and is fucked when the diseased person finally fights off the illness. Herd immunity is the reason while major outbreaks eventually burn themselves out, and the cyclical nature of many epidemics â€" they run out of significant pockets of susceptible people to infect. This is Epidemiology 101.
Now, if you have a mild illness, of course the first thing you think is not going to be whooping cough, not because you think you're "immune to whooping cough", but because there are literally
thousands of very mild illnesses out there floating around that don't cause very much harm. If you have a mild illness, the self-diagnosis of "common cold" is going to be on your mind precisely because the common cold is very much more common than whooping cough. You'd have to get a blood test or some shit in order to find out that it's whooping cough, unless your presentation is quite obvious, but who the fuck's going to do that for every fucking illness they get?
Finally, immunity is not uniformly an all-or-nothing thing. This is because illnesses themselves are complex things, as is immunity. (Especially for bacterial infections like whooping cough â€" that's why they immunize against the poison; other regions are much more variable.) If you have partial immunity against a disease, the disease â€"if it takesâ€" will be much milder in you than if you had no preexisting immunity.
Again, the way of the world is that you choose your actions and you take your chances. You can mitigate some of your risk, but there will be some risk in any action you take. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose,
even if you make all the right descisions. Shit happens.
Quote from: chill98 on April 23, 2016, 10:52:03 AM
4. Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
I
am attacking the argument itself, you idiot. Read it again, and figure out where the implication points.
Quote from: chill98 on April 23, 2016, 10:52:03 AM
1. deflection regarding whether or not india is polio free is not the issue we are discussing.
Actually, yes, it is. If you are claiming that there are extra cases of AFP not caused by polio, you'd better have some good idea how to distinguish between NPAFP and PAFP, and it seems that the only criterion you are using is "India is polio free, yet it still has AFP."
Quote from: chill98 on April 23, 2016, 10:52:03 AM
2. Of the cases of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) TESTED to confirm polio (if you would have retained the info in the links), you would understand how WHO (world health org) obtained their numbers.
I looked, and it turns out that a case of AFP confirmation
does not depend on confirmed polio specimens. There's a route for "inadequate specimens" â€" which given the source, it would not be surprising if there are significant number of these â€" that lead to confirmation.
I'm not surprised: the 47,500 cases you claim is a
lot of people to screen for poliovirus, especially in a developing country.
And you
still haven't addressed the possibility I raised that it may be some other disease stomping around with similar presentation to polio. You know, being in the tropics and shit.
Quote from: chill98 on April 23, 2016, 10:52:03 AM
3. That's because you have never looked into the issue. As is so typical for people in general, you just parrot what you've been taught.
:lol: If you mean, "because I never looked at the issue with the nievitee of someone with no grounding at all in biology or statistics," then guilty and
fucking proud. None of the anti-vax arguments make a lick of sense.
Quote from: chill98 on April 23, 2016, 10:52:03 AM
See, this is a perfect example of your inability to objectively process the information provided. You are confusing the REALITY --> India testing cases of acute flaccid paralysis (AFP) to confirm whether or not it was polio vs what you
BEELEEVE YOU READ --> becomes testing 80% of its vaccinated population.
Isn't "BEELEEVE YOU READ" what
you are doing? You seem to have swallowed whole the anti-vaxer bullshit that you have come across. Seriously, DDT the cause of the polio epidemic? Fucksake.
Quote from: chill98 on April 23, 2016, 10:52:03 AM
Now to speak to you in a way you are accustomed (ad hominen):
The bullshit is somewhere between your optic nerve and your brain processing/interpreting the written word.... possibly reflected within your attraction to cartoons (unreality -- you can make it up as you go) or possibly it is a psychological thing for you- a need for an absolute right - Do you struggle with multi choice questions; those kinds of questions that have more than one right answer?
:lol: Some questions have more than one right answer.
This is not one of them. The anti-vaxers are either right on their biology, or they're wrong on that biology. There's no middle ground. So far, they don't have a very good track record.
Anyway, I think it's time for you to scoot along now. We both think of each other as idiots/mindless sheeple, so I don't really see the point of any further discussion.
:popcorn:
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 24, 2016, 06:08:36 PM
As opposed to what? Not vaccinating? Just letting pertussus run rampant over us unchallenged?
It was never 'rampant' prior to vaccines either. Now it is mutating to be more toxic to the host. That was the point.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 24, 2016, 06:08:36 PM
Then let's go with the new one, huh? Still not seeing your point here.
Of course you don't see the point here. Here is the simplest sentence from the abstract. Even you should be able to comprehend it:
The proportion of cases of pertussis diagnosed and reported is low even when children present with classical symptoms.
end quote from paper on mis-diagnosis.
The Whooping cough vaccine was never as good as advertised. Bias... well Indoctrination is a better term... prevented doctors from realizing cases of whooping cough were present because the individual had been immunized; this lead to many misdiagnosis of Bronchitis.
And the vaccine did kill children. I already told of the death in my school the 'system' tried to blame on an egg allergy.... a kid who ate eggs all the time...
Transcript from 1986:
http://www.nvic.org/CMSTemplates/NVIC/pdf/ACIP-May-12-1986-Transcript.pdf
Though I have know you will not read the above either. They gave vaccines protection from lawsuit for a reason. It was killing kids all over the country. They changed the vaccine formula for a reason, it was killing kids all over the country. And they banned the live polio vaccine for a reason, but its being used in india right now. And AFP is rising during the current push to get rid of polio... 10 - 40K people getting afp vs 1500 (highest numbers) getting polio...
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 24, 2016, 06:08:36 PM
Now, if you have a mild illness, of course the first thing you think is not going to be whooping cough, not because you think you're "immune to whooping cough", but because there are literally thousands of very mild illnesses out there floating around that don't cause very much harm. If you have a mild illness, the self-diagnosis of "common cold" is going to be on your mind precisely because the common cold is very much more common than whooping cough. You'd have to get a blood test or some shit in order to find out that it's whooping cough, unless your presentation is quite obvious, but who the fuck's going to do that for every fucking illness they get?
Now that was quite the circle jerk around the actual point previously being introduced; the vaccine was never as good as advertised and doctors could not bring themselves to diagnose pertussis because of their inherent bias towards vaccines - that they are effective.
nejm.org = New England Journal of Medicine:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200850#t=articleResults
quote from 2012 ~~ As of Aug. 10, there were 178 confirmed cases of pertussis in Vermont children between the ages of six months and 18 years. Of that number, 90 percent â€" or 160 kids â€" had received at least one dose of the child vaccination, while the majority had received five or six doses. According to the DOH, one child had received one or two doses, eight had received three doses, nine had received four doses, 74 had received five doses and 68 had received six doses.
http://vtdigger.org/2012/10/08/90-percent-of-whooping-cough-cases-in-vermont-among-vaccinated-children/
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 24, 2016, 06:08:36 PM
I am attacking the argument itself, you idiot. Read it again, and figure out where the implication points.
Can't get through a single post without flaming. Pissant.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 24, 2016, 06:08:36 PM
Actually, yes, it is. If you are claiming that there are extra cases of AFP not caused by polio, you'd better have some good idea how to distinguish between NPAFP and PAFP, and it seems that the only criterion you are using is "India is polio free, yet it still has AFP."
Idiot. Its not me claiming it, its data from WHO -- World Health Org. I am sure it brings you internal conflict, it goes against what you've been lead to beeleeve's. But you wouldn't know that because its OBVIOUS you won't read information that conflicts with what you WANT to Beeleeve.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 24, 2016, 06:08:36 PM
I looked, and it turns out that a case of AFP confirmation does not depend on confirmed polio specimens. There's a route for "inadequate specimens" â€" which given the source, it would not be surprising if there are significant number of these â€" that lead to confirmation.
wtf?? My WHOLE POINT was we have no idea how many of the past polio was actually polio! Of the 1% of usa alleged polio cases of the late 50s that was ACTUALLY TESTED over 50% did NOT indicate POLIO, the WHO data in INDIA, Which is testing +80% of AFP cases to ensure it is NOT POLIO is finding even HIGHER incidents of NON-POLIO Paralysis!
inadequate specimens is covered under the column titled compatibles. From the who page you claim to have read - indicating I am probably on the right path with your optic nerve/processing failures noted previously:
2: compatible cases indicate surveillance failures and should be monitored for clustering in space and time
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 24, 2016, 06:08:36 PM
I'm not surprised: the 47,500 cases you claim is a lot of people to screen for poliovirus, especially in a developing country.
Sigh.
I
w
i
l
l
t
y
p
e
s
l
o
w
e
r
Of the AFP cases, over 80% were tested for polio.
There is a polio column to represent these when the test is positive.
The far column is for the AFP cases that had a testing reliability failure now listed under compatibles.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 24, 2016, 06:08:36 PM
And you still haven't addressed the possibility I raised that it may be some other disease stomping around with similar presentation to polio.
well... handclap.... You are finally catching up to what I was saying all along!!
Yay... i guess...
[
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 24, 2016, 06:08:36 PMSeriously, DDT the cause of the polio epidemic? Fucksake.
because you are soooo slow to comprehend what is written, I will quote exactly what I said again.
Reply #123 on: April 02, 2016:
When looking for graphs regarding polio, it is difficult to find a gov source including information for the pre-vaccine incidents. Most begin at the peak of the 50's epidemic near the introduction of the vaccines....
Now moving towards the US version of above graph, I am relying on an anti-vax site - though I am sure they would prefer to be labeled a vaccine awareness site -- . What is clear is the UK rise in polio is aligned with the US polio cases:...
In the above webpage, the information on DDT is interesting. I remember these discussions in the late 60s/early 70s regarding the past polio epidemics and questions regarding how much of the paralysis was entirely disease caused. There are fair questions being asked (imo), did DDT exposure increase the chances of polio becoming deadly and/or crippling? How many of the polio cases were actually something else unrelated to the polio virus?
end repost.
Again we see your written word processing ability compromised. No where do I say DDT caused the polio epidemic.
I remember these discussions because of a parent who had paralytic polio... well... we don't know that for sure because it was the late 40s and they were not testing then... These questions were being raised across the media and via medical professionals, coinciding with the DDT ban efforts. But you wouldn't know about that would you... preferring mcnugget sized info packets, dished up by some kind of cartoon character... your power animal chakra thingy....
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
It was never 'rampant' prior to vaccines either. Now it is mutating to be more toxic to the host. That was the point.
We have different definitions of 'rampant.' 138,000 deaths a year in 1990. Do you think that this rate of death should be tollerated?
B. pertussis has evolved to be more toxic because that toxin is what facilitates its transmission. In any communicable disease (which are caused by organisms that can evolve), there is going to be a Red Queen scenario. It's always going to be a race against time, even if the race can take years, decades or centuries to play out.
Of course B. pertussis is going to try to overcome our defenses. But we shouldn't simply sit back and take it
precisely because it causes suffering and death.
Are you saying we should be smarter in our battle against pertussis and other diseases causing suffering and death? I'm on board with that, 100%. But if your argument is that we should have left well enough alone, then I am NOT with you. It's like arguing that we shouldn't rebel against the Daleks because if we do the Daleks will respond by killing more people. Fuck. That. Noise!
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
Of course you don't see the point here. Here is the simplest sentence from the abstract. Even you should be able to comprehend it:
The proportion of cases of pertussis diagnosed and reported is low even when children present with classical symptoms.
end quote from paper on mis-diagnosis.
How low is 'low', scrub? Also, if it's a misdiagnosis, what is the disease misdiagnosed
as? A bacterial infection? If so, the treatment would be with antibiotics, which is the only
additional thing you can do if you have pertussis anyway.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
The Whooping cough vaccine was never as good as advertised.
But still good. Sure, we found out that it needs boosters even into adult life, but that occurs with many illnesses, including tetanus.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
Bias... well Indoctrination is a better term... prevented doctors from realizing cases of whooping cough were present because the individual had been immunized; this lead to many misdiagnosis of Bronchitis.
Bronchitis is not a disease, but a condition that has many diseases associated with it,
including pertussis. And if you're caughing up your lungs and puking afterward (classic pertussis symptoms), they're going to consider a bacterial infection of some kind.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
And the vaccine did kill children. I already told of the death in my school the 'system' tried to blame on an egg allergy.... a kid who ate eggs all the time...
I NEVER CLAIMED IT DIDN'T.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
http://www.nvic.org/CMSTemplates/NVIC/pdf/ACIP-May-12-1986-Transcript.pdf
Though I have know you will not read the above either. They gave vaccines protection from lawsuit for a reason. It was killing kids all over the country. They changed the vaccine formula for a reason, it was killing kids all over the country.
As was pertussis, bub. And yes, they're going to try to improve the vaccine to reduce side effects. We do this
all of the time, with
every drug. It's called the march of science. We improve our knowledge, and with it, the safety and effectiveness of our tools.
Furthermore, interesting thing about whole-cell pertussis vaccine, which was thought to lead to SIDS â€" the 'link' vanished:
https://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/174/Supplement_3/S259.full.pdf
From the abstract: "Whole cell pertussis vaccines are generally highly efficacious. All whole cell vaccines are reactogenic, causing fever and local reactions in many vaccinees. In the past, these vaccines were thought to cause infant deaths and brain damage.
However, several large epidemiologic studies indicate that whole cell vaccines do not cause infant deaths or neurologic disease."
Now, how would I know that I would need a paper citing the absence of neurological illnesses and infant death if I didn't read your paper,
hmmm?Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
And they banned the live polio vaccine for a reason,
But was it a
good reason? We have many bans that don't make a lick of sense in retrospect. How's the drug war comming along?
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
but its being used in india right now. And AFP is rising during the current push to get rid of polio... 10 - 40K people getting afp vs 1500 (highest numbers) getting polio...
Again, you have
asserted that figure without addressing why that figure should be believed.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
Now that was quite the circle jerk around the actual point previously being introduced; the vaccine was never as good as advertised and doctors could not bring themselves to diagnose pertussis because of their inherent bias towards vaccines - that they are effective.
nejm.org = New England Journal of Medicine:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1200850#t=articleResults
Which just shows that pertussis has to be treated like tetanus, needing occasional boosters. And we need better vaccines. So what?
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
quote from 2012 ~~ As of Aug. 10, there were 178 confirmed cases of pertussis in Vermont children between the ages of six months and 18 years. Of that number, 90 percent â€" or 160 kids â€" had received at least one dose of the child vaccination, while the majority had received five or six doses. According to the DOH, one child had received one or two doses, eight had received three doses, nine had received four doses, 74 had received five doses and 68 had received six doses.
http://vtdigger.org/2012/10/08/90-percent-of-whooping-cough-cases-in-vermont-among-vaccinated-children/
What your cited paper gives you is the proportion of kids that had been vaccinated, given that they contracted pertussis. That is an
irrelevant figure for knowing how effective the vaccine is. What you want is the probability that you will contract pertussis, given that you are vaccinated against pertussis.
P(V|P) ≠P(P|V)
What the paper has committed is a
classic error in probability.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
Can't get through a single post without flaming. Pissant.
Oh, look at the high and mighty idiot who can't understand that the
observation that "following stupid advice makes someone an idiot" is not an ad hominem, no matter what he may believe. Sorry, chum, if you keep spouting stupidity, people are going to start thinking that you are an idiot. And they'd be right to do so.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
Idiot. Its not me claiming it, its data from WHO -- World Health Org. I am sure it brings you internal conflict, it goes against what you've been lead to beeleeve's. But you wouldn't know that because its OBVIOUS you won't read information that conflicts with what you WANT to Beeleeve.
Badly gathered data is badly gathered data, even if the WHO does it. Being published by the WHO does not make a figure reliable. It's the veracity of the data gathered and the analysis that makes a figure reliable. What you have presented is a tally. It's an interesting bit of trivia, but without some sort of context, it's worthless.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
wtf?? My WHOLE POINT was we have no idea how many of the past polio was actually polio!
As long as there is some wild polio out there in the world, it can make a comeback. The goal of world eradication is to wipe out polio as we did smallpox so that no one need be vaccinated ever again, which avoids the risk of polio
and the polio vaccine in one fell swoop.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
Of the 1% of usa alleged polio cases of the late 50s that was ACTUALLY TESTED over 50% did NOT indicate POLIO,
:histerical:
And yet somehow this NOT-POLIO experienced a near
total collapse of cases in this country
just when a vaccine specific to it started mass distribution? Do you realize how insane you sound right now?
No, of course not. If you did, you would have shut up long ago.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
the WHO data in INDIA, Which is testing +80% of AFP cases to ensure it is NOT POLIO is finding even HIGHER incidents of NON-POLIO Paralysis!
They tested 80% of the claimed 47,500? In a developing country? BULLSHIT!
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
inadequate specimens is covered under the column titled compatibles. From the who page you claim to have read - indicating I am probably on the right path with your optic nerve/processing failures noted previously:
2: compatible cases indicate surveillance failures and should be monitored for clustering in space and time Sigh.
And what do you do in the meantime? Just sit on your hands? No, you report the AFP. All the while, your "monitoring" falls by the wayside.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
Of the AFP cases, over 80% were tested for polio.
Yes, 80% of the claimed 47,500 were
claimed tested for polio. Again, I say bullshit. The WHO monitors out there are still largely going to be pulled from the rank and file Indian doctors, who are already under stress from the fact that they are practicing medicine in a developing country. Furthermore, to have a good statistical analysis, you don't need to test 80% of them. A few thousand is enough, with good bias squeezers. Why are they testing this many people? The WHO ought to know statistics as well as I. I smell a rat.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
well... handclap.... You are finally catching up to what I was saying all along!!
Yay... i guess...
Fucksake, you're a smarmy asshole. Are you saying that there was
never polio in India, or that it would be only localized? A disease as old as civilization itself, and is provably linked to growing population in cities, as is happening now in India? Yeah,
bullshit. Sure, the polio may have been masking the effects of another disease in India, but just because the new disease has been unmasked doesn't mean you don't do anything about the polio. No, you just add the new disease to the hitlist.
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
because you are soooo slow to comprehend what is written, I will quote exactly what I said again.
Reply #123 on: April 02, 2016:
When looking for graphs regarding polio, it is difficult to find a gov source including information for the pre-vaccine incidents. Most begin at the peak of the 50's epidemic near the introduction of the vaccines....
Irrelevant. My argument didn't rely on
anything that the graphs do not show. In the specific example of DDT, you lack the
specific epidemiology that would be indicative of a mass-poisoning. Furthermore, DDT itself may have been banned, but it was
replaced by chemicals that had the exact same toxicology in humans as DDT â€" banning of DDT would have done NOTHING for the polio epidemic! Finally, while DDT went away, the subcutaneous residues
stayed, some because of the fact that DDT was replaced by its chemical cousins, but mostly because the residues have a long half-life in fatty tissue.
Together with the fact that polio all but vanished in the US when a
specific vaccine against it was developed and distributed
en masse, the above puts the last nail in the coffin of any case that polio == DDT poisoning.
Yet
none of this occured to you at all. I found
every piece of relevant information in about an hour on the web, yet you had several days to do the same and didn't find this stuff. It didn't occur to you to say to yourself, "Okay, let's see if we can find a graph that maps DDT production to polio cases." It didn't occur to you to check the toxicology of DDT's relatives that replaced it. Because if you did, even if you restricted yourself to anti-vaxer sites, you would have found the same graph I did. Furthermore, if the graph showed that DDT production
led polio cases, it would indeed be
extremely interesting, and the claim of DDT poisoning harder to dismiss.
But you didn't do
any of this. You didn't do
any of this even though I was pointing out to you that, if any of what the anti-vaxers were saying was true, would reduce the entirety of medicine to a smoking ruin. It makes hash of epidemiology â€"whose first task
ever was to prove that a disease (cholera) was transmitted though the water like polio. It makes hash of the law of dosage-response. It makes hash of everything we know about the immune system. And it makes the perfect the enemy of the good, demanding vaccines be perfectly safe when
literally nothing else in medicine is.
And, no, you don't get away with that shit when you say:
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
No where do I say DDT caused the polio epidemic.
because to even
consider it a possibility is stupid. No, they are NOT fair questions to anyone with curiosity enough to even visit another anti-vaxer website. The entire anti-vax movement is a big exercise in moving the goalposts. They want to find
any reason at all to discount the efficacy of vaccines, but all of them are bad.
So why aren't
you the one finding these holes, when they are a short google search away? It's exactly because it is
you are the one who is not curious about polio or the anti-vax movement or why they are so derided. You would have found that the entire movement began with a
fake research paper by Andrew Wakefield, and spiraled out from there with increasingly outlandish and ultimately false claims, which any sane person would take as a caution to do a bit of digging on any of their claims before even entertaining the notion that they may "have a point."
Quote from: chill98 on April 24, 2016, 10:56:56 PM
I remember these discussions because of a parent who had paralytic polio... well... we don't know that for sure because it was the late 40s and they were not testing then... These questions were being raised across the media and via medical professionals, coinciding with the DDT ban efforts. But you wouldn't know about that would you... preferring mcnugget sized info packets, dished up by some kind of cartoon character... your power animal chakra thingy....
Now that IS a fallacy. My choice in avatar has nothing to do with the quality of my arguments, any more than having a bald-eagle avatar proves your a patriot.
so I popped in too say what sup? And then I………er……..ah……….never mind.. wrong er world..carry on
Remember ... doctors get credit for all the lives they save, but they don't have to think twice about the lives they took. Comes with the spandex super-suit.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PMNow that IS a fallacy. My choice in avatar has nothing to do with the quality of my arguments, any more than having a bald-eagle avatar proves your a patriot.
Cirno 9:9 - He who must insist intelligence shall bear the number of the Baka.
Quote from: Baruch on April 25, 2016, 10:16:11 PM
Remember ... doctors get credit for all the lives they save, but they don't have to think twice about the lives they took. Comes with the spandex super-suit.
Are you accusing them of murder - or of being human w/limited skills against an enemy that is more powerful and craftier than they are? If the latter, then good for them; being able to "forgive" themselves allows them to carry on, so that they can save more lives, when they do win the battles ... In my experience - and it is not inconsiderable, given that both of my parents took a long time to die from serious illnesses and I myself am mentally ill - most doctors do care a great deal about their patients. And they do suffer when their patients suffer. What more do you want from them?
Quote from: marom1963 on April 26, 2016, 04:25:51 AM
Are you accusing them of murder - or of being human w/limited skills against an enemy that is more powerful and craftier than they are? If the latter, then good for them; being able to "forgive" themselves allows them to carry on, so that they can save more lives, when they do win the battles ... In my experience - and it is not inconsiderable, given that both of my parents took a long time to die from serious illnesses and I myself am mentally ill - most doctors do care a great deal about their patients. And they do suffer when their patients suffer. What more do you want from them?
Ever read the Hammurabi Code for medical mal-practice? Manslaughter doesn't require intent. Doctors are the new high priests ... who offer you salvation. But really, all we have is the high tech version of a carney selling patent medicine off the back of a wagon ... that and a barber with really sharp knives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital-acquired_infection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_malpractice_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overmedication
Doctors over-test as well but usually those tests are not risky for the patient. And of course in the US we have advertising of medications ... which is boon for hypochondriacs. The doctor and nurse aren't always the problem, sometimes it is the patient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypochondriasis
First of all I am compelled to say Hakuei Reimu's posts are just fucking awesome! :agreenod:
Secondly; in regards to Baruch's post (above--which I agree with):
My Mom died of metastasized ovarian cancer in '81. She been complaining of stomach aches, pains, bad digestion etc for an extended period of time. She'd been in to see her/our family physician (osteopathic general practitioner) on several occasions for her condition. Anyway.............the months dragged on with Doc trial ballooning a number of "interesting medical hypothesis" (none of which were accurate) as the possible cause of her condition, as well as prescribing a number of dietary changes, OTC homeopathic remedies, and prescription digestive meds (none of which worked). Unfortunately, Mom resolutely ignored her sister's advice to "get a second opinion"! It got so bad; Doc finally relented and consulted a specialist (oncologist?) who did whatever his specialty called for, and rendered the medical opinion of "Holy fuck me, Batman; get her to surgery"!
Totally cancered ovary..............uterus all fucked up, and it had spread to some other organs as well. So Doc (with the specialist observing/assisting WTF??!!) ends up snatching a bunch of stuff out of her; sews her up and sends her home. Where she got worse over the next year, ended up in the hospital in hospice care, and died one year to the day after surgery.
Within a day or so of her death; my Dad took a call at home; it was a woman who said she had been an attending RN at Mom's surgery. She was VERY upset and told Dad she wanted us to know that when Doc had removed Mom's cancered ovary....................he'd dropped it (internal organs are pretty slippery IMO); it fell back into her abdomen, where it exploded like the rotten balloon it was. Doc, and the specialist wiped the ovarian goo off the other organs (the ones they weren't snatching out) as best they could and commenting (for the benefit of the other ER Team Members?) they thought they'd gotten it all. The woman told Dad NONE of that was reflected in the medical records. Dad told me about the phone call several years after the fact.............he was always very old school stiff upper lip.
Within the last two years I had occasion to bring the incident up with my Aunt (the second opinion one); the first time I'd ever spoken of it with her. She's a life long Christian, who attends church every week, and I've never heard her use bad language (don't worry----I made up for it for her). When I brought up Mom's death; she blew her stack, and went off on a swearing tirade about Doc, and his blowing Mom off for all those months with osteopathic theories, and Mom's obstinancy on getting a second opinion. Gotta admit...................I was shocked at the vitriol of her response. When I asked if she knew about Dad's phone call/dropped ovary tale...........she said no, and stated her recollection was Doc had simply NOT removed the second ovary, and she'd always thought he was a bleeping incompetent anyway.
Was either version of events true? Fuck if I know.
Which get's back to "But really, all we have is the high tech version of a carney selling patent medicine off the back of a wagon ... that and a barber with really sharp knives."
If it still hurts and they're blowing you off...................for God's sake.................GET A SECOND OPINION!
Quote from: Flanker1Six on April 28, 2016, 02:35:25 PMprescribing a number of dietary changes, OTC homeopathic remedies
An actual doctor prescribing homeopathic snake oil?! WTF!
Doctor's activities are called a practice, for a reason. This isn't to say they are deliberately being irresponsible, though some are. Just that depending on how serious your condition is, you shouldn't expect medical miracles, especially if you claim to be atheist.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
We have different definitions of 'rampant.' 138,000 deaths a year in 1990. Do you think that this rate of death should be tollerated?
138K deaths vs 1.75 billion people 15 years old or less 1990 = 0.008%
8/1000ths of a percent.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/01/30/global-population/
And that is assigning the total (estimated) deaths to those 15yo or younger.
Yeah, I am ok with that. No I would not describe that as rampant.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
B. pertussis has evolved to be more toxic because that toxin is what facilitates its transmission.
No it doesnt become more toxic to facilitate its transmission.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
Of course B. pertussis is going to try to overcome our defenses.
Yes, that is evolutionary. The game changer appears to be vaccination because it is NOT in the best interest of a species to wipe out its host; as we have watched ebola evolve to kill fewer and fewer of those infected.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
Also, if it's a misdiagnosis, what is the disease misdiagnosed as? A bacterial infection? If so, the treatment would be with antibiotics, which is the only additional thing you can do if you have pertussis anyway.
The whole point (which escapes you still) was we have no reliable info on how well the old vaccine worked because Doctors (via indoctrination) refused to consider the possibility vaccinated persons could get whooping cough. Now with a more investigation, the discovery that waning immunization is a fact... 50 years later....
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
Bronchitis is not a disease, but a condition that has many diseases associated with it, including pertussis. And if you're caughing up your lungs and puking afterward (classic pertussis symptoms), they're going to consider a bacterial infection of some kind.
Yet that is not what the links said. What the links said was pertussis was not considered by the professionals in 70% (or higher) cases presenting classic pertussis symptoms... and that issue stretches back to the beginning of pertussis vaccinations.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
As was pertussis, bub. And yes, they're going to try to improve the vaccine to reduce side effects. We do this all of the time, with every drug. It's called the march of science. We improve our knowledge, and with it, the safety and effectiveness of our tools.
Its not me who is refusing to consider that the vaccines have provided an unintended consequence... that being SOME kids are being devastated by the immunization program.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
From the abstract: "Whole cell pertussis vaccines are generally highly efficacious. All whole cell vaccines are reactogenic, causing fever and local reactions in many vaccinees. In the past, these vaccines were thought to cause infant deaths and brain damage. However, several large epidemiologic studies indicate that whole cell vaccines do not cause infant deaths or neurologic disease."
You did notice the underlined portion of the above was a circular reference i.e. the several large epidemiologic studies were studies by the author of this paper? ya know.. not independent.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
Badly gathered data is badly gathered data, even if the WHO does it. Being published by the WHO does not make a figure reliable. It's the veracity of the data gathered and the analysis that makes a figure reliable. What you have presented is a tally. It's an interesting bit of trivia, but without some sort of context, it's worthless.
But badly gathered data that supports what you want to believe is OK?
Quote from previously posted link:
QuoteIn his April 1986 letter to us, CDC's Director of Immunization, Dr. Hinman, acknowledges "reports in the literature of death associated with apparent shock following pertussis immunization." He also states, quote, "we do not ascribe causality for reported deaths." This leads to the conclusion that death can occur on the pages of medical journals, but not in actual babies. Your reporting system, by design, is unable to distinguish vaccine induced deaths for coincidences, so coincidence is assumed for all deaths.
So we are still left with our question: How many American children are dying each year? Is it none? Is it eight as Dr. Hinman has suggested? Or is it the four to five hundred that the Nickerson study would suggest?
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
And yet somehow this NOT-POLIO experienced a near total collapse of cases in this country just when a vaccine specific to it started mass distribution? Do you realize how insane you sound right now?
I posted the link showing polio on the decline before the vaccination was implemented. In your own graph, the decline was there, just not as complete. You may not have liked my source, but you did not provide a better source showing the polio incidence BEFORE the vaccine.
No one knows how much of what was claimed to be polio actually was polio. The limited testing done in the USA at that time revealed over 50% of the AFP did not have a polio connection.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
They tested 80% of the claimed 47,500? In a developing country? BULLSHIT!
Yes, 80% of the claimed 47,500 were claimed tested for polio. Again, I say bullshit. The WHO monitors out there are still largely going to be pulled from the rank and file Indian doctors, who are already under stress from the fact that they are practicing medicine in a developing country. Furthermore, to have a good statistical analysis, you don't need to test 80% of them. A few thousand is enough, with good bias squeezers. Why are they testing this many people? The WHO ought to know statistics as well as I. I smell a rat.
Not my problem you have a bit of confimation bias in play here. Produce better info or stfu.
Where are the historic epidemics?
http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2015/06/26/indias-victory-over-polio-has-an-unexpected-consequence/
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
Together with the fact that polio all but vanished in the US when a specific vaccine against it was developed and distributed en masse, the above puts the last nail in the coffin of any case that polio == DDT poisoning.
yeah right... AGAIN of the approx 1% of alleged polio tested in the USA during that time period, more than 50% did not show a polio connection. You keep going back to the DDT thing, when it was the only graph I could find showing polio prior to the vaccine release. If you have a better graph showing this polio crisis in the usa BEFORE the vaccine, produce it. Otherwise observe the FACT in the graph, polio was declining BEFORE vaccine introduction.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
Yet none of this occured to you at all. I found every piece of relevant information in about an hour on the web, yet you had several days to do the same and didn't find this stuff
See above. I wasnt looking for info on polio when vaccine came into use, I was looking for polio incidents PRIOR to vaccines. For a disease that has 'supposedly' plagued mankind since the time of the Egyptians, I find it puzzling that suddenly it is a crisis in the 20th century. A disease that does not hinder the majority of exposed persons -- over 90% are not negatively affected + Less than 1% suffers chronic muscle/nervous system damage.
You have not found that info yet or you would have produced it. But as is tradition for your position, you produce incomplete data and declare mission accomplished.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
And, no, you don't get away with that shit when you say:because to even consider it a possibility is stupid. No, they are NOT fair questions to anyone with curiosity enough to even visit another anti-vaxer website. The entire anti-vax movement is a big exercise in moving the goalposts. They want to find any reason at all to discount the efficacy of vaccines, but all of them are bad.
Because you remain confused, let me remind you. I was immunized and I personally took my kid in for vaccination.
Anti-vaxxer as a moniker is more of your attempts to label things with a True/False no in between. You cant have it both ways: Vaccines are safe and nothing in medicine is guaranteed. What fails to imprint on you is the effort by the general medical community to blame anything adverse on anything BUT the vaccines.
No one has said all vaccines are bad for everyone. But there are real questions about WHO vaccines are BAD for.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
You would have found that the entire movement began with a fake research paper by Andrew Wakefield...
Except this is blatantly untrue and described in a couple of previous posts/links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act
They did not inflict this legislation for no reason.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 25, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
Now that IS a fallacy. My choice in avatar has nothing to do with the quality of my arguments, any more than having a bald-eagle avatar proves your a patriot.
Delusional or not (quality of argument) It shows your lack of integrity and lack of creativity:
"Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu"
vs my avatar which is my own pic -- which you associate with a nationalistic tendency -- rather than contemplate its origin. But that doesn't surprise me, being as its not a cartoon character-- ya know, its something real and not imagined.
Yes your judgement is a bit clouded by your bias.
Chill98
QuoteAnti-vaxxer as a moniker is more of your attempts to label things with a True/False no in between. You cant have it both ways: Vaccines are safe and nothing in medicine is guaranteed. What fails to imprint on you is the effort by the general medical community to blame anything adverse on anything BUT the vaccines.
No one has said all vaccines are bad for everyone. But there are real questions about WHO vaccines are BAD for.
I think you nailed it, we know vaccines work however that is not the whole truth because in some cases they do harm. As well it is not the fact that the cases where harm is done are rare, it is that when harm is done so-called professionals misrepresent the facts to protect their vested interests.
An imbecile may be untruthful for personal gain and that is understandable however when a professional is untruthful I cannot seem to distinguish them from the imbecile hence my dilemma. It may be that they are one and the same simply having a different profession.
As always it is not what we say which defines who we are... but what we do.
Concerning the "Herd" mentality or safety in numbers, should I aspire to be a sheep or a cow?. You know the Indians used to routinely herd buffalo down a confined space leading to a cliff. The buffalo could not see the edge of the cliff until it was much too late and even if they could all those buffalo behind them were blindly pushing forward.
As well nothing great has evolved from mediocrity, the championing of the ordinary or simply following everyone else. The question is do you want to be A) the buffalo or B) the people herding them over that cliff?. I choose option C, the guy watching the stupidity unfold though a set of binoculars from a distance.
Remember, you are in safe hands with highly educated, highly paid people:
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/medical-errors-now-third-leading-cause-death-new-study-finds
My wife was a Registered Nurse and she saved many lives... from many doctors incompetence. If the crowd only knew what happens behind closed doors, if they only knew the actual reality seen by the people with their feet on the ground they would think differently. However ignorance is bliss as is blind faith, it's simply a different flavor of faith thinking that person in the scrubs has a clue what their is doing. The fact is unless a person has worked within the system then they don't have a clue about anything, it's sheer speculation by those not involved.
Though I think most medical personal mean well, that doesn't get you much. I work on the inside too, fortunately not too close to the patients. Medical admin is error prone also, and potentially fatal ... you don't have to be doing brain surgery to impact a patient.
I think most mean well however actual competence and making the right choice has little to do with being a good person. I know many awesome people of outstanding character who are incompetent at their occupation. Meaning well is not doing well in reality and matters only get worse when people try to hide their incompetence. I may not be the sharpest crayon in the box however if I make a mistake I am the first to admit it. In fact I take great pride in admitting I made a mistake which I think many find very odd. I proclaim it so everyone in the room hears so they know I am not them, I am nothing like them, so they know where I stand.
This isn't rocket science, if people are going to continually lie to hide their mistakes then they are acting like children not adults.
Quote from: Fickle on May 07, 2016, 12:44:35 AM
I think most mean well however actual competence and making the right choice has little to do with being a good person. I know many awesome people of outstanding character who are incompetent at their occupation. Meaning well is not doing well in reality and matters only get worse when people try to hide their incompetence. I may not be the sharpest crayon in the box however if I make a mistake I am the first to admit it. In fact I take great pride in admitting I made a mistake which I think many find very odd. I proclaim it so everyone in the room hears so they know I am not them, I am nothing like them, so they know where I stand.
This isn't rocket science, if people are going to continually lie to hide their mistakes then they are acting like children not adults.
Because of malpractice law, dating back to Hammurabi ... they have to hide their mistakes. That is why famously it is said "doctors bury their mistakes".
"I am nothing like them" ... so you are Vogon? Please read me your poetry ;-)
Quote"I am nothing like them" ... so you are Vogon? Please read me your poetry ;-)
Vulcan, lol.
QuoteBecause of malpractice law, dating back to Hammurabi ... they have to hide their mistakes. That is why famously it is said "doctors bury their mistakes".
I think in most occupations there are good people who mean well who work within a system which is fundamentally broken. The fact remains there would be no doctors, nurses or hospitals if every individual who made a mistake was held liable. They could not produce a profit, thus we come full circle to the notion it is not so much a profession more so a business. It should not surprise anyone that the primary mandate of every business or corporation is to generate a profit. Above all else they are required to generate a profit by any means.
So this notion that they are professionals not motivated by profit is false because the corporate mandate requires them to be motivated by profit in every case. I understand the popular opinion may be different however opinion has little to do with reality. The proof would be to go to any clinic or hospital and tell them we cannot pay and see how far that gets us... not far I think. Thus we can throw this false notion of professionalism and empathy out with the bath water.
Quote from: Fickle on May 07, 2016, 09:56:54 AM
Vulcan, lol.
I think in most occupations there are good people who mean well who work within a system which is fundamentally broken. The fact remains there would be no doctors, nurses or hospitals if every individual who made a mistake was held liable. They could not produce a profit, thus we come full circle to the notion it is not so much a profession more so a business. It should not surprise anyone that the primary mandate of every business or corporation is to generate a profit. Above all else they are required to generate a profit by any means.
So this notion that they are professionals not motivated by profit is false because the corporate mandate requires them to be motivated by profit in every case. I understand the popular opinion may be different however opinion has little to do with reality. The proof would be to go to any clinic or hospital and tell them we cannot pay and see how far that gets us... not far I think. Thus we can throw this false notion of professionalism and empathy out with the bath water.
Yes, a business ... like medicine wagon or barber. At least it isn't pet rocks!
I have a rule when arguing against cranks: Never take anything that a crank says at face value. The crank has either (a) lied, (b) distorted the data, or (c) are woefully misinterpreting it. It really doesn't matter which is the case, because if the crank had any legitimate argument about what they propose... they wouldn't be cranks.
Everything that the anti-vaxers have presented is nothing more than post-hoc rationalization of their anti-vax attitude. The spurious DDT linkage? A smokescreen to prevent you from seeing that, without it, they have no explanation of why the extinction of wild polio is very intimately linked with the introduction of polio vaccine and the universal vaccination strategy â€"a result that is replicated across the world multiple times, in places that never used DDT. The SV40 nonsense? A smokescreen designed to put fear into you that any polio vaccine you take is a deadly concoction of disease, nevermind that that was only in the early batches and since then SV40 failed to show the sort of link to the cancer they fear. It's just a constant barrage of accusations that they throw at vaccines, hoping one of them will stick. It's clearly an ideological difference they have with vaccines, not any sort of actual science.
Anti-vaxers all think they're Frances Oldham Kelsey, the woman who prevented thalidomide from being approved in the US, and thus sparing us from all those deformed babies. Anti-vaxers think that they are alerting us sheep to the dangers of a pharmaceutical industry eager to push their dangerous shit on us. The problem is that Kelsey was blocking a new drug from entering our market in lieu of independent tests about its safety. Vaccines have been around for a good century â€"the important ones for fifty years or moreâ€" and are quite thoroughly tested so their risks and rewards are pretty well established. Vaccines have earned their place as one of the important quantum leap in human health.
And yes, people are keeping watch on how well vaccination works. That's how we know that aP vaccine may be causing a problem with increased toxicity in pertussus bacteria. In fact, we may need to go back to wcP vaccine, given that it presents a more complete set of antigens for the immune system to target, thus increasing degree of immunity. But of course, it was the proto-anti-vax camp that made wcP vaccine unpopular in the first place with its spurious link to SIDS.
Seriously, these guys are poison.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 04:05:38 PMSeriously, these guys are poison cancer.
Fixed that for you.
Message brought to you by Merk and Monsanto.
Additionally, organic cultists all think they're Norman Borlaug. They think that they're the ones who are going to feed the world in a healthy way. But no matter how they push thier organic bullshit, they'll never save a billion lives like Borlaug. The reason why is simple: they are too wedded to their idiology to see that their dogma is actually far more destructive ecologically and more likely to result in mass starvation than conventional methods, including GMO's, because nothing is more destructive to the land than farming.
Isn't that right, Baruch?
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 10, 2016, 10:22:12 PM
Additionally, organic cultists all think they're Norman Borlaug. They think that they're the ones who are going to feed the world in a healthy way. But no matter how they push thier organic bullshit, they'll never save a billion lives like Borlaug. The reason why is simple: they are too wedded to their idiology to see that their dogma is actually far more destructive ecologically and more likely to result in mass starvation than conventional methods, including GMO's, because nothing is more destructive to the land than farming.
Isn't that right, Baruch?
7 billion mouths and counting to feed, and we've got morons who object to finding better ways to produce crops. They somehow think that Medieval farming will produce enough food to fill those 7 billion stomachs. Crops that need fewer pesticides and fewer fertilizers b/c they are genetically modified are exactly what is called for - are exactly what we need. GM food is necessary, no matter how anyone might feel about it. It's either that - or get serious about cutting the population. How likely is that?
It isn't about the Green Revolution ... which had its problems. It is about absolute power via IP over the food supply, all off it commercial mutated in a psycho capitalist way ... that and poisoning the planet.
Ever hear about "Ends justify the means"? In that case, kill the poor. Then you don't need to expand the acres of planting/herding. Just more neo-liberalism brought to you by Caligula. Good thing we didn't vote for the Nero supporters over on the neocon side, right?
Some people think they are superheroes ... but then there is a shortage of mental health professionals to take care of that.
Until you have a solution for feeding billions of people, I don't think you have any room to talk about what we do in the meantime to feed them.
Quote from: Baruch on May 11, 2016, 07:02:10 AM
It isn't about the Green Revolution ... which had its problems. It is about absolute power via IP over the food supply, all off it commercial mutated in a psycho capitalist way ... that an poisoning the planet. Ever hear about
Ends justify the means? In that case, kill the poor. Then you don't need to expand the acres of planting/herding. Just more neo-liberalism brought to you by Caligula. Good thing we didn't vote for the Nero supporters over on the neocon side, right?
Some people think they are superheroes ... but then there is a shortage of mental health professionals to take care of that.
It amazes me - anyone who believes that nonsense like "freedom" and "liberty" have any meaning - ever had any meaning ... The government does have the necessary power to control you. The only way to keep it from crushing you is not to present yourself as a threat to it. Believe it or not, our government is a fairly benign government. It does not press down on its people especially hard - but it could, if it wanted to, and hardly anyone would bat an eye. Face it - Americans are more like cattle than any other people on the planet. All this ranting and raving is going nowhere. In the end, the government is going to do exactly what it wants to do - and the people will cheer for it. GM foods are here to stay. GM foods, loss of privacy, eventual loss of hard currency - all of the things that people say they fear most. All will be done w/in the next few decades - and the public will swallow it. The media will put the proper spin on everything, and the public will swallow its wormwood and go back to bed and sleep like babies - just as it always has.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 11, 2016, 02:26:38 PM
Until you have a solution for feeding billions of people, I don't think you have any room to talk about what we do in the meantime to feed them.
Castrate most of the males ... problem solved ... the old fashioned way, by fathers of daughters ;-) This is especially needed with the new immigrants in Europe.
If you like slavery ... get out in the field, pick the cotton, or I will whip your ass ;-( Stop thinking you are an overseer or an owner. No apes are more equal than others.
Autocratic folk hate or ignore freedom in their ... property. Freedom is only for them ... their reward for being special. Autocrats are best thrown under the auto.
Just because there are a lot of people ... that isn't my problem. Global warming and other giant problems are not my problems. I didn't create this mess, don't expect me to clean it up. I only work small problems, like where to find food and fuel for today. I don't have to feed anyone or employ anyone, I didn't give birth to them. When I can employ them ... and I love to do so, then they have the means to feed themselves. I don't need helpless starving followers eating crumbs out of my hand to make me feel saintly.
Sorry, Malthus was right, you Green Revolution folks only made things worse. Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will be arriving shortly.
Quote from: Fickle on May 05, 2016, 09:11:49 PM
As well it is not the fact that the cases where harm is done are rare, it is that when harm is done so-called professionals misrepresent the facts to protect their vested interests.
You will probably enjoy this:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
Quote from: Baruch on May 11, 2016, 07:11:01 PM
Castrate most of the males ... problem solved ... the old fashioned way, by fathers of daughters ;-) This is especially needed with the new immigrants in Europe.
That'll work. I was gonna suggest a genetically keyed virus.....................once it's out and doing God's work; it's much less labor intensive than castrating large numbers one at a time.
I'm lazy.............................I admit it!
Vax are efficacious. Some more than others. Any one can check the stats. Just hope we don't get a really bad batch.
Most corps are BS, wow, who new.
Quote from: Harassed on May 15, 2016, 11:34:50 AM
Vax are efficacious. Some more than others. Any one can check the stats. Just hope we don't get a really bad batch.
Most corps are BS, wow, who new.
Money + People = Corruption
Revolution from the bottom, viruses are the master race. But don't look behind you, Mr Virus ... the prions might be catching up ;-)
The Chinese are working real hard on biological weapons. This has caused renewed interest in the West.