Anti-Vaxers - They are everywhere!

[Mermaid]

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

[GreatLife]

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.

[Fickle]

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.

[Baruch]

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

[Hakurei Reimu]

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."

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.

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.

[chill98]

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. 

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.

[Baruch]

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).

[AllRight]

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.

[chill98]

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.

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:

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/

[Baruch]

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.

[Mermaid]

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?

[Baruch]

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.

[facebook164]

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.

[Baruch]

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.

[Mermaid]

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?