Mandatory vaccinations vs. right to choose by canttakesky

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I was wondering what you say about the quarter to half million unvaccinated people in the US with paralysis;

What?

Quote:
and the dearth of paralyzed people after universal vaccination.

What?

If you mean the 274,000 who had been paralyzed by polio (remember, paralysis rarely is permanent in polio, so most of these people have most likely recovered and are no longer paralyzed), and the absence of polio paralysis outbreaks, I have already shared my comments. To reiterate, the quarter of a million people most likely included misdiagnosed cases, and contracted the diseases when all infectious diseases were still prevalent. As ALL these infectious diseases declined (including Coxsackie, echovirus, etc), there have been less and less people getting paralyzed by them.

There is one more thing I would like to mention, though I don't have time to reference it now. The Salk vaccine is known to CAUSE polio and turn vaccine recipients into carriers that spread the disease. As awareness of this problem increased, people took steps to resolve it, and incidence of vaccine-induced polio declined as well. This accounts for the reduction of polio incidence in a subset of polio cases.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.
--Henry David Thoreau, On Civil Disobedience

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 4:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But every paper I've read - and literally every link you provided - said that innoculation results in fewer outbreaks and/ or less severe disease.

That is what ALL papers say, no matter what the researchers might have discovered. They'll find an instance where the vaccine failed to work, and then recommend more of it because "they prevent fewer outbreaks and save lives." Or a vaccine caused injuries, and then recommend more of it "because they prevent fewer outbreaks and save lives." It's an advertising slogan, like "A choice for a new generation," or "Think outside the bun."

You can hail that slogan as fact; that's fine. I am not here to change what you think. But you know I disagree.

For me, the slogan is like an annoying advertisement they put on all the papers. I choose to look at the findings proper, and look at which conclusions can be rationally supported by the findings, subject to scientific standards. I have said that most of these papers are crap, but that doesn't mean they have no good information at all. It is like sorting through a junk yard; you look for what is scientifically defensible (supported by the DATA WITHIN THE PAPER) and ignore the rest.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom.
--Bertrand Russell, Unpopular Essays (1950), "Outline of Intellectual Rubbish"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 5:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
To reiterate, the quarter of a million people most likely included misdiagnosed cases, and contracted the diseases when all infectious diseases were still prevalent.As ALL these infectious diseases declined (including Coxsackie, echovirus, etc), there have been less and less people getting paralyzed by them.

CTS- I remember polio quite clearly because one of my relatives was a Kenney therapist for polio. Look it up. Back then, that- and the iron lung- were the only treatments available. The paralysis that you claim was a case of mass misdiagnosis was real, and it was due to an EPIDEMIC in 1955.

www.uwosh.edu/news_bureau/releases/jun03/polio.php
www.foxvalleyhistory.org/turningpoints/polio/polio-sixcases.html

Quote:
Polio was one of the most dreaded childhood diseases of the 20th Century in the United States. An epidemic in 1916 killed 6,000 people and left 27,000 more paralyzed. In the 1950's, parents refused to let their children go to movies or go swimming for fear of catching the disease.

Most of us don’t remember how terrified parents were that polio would leave their children unable to walk or force them to spend the rest of their life in an iron lung. Since polio vaccine became available in 1955 the disease has disappeared from the U.S., and may soon be gone from the rest of the world as well. The number of cases of paralytic polio in the United States has fallen from more than 20,000 in 1952 to only a few cases a year today.

Polio is still endemic in South Asia and Africa. Out of approximately 50 acquaintances from that area (people that I knew by name and met regularly) TWO were partially paralyzed from polio and suffer from post-polio syndrome. And that's the UPPER strata- those with enough money to come to the USA.

I understand your concern about vaccines, but when you make claims about epidemic diseases 'not being that bad' .... Let me put it this way: Your stronger argument is "alternative approaches", o'wise you wind up having to hand-wave smallpox, polio, pertussis, measles, and other epidemics out of existance and that just ain't gonna fly.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 6:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The paralysis that you claim was a case of mass misdiagnosis was real, and it was due to an EPIDEMIC in 1955.

And no one ever said the paralysis wasn't REAL. The question is, was the paralysis (and the various outbreaks) caused by the poliovirus, or Coxsackie, or echovirus, or any number of enteroviruses that present similar symptoms?

If you don't like asking these types of questions, that is fine. Not asking you to. Some of us do like to question this "faith" in vaccines and come to our own conclusions. And should we arrive at a conclusion different from yours, we want the right and freedom to act on OUR own convictions on OUR own bodies and those of the children we care for.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
There is more hunger for love and appreciation in this world than for bread.
--Mother Teresa

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 6:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS:

Quote:
It is widely documented that people often still get the disease for which they were vaccinated, but either do not show any symptoms, or show milder symptoms than normal. This impacts the vaccine debate in two ways:

(1) Subclinical disease usually does not get diagnosed. This decreases the true incidence of the disease and exaggerates the effectiveness of the vaccine.

(2) Persons with subclinical disease often spread the disease to others unknowingly. In contrast, unvaccinated persons with full-blown symptoms are easy targets for blame. This can make unvaccinated persons look completely responsible for transmission when vaccinated persons are silently infecting others.

So basically what you're saying is that in a fully vaccinated population disease outbreaks are generally MILDER or even INVISIBLE with the exception of a a few. In other words- the vaccine is DOING ITS JOB by boosting circulating antibodies ahead of time and lessening the course of the disease... to the point of making it invisible. So instead of a deadly epidemic, you have an annoying one.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 6:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS- So the polio epidemic wasn't polio? It was several viruses that just "happened" to occur at the same time, and that the deaths and paralyses were due to a confluence of diseases with symptoms "similar" to polio?

Right. And the smallpox epidemics weren't really smallpox, and measles epidemics weren't really measles, pertussis wasn't really pertussis, diptheria was just another masquerading disease?

I'm with Rue on this one. You have SOMETHING against vaccines. So much so that you would prefer a full-blown infection - with all of it's toxins and serious side effects (including death)- instead of being exposed to killed bacteria or viruses, cell fragments, polysaccharides, etc.

So what is it about vaccines that "bug" you (so to speak) so much? Is it mercury? The fact that they're bunched up? Given early? The media that they're grown on? The potential for "tag-along" viruses? The fact that big pharmas control their production? None of the above? All of the above? Something else?

--------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 6:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

It's not that you disagree, it's that you will to not see a mountain of facts. "There is none so blind as those who will not see", or, you can see anything if you use the right filters.

You're arguing invalid points. You're trying to show that 1) no vaccine works well, if at all and 2) vaccination risk is just as high, if not higher, than the disease. This puts you clearly in the anti-vaccination camp despite your protestations. And you're distorting your perception of reality in order to justify a pre-conceived conclusion - that since the choice between vaccination and disease is a wash, you get your "free" - and guilt free - choice. Your whole argument is geared to making YOU feel blameless for anything bad that might happen.

By memory, you've argued against rabies vaccines, polio vaccines, smallpox vaccines, measles vaccines, and pertussis vaccines. If I looked I'd probably find more. In other words - you are anti-vaccination. Period.

Getting back to polio, yes some people are paralyzed by other viruses. But surveillance indicates a very low rate of non-polio AFP. "an expected annual background incidence of approximately one case of AFP per 100,000 in the population < 15 years old in the absence of wild poliovirus transmission". http://cat.inist.fr/? aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2579276 Finally, polio peaked in the US in 1951, 1954, and 1956, and didn't drop until after the introduction of polio vaccines. http://www.healthsentinel.com/graphs.php?id=51&event=graphs_print_list
_item Now, you may claim that this is due to relabelling of paralysis, but the fact is there was very little non-polio paralysis. (see above)

You don't bring numbers to prove your case that non-polio paralysis is and was a major fact, or that non-polio paralysis conveniently disappears with polio vaccination historically or concurrently, or that contemporary polio vaccination should not be a major public health measure to prevent paralysis around the globe - because you can't. You keep reciting the same tired mantras over and over to make yourself feel good about your decisions. Good luck with that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 8:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If you have a pointed question that hasn't been covered, I will gladly answer. But I don't see a point in back-and-forth bickering, do you?

Not really, and I didn't start any back and forth bickering, I was attacked and responded in kind. What position do you think I hold that won't change? All I've been so far is pigeon-holed by Frem as some sort of jack booted Nazi-Lemming for daring, DARING to say perhaps people should take responsibility for their choices.

Which was my assertion. If you make the choice to go without vaccination, you should pay for your treatment if you fall ill. Why should other people foot the bill for your treatment if your contraction of the disease was caused by your actions? If of course you caught the disease despite being vaccinated you took all required precautions, and so the bill for your treatment should be undertaken by either your medical insurer or health authority, perhaps with the possibility of recouping the cost from the manufacturer of the vaccination depending on the situation.

If you make the choice to vaccinate your child and that vaccination turns out to cause Autism then you can sue the manufacturer of that vaccination not only for the cost of your child's care, but also damages. The company would have to foot the bill for negative side effects resulting from their own actions and choices. Similarly why should someone who chooses not to vaccinate not be held responsible for the negative impact if any of their choice?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 11:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
to the point of making it invisible. So instead of a deadly epidemic, you have an annoying one.

Yes, it appears so. And hooray for that benefit. However, the point is this: in these situations, while vaccines appear to protect against symptoms, they do not appear to protect against infection or infectiousness. All these people with subclinical disease are silent carriers who are not taking any "civic duty" precautions (speaking of typhoid Mary...).

So why should unvaccinated children be prevented from attending school when it is entirely allowable for vaccinated schoolchildren to spread the disease around in blissful ignorance? Why are unvaccinated children singled out as public health threats and and blamed for standing in the way of eradication, when vaccines are not even preventing infection and transmission?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
When a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.
--Henry David Thoreau, On Civil Disobedience

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If you make the choice to vaccinate your child and that vaccination turns out to cause Autism then you can sue the manufacturer of that vaccination not only for the cost of your child's care, but also damages. The company would have to foot the bill for negative side effects resulting from their own actions and choices.

But you can't. Pharmaceutical companies are legally immune from liability in the United States. People who suffer from adverse reactions have to apply to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program and be denied first by them, before being allowed to sue. And then it is still extremely difficult to sue. This program was created to keep vaccine manufacturers from going out of business because of the burden of lawsuits.

Here's the kicker. The government holds up cases for years and years before actually denying them. Long enough for lawyers to get fed up and drop the case. I watched a Subcommittee hearing on the compensation program once. Here is one of the testimonies presented.

A father takes her 5 year old to get her shots before starting school. Pediatrician says the shots might make her sleepy. Sure enough, she fell asleep in the car on the way home. Expecting this, the dad wasn't worried. The kid never woke up, and died 4 hours later.

If that wasn't horrendous enough, the NVICP denies this case for 10 years before awarding the parent some measly amount of money. Now you have death here, not just autism, occuring FOUR freaking hours after the vaccination, and authorities still insisted it wasn't the vaccine that killed her. How likely is it for a child who developed autism weeks after a vaccination to get awarded any kind of compensation?

No, most vaccine injuries do not get reported, let alone compensated. You get the unlucky shot out of that Russian Roulette, you pay for it. I have not heard of a successful lawsuit against a pharm giant since the establishment of the NVICP in 1986. Those corporations can't be touched--not when it comes to vaccines. So how many lawyers do you think actually devote any expertise to this field?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day.
--Henry David Thoreau, On Civil Disobedience

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 11:32 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
All I've been so far is pigeon-holed by Frem as some sort of jack booted Nazi-Lemming for daring, DARING to say perhaps people should take responsibility for their choices.

No, You got lambasted for saying that people should NOT have a choice.
You know, that little word... "Mandatory" ?
I'm all about choices and responsibility, it's when folks wanna take that choice away and STILL stick me with the responsibility and fallout that I get pissed.

Quote:
If you make the choice to vaccinate your child and that vaccination turns out to cause Autism then you can sue the manufacturer of that vaccination not only for the cost of your child's care, but also damages.

No, you cannot, therein lies the problem.
Big Pharma, with the collusion of our lawmakers, keeps sliding provisions into other bills to PREVENT exactly this.
(Google: Eli Lilly Protection Act)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Homeland_and_Lilly_Prot
ection_Act
Which was, thankfully, repealed.

And this is only one of a couple that have been slipped in here and there at the bottom of other bills, in essence to deny that recourse.
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1999/aug99/99-08-25.html

If someone makes a choice, and it *IS* a choice, financial and other responsibility falls to them, no one is saying otherwise, but what is being pushed here - is the idea that people should NOT have a choice, and when that decision is forced upon them, should ALSO not have one whit of recourse if the results of that decision are harmful.

So in essence I take pretty severe issue at the idea that some folk would like to legally mandate Big Pharma forcing possibly dangerous vaccinations on people, and on top of that be absolved of all responsibility for damages if/when harm comes to those it is forced upon.

Am I the only one who sees red flags all over that particular assessment of the situation, given the past and present behavior of the principals involved ?

-Frem

Also: Interesting Article Linkage
http://www.westonaprice.org/children/vaccinations.html
Very plain english, very thought provoking, regardless of stance.
Also some data about the SV40 Fiasco involving oral polio vacc

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 11:59 AM

I use the one-third approach:
One third of the peeps I come in contact with are idiots.
One third of the doctors I have had dealings with are idiots.
So, in general, I figure one third of the vaccines out there are unsafe and/or unnecessary.

Not too scientific, I admit. And distinguishing the good 2/3 from the bad 1/3 is the hard and highly debateable part.

On a personel level, paid medical advice says I should have swollen knees, non-working hips, fused cervical bones, and a general inability to walk well.
But I climb mountains and do Kung-Fu...
Forgive me if I don't have a whole lotta faith in 'scientific' method

.

Un-limited Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

So in essence I take pretty severe issue at the idea that some folk would like to legally mandate Big Pharma forcing possibly dangerous vaccinations on people, and on top of that be absolved of all responsibility for damages if/when harm comes to those it is forced upon.

Am I the only one who sees red flags all over that particular assessment of the situation, given the past and present behavior of the principals involved ?

Nope.

Rabble-rouser Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
No, You got lambasted for saying that people should NOT have a choice.

Like I said, you didn't read my post, because you don't care what I had to say (as you yourself have admitted) so you just responded without reading it. Something evident by the fact you are under the dellusion that I used the word mandatory, I'm fairly sure that word appears for the first time written by me in this post. You lambasted me because you decided what you wanted me to say and how you wanted to respond, the fact that that had little to do with reality is your problem not mine.

Quote:
No, you cannot, therein lies the problem.
Big Pharma, with the collusion of our lawmakers, keeps sliding provisions into other bills to PREVENT exactly this.

Both you and CTS make the same assertion, so I'll answer it here:
Just because your system doesn't work doesn't mean no system works. Nor does it mean that by extension vaccinations are wrong.

Just because your government is more interested in protecting big buisness than ordinary citizens doesn't mean that is always how it works nor that all governments are like that.

Quote:
If someone makes a choice, and it *IS* a choice, financial and other responsibility falls to them, no one is saying otherwise, but what is being pushed here - is the idea that people should NOT have a choice, and when that decision is forced upon them, should ALSO not have one whit of recourse if the results of that decision are harmful.

Then talk to the people pushing that view. Don't spit in my face for other peoples views.

Maybe you can quote the posts here where I said you should be tied to a table and injected with whatever the man sees fit?

Quote:
and on top of that be absolved of all responsibility for damages if/when harm comes to those it is forced upon.

Where does anyone say this?

Quote:
Am I the only one who sees red flags all over that particular assessment of the situation, given the past and present behavior of the principals involved ?

Yes, the red flag that you are so disinterested in what anyone else has to say you haven't read any of it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So what is it about vaccines that "bug" you (so to speak) so much? Is it mercury? The fact that they're bunched up? Given early? The media that they're grown on? The potential for "tag-along" viruses? The fact that big pharmas control their production? None of the above? All of the above? Something else?

All of the above and more, and personal experience.

There is a position that can be defended by scientific standards, and then there is my personal opinion.

I go to a restaurant and come out vomiting. I go there the next week and come out vomiting. Now by scientific standards, I cannot prove by that correlation alone, that the restaurant food is the cause of my vomiting. But I can hold a personal opinion that something's not right with that restaurant, and I don't want to eat there again.

There is no good research that conclusively proves, by scientific standards, that vaccines are highly effective or highly safe for the vast majority of recipients. That is a position I can defend as a scientist. I have not said anything AGAINST vaccines, but have only raised questions about vaccine dogma. And yet questions themselves are seen as anti-vaccine.

I used to hang with a Christian fundamentalist group. Then I started asking questions challenging dogma. QUESTIONS, mind you. These questions were so threatening to them that they excommunicated me for heresy. I did not know questions could be heretical.

In the 20 years since, I have come across this type of reaction only once more: when I started participating in vaccine choice activism in my real life. I raise questions challenging dogma, which are automatically perceived as anti-vaccine. Vaccine heresy, if you will.

My husband and I suffered injuries shortly following vaccinations. I suffered the most I had ever endured in my life. We can't prove the vaccines did it, and we never reported it. All we want is to not eat at that restaurant anymore, and not take chances with our children having to suffer what we suffered.

And yet that choice is seen as anti-restaurant. A true anti-restaurant position would be trying to shut it down so NO ONE can eat there. We aren't doing that, trying to force our opinions on anyone else. You like the restaurant, YOU have fun there. Allow us the same freedom to eat where we like.

It's about boundaries, boundaries between your body and mine. People want to have control over my body under the argument that my body threatens their bodies. It is a pretext to blur and cross boundaries. I am vehemently anti-boundary crossing. I don't much care if you think I am stupid or ignorant or selfish, as long as you leave my body (and the bodies of my kids) alone. You just can't own other people, or even a part of other people. It's the principle of the thing. That is why, though I am personally anti-abortion, I am politically pro-choice. You leave people's bodies alone.

If I were anti-vaccine, I'd be telling people not to vaccinate. I would tell people vaccines are completely ineffective and completely dangerous. A number of my anti-vaccine friends give me grief for not supporting that position. But I find that position just as scientifically indefensible as one that says vaccines are highly effective and highly safe. I have to call it as I see it. Vaccination is a complex, multifactorial issue that is far from black-and-white.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
The strongest principle of growth lies in human choice.
--George Eliot (1819 - 1880)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 12:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Forgive me if I don't have a whole lotta faith in 'scientific' method.

Just so you know, the failures of medical advice have nothing to do with science. It has to do with power and money and tradition.

Besides, science is not a good match for medicine or healing. Science takes eons to come to a conclusion, and then it is time for a new paradigm. Patients can't wait that long, so doctors make things up and call it science (gives consumers confidence). But it really isn't science, and shouldn't be. Healing should be an art and discipline, based on clinical experience and compassion.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
At first there was nothing. Then God said 'Let there be light!' Then there was still nothing. But you could see it.
--Source unknown

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Healing should be an art and discipline, based on clinical experience and compassion.

Yup.

And Vulcan mysticism

-just kiddin'-Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You're trying to show that 1) no vaccine works well, if at all and 2) vaccination risk is just as high, if not higher, than the disease.

All I have shown is reasonable doubt about the veracity of the vaccine mantra: The benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.

Here's MY mantra. Read my lips. Vaccination is a complex, multifactorial issue that is not black-and-white.

Quote:
Your whole argument is geared to making YOU feel blameless for anything bad that might happen.

Are your arguments against religion designed to make you feel blameless for not believing in God, in case you go to hell?

Quote:
In other words - you are anti-vaccination. Period.

If I were anti-vaccination, I would not be arguing for prochoice including the choice to vaccinate. I would be arguing for the end to all vaccines, including your right to have one. Do anti-abortionists encourage you to make your own choice to abort or not?

Quote:
But surveillance indicates a very low rate of non-polio AFP. ...but the fact is there was very little non-polio paralysis.

Yes, I have already addressed the point that there IS very little AFP in recent decades. Do we know how much non-polio AFP existed from 1948 - 1957? No, because until 1955, they were sort of all lumped together.

Quote:
because you can't.

That's right. I can't. Because no one knows. That's my point. We don't have enough information to judge EXACTLY how effective the polio vaccine is because the few facts we have are confounded by all sorts of factors. As I keep saying, vaccination is a complex, multifactorial issue that is not black-and-white. Om.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
--Bertrand Russell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 1:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
However... while vaccines appear to protect against symptoms, they do not appear to protect against infection or infectiousness. All these people with subclinical disease are silent carriers who are not taking any "civic duty" precautions (speaking of typhoid Mary...).

There are some vaccines- pertussis for example- that wane with time, so it's possible to catch in infection while your antibodies are on the way down... enough to prevent significant symptoms, but not enough to prevent infection or infectiousness. But there are OTHER vaccines that seem to confer nearly 100% protection for life- the polio vaccine, for example. What I gather is that this is vaccine-by-vaccine basis.

AFA being quarantined- it is always a good idea to quarantine people during an epidemic. For decades that was the ONLY method of controlling epidemics... and it wasn't especially effective in the pandemic of 1917-17 or the various polio outbreaks for example. But if your kid is not vaccinated, it seems that you should be ESPECIALLY careful to keep them isolated, because while MOST people have SOME level of protection, your children have none.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 1:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If that wasn't horrendous enough, the NVICP denies this case for 10 years before awarding the parent some measly amount of money. Now you have death here, not just autism, occuring FOUR freaking hours after the vaccination, and authorities still insisted it wasn't the vaccine that killed her. How likely is it for a child who developed autism weeks after a vaccination to get awarded any kind of compensation?

Or maybe the child always had Autism and it wasn't diagnosed until four weeks after the vaccination?

There are well defined and proven scientific proofs that support vaccinations work. Vaccinations have been around for hundreds of years, and inoculations for thousands, you don't get to say there's no proof they work just because you don't like them.

Quote:
No, most vaccine injuries do not get reported, let alone compensated. You get the unlucky shot out of that Russian Roulette, you pay for it.

And this leads on to a second point. At the same time you say with certainty Vaccinations don't work (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary) you say Vaccinations DO cause injuries, with no firm evidence to back that up.

It is Post Hoc analysis to say vaccinations cause Autism, because all there is to support that position currently is that a few peoples children were diagnosed with Autism after getting vaccinated. By comparison saying "vaccinations protect you from disease" is not a post hoc analysis as you assert earlier. The evidence isn't merely, vaccinations followed by less disease, there's much more evidence than that backed up with well defined mechanisms for how they work. I can only suggest forgetting the "vaccinations don't work" line because you really are wrong and all your going to end up doing is destroying any other perhaps more correct arguments you may have by sticking to it.

Quote:
I have not heard of a successful lawsuit against a pharm giant since the establishment of the NVICP in 1986. Those corporations can't be touched--not when it comes to vaccines. So how many lawyers do you think actually devote any expertise to this field?

Then you need to sort your system out. On one side you have people suing because they ate themselves into obesity, and on the other no recourse thus no responsibility on the part of big pharmaceuticals. I mean what sort of system is that?

The fact is Vaccinations do work, and any ill effects are by far less likely than the dangers of the disease. To use the Russian Roulette analogy, in your vaccination gun you may have one bullet in the chamber, but for no vaccination you have five. It seems fairly irrational to me to then assume the best recourse is to take the gun with five bullets, though that is not to say there shouldn't be a choice, just that trying to make the case that vaccinations don't work is baseless, a sure looser and just going to harm any other point you may have.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 1:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There is no good research that conclusively proves, by scientific standards, that vaccines are highly effective or highly safe for the vast majority of recipients

followed shortly by...
Quote:
If I were anti-vaccine, I'd be telling people not to vaccinate. I would tell people vaccines are completely ineffective and completely dangerous
It's hard to tell one postion from the other, the way you phrase it.

Quote:
My husband and I suffered injuries shortly following vaccinations. I suffered the most I had ever endured in my life.

So if you don't mind me asking... what was the vaccine? What kind of reaction? Was it the same for both of you?

There are a couple of valid points in this thread. One of them is that the pharmas are overly protected. I know of a child (mentioned before) who seized after his first shot. The ped blew it off, the mom (who has spent the last four years kicking herself) had her son given the remaining vaccines, which both caused IMMEDIATE neuro reactions (seizures etc) and left the kid permanently brain-damaged from vaccine encephalopathy. The ped wanted to cover his *ss and wouldn't testify on behalf of child, the parents had to move heaven and earth just to get the courts to rule that it WAS vaccine damage. I don't how one can sort out the anomalous reactors ahead of time- it seems this would warrant a lot of research but only if the pharma's feet are held to the fire.

The second is that serious negative reactions CAN occur after vaccination, and are prolly under-reported.But IMHO the statistical risk of serious negative reactions is far higher from the disease itself. I can point to our daughter, who caught chicken pox, which precipiated an hour-long tonic clonic seizure. Her seizure frequency doubled after that. If there had been a chicken pox vaccine available, I think that would have been safer.

AFA autism- the causes of autism have yet to be sorted out. But there is strong evidence that a large proportion of autism is something children are born with. Preserved neonatal blood samples were tested years later for eight peptides thought to affect neural development. The samples were from children who had been dx with autism, cerebral palsy, Down Syndrome and a control set. The children with autism, CP w/ MR, and DS had far higher concentrations of four peptides in their blood- especially vasoactive intestinal peptide- than others. Sicne the blood samples were tkane right after birth (California's requirements) - before vaccinations- this was obviously not caused by vaccine damage. There are other clues that this is a hetitable condition: an identical twin of an autistic child has a 9/10 chance of also having autism.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 1:44 PM

KANEMAN

I would never get a flu vac(if I was old or it was a strain like the pandemic, yes). It is there for the drug companies to make money. To not take a vaccine for a disease that can kill or harm is idiotic. I mean, come on people, we have posters saying the only reason they were not vaccinated is because their mother was a pagen.......What?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 3:24 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Somehow you just ain't gettin it, Cit.

Read the title of this thread, and the first (patronizing, sarcastic) sentence of your initial post.

Never said I didn't much care what you, or anyone, had to say - I said I had little interest in what your opinions are, as they're yer own bizness.

Quote:
Both you and CTS make the same assertion, so I'll answer it here:
Just because your system doesn't work doesn't mean no system works. Nor does it mean that by extension vaccinations are wrong.

Quit handing out strawmen.

We questioned the integrity of the system, something that SHOULD be done - and you went on to make blanket, all-inclusory statements that were in essence NOT true because your own countries laws and regs are somewhat different from ours.

Which got quickly pointed out, obviously.

The strawman argument that either me, or CTS is 100% anti-vacc, or (in my case) even thinks a majority of vaccines are dangerous and unsafe is complete bunk.

My argument is that the person in question should have informed consent and the option to refuse if they feel the risks outweigh the benefits, on their own responsibility without any additional consequence beyond their own responsibility for themself
- something you addressed with scorn and mockery in your initial post.

You were then addressed in kind.

Quote:
Just because your government is more interested in protecting big buisness than ordinary citizens doesn't mean that is always how it works nor that all governments are like that.

Yeah, but I LIVE here, that means I gotta deal with the realities in front of me.
One of those is that particular collusion, which directly impacts the safety and quality of medicine in THIS country, and thus affects my decisions and choices.

Nice backpedal btw, but take your own posts and read them sequentially, and have a look at how you're coming across, why don't you ?
You're not exactly supportive of an informed, responsible choice, and in fact hostile, patronizing and sarcastic towards the idea, which makes your position pretty clear, doesn't it.
You also expressed a desire for other, ridiculous levels of consequence other than personal responsibility for those who dare to actually make an informed choice.

And you might wanna go back and re-read some of the stuff you dismissed without a glance (as I stated would happen when I dug it up) before you go accusing folk of the same flaw, and/or not having evidence to support a conclusion.

There's evidence, and whether or not it is sufficient to make blanket statements, it *IS* sufficient to encourage a certain skepticism when combined with the actions of Big Pharma upon those discoveries.

Just because you chose to dismiss it out of hand without so much as a glance, doesn't make it not exist, your own zealotry against any skepticism is every bit as ridiculous, in all honesty.

All I want is the surety that any vaccine offered to me is as safe as possible, has benefits that outweigh the risks, and has been thoroughly vetted by people who do NOT have a financial or political interest in the outcome.

And if any of those qualifications are suspect, with sufficient evidence to cause my skepticism, the right to refuse such vaccine and/or seek alternatives that do meet those qualifications.

You can ridicule that position all you like, but when the idea of making that decision for me rears it's ugly head, I've got my own set of jackboots for that occasion, clang, clang, clang.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 5:32 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

I don't care how you classify yourself.

You make completely bogus statements like:

exemptors do not threaten herd immunity
the literature on vaccination effectiveness and safety meets the standards of most experts but not mine
rabies vaccines do not prevent rabies
Those people who refuse vaccines (you ??) do so because they have serious doubts about effectiveness (confers immunity) and safety (doesn't confer anything else).
The Nuremberg Code
people are unnecessarily injured and killed every year
childhood diseases disappeared on their own
How likely is it for contagious diseases to become deadly with current nutritional and treatment options?
eradication is a myth
if you are looking for anti-vaccination arguments, you're not going to get any from me
polio vaccines have not been successful in eradicating polio
There has been no good scientific research on vaccines
Studies showing that vaccines produce "immunity" in the "vast majority" have been challenged as methodologically flawed.
no studies prove vaccines are either effective or safe in the "vast majority" of recipients
I have read dozens of original published research BUT disagree with their conclusions
Give me a study that you believe is conclusive proof of effectiveness and I'll tell you what is wrong with that conclusion.
vaccines are worse than full blown disease
pertussis was not dangerous at all
correlation is not causation
there is reasonable doubt the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks
We don't have enough information to judge EXACTLY how effective the polio vaccine is

Point in fact, you don't give a crap about how much information is out there, where it comes from, and how conclusive it. You refuse to believe it because if you gave it any credit, you couldn't hang onto your irrational biases.

It's pretty clear - you do not believe ANY vaccination is safer than disease, or that ANY vaccination program is effective. In your eyes it's ALL a fraud.

Rabies vaccines? Never helped stem rabies - even though baited vaccines are being used to contain and drive back rapidly advancing epidemics. Polio vaccines - didn't help then and aren't helping now - even though surveillance tracks all cases of AFP, definitively identifies causative organisms, and proves polio vaccines DO stop polio outbreaks. Pertussis - really a gentle, mild event, not dangerous at all. Vaccines don't confer immunity - even when neutralizing antibodies and memory cells are produced after vaccination. And so on.

You've come out of the closet on this one, and there just is no going back in.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 5:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And now I want to reply in general.

I am actually not a vaccination Nazi. But I feel I have to refute the bogus statements CTS has 'come out' with.

Thimerosal should have been eliminated years ago - just on suspicion. It wasn't, b/c the government is cozy with business in general and pharmaceutical companies in particular, rather than protection the interests of citizens. Mass vaccination studies should have been conducted to find what determines the small minority who react badly to vaccinations (or if indeed it is a problem). Public health and disease surveillance should be beefed up to detect any incipient outbreaks of anything. Studies should be run by neutral parties, and if we don't trust government-funded university-run studies, they should be run by foreign countries. And so on.

Given the state of US vaccination today, of course there should be exemptions.

But you really don't help the discussion claiming that no vaccine is better than the disease itself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 5:53 PM

There have been a lot of doubts of the science of this, but I really don't see anyone citing reviews challenging the science of vaccination effectiveness.

I've been looking into it, and everything I can find seems to support the assertion that vaccines are effective.

I'm not sure what anyone means by "good science" since all the stuff I've been reading is peer-reviewed research, meaning it's good science. Bad science is rarely published, especially in well established fields.

So basically, can somebody put their money where their mouth is on this "bad science" claim?

"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 6:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

freeradical42,

CTS will come back to you and say that to be effective, a vaccine must totally and forever immunize 100% of the people vaccinated. (Oh, and with zero potential for side effects, no matter how trivial.)

If it doesn't hold that standard, then no matter what the report says, it's 'bad science'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 6:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
canttakesky wrote:
There is no good research that conclusively proves, by scientific standards, that vaccines are highly effective or highly safe for the vast majority of recipients...If I were anti-vaccine, I'd be telling people not to vaccinate. I would tell people vaccines are completely ineffective and completely dangerous
It's hard to tell one postion from the other, the way you phrase it.

Therein lies the problem. Do I have to be completely for or completely against vaccines? How about somewhere in the middle?

Quote:
So if you don't mind me asking... what was the vaccine? What kind of reaction? Was it the same for both of you?

Mine was a flu vaccine. Yeah, once upon a time, I trusted the medical profession so much I got a freaking flu vaccine. I had symptoms almost immediately afterwards. In the following weeks and months, I experienced a cascade of autonomic dysfunction and neurological symptoms that resulted in my collapsing 6 months after the vaccination. I was diagnosed with Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome. At my worst, I couldn't walk, read, count, sleep, or think for 3 months straight. It was like a conscious coma; CFIDS patients joke with each other about knowing how many holes are in their own ceilings. Though I got a little better over the years, I remained disabled and unable to work for 10 years. Since then, I have met dozens of others online who also developed CFIDS shortly after vaccination. In addition, Gulf War Syndrome, which is identical to CFIDS, is also often attributed to vaccination. Moreover, CFIDS and autism share quite a number of biomarkers and other features in common, and vaccination has also been implicated in autism. This doesn't prove vaccines did it, but it does suggest the possibility that a subset of the population may react to vaccination with immune system, neurological, and autonomic dysregulation.

Are they researching this to prevent others from suffering the same fate? No, they won't acknowledge anything of the sort, so people keep getting shots without knowing that these reactions are possible. That is how the authorities get informed consent, without the informed part. Now I won't tell people not to vaccinate, but I do tell people to please research the benefits vs. the risks before they do so. Get informed on your own, because the medical establishment isn't going to inform you.

My husband got a yellow fever vaccine before going to Africa. Immediately, he became bedridden for 2 weeks with symptoms of yellow fever. To add insult to injury, after a few weeks in Africa, he became bedridden for 2 more weeks, with yellow fever. Guess who felt completely scammed?

Quote:
I can point to our daughter, who caught chicken pox, which precipiated an hour-long tonic clonic seizure. Her seizure frequency doubled after that. If there had been a chicken pox vaccine available, I think that would have been safer.

I am sorry to hear about your daughter. And that is my point exactly. The vaccine benefit/risk ration differs so much from person to person that in my view, it is not only dishonest, but irresponsible, to apply the same vaccine policy to everyone, simply based on some perceived statistical average. For one individual, the vaccine may be a lifesaver; for another, it is a life destroyer.

Since my children may have inherited whatever it is that caused me to collapse after vaccination, I am not going to take that chance with them. I know kids with CFIDS. The disease is cruel for adults; it is unbearable in children.

So there, there is my personal position, for what it's worth.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate; now what's going to happen to us with both a Senate and a House?
--Will Rogers

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 6:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You make completely bogus statements like:
correlation is not causation.

Ok, just this once, I will engage and reply to your insults.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA! Oh my God (catching my breath)... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm rolling on the floor and my ass is hanging out. Wiping tears from my eyes....

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
Correlation is not causation.
--Any textbook on scientific methodology

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 6:45 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Since then, I have met dozens of others online who also developed CFIDS shortly after vaccination. In addition, Gulf War Syndrome, which is identical to CFIDS, is also often attributed to vaccination. Moreover, CFIDS and autism share quite a number of biomarkers and other features in common, and vaccination has also been implicated in autism. This doesn't prove vaccines did it, but it does suggest the possibility that a subset of the population may react to vaccination with immune system, neurological, and autonomic dysregulation.

Since correlation does not causation, why do you draw this correlation to mean causation of CFIDS and autism? I mean, you take your persoanl reaction... which could have been due to a lot of things (just like you say that "polio" could actually have been a lot of things) and you draw a whole constellation from a single point.

EDIT: Usually in order to determine causation you have to have a mechanism worked out. The process of vaccination and the elicited immune responses are reasonably worked out. Not fully... but the basics are there. But your connection between CFIDS, autism, and vaccines is less than a thread, not EVEN statistically visible.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 9:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by freeradical42:
I'm not sure what anyone means by "good science" since all the stuff I've been reading is peer-reviewed research, meaning it's good science. Bad science is rarely published, especially in well established fields.

Actually, that is a very good question. VERY good question.

Each field establishes its own standards for publication. Standards in chemistry and physics are probably the highest. I have heard my share of comments from various scientists about biology's lower standards. And there, at the bottom of the totem pole, is medicine. Medicine's standards would be considered "junk science" by chemists and physicists.

To get a PhD in a science, you have to conduct original publishable research and find something that no one else has found in your field. You have to prove you can think for yourself.

In contrast, MDs take 4 years of classes. That's it. They take tests to show they can memorize what they were taught. They have never been trained to do research, to design a study, to use appropriate statistics. They aren't trained as scientists, so as a group, they don't know how to do good research. There are notable exceptions to this rule, but by and large, most papers authored by MDs are just...silly.

Medical studies, generally speaking, are very poorly designed, very poorly controlled, and have ludicrous conclusions. An easy example: "Such-and-such study has found that eating fish lowers your risk of heart disease. So eat fish." What if people who ate a lot of fish also lived near the ocean, and it is the cleaner air that contributed to their health, not the fish? Or some other factor? Eating fish wouldn't make a difference, would it?

Bad science oversimplifies and studies only how one or two factors influences the outcome. Good science considers a multitude of factors and sets up control groups for all the variables that could conceivably affect the outcome. The more controls the better.

Here is an example of bad controls in medical research. In 1953, researchers tested gamma globulin to prevent polio. One group got gamma globulin injections, the other group got gelatin injections.

Quote:

In a 30 day follow-up of a total of 90 paralytic polio cases occurring in these children, there were 64 cases of paralytic polio in the group that did not receive gamma globulin and 26 cases among those who had received gamma globulin...."The field trials demonstrated quite conclusively that an injection of a sufficient quanity of gamma globulin will confer significant protection against the disease."
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/goldenage/wonder/Archive/Popular/betterhomes
0653.htm

Later, it was found that gelatin injections can actually cause paralysis, and that may have been why there were more cases of paralysis in the gelatin group. It wasn't necessarily that gamma globulin was effective, but it LOOKED effective because it didn't cause paralysis and the control injection did. When they compared both groups to controls that didn't get any injections, the gamma globulin group was about the same as not doing anything at all.

Quote:
[Researchers] appreciated the possibility that inoculation of gelatin, like that of many other substances, might provoke paralytic poliomyehitis in certain cases, and so give gamma—globulin a false reputation for protective action. (Lancet. March 13. 1954. p.558). (No link available.)

Their research design did not set up enough controls.

Modern day vaccine research often makes the same egregious error in design. Almost all of them give the test vaccine to one group, and a different vaccine to the control group. I have not come across any studies on childhood vaccines that use a never-vaccinated control group or a saline placebo control group. So most efficacy studies on childhood vaccines are done comparing how one vaccine protects vs. another vaccine.

Now we all know that vaccines cause immune system changes, and that some of these changes are unpredictable. What if the control vaccine, like the gelatin, actually hurt the subjects so they were more vulnerable to the disease? If so, when the control group gets sicker, the test vaccine looks more protective. Without a comparison to true control groups (no vaccine at all), we simply don't know just how protective the vaccine is compared to doing thing.

Now they offer all sorts of excuses for not using never-vaccinated or saline placebo controls. But these excuses don't change the fact that it is bad science. These vaccine vs. vaccine studies may claim extremely high efficacy rates, but it doesn't tell me anything about how it compares to not vaccinating at all, which is what we all really want to know. This control problem is one big reason why I have not seen any CONCLUSIVE evidence that vaccines are highly effective for the vast majority of recipients.

And don't be fooled by studies that claim they compare the vaccine to no vaccine controls. When you read the text of the study, they will define "no vaccine" as not having received the test vaccine, but having received other vaccines recently.

Here is another issue with this bad science. Suppose Pepsi came out with a new drink that claims to protect you against colds. They gave one group Pepsi, and the other group Coca-Cola. They find that the Pepsi group had less colds than the Coke group, and claim Pepsi was "highly effective." What is scientifically indefensible about this claim? What if Coke caused the group to be more susceptible to colds, and the Pepsi didn't? It would look like Pepsi was protective, when in fact Pepsi was simply not harmful. A good scientific study would compare Pepsi to not only Coke, but water, orange juice, coffee, water and exercise, water and nutritional diet etc. Look at as many factors as possible to see exactly how effective Pepsi was in the grand scheme of things.

A good scientific study on vaccines would not only compare vaccines with other vaccines, but with no vaccination at all, good exercise, good diet, alternative remedies, etc. Find out where how much protection it really provides compared to less invasive and free interventions. But they risk finding results they may not want to find. As trial lawyers say, don't ask questions you don't know the answer to.

So that is one example of what I mean by bad science. There are a lot more other examples but you get the gist.

I haven't forgotten about the article you referenced. I will look it up the next chance I get to go to the library.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood.
--Fred Thompson, Speech before the Commonwealth Club of California

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 27, 2006 9:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
cantttakesky wrote:
This doesn't prove vaccines did it, but it does suggest the possibility that a subset of the population may react to vaccination with immune system, neurological, and autonomic dysregulation.
Since correlation does not causation, why do you draw this correlation to mean causation of CFIDS and autism?

Correlation does not PROVE causation. However it certainly can suggest possibilities for causation, which should be researched to determine the precise mechanisms, if any, between the two variables. I was suggesting a hypothesis for further research of both mechanism and incidence of the reactions. [Edited to add: I shouldn't have said reactions. It implies causation. The correct phrase is, vaccine adverse events.]

Also, I explained earlier that there is a difference between a scientific opinion, and a personal opinion. My scientific opinion is there is no conclusive proof that vaccinations cause CFIDS or autism, etc. Personally, I am convinced that vaccination was a factor in my disability.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I've found it!), but 'That's funny...'
--Isaac Asimov

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:53 AM

Here's my next segment:

Vaccine Effectiveness in Question
Examples of outbreaks in fully and highly vaccinated populations:

Quote:

Pertussis

"This report describes a statewide outbreak of pertussis in Vermont (1995 population: 584,771) in 1996 in a highly vaccinated population, affecting primarily school-aged children and adults, and underscores the need to include pertussis in the differential diagnosis of cough illness in persons of all ages."
-- Pertussis outbreak -- Vermont, 1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1997 Sep 5;46(35):822-6

"Coverage studies for pertussis vaccine in Cape Town indicated that between 81 and 93 per cent of children were fully immunized by 13 months of age...However, it was not able to prevent a moderate scale outbreak, even in the presence of high vaccination levels."
-- Strebel P, Hussey G, Metcalf C, Smith D, Hanslo D, Simpson J. An outbreak of whooping cough in a highly vaccinated urban community. J Trop Pediatr 1991 Mar;37(2):71-6

"Outbreaks [of pertussis] in highly vaccinated populations have been reported, raising the issues of vaccine efficacy, of the long-term effect of vaccines on the transmission of the disease, and of genetic selective pressure."
--Simondon F, Guiso N. [Genetic evolution under vaccine pressure: the Bordetella pertussis model (French title)] Bull Soc Pathol Exot 2000 Jul;93(3):202-5

Measles (Rubeola)

"This was the largest outbreak of measles in the United States since 1996."
--Transmission of measles among a highly vaccinated school population, Anchorage, Alaska, 1998. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1999 Jan 8;47(51-52):1109-11

"The study suggested that, within highly vaccinated populations, a proportion of individuals had measles antibody levels which may be insufficient to protect against reinfection or clinical disease."
--Cox MJ, Azevedo RS, Massad E, Fooks AR, Nokes DJ. Measles antibody levels in a vaccinated population in Brazil. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 1998 Mar-Apr;92(2):227-30

"From the 1970s through early into the recent measles epidemic, the majority of measles cases were in highly vaccinated, school-age children. This was due primarily to a 1 to 5% primary measles-mumps-rubella vaccine failure rate and nonrandom mixing patterns among school-age populations."
-- Wood DL, Brunell PA. Measles control in the United States: problems of the past and challenges for the future. Clin Microbiol Rev 1995 Apr;8(2):260-7

"In early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity... As in secondary schools, measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations."
-- Hersh BS, Markowitz LE, Hoffman RE, Hoff DR, Doran MJ, Fleishman JC, Preblud SR, Orenstein WA. A measles outbreak at a college with a prematriculation immunization requirement. Am J Public Health 1991 Mar;81(3):360-4

"Despite high vaccination levels, explosive measles outbreaks may occur in secondary schools due to 1) airborne measles transmission, 2) high contact rates, 3) inaccurate school vaccination records, or 4) inadequate immunity from vaccinations at younger ages."
-- Chen RT, Goldbaum GM, Wassilak SG, Markowitz LE, Orenstein WA. An explosive point-source measles outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. Modes of transmission and risk factors for disease. Am J Epidemiol 1989 Jan;129(1):173-82

"An outbreak of measles occurred in a high school with a documented vaccination level of 98 per cent."
-- Nkowane BM, Bart SW, Orenstein WA, Baltier M. Measles outbreak in a vaccinated school population: epidemiology, chains of transmission and the role of vaccine failures. Am J Public Health 1987 Apr;77(4):434-8

"This outbreak demonstrates that transmission of measles can occur within a school population with a documented immunization level of 100%."
-- Measles outbreak among vaccinated high school students--Illinois. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1984 Jun 22;33(24):349-51

"Eighty-seven laboratory-confirmed or clinically confirmed cases of measles were identified...The measles vaccination rate was 94.2%, and 10% of the students had received two doses of measles vaccine before the outbreak."
-- Sutcliffe PA, Rea E. Outbreak of measles in a highly vaccinated secondary school population. CMAJ 1996 Nov 15;155(10):1407-13.

"However, the extent of measles transmission among highly vaccinated school-age populations suggests that additional strategies, such as selective or mass revaccination, may be necessary to prevent such outbreaks."
-- Markowitz LE, Preblud SR, Orenstein WA, Rovira EZ, Adams NC, Hawkins CE, Hinman AR. Patterns of transmission in measles outbreaks in the United States, 1985-1986. N Engl J Med 1989 Jan 12;320(2):75-81.

Mumps

"The overall attack rate is the highest reported to date (and to our knowledge) for a population demonstrating virtually complete mumps vaccine coverage."
--Cheek JE, Baron R, Atlas H, Wilson DL, Crider RD Jr. Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated school population. Evidence for large-scale vaccination failure. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995 Jul;149(7):774-8.

"Vaccine failure accounted for a sustained mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. Most mumps cases were attributable to primary vaccine failure. It is possible that waning vaccine-induced immunity also played a role."
-- Briss PA, Fehrs LJ, Parker RA, Wright PF, Sannella EC, Hutcheson RH, Schaffner W. Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of primary vaccine failure and waning vaccine-induced immunity. J Infect Dis 1994 Jan;169(1):77-82.

"From October 1988 to April 1989, a large mumps outbreak occurred in Douglas County, Kansas. Of the 269 cases, 208 (77.3%) occurred among primary and secondary school students, of whom 203 (97.6%) had documentation of mumps vaccination. "
-- Hersh BS, Fine PE, Kent WK, Cochi SL, Kahn LH, Zell ER, Hays PL, Wood CL. Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population. J Pediatr 1991 Aug;119(2):187-93.

Chickenpox

"A chickenpox outbreak occurred in a school in which 97% of students without a prior history of chickenpox were vaccinated."
--Barna D. Tugwell, MD*, Lore E. Lee, MPH, Hilary Gillette, RN, MPH, Eileen M. Lorber, MD, Katrina Hedberg, MD, MPH and Paul R. Cieslak, MD. Pediatrics, Vol. 113 No. 3 March 2004, pp. 455-459.

"In conclusion, we found varicella outbreaks in CCCs [child care centers] with both high and low vaccination coverage."
--Buchholz U, Moolenaar R, Peterson C, Mascola L. Varicella outbreaks after vaccine licensure: should they make you chicken? Pediatrics 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):561-3

Influenza

"An outbreak of influenza A (H3N2) occurred aboard a U.S. Navy ship in February 1996, despite 95% of the crew's having been appropriately vaccinated."
--Earhart KC, Beadle C, Miller LK, Pruss MW, Gray GC, Ledbetter EK, Wallace MR. Outbreak of influenza in highly vaccinated crew of U.S. Navy ship. Emerg Infect Dis 2001 May-Jun;7(3):463-5.

The documentation speaks for itself.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments.
--William H. Borah

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 3:21 AM

I'll agree that MDs rarely have scientific training. This is unfortunate, because they get paid a lot more to do research than us lab monkeys.

However, I've worked on biomedical things for a few years and I've seen that the PhDs far outnumber the MDs in terms of who gravitates towards the research end.

Plus, there's always the hybrid MD/PhDs who have a lot of research training, too.

You did have to go back to the 1950s to find a study that bad. And I'll agree it was pretty bad.

Check out some of the modern research; maybe we've gotten the MDs in line. ;)

"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by freeradical42:
You did have to go back to the 1950s to find a study that bad. And I'll agree it was pretty bad.

Check out some of the modern research

Again, you talk to me as if I haven't already checked it out. I am willing to bet I've read more original research papers published in medical journals than you have.

My point was that MODERN vaccine vs. vaccine controls is just as bad as gamma globulin vs. gelatin control. They are using substances that can affect outcomes as controls. It is what scientists call "confounding" and renders the study useless.

MODERN medical research is what gives us the "eat fish"-type studies.

Incidentally, a lot of mudfuds (MDPhD's) get both degrees in a joint degree medical research program at medical schools. Just my impression, but from the research I've read, it appears medical schools don't put out quality PhD's. Their research is just as flawed as those of MD's.

Just so you know, my husband has a PhD in a science, and I have a masters (almost got a PhD but didn't finish) in a science. We have both taken years of graduate courses in research methodology, statistics, and the like. We didn't just memorize what science is; we were trained as scientists for years so we could conduct scientific research ourselves.

We never read medical journals until I got sick, when we started doing some research. We were both shocked. Just for a reality check, we started showing medical articles to our colleagues. They were all also shocked. But oh well.

To close with an anecdote, I meet a lot of parents who do not vaccinate in the course of my activism. I remember asking a couple I knew who were both professional chemists (one had a PhD, the other a Masters) why they didn't vaccinate. The mother's response was, "Oh, it's because we're scientists."

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
People don't start wars, governments do.
--Ronald Reagan

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS,

This statement, WHEN USED AS A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT IS BOGUS.

I figured you'd say this, and not look back to the context YOU YOURSELF used it in. Which was to dismiss not only the statistics that show rabies vaccines do indeed prevent the spread of rabies, but to avoid mention of all the biochemistry that shows rabies vaccines do, indeed, confer immunity.

And that's merely one of the issues I have with you. You pick and choose your 'facts' while ignoring all the rest of the science. You engage in straw-man arguments. Like PN you use your own peculiar definitions. You ignore arguments to the contrary you can't refute, yes, you even demonize your opposition, and so on.

Even in this post, you ignored all mention of all the other completely bogus statements you made.

You really can't 'win' an argument that way. B/c you weaken your own position by avoiding substantive debate over facts everyone else recognizes.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You make completely bogus statements like:
correlation is not causation.
Ok, just this once, I will engage and reply to your insults.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA! Oh my God (catching my breath)... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm rolling on the floor and my ass is hanging out. Wiping tears from my eyes....

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
Correlation is not causation.
--Any textbook on scientific methodology

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I figured you'd say this, and not look back to the context YOU YOURSELF used it in. Which was to dismiss not only the statistics that show rabies vaccines do indeed prevent the spread of rabies, but to avoid mention of all the biochemistry that shows rabies vaccines do, indeed, confer immunity.

This is called libel.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple.
--Dr. Seuss

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 7:59 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Really. All righty then.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Somehow you just ain't gettin it, Cit.

No I think you just don't get it.

Quote:
Read the title of this thread, and the first (patronizing, sarcastic) sentence of your initial post.

So what your saying is that I didn't say the things you implied I did but you're not man enough to admit it. How does the title of the thread change what I said.

Quote:
Never said I didn't much care what you, or anyone, had to say - I said I had little interest in what your opinions are, as they're yer own bizness.

Same thing, semantics. Other people are expressing their opinions, you don't care what those opinions are so you don't care about what they're saying. Nice try at a backpeddle though.

Quote:
Quit handing out strawmen.

No it's exactly what both you and CTS have said.

Quote:
We questioned the integrity of the system, something that SHOULD be done - and you went on to make blanket, all-inclusory statements that were in essence NOT true because your own countries laws and regs are somewhat different from ours.

Something about strawmen?

Quote:
The strawman argument that either me, or CTS is 100% anti-vacc, or (in my case) even thinks a majority of vaccines are dangerous and unsafe is complete bunk.

It's 100% obvious from CTS comments that she believes that vaccines are unsafe.

Quote:
- something you addressed with scorn and mockery in your initial post.

No I addressed the idea that you can make a choice and expect other people to pay for it with scorn and mockery. If that's not your position one wonders why you take it so personally.

Quote:
You were then addressed in kind.

Nope, but I did respond to you in the exact same language with which you directed at me and you spat the dummy and told me I was a 'wanker' and a 'bloody pillock' and being nasty because you upset 'my' 'teakettle'. I guess you don't like it when people use your tone on you.

Quote:
Yeah, but I LIVE here, that means I gotta deal with the realities in front of me.
One of those is that particular collusion, which directly impacts the safety and quality of medicine in THIS country, and thus affects my decisions and choices.

Nice double standards, since your attacking me because I'm talking in reference to my country.

Quote:
Nice backpedal btw, but take your own posts and read them sequentially, and have a look at how you're coming across, why don't you ?

No backpeddle at all, you can't be bothered to read my posts and merely decide what you want my position to be then think you can tell me what it is. That's a joke.

And as for "and have a look at how you're coming across, why don't you ?" Why don't you?

Quote:
You're not exactly supportive of an informed, responsible choice, and in fact hostile, patronizing and sarcastic towards the idea, which makes your position pretty clear, doesn't it.

Actually I'm not in favour of uniformed choices. If you make up your mind about something then go looking for evidence to support your decision and only that decision that's an uniformed choice. But beyond that since you neither no nor want to no what my actual position is, you just want to create a strawman you can tear down, nothing you've pointed to or said makes MY position particularly clear.

Quote:
You also expressed a desire for other, ridiculous levels of consequence other than personal responsibility for those who dare to actually make an informed choice.

What like paying for your own treatment? What would be fair, everyone else paying for your treatment I suppose? Or perhaps the tracking of people you may of infected as a consequence of your choice? I suppose it's fair for me to pay for that because of your choice.

Quote:
And you might wanna go back and re-read some of the stuff you dismissed without a glance (as I stated would happen when I dug it up) before you go accusing folk of the same flaw, and/or not having evidence to support a conclusion.

Prove I didn't look at it. No wait let me guess, "IF I had looked at it I'd defiantly think just like you". Maybe I just don't have any human decency.

Quote:
There's evidence, and whether or not it is sufficient to make blanket statements, it *IS* sufficient to encourage a certain skepticism when combined with the actions of Big Pharma upon those discoveries.

No, there's a few post hoc analysis's supported by untested theories. That's not evidence, though if you WANTED it to be I'm sure you'd see it as such. Though if you had bothered to read my post you'd have noticed that I said I believed there should be research so we could get evidence if a link existed, I realise since you didn't read any of my posts you'd have missed that.

Quote:
Just because you chose to dismiss it out of hand without so much as a glance, doesn't make it not exist, your own zealotry against any skepticism is every bit as ridiculous, in all honesty.

Blah blah blah. Got any more bayonets for that strawman?

Quote:
You can ridicule that position all you like, but when the idea of making that decision for me rears it's ugly head, I've got my own set of jackboots for that occasion, clang, clang, clang.

Yes, I get it, you make the choice, I pay for it, and if I don't like it, clang, clang, clang.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by freeradical42:
You did have to go back to the 1950s to find a study that bad. And I'll agree it was pretty bad.

Check out some of the modern research
Again, you talk to me as if I haven't already checked it out. I am willing to bet I've read more original research papers published in medical journals than you have.

My point was that MODERN vaccine vs. vaccine controls is just as bad as gamma globulin vs. gelatin control. They are using substances that can affect outcomes as controls. It is what scientists call "confounding" and renders the study useless
MODERN medical research is what gives us the "eat fish"-type studies.

Incidentally, a lot of mudfuds (MDPhD's) get both degrees in a joint degree medical research program at medical schools. Just my impression, but from the research I've read, it appears medical schools don't put out quality PhD's. Their research is just as flawed as those of MD's.

Just so you know, my husband has a PhD in a science, and I have a masters (almost got a PhD but didn't finish) in a science. We have both taken years of graduate courses in research methodology, statistics, and the like. We didn't just memorize what science is; we were trained as scientists for years so we could conduct scientific research ourselves.

We never read medical journals until I got sick, when we started doing some research. We were both shocked. Just for a reality check, we started showing medical articles to our colleagues. They were all also shocked. But oh well.

To close with an anecdote, I meet a lot of parents who do not vaccinate in the course of my activism. I remember asking a couple I knew who were both professional chemists (one had a PhD, the other a Masters) why they didn't vaccinate. The mother's response was, "Oh, it's because we're scientists."

Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
People don't start wars, governments do.
--Ronald Reagan

There is a difference between good research and bad research, and you're right about that. However, it's clear to me that you're reading a bunch of studies that are statistically BS and then ignoring others that aren't because some studies are bad. This is a bad attitude. Part of the system being broken doesn't make the whole system broken.

As for controls- nowadays you use saline or glucose controls. These are things we know don't hurt people. Either way, though, the control really just has to be something you might encounter in everyday life. It could be a shot of cholesterol on the order of the amount an egg gives you; what you look for in that case is for the ill effects of the control to be less than the ill effects of the vaccine. If the vaccine is less dangerous than sea water or milk, you can be fairly sure it's safe. Smart scientists pick controls that cause problems similar to expected ill effects of their vaccines, so they can compare incidence rates.

I suggest you use PubMed. A lot. There's good stuff out there. Also, use NIH and CDC resources. Government research is often actually good in this respect.

Now, one problem I have is that the decision on what drug to bring to market is often made not on the basis of which works best but rather on the basis of political alliances. I make sure to have doctors who screen for that kind of crap.

"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@chrisisall:

"""
The damage is not always obvious.
"""

Then how do you know that it has happened?

That's just it...is dyslexia a result? Is depression one? Who can tell? Best not let questionable crap into babies at the wrong time.

Quote:

"""
Most vaccines are fine if given at the right time, and avoided when contra-indicated.
Some are useless.
And some can be dangerous when given to sensitive, allergic or sick peeps.
"""

Where I am (Canada) we get our vaccinations over time in several shots. Then later, boosters. Do you guys get them ALL at once? B/c that'd be retarded.

They wanted to give my son (then five) a bunch of shots at the SAME VISIT!!! I made 'em spread it out over a year.

He also didn't get a Hep shot just after he was born- we waited a couple years on that one.

He rarely gets sick, whereas I got ear infections and sore throats all through my childhood; see, I got ALL my shots EARLY

.

*ducks the "anecdotal comparison rhetoric" coming his way*

Shot down in his babyhood Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by freeradical42:
However, it's clear to me that you're reading a bunch of studies that are statistically BS and then ignoring others that aren't

I'm not ignoring them. I can't find them! I look up study after study, and they are all junk. Since you are sure there are good vaccine studies out there, why don't you recommend one? That study I'm going to the library to get, have you read it? I'd rather you recommend one you've read, that you think is a "good" study. Prove me wrong. I would actually welcome it.

Quote:
As for controls- nowadays you use saline or glucose controls.

That's right. But they aren't using saline or glucose controls in studies of childhood vaccines. ALL efficacy studies I've seen to date for childhood vaccines do not use saline or never-vaccinated controls. That automatically makes these studies confounded and, well, bad. If you know of one that uses saline, pass it my way please.

Quote:
Smart scientists pick controls that cause problems similar to expected ill effects of their vaccines, so they can compare incidence rates.

Huh? They want controls that CAUSE problems? You lost me.

Quote:
I suggest you use PubMed. A lot. There's good stuff out there.

I HAVE used PubMed, a LOT. I've been using PubMed a lot for the last 6 years, looking up vaccine studies. Where's the good stuff? Show me just ONE. Thanks.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

]----------
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.
--Ernest Benn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:40 PM

[quote="can'ttakesky"]Huh? They want controls that CAUSE problems? You lost me.

What I mean is that a control is more useful if some small incidence of a side effect seen in the experimental group is also seen in the control so you can compare. This provides the ability to say, "It's safer than sugar!" and whatnot, which kinda makes a solid indication for how safe the drug is.

"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:07 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CTS -

I have some questions for you.

1) Do you believe smallpox still exists in people on the planet? (as opposed to 'in secure labs')
If yes, why?
If no, how to do explain its disappearance?

2) If there are no studies at all on vaccine safety and effectiveness, what is holding up an HIV vaccine from the market?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:33 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Ok, now I have the mental image of two folk hammering at a wall from different angles... and hitting each other.

Cit, no matter how you meant to come across, you *did* come across as heaping scorn and derision upon the concept of making an informed choice, resulting in equal amounts therof sent in the other direction.

And semantics, shemantics - apparently you do not understand my viewpoint, someone elses personal opinion to me is of little consequence, and something, as an anarchist, I do not feel it's my right to mess with or force upon them, my interest is HOW they arrived at that conclusion and WHY, because that information is of value to me in making my own decisions on a subject.

I just don't see the need to invest large amounts of time and effort to try to force other people to change their opinion, it's ridiculous, when I have no intent to do so, and even more so to defend one's own personal choices.

Regardless of what CTS personally believes (and has every right to) he/she stated and holds a position of informed choice - something that has been stated repeatedly here, and instead people take issue with how he/she arrived at that conclusion.

I could care less if someone thought vaccines were the work of martian invaders designed to break down our immune systems for their biowarfare, if that's what they wanna believe, and they've no intent to force those beliefs on me... more power to em.

It's when someone wishes to take those personal beliefs and impose them on others, with the full weight of law behind it... that impacts me, personally, and I do see it as a threat.

You say you expressed the idea that one can make a choice and expect others to pay for it (something no one said here, that I saw) with scorn and mockery - and I expressed the idea that forcing someones choice and then expecting them to foot the bill was worse, with even more scorn and mockery.

As for the tone of conversation, given my employment you think I don't hear far worse directed at me on any given day ? by all means if you think it'll add to the discussion (even for sheer entertainment value) feel perfectly free to call me a Bloody Yank Lout or what have you.

You also did, in fact, make blanket statements, and only after the fact, when it was pointed out that they're not applicable here, then said they applied to your country, which, if they do, more power to ya, but again, I live here.

I did read your posts, that's how you come across to me, as for how I come across ?
Probably like some foamingly rabid anarchist who's pyschotic about having an untrustworthy government try to run their life and make their choices for them, with a side order of general hostility.

As for informed/uninformed choice - there's no such thing, regardless of what YOU think of the quality of the information, it is NOT your decision, it is that of the person who's choice it is, to decide what information to base their own, personal decision on... so in essence, you only agree with informed choice if you, personally, agree with all the information the other person uses to make that choice ?

I reject that, categorically - it's not YOUR decision, nor should it be, that being mostly the point of this little thread, at least in theory.

As for responsibility, turn that one on it's head - do you think it's fair for me to pay (cause some of it does indeed come out of my tax dollars here in the US) for the lifelong care of people harmed by vaccinations that are legally mandatory ?
*I* did not make the decision to vacc someone with pre-existing risk factors without seeking alternatives.
So why should I then be stuck with the bill ?
Morally, it works in both directions, or neither.

I am perfectly willing to foot the bills for my own decisions, I am NOT, however, willing to foot the bills for decisions forced upon me by others.

My position is morally a bit more harsh in fact, because as a cab driver, I have a certain responsibility to my passengers, and the nature of my business brings me into significant contact with a substantial amount of people in a day, for me personally, I am morally obligated to take somewhat more risk from vaccination and medication personally in order to insure that my passengers will not catch anything from me, and that my system will effectively resist anything passed in the opposite direction as well - and my own choices reflect that, in that I select appropriate medical care, to the point of full research and quality inspection (including a lambasting of my doc for having meds in his office past the exp date) of any medicine that is dispensed to me.

You did dismiss evidence out of hand, I stated there was evidence that the MMR vaccine containing Thimerosal was dangerous, more so than admitted, and then provided two pretty good studies that support that fact - and you go on and continually say that there was no evidence, that no evidence was provided - what am I to think, then ?

Both links, reposted here.
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7712/7712.html
http://www.jpands.org/vol8no1/geier.pdf

Those don't look like untested theories to me, that looks a hell of a lot like actual scientific research, which imop, SHOULD have been done *before* foisting the product on the general public as safe and effective.

And I do take the actions of Big Pharma and the FDA in reaction to the initial findings as "evidence" that they are not fully trustworthy, and derelict in the performance of their assigned duty - what else could you call it ?
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index_np
.html

And while you're busy telling me I am throwing out strawmen and ignoring what you're saying, why not go have a look at what I DID say, and did not.

At no time, under no circumstances, did I say that other folks should foot the bill for someones own, personal, medical decisions - all I have ever said, and continue to say, is that I should not have to foot it for decisions forced upon me by others.

I *will* enforce my right to personal choice, and for that matter, yours too, and if that makes me a jackbooted thug, but all means, get me some kiwi and a hanky.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by freeradical42:
What I mean is that a control is more useful if some small incidence of a side effect seen in the experimental group is also seen in the control so you can compare.

I think you misunderstand what a "control" is for.

A control group is there to isolate the variable you are manipulating (called the independent variable).

Let's say your independent variable is heroin. You want to see what it does to a person. So you get a group of people together that is as similar as you can get them. You feed them all the same thing, have them live at the same place, etc. Then you randomly assign the subjects into two groups. One group gets the heroin, and the other group gets a saline placebo. It is extremely important for the control injection to be INERT or unable to act on a subject. That way, whatever differences exist between the heroin group and the saline group must be due to the heroin and nothing else. The more the two groups are the same (down to even getting an injection), the more confidence you have in saying your independent variable caused your observations.

If you observe both groups throwing up, you can surmise that vomiting is not caused by heroin, because the second group vomited and they didn't get heroin, you see? They must be vomiting because of the cafeteria food or some other factor both groups share in common.

If you give the second group cocaine, you have lost your ability to sort out the effects of either heroin or cocaine. Now, if both groups vomit, you don't know why. Are they vomiting from the heroin, the cocaine, or the cafeteria food? Or all three? You don't know, because they have all been exposed to too many variables.

So a control has to be as inert as possible. You don't want it to CAUSE anything at all. Now you can have all three groups, a heroin group, a cocaine group, and a saline group. The saline group can serve as a control for both the heroin and the cocaine groups. But the heroin and cocaine groups can't serve as controls for each other.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

----------
A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
-- Arthur Bloch

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Regardless of what CTS personally believes (and has every right to) he/she stated and holds a position of informed choice - something that has been stated repeatedly here, and instead people take issue with how he/she arrived at that conclusion.

Hey Frem, thanks! But more importantly, I'm a she! : )

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

-----------
The vote means nothing to women. We should be armed.
--Edna O'Brien

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 28, 2006 2:00 PM