Vaccinations, Pt 2 by canttakesky

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Of course not. But perhaps people could be screened for sensitivity or the potential for complications, before receiving a vaccine?

I went through that with Tony. A quick search of pubmed let me to realize that the causes of adverse vaccine reactions are as diverse as the human genetic code and plus environmental differences combined. It is unlikely that "a" screening test will be devised which will be reliable for everyone.

Of course, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be working on it. Perhaps they would be able to take a person's WBC, expose them to the vaccine, and then take those educated WBC and see if they cross react with some brain proteins, or something. I'm sure they would learn a lot about the immune system and the brain, even if they never did come up with a good screening test.

Quote:
Well, now you're just being offensive, and I wasn't even particularly against you.

I SAID I was being patronizing, didn't I? But yanno what? Maybe those who discuss the merits and disadvantages of vaccination really SHOULD look at the epidemics that vaccines (for the most part) eliminated. There really is no way to remove vaccine benefits from the discussion (much as CTS would like to) and no way to have a reasonable discussion without it.

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Are vaccines in a transition period to something that works better, so less people die all around?

If not, perhaps it should be.

Bravo.

And that is all many of us are asking for.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Of course not. But perhaps people could be screened for sensitivity or the potential for complications, before receiving a vaccine?

We do that in all other fields of medicine. Is vaccination such a conveyer belt of pushing patients through that it doesn't matter any potential harm done to those patients?

Yes people could be screened. Right now, they aren't doing any research on that. No REAL research, that is. If they did, we could start screening. First for one thing, then another.

But that requires 1) Big Pharma to acknowledge there IS potential for complications, far greater than they are already acknowledging right now, and 2) Big Pharma to be willing to part with the profit lost from decreased sales.

#1 implies liability for the complications which already occurred.
#2 equals less money.

Why should Big Pharma take the high road, when the current low road is working just fine? It is so much easier and cheaper and more profitable to just ride the rhetoric Siggy is preaching. They have legal immunity from most claims of damage. Zero liability. Forced sales. Near universal market. If you don't buy, we'll just threaten to bring polio and smallpox back. Works every time.

Why fix something that ain't broken? Not broken for Big Pharma, that is. What possible incentive do they have to fix a single damn thing?

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 11:18 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

nevermind

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 1:01 PM

I thought I had replied to you, Frem. Must have gotten eaten by the gremlins. ;) I just wanted to respond to your call that this had become an irrational, offensive debate full of flame throwing and rage, that actually I don't see it. Looking through the thread it's a rational discussion, with some emotion. And as you yourself continuously post using strong emotive language (on any topic) and often full of outrage (on any topic), I think you are being a bit of a cheeky bugger to call out anyone else here.

Back to the topic.

Quote:

Imma call bullshit right up front - if it's "myth and voodoo" when ONE 'side' does it, then it's the same thing when the other 'side' does it, quid pro quo here.

Now in lieu of actually managing to determine the root cause, you work with what you got, especially if the patient doesn't have time for you to sit there and figure it the hell out, you simply do the best you can with what you have, I understand that completely - but I felt the need to point out that modern medicine still has a damn lot of guesswork in it, and to call that guesswork "myth and voodoo" when non-traditional medicine uses the SAME DAMN METHODS, is a form of ridiculous partisanship, I think.

Well I call bullshit on your bullshit. At least mainstream medicine does testing and research into effacacy. yes, I agree with the sentiment expressed here about the less that desirable nature of profit making organisations conducting research into medical matters that may have an impact on their bottom line. Research can be funded by indepandant bodies, usually government funded. So I guess for some of you that would prove a bit of a dilemna - about who should do it. I fall in favour of the independant body and rigourous overview of all medical research. Still I wander.... the issue is that mainstream medical treatments are subject to research, testing and evaluation. 'Natural' remedies - not so much and some not at all.

Quote:
The important thing, is to treat the patient, and while finding the root cause and addressing it is very important it is a secondary concern when you have a suffering human being in the equation - but all too much of the time due to lack of resources or desire, there's no followup to determine the root cause, which is one of the places modern medicine has FAR better capacity than non-traditional medicine, and yet all too often fails to do this - that I point this out isn't a condemnation, but rather in an effort to expose what seems to be a blind spot in conventional treatment which should not be.

Of course I agree, but I think 'root cause' can be problematic and difficult to determine. Sometimes there is no other cause of action to say -'we don't know yet' but we know this works. My husband had a bout of labyrithitis recently. They know what it is, but not really why it happens. THey admitted enough. They know that manipulation by a phsyio seems to work (and it did) but they are still plenty of questions over the whys. Well that is just life really. A lack of answers doesn't mean bad or bogus science, it just means 'still looking'.

Quote:
But I digress, just lets take it as given till we know more that conventional medicine over here is far more hit-or-miss than it is in the land down under, which is one of my problems with it, yes.

I am continually horrified by what I hear of medical treatment in the US, the inequity of your system, the overdiagnosis and overuse of drug treatments, especially for children. And yet, and yet... some of the radical and advance treatments orginate in the US.

Quote:
Maybe they do, maybe they don't - but one shouldn't assume all people who question something have the same reasons for it, or have the same intentions or hold the same views, people are people - and my interest isn't in dismissing it, so much as improving it and maybe putting a little fire to the backsides of those who've allowed it to stagnate instead of progressing.
Hell, I am not even anti-vaccination, so much as I think medical technology might offer even better, safer options if they were only explored instead of this hidebound insistence on doing things in a fashion that made sense many years ago, but might not be the best option now.

You are right, I have lumped everyone together with the same viewpoint. I apologise. What i write is not directed to anyone here in particular. I live in an area where the anti vaccination crowd have strong numbers and I find THEM perplexing. They question the research behind the vaccinations, dispute the science and yet they pretty much all would use homeopathic remedies, which regardless of the effecacy is based on pretty dubious scientific thinking.

Your questions for immprovement of what we currently do are all valid.

Quote:
I did, but lemme dig them up again...
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/09/opinion/la-oe-orent-polio-2011
0209
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/health/11iht-polio.1.7847606.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21149823/ns/health-infectious_diseases/t/p
olio-outbreak-sparked-vaccine-experts-say/]

Thanks for providing those links. It appears that there are a number of issues here. The type of vaccine used is outdated and would not now be used in developed nations. Once again an example of how inequity in medical treatment causes significant issues through the world.

The other appears to be what they are calling the 'vaccine paradox' - you don;t personally get polio once you have the vaccination, it is that this type of vaccine (the old fashioned sabine - which I had btw) can mutate in faeces and if you have poor sanitation + a large number of unvaccinated people can result in an outbreak. Therefore if a larger number of people were vaccinated it would not have resulted in an outbreak. hence the paradox. Of course it would be preferable to not have the inequity of vaccination.

Quote:
I did, and will again, point out that homeopathy/isopathy IS THE EXACT SCIENCE ON WHICH VACCINES ARE BASED - ergo your standard issue immunisations were created by this "quackery", so you don't get to dismiss it outright without also dismissing that which is derived from those principles, because vaccines are essentially isopathy like-cures-like by using a low dosage of dead/inactive virus to provoke an immune system reaction and produce antibodies.
quid-pro-quo, if homeopathy is quackery, so are vaccines - and I don't believe either of those statements are necessarily true, although what I know about high-dilution homeopathy would fit in a thimble with room to spare, I DO know the principles involved, at least in theory.

No, it isn't the exact same science. If there are similarities, it is because basically most models of medical treatment have the same evolutionary basis. But the scientic rational is what is lacking from homeopathic remedies. I'll quote someone that says it better than I could.

Quote:
Vaccines offer a small, fixed amount of a pathogen (antigen) to the immune system. A touch of bacterial carbohydrate here, a smidgen of viral protein there. Something that the immune system can recognize and respond to, so that when the patient is exposed to the real infection, with its relatively massive amounts of antigen, the immune system is prepared and can react immediately to minimize the damage, rather than the usual delay it takes before immunity kicks in. You know, like FEMA and New Orleans. Or maybe not. Perhaps my metaphorableness is lacking today.

There has to be something there, a real molecule of some sort, for the immune system to recognize and respond to. There is a threshold below which foreign material will not be recognized. Tetanus is an interesting example. An impressively awful disease in those suffering from it, with every muscle contracting due to the tetanus toxin. But interestingly, there is sometimes not enough toxin causing the disease to result in an immune response, and those who get tetanus still need the vaccine after they recover to prevent recurrence.

Homeopathy is the art of giving absolutely nothing and believing that it is something. Kind of like election year promises. A reader sent me an article on homeopathic vaccinations, which is one of the more bizarro concepts I have yet to discover in my wanderings in SCAMs. I sometimes feel like someone is pulling an elaborate prank on me.

The first ‘law’ behind vaccines and homeopathy is the same: like cures like. Vaccines are the only medical validation of the first ‘law’ of homeopathy of which I am aware. It is the second ‘law’ of homeopathy where medicine, and reality, part company with homeopathy, the ‘law’ of dilutions. Where vaccines are given with a well characterized concentration of antigen, homeopathic nostrums are often diluted long past the point where anything remains behind. If a homeopathic nostrum is 20X, then there is no longer even a molecule of the original substance in the mixture. Which can be a good thing, since homeopaths use nosodes as their vehicle for imaginary vaccination.

A nosode “is a homeopathic remedy prepared from a pathological specimen. The specimen is taken from a diseased animal or person and may consist of saliva, pus, urine, blood, or diseased tissue.”

And people complain about the alleged toxins in real vaccines.

Nosodes are cargo cult medicine at its finest. The trappings of real medicine with none of the efficacy. Thank goodness they are diluted to the point of nothingness. At least with serial dilutions, HIV, Hepatitis B and C are unlikely to be spread from injecting the patient with concoctions derived from various and sundry body fluids. At least we left the techniques of Jenner behind with modern medicine. Fortunately nosodes are used primarily in veterinary homeopathy.

One can purchase nosodes for human use for everything from Anthrax to Variola (smallpox) at either 30 or 200 dilution. In a rare burst of honesty, one site notes

There are no whole molecules of the actual substance in 30C potency” and another notes “(homeopathic vaccines) do not contain Thimerosal, Aluminum, Borax (used to kill ants) and other chemical elements. Also in the studies that have been able to proceed, no child has had a any severe side effects from the homeopathic vaccines given.

Since they contain nothing, it would seem unlikely that they could have any side effects at all.

And they have a nosode for smallpox? It is supposedly derived from the ripened pustule of a smallpox patient and I have to wonder about their source. There has been no smallpox in the world since the mid 1970's, either they have a stock of smallpox that they feed like sourdough starter or they are not really selling the real deal. Although even Twinkies have expiration dates, I guess the ‘energy’ in homeopathic remedies lasts for decades, with the smallpox nostrums maintaining their potency through the ages.

Are there any studies or case reports to support the use of nosodes? As best I can discover there are two clinical trials in animals of nosodes: one in calves that did not show benefit and one in mice that did, and both are in journals too obscure for my library to have subscriptions. There are two cases of fatal polio after receiving homeopathic vaccinations. That is it in Pubmed. Not a convincing literature for effectiveness.

One site does recognize that homeopathic vaccinations do not work like standard vaccines: by leading to the development of antibodies

Homeopathic preparations have not been shown to raise antibody levels. Smits tested the titre of antibodies to diphtheria, polio and tetanus in ten children before and one month after giving homeopathic preparations of these three vaccines (DTPol 30K and 200K). He found no rise in antibody levels (Smits, 1995). He speculates that protection afforded by a homeopathic remedy acts on a “deeper” level than that of antibodies. Other homeopaths have stated similar opinions. Golden says, “unlike conventional vaccines, the Homeopathic alternative does not rely on antibody formation.

Of interest, homeopaths argue the validity of the homeopathic vaccinations, since their nostrums are classically supposed to be effective only after symptoms have occurred. It does make for a curious reading, one group of nonsense arguing that another group of nonsense is, well, nonsense.

The sad thing is parents will be fooled into thinking that their children are protected from infectious diseases, when, in fact, they are not. Vaccines do not provide perfect protection; neither do seat belts. But a vaccine is superior to the nothing of homeopathy and I would bet that parents would not rely on a child car restraint made by the same process as homeopathy.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/homeopathic-vaccines/

Quote:

Quote:
A lot of herbal treatments have been tested and found to have properties useful for treatment of various maladies. We appear to agree that many mainstream medicines are also based on herbs and plants or the active properties contained within, although conversely to what you say, it is also rarely ackowledged by the alternative crowd that there forms the origins of our current system and that mainstream medicines are also 'natural'.

I don't see why they'd fail to acknowledge something so obviously true, though - doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
I use whatever might work, and when conventional medicine fails, or is unavailable due to financial or other difficulty, the old ways are a damn handy backstop to have

They do fail to acknowledge when they are zeolots. I know lots of people who use a variety of treatments, from acupuncture to reflexology. But you can be damn sure that if they are in a car crash, they're not going to call their natureopath - they'll be off to hospital. But there are some people out there who are of a mindset that all modern medicine is evil that they will inflict abuse by neglect upon their children, by ignoring life saving treatment in favour of something based upon belief, not science.

Quote:
There's also being terribly poor and without medical insurance, myself at times, and others more often, when conventional medicine is simply unavailable due to financial difficulty,
Well that where your system sucks.

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 1:17 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And that is all many of us are asking for.

Ahem.

How many quotes of yours would you like me to pull out where you say otherwise?

And BTW, nobody is saying that vaccines shouldn't be improved. But that was not your original point anyway. You're still pretty much fixated on vaccines and autism... perservating over a topic that is meaningless to most cases of autism, and of absolutely no help at all in improving vaccines generally.

BTW, there IS liability for vaccine damage. Thought you might like to add that to your grab bag of knowledge so you don't wind up making mistaken claims in the future.

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
FREM RE MARYANN: Last I heard, this had nothing to do with vaccination. I get the general drift, but you are conflating two issues with two others.
This cases had nothing to do with the education department, and nothing AT ALL to do with "compulsory vaccination", so as a reply to the topic of vaccination, it is irrelevant.

It absolutely did.

The initial problems her daughter suffered were as a result of a vaccine reaction in response to the battery of vaccines required for public school attendance, again, something Maryanne felt she had little choice about since she had reached the limit of her ability to homeschool, did not have the resources for private school, and as such was fresh out of other options.

Where it went to hell was the complications caused by folks with an agenda shoving an all but blacklisted psychotropic on the kid (Risperdal) as a treatment for reasons unknown, after Maryanne went to them thinking they might be able to help - and when she sought other options they threw a hissy and wound up that nutcase Mia Wenk, and it all went downhill from there.

But the original spark that lit the fire was a vaccine reaction, so it's quite, quite relevant, especially as an example of the kind of cascade failure that the fallout from one can entail, as too can complications related to autism spectrum disorders.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 2:20 PM

Some might find this paper from JAMA of interest. It has mortality rates by infectious disease from 1900 to 1996.

http://www.cwbpi.com/AIDS/reports/JAMATrendsArmstrong.pdf

On page 6, there is a chart on mortality rates for diphtheria, pertussis, measles, and polio.

Vaccines were introduced for routine use by the general public in the following years.
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccines
Diphtheria: DTP mid 1940’s.
Pertussis: DTP mid 1940’s.
Measles: 1963
Polio: Salk inactivated 1955, Sabin oral live 1962.

Now you can mentally draw vertical lines on that graph to mark when each vaccine was introduced.

As you can see, studying the pattern of death rates of these diseases before and after the vaccines does not conclusively tell us how many lives the vaccines saved.

Yes, people died more back then from these diseases than they do now.

But in context of the big picture, it is less clear whether those people would have been saved anyway, even with or without vaccines.

I'm not saying vaccines didn't save any lives. I am saying it is unclear just how many lives vaccines DID save. Not all lives saved can be attributed to the vaccines.

So a straight comparison of death rates before vaccines (implying those lives were saved by vaccines) and death rates because of vaccines (which is contentious in and of itself) is not really possible with the limited data we have.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
They question the research behind the vaccinations, dispute the science and yet they pretty much all would use homeopathic remedies, which regardless of the effecacy is based on pretty dubious scientific thinking.

As a consumer of homeopathy, I can address this mystery.

There may be no scientific proof that homeopathy is efficacious. But in 200 years of its use, almost no one has complained of injury from it. No one has had a seizure, or regression, or death, from the use of homeopathy.

If vaccines were equally safe as homeopathy, you'll find people wouldn't complain about its science either. They only bring up the dubitable science to argue you have no grounds for forcing vaccination on them.

Primum non nocere. First do no harm.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 2:47 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"If parents choose not to vaccinate, they must be able to assure society that their children will not become disease vectors."

Hello,

I am confused on this point.

Just who are their disease-vectoring children placing at risk?

Certainly not anyone who was vaccinated, if I understand the purpose of the procedure.

And those who have not been vaccinated are accepting the risk of not vaccinating.

So when speaking of a duty 'to society,' just who are we trying to protect by suggesting universal vaccination?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 3:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
no one has complained of injury from it [homeopathy]

Yeah, because it has no effects whatsoever.

Quote:
If vaccines were equally safe as homeopathy, you'll find people wouldn't complain about its science

If homeopathy were as effective as almost anything else in modern medical armamentarium (vaccines, antibiotics, antivirals and anti-retrovirals, etc.) then we would all be using it instead.

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 3:10 PM

I'll go on this point by point down the line, if you will...

Siggy

Quote:
So FWIW vaccination sequelae may not all be due to mercury or other adjuvants but to the reaction of the immune system itself, spilling into the brain and wreaking havoc where it doesn't belong. After all, is does that with the natural disease, so why not expect it would do that with the vaccine as well?

Damn good point that, plus the notion of "all of the above" being a factor collectively rather than individually - which is one reason for my interest, again we don't KNOW, and we damn well should at least take steps to find out.

Re: Pubmed - always seem to find ourselves there, don't we ?
For all it's perils the internet is a wonderful thing, it is...

Yeah, the Adjuvants issue needs more focus, and I took am annoyed at the mudslinging taking precedence over proper freakin research which done correctly would in short order at LEAST give us a minimally effective screening system for those most likely to have bad reactions - nothin perfect, but at least a basis to start upon, yes ?

Quote:
There ARE reasons not to vaccinate some children. A family or even individual history of adverse reactions should be enough to allow exceptions.

It should, the damn MMR nearly killed me - but even so we should explore other options for those individuals which may work with less risk, and we haven't done that either cause of the kind of black/white all or nothing thinking in this which bothers me so much.

Re: Risk Assessment and Choice.

Comes down to it, the instant you start making that choice for others, you've crossed the moral event horizon, cause you're talking about a KNOWN risk, one created BY taking a specific action (vaccination) with deliberate intent - versus an unknown risk potentially created by inaction (not vaccinating).
If I decide to play russian roulette, the action of picking up the revolver and pulling the trigger is a deliberate, intentional action, if I do nothing the risk from that action is not present and never will be.
Yes, I might then get hit by a truck, struck by lightning, or fall down the steps, but those events are not deliberately, personally created risks.
Therefore the CHOICE should always, always come down to the individual, cause the way I see it anything less is someone ELSE picking up that revolver and pointing it at me, while denying any personal responsibility which follows from inflicting a risk upon others without their consent.
Sure, life is a hard place sometimes, but nothing within it gives anyone ELSE the right to make my medical decisions for me, and the moment we go down that path regardless of what contrived excuse is used to justify it - imma dig in my heels and fight back, cause I know what lies at the bottom of THAT slope.

Byte
You've nailed the principle as well, although in less detail, I myself DO consider it a false dilemma, especially since we have capabilities TO do better and do not use them cause of a certain scientific interia I find apalling, to the point where a lot of it seems more faith and religion than science cause every time an advance or new data calls it into question, it's often dismissed out of hand, and that offends me on a scientific level.

CTS

Quote:
Yes people could be screened. Right now, they aren't doing any research on that. No REAL research, that is. If they did, we could start screening. First for one thing, then another.

But that requires 1) Big Pharma to acknowledge there IS potential for complications, far greater than they are already acknowledging right now, and 2) Big Pharma to be willing to part with the profit lost from decreased sales.

#1 implies liability for the complications which already occurred.
#2 equals less money.

Why should Big Pharma take the high road, when the current low road is working just fine? It is so much easier and cheaper and more profitable to just ride the rhetoric Siggy is preaching. They have legal immunity from most claims of damage. Zero liability. Forced sales. Near universal market. If you don't buy, we'll just threaten to bring polio and smallpox back. Works every time.

Why fix something that ain't broken? Not broken for Big Pharma, that is. What possible incentive do they have to fix a single damn thing?

I am rather in favor of a big boot in the ass, or a kick in the pocketbook, as an incentive, myself.

One thing to add to that, this VAERS underreporting problem has to be solved, and I propose we do that by instead of soley reporting ADVERSE reactions, that all immunizations and aftereffects or lack thereof be compiled (in such a fashion as to protect patient privacy, since I am all too aware of how databases can be misused) so that not only can adverse events and what may have caused them be determined, but also the ACTUAL effectiveness or lack thereof of any specific vaccine can be tracked - a method by which they could be improved upon or even tested against alternative measures on a quantifiable basis.
Simply EXPAND the VAERS data collection and make it part of procedure - it's even cost effective.

One thing I'd hold against them is severe liability when they've played false, none of this indemnity shit, especially when they've knowingly pulled a fast one, like how they used an Adjuvant laden "placebo" to equalize the numbers and hide the spike in bad reactions during the testing of Gardasil, and on sample groups far too small, for too short a time, to determine actual long-term effectiveness in their intended market - that was bunk, and they damn well should be called on it and held accountable.

Magons

Quote:
I thought I had replied to you, Frem. Must have gotten eaten by the gremlins. ;) I just wanted to respond to your call that this had become an irrational, offensive debate full of flame throwing and rage, that actually I don't see it. Looking through the thread it's a rational discussion, with some emotion. And as you yourself continuously post using strong emotive language (on any topic) and often full of outrage (on any topic), I think you are being a bit of a cheeky bugger to call out anyone else here.

Oh imma cheeky bastard indeed - I wasn't sayin it HAD become though, so much as it was leaning in that direction and we ought try to avoid that since it's ever so unproductive most of the time...
I was mostly askin folks to try to have a little restraint, which is as you say a bit odd for me to do, but it's an interesting topic I'd rather not have devolve into the usual flamewar, is all.

Quote:
Well I call bullshit on your bullshit. At least mainstream medicine does testing and research into effacacy. yes, I agree with the sentiment expressed here about the less that desirable nature of profit making organisations conducting research into medical matters that may have an impact on their bottom line. Research can be funded by indepandant bodies, usually government funded. So I guess for some of you that would prove a bit of a dilemna - about who should do it. I fall in favour of the independant body and rigourous overview of all medical research. Still I wander.... the issue is that mainstream medical treatments are subject to research, testing and evaluation. 'Natural' remedies - not so much and some not at all.

Which they should be, hell ANYTHING used medically for whatever reason should involve testing and research even if on an empirical, voluntary level - to do any less is piss poor science any way you slice it.
Sometimes folk don't have the resources though - I couldn't tell you the exact specifics of WHY laundry dryer exhaust as aromatherapy is so effective, or why Catnip tea is so effective as a calmative, cause I just don't have the resources to pull that off, would that I did.
S'funny to go there though - there's an ongoing argument between me and the rest of them right now over peppermint, as one of the things I'll do when someone is having a bad time of it is to offer one of my ubiquitous starlight mint candies, as a psycho-social "trick" which short-circuits the mental meltdown they're having often as not by triggering at the most basic of human interactions...
*I* think the calmative effect of peppermint is a placebo effect by association, others swear that it has calmative effects in and of itself - but neither side has ANY info to work with, so I completely understand your point about the lack of data, yes.

Quote:
Of course I agree, but I think 'root cause' can be problematic and difficult to determine. Sometimes there is no other cause of action to say -'we don't know yet' but we know this works. My husband had a bout of labyrithitis recently. They know what it is, but not really why it happens. THey admitted enough. They know that manipulation by a phsyio seems to work (and it did) but they are still plenty of questions over the whys. Well that is just life really. A lack of answers doesn't mean bad or bogus science, it just means 'still looking'.

I'm okay with that, it's when they STOP looking, which annoys the hell out of me, ain't no reason to do that, and it's bad science besides.

Quote:
I am continually horrified by what I hear of medical treatment in the US, the inequity of your system, the overdiagnosis and overuse of drug treatments, especially for children. And yet, and yet... some of the radical and advance treatments orginate in the US.

Yep, it's REAAALLLLLLY hit-or-miss, but when it "hits", it's pretty awesome.
Hell, I have friggin sea coral bulking up one of my bones so I can walk on it, not only did it work with zero rejection whatever, the remaining bone grew into it and accepted it as if it belonged there, that's pretty damned sweet, especially when the other docs told Corvera he was a lunatic for even considering it.

Quote:
You are right, I have lumped everyone together with the same viewpoint. I apologise. What i write is not directed to anyone here in particular. I live in an area where the anti vaccination crowd have strong numbers and I find THEM perplexing. They question the research behind the vaccinations, dispute the science and yet they pretty much all would use homeopathic remedies, which regardless of the effecacy is based on pretty dubious scientific thinking.

Your questions for immprovement of what we currently do are all valid.

Perplexing is a far, far nicer word than I would use for some folks at the extreme ends of this argument, but we'll go with that, yeah - me, I use whatever works that I can get my hands on, I'm pragmatic like that.
I try really hard not to categorize folk, to the point of being specific and personal even when I level insult, but no one succeeds in that all the time - it's one of those things one must retain awareness of though, so they don't blind themselves to some really good counter or constrasting points they might otherwise miss... although with certain folk (PN comes to mind) it's kinda forgiveable to not really wanna dig through to find a decent point, aye.

Quote:
Thanks for providing those links. It appears that there are a number of issues here. The type of vaccine used is outdated and would not now be used in developed nations. Once again an example of how inequity in medical treatment causes significant issues through the world.

The other appears to be what they are calling the 'vaccine paradox' - you don;t personally get polio once you have the vaccination, it is that this type of vaccine (the old fashioned sabine - which I had btw) can mutate in faeces and if you have poor sanitation + a large number of unvaccinated people can result in an outbreak. Therefore if a larger number of people were vaccinated it would not have resulted in an outbreak. hence the paradox. Of course it would be preferable to not have the inequity of vaccination.

That also comes back around to the trust paradox too - they're not gonna get to the level of herd immunity by offending an already suspicious community by halfassing it, especially in light of the idea that some of those darker, nastier rumors may well have some truth to them as Big Pharma has on occasion played fast and loose with the rules in third world countries, especially in regards to testing and whatnot.
So they have to be, MUST be, above reproach, and actively work to regain the trust of those communities before doubling down with their halfassery cause that will just make the locals think they're deliberately poisoning them with genocidal intent - which'd not only screw into the ground the program of vaccination, it's damn likely to get them lynched, and they do not seem to see this.

On a side note: given how often we intervene in a non-helpful sense, did it never occur to anyone to have our army engineers train-by-doing, building infrastructure which'd help better sanitation and water distribution in third world countries - along with ACTUAL experience dealing with foreign cultures ?
Sure they're not like to trust us at this point, who would - but desperate folk will often take whatever help they can get!

Quote:
No, it isn't the exact same science. If there are similarities, it is because basically most models of medical treatment have the same evolutionary basis. But the scientic rational is what is lacking from homeopathic remedies. I'll quote someone that says it better than I could.

Well, as I said I don't KNOW enough about it to make the call - however I consider the source of your link one that I would take with a very large grain of salt since they've been known to shade the truth themselves on occasion, and they do admit that both spring from the same root so for me the jury is still out till I have more info to work with - I am leery of dismissing claims out of hand, especially given how often I have fought entire CAUSES (the hellcamps, abuse within trusted groups) which were at one time dismissed out of hand.
Whether I'd put any trust in it, that's a different question - but it really does strike me in much the same fashion as someone calling extract of willow bark a scam while praising aspirin, you know ?

Quote:
They do fail to acknowledge when they are zeolots. I know lots of people who use a variety of treatments, from acupuncture to reflexology. But you can be damn sure that if they are in a car crash, they're not going to call their natureopath - they'll be off to hospital. But there are some people out there who are of a mindset that all modern medicine is evil that they will inflict abuse by neglect upon their children, by ignoring life saving treatment in favour of something based upon belief, not science.

Ah, well, I'm less than fond of zealots - in an ironic sorta fashion, like the Portia spider which eats other spiders, zealots are the one thing I will *snicker* zealously confront, cause at heart imma pragmatic kinda person - and admittedly I got something of a hate-on for religion in general, but hey, nobodys perfect.

Alas, out of time on this one...

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 3:33 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So CTS, looking at the link that you provided, which you say is unclear about the effect of vaccination, the charts include

Quote:
Influenza and pneumonia constituted the largest single disease category, averaging 44.4% of all infectious disease death

The charts also include "tuberculosis, diphtheria, pertussis, measles, typhoid fever, dysentery, syphilis ("syphilis and its sequelae"), and AIDS".

Hmmm. Of those, how many are actually vaccinated against? Nothing creates confusion like looking at graphs that have little... if anything!.... to do with vaccination!

Quote:
The disease categories that contributed most to this decline were pneumonia and influenza, which fell sharply from 1938 to 1950 and subsequently leveled off for several years, and tuberculosis, which fell abruptly from 1945 to 1954 and continued to fall until the mid 1980s. These declines coincided with the first clinical use of sulfonamides (1935), antibiotics (penicillin in 1941 and streptomycin in 1943), and antimycobacterials (streptomycin, first used against tuberculosis in 1944, para-aminosalicylic acid in 1944, and isoniazid in 1952).

So the reduction in mortality is related to the introduction of antibiotics (another conspiracy, I'm sure!). Many of the epidemic diseases are bacterial, but for the viral diseases (measles, mumps, smallpox, polio etc) there is either good medical support (oxygen, fluids, etc) or vaccination.

When they do address vaccine specifically, they say:

Quote:
polio mortality fell only marginally during the first 4 decades and then increased until the first polio vaccine was licensed in 1955.

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 3:54 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, measles and polio specifically

Pertussis

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
They question the research behind the vaccinations, dispute the science and yet they pretty much all would use homeopathic remedies, which regardless of the effecacy is based on pretty dubious scientific thinking.
As a consumer of homeopathy, I can address this mystery.

There may be no scientific proof that homeopathy is efficacious. But in 200 years of its use, almost no one has complained of injury from it. No one has had a seizure, or regression, or death, from the use of homeopathy.

If vaccines were equally safe as homeopathy, you'll find people wouldn't complain about its science either. They only bring up the dubitable science to argue you have no grounds for forcing vaccination on them.

Primum non nocere. First do no harm.

That is because they contain no active properties, other than what is to be found in water. They do no harm, because they don't do anything.

The harm in homeopathy comes when it is used instead of life saving treatments, or delay use of life saving treatments. As the article quotes, the homeopathic vaccinations make claims that they can be used instead of standard vaccinations, and yet they contain nothing that will provide any protection against possibly fatal or serious illness. I still maintain it'd dangerous in the hands of some people.

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:29 PM

Frem, we seem to be trying to out do one another with interminally long posts and I am almost through with this, just from running out of things to say.

I put homeopathy in a different category to naturopathy. No one with any wit would poo poo willow bark as not having healing properties, seeing as how aspirin is made from it. Empirical testing has been done on a number of popularly used plants which have found them to possess the useful medicinal properties observed. I have no issue with this. St John's Wort has come out extremely well in clinical trial as an effective use for depression, passiofloura assists with sleeping, as does valerian. Peppermint tea is indeed a wonderful cure for indigestion, senna for constipation. I have used all of these.

I think that mainstream medicine has given us much to be thankful for, including vaccination. But I also see that it doens't do so well on the wellbeing aspect of health. It tends to focus on fixing illness, rather than looking at people's general wellbeing and I believe that is why people often tend to turn to alternative medicines. I guess there is also a sense of medical assistance being more of a sausage factory rather than focusing on individuals needs. I've been lucky enough to have local doctors who are not like that.

I also have some concerns about how across the counter herbal medicines are produced whatgoes into them, how they are handled, what they are mixed with. There tends to be a lot less scrutiny and accountability for this type of medicine. I say this having experience of packaging spirolina in what was basically a terribly unhigenic sweat shop.

I also dispute the claim that herbal is gentler or safer. Some plants can kill you if ingested, some can give you organ failure, some bring on psychosis. Nature is not nor ever has been gentle. She's a freaking bitch quite frankly. Some herbal remedies (such as St John's wort) can interfere with other medicines such as the pill or tablets people take for heart problems.

But no I have no really issue with herbal remedies, as long as they are not making bs claims of doing something they do not or prevent people from choosing treatments which may ultimately save or extend their lives - a la steve jobs
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2011/10/24/steve-jobs-cancer-
treatment-regrets/

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

Saturday, December 17, 2011 7:35 PM

I just wanted to add that we also had an outbreak of whooping cough, largely due to the number of people in this area who are unvaccinated. And we all got it. My son who was immunised most recently had it mildly, but we got it badly. However, the risk factors are for babies who tend to die if they get a bad dose, and that is what you immunise for.

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 2:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The harm in homeopathy comes when it is used instead of life saving treatments, or delay use of life saving treatments.

Most of the time, they are not used in life-threatening conditions.

Sometimes, they are used together WITH life saving treatments. For example, a man who has had asthma all his life may use homeopathy together with his steroid inhaler 2x a day. He finds that he feels better, and decreases his use of his inhaler to only 1x a day. As he gets stronger, he is able to wean off his inhaler completely. He becomes asthma-free and ceases to use either inhaler or homeopathy. He is cured. Now maybe homeopathy did it, or maybe it didn't. The man doesn't care. He is still cured. If he relapses, he still has his inhalers to fall back on. He was never in any danger. Primum non nocere.

Quote:
As the article quotes, the homeopathic vaccinations make claims that they can be used instead of standard vaccinations, and yet they contain nothing that will provide any protection against possibly fatal or serious illness.

Yes, many people assume that because homeopathy could not possibly work, that it doesn't. Yet, millions of people in the world experience otherwise. You can discount millions of experiences worldwide in order to persist in your prejudice against it. Just as long as you don't try to keep us from using it, please feel free to indulge in your opinion.

I used to have recurrent and extremely painful gallbladder attacks. Gallbladder surgery was my only recourse. After 3 months of a homeopathic remedy, my attacks disappeared and never returned. Saved me the expense AND the side effects of gallbladder surgery. Now you can say how dangerous and ineffective homeopathy is, but your saying so doesn't mean a thing for the millions of people around the world for whom it has helped and for whom it was anything but dangerous.

But we digress. Your original point was you didn't understand the double standard anti-vaccinationists have on the science of vaccines and the science of homeopathy.

I explained there was no double standard. Science only matters when something is expensive and harmful (high costs/risk). Science doesn't matter so much when something is completely harmless, and when you do it right, there is very little cost or risk. Then why not try it even when something isn't scientifically proven?

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 2:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
My son who was immunised most recently had it mildly, but we got it badly.

This is very characteristic of subclinical infection in pertussis. Sometimes, the vaccine only masks the symptoms, but does not prevent infection. Some vaccinated people do not get symptoms at all, or have symptoms so mild they think it is only a cold. They walk around like Typhoid Marys infecting others unknowingly.

Meanwhile, unvaccinated people with full blown symptoms get blamed for spreading the disease, cause it is easy to see THEY have it. Maybe they did spread it. But it is not fair to assume the people like your son DIDN'T spread it as well.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 3:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Nothing creates confusion like looking at graphs that have little... if anything!.... to do with vaccination!

I am sorry you were confused.

I have taken the liberty to copy it here, along with the dates I asked you to mentally insert. My point, again, is that vaccines cannot take sole credit for saving lives lost to these diseases.

This graph is found on page 6, top right hand corner.
http://www.cwbpi.com/AIDS/reports/JAMATrendsArmstrong.pdf

Regarding your graphs, I agree with you that diagnoses of pertussis, polio, and measles decreased dramatically after introduction of vaccination. No dispute there.

These graphs, however, do not tell us the following:

1. How many complications and what kind of complications followed pertussis, polio, and measles. (This was your original question.)

2. Severity and duration of these cases before and after vaccination (relevant to your point about sequelae).

3. How many pertussis, polio, and measles cases we would have today without vaccinations, given different sanitation standards and disease awareness protocols.

4. How many pertussis, polio, and measles cases today can be treated and palliated effectively today, to avoid the complications found in the past.

5. How many pertussis, polio, and measles cases at the time of these graphs went undiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of diagnostic bias (which is well documented)

6. How many pertussis, polio, and measles infections at the time of these graphs were undiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of subclinical infections.

ETA:
7. In the case of polio, how many cases at the time of these graphs were undiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of a change in the definition of polio.

ETA:
8. I would very much like to see the graph of incidence rate of these diseases going back to 1900. Many diseases were already on the decline.

I reiterate that the vaccine question is complicated with many factors unexplored and questions unanswered. It is difficult to paint with a broad, conclusive brush that disease sequelae are worse than vaccine adverse reactions, or vice versa.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 3:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I am rather in favor of a big boot in the ass, or a kick in the pocketbook, as an incentive, myself.

How do you do that, when they have the DOJ in their pockets?

Quote:

One thing to add to that, this VAERS underreporting problem has to be solved, and I propose we do that by instead of soley reporting ADVERSE reactions, that all immunizations and aftereffects or lack thereof be compiled (in such a fashion as to protect patient privacy, since I am all too aware of how databases can be misused) so that not only can adverse events and what may have caused them be determined, but also the ACTUAL effectiveness or lack thereof of any specific vaccine can be tracked - a method by which they could be improved upon or even tested against alternative measures on a quantifiable basis.

...Simply EXPAND the VAERS data collection and make it part of procedure - it's even cost effective.

You are proposing to gather more data. I am all in favor of it. Most of us parents floudering in data limbo would be all in favor of it.

The problem is, how do you persuade THEM to gather more data? They don't do this because they know full well the data can turn around and bite them in the ass. Right now, vaccination is riding high on faith. Faith that vaccination = immunization. Faith that immunization lasts long enough to count when its needed. Faith that immunization actually prevents infection instead only masking symptoms. Faith that immunization prevents infection of others and spread of disease.

You're asking them to make their faith falsifiable. Make faith subject to science. More data can prove faith wrong. I don't think Big Pharma will take that risk.

There are also not a lot of people here who would want to MAKE them take that risk. Take the chance that the Holy Water with which they baptize all babies might be shown to be ineffective or dangerous? Take the chance that this iconic symbol of collective obligation be taken down a notch? I just don't see it happening.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 3:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Sig: "If parents choose not to vaccinate, they must be able to assure society that their children will not become disease vectors."

Anthony: Just who are their disease-vectoring children placing at risk?

Certainly not anyone who was vaccinated, if I understand the purpose of the procedure.

And those who have not been vaccinated are accepting the risk of not vaccinating.

So when speaking of a duty 'to society,' just who are we trying to protect by suggesting universal vaccination?

Excellent question. Most excellent.

The people to be protected are:

1. Immunocompromised children for whom vaccines are contraindicated. This demographic is very small, but it is thought "herd immunity" would keep the disease from spreading, and thus protect these vulnerable population. Less than universal vaccination would destroy "herd immunity."

a. Herd immunity is a theoretical and mathematical concept that has never been proven empirically. The model assumes that vaccination = immunization, and immunization = absence of infection.

b. The assumption that vaccination = immunization is false, as you will see in #2 below. The assumption that immunization = absence of infection is also false, because subclinical infection is well documented.

c. Therefore, immunocompromised children are not as protected by "herd immunity" as believed. In fact, they may be more risk by vaccinated Typhoid Marys.

2. Vaccinated children for whom vaccination was a "dud."It is widely acknowledged that vaccination effectiveness is not 100%. Kids who are vaccinated, but not immunized, are vulnerable to infection. Unvaccinated kids spread disease to "dud vaccinees," vaccinees for whom the vaccines failed to work.

The real question is, what is this percentage of "dud vaccinees"?

Take a look at this long list of outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations.
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/scandals/july_5_02/outbreaks_in_highly_
vaccinated.htm

As you can see, sometimes the percentage of dud vaccinees is pretty darn high. Furthermore, these outbreaks empirically disprove the idea that immunocompromised kids are protected by "herd immunity."

What is the response to empirical evidence that vaccines actually FAIL a lot more than expected?

Buy more vaccines of course! And more often! Even if it only has a 50% success rate, MORE vaccines will make that 50% into a LARGER number of children.

----

In summary, unvaccinated children must be forced to vaccinate to protect 1)unvaccinated children who WANT to vaccinate but can't, and 2)vaccinated children whom vaccines FAIL to protect.

You're not allowed to WANT to not vaccinate, see?

My opinion is, preventing choice is not truly about protecting public health. It is about selling vaccines.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 4:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS One of the reasons why I can't take you seriously is that you will fervently argue two exactly contradictory arguments, one right after the other, without even noticing that both arguments can't possibly be true at the same time. Which BTW you just did.

ONE of your arguments is that vaccinations don't do much in reducing the sequelae of illness. The OTHER argument is the vaccinations make symptoms so mild that some people don't even know they are ill

Quote:
Some vaccinated people do not get symptoms at all, or have symptoms so mild they think it is only a cold

.... a backhand acknowledgment that vaccination does indeed work to reduce the sequelae of disease. Logically, you can't have both way, although I'm sure you spend much time and many posts trying.

So, to recap the vaccination discussion: Despite clear evidence that vaccines have been effective at reducing the incidence of targeted diseases AND their sequelae, you insist that vaccines are ineffective. Your argument seems to be that because antibiotics and sanitation made large advances in the treatment of bacterial infectious diseases (pneumonia, etc) vaccines are therefore able to be disposed of in the armamentarium against ALL infectious disease, without providing any successful treatment model* for viral diseases such as polio, chicken pox etc.
* You suggest that homeopathy is effective, or at least innocuous. Is that your treatment model for polio?
You focus on the concern that vaccines cause autism to the point where you have not ever really considered any other possible causes, even when it is clear that most cases of autism are present at birth.
In fact, you focus on the negative consequence vaccination exclusively. This thought takes up so much room in your mentation about vaccines that it is somehow "unclear" that vaccines reduced the incidence of disease like polio and smallpox, and that for MOST people getting the disease is far worse than getting the vaccine.

As a mental exercise, consider California's own little mini-epidemic of pertussis. Even with modern medicine available, there were 9143 cases which resulted in ten infant deaths. Even vaccination- as bad as you think it is - doesn't have that fatality rate! But yanno what? All of these facts are wasted on you. You will give a little ground, only to circle back the next time, claiming that widespread autism and vaccines are even a viable topic of thought. This this is clearly not the case, as most cases of autism (and the biomarkers that go with it) are present at birth. It will continue to be "unclear" (to you) that vaccines prevent or lessen the impact of the scourge of serious diseases like polio, smallpox, pertussis, tetanus, rubella. In your mind, homeopathy will be a successful mode of treatment, because vaccines, antibiotics and chemotherapy are just part of a conspiracy by big pharma to shove ineffective medications at us.

Quote:
Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It's this: Facts don't necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

I'm not arguing to change your mind. Like rappy, you will toss a lot of chaff... much of it self-contradictory or blatantly unsupported by any sort of evidence whatsoever.. to support your belief structure. Clearly, you are not about to look at evidence with an unbiased eye.

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 5:16 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

" On page 6, there is a chart on mortality rates for diphtheria, pertussis, measles, and polio.

That is a blatant lie which is completely contradicted by the article in which it appears. "

Hello,

I consulted the page indicated and found the indicated chart. Are you saying the chart does not correlate to the findings of the article?

--Anthony

ETA: The source quote seems to have been edited while I was typing my response, and no longer appears as I found it. The new quote is:

Quote:

That is a blatant misrepresentation of what the chart includes. The chart includes influenza and pneumonia - which the article takes pains to point out represent the VAST burden of disease- as well as syphilis, AIDS and other infectious diseases. Your statement was a blatant lie. I just wanted to point that out. Glad we got that out of the way!

However, I do not understand what is being claimed as a lie here. Can I get an elaboration?
_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 5:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I stand corrected and will retract my accusation. The chart labels were not clear on the screen that I was using at the time. I will, however, point out that the article makes a POINT of mentioning the reduction in polio deaths, which is not evident from the chart. If the axes were expanded, you would see the reduction in deaths and incidence, and I have provided charts for this which show the effects of vaccination in a milieu of modern sanitation, modern medical treatment, and modern communicable disease control.

I also will point out (again) the mortality rate of the last pertussis outbreak in CA, with roughly 9100 incidents and 10 infant deaths, even in a milieu of modern medicine. Vaccination does not have that anywhere near that mortality rate.

The point is not that major advances weren't made in the past. The question is where to go from here. If we were to remove vaccination from the armamentarium, we would quickly go back to a level of illness and death that people in the modern world would find unacceptable.

One other point that nobody has really touched on: modern transportation. In day past, sanitation sucked. The level of wealth was so low that most people had to work until they died, so even taking off a week for rest was unheard of. Antibiotics, electrolytes, and oxygen were unavailable. My grandmother had eight children during the depression, but only four survived to adulthood (causes of death, as near as can be discerned after-the-fact: pneumonia, TB, meningitis, and??) and one who survived (my mom) has post-polio syndrome.

The one thing they had in their favor was very slow to non-existent transportation... except in WWI when troops was moving everywhere, which prolly made the influenza epidemic much worse than before. Although outbreaks occurred, they tended to stay more localized.

With the advent of widespread use of the car, and (later) the airplane, spread of infectious disease got a whole new dimension.

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 5:36 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I would be rather embarrassed at triumphantly declaring someone a liar, only to discover my error a short time later.

I know the cumulative emotional momentum of the people in an argument can lead to such unfortunate outbursts, perhaps even clouding reason.

A rational, reasonable person might have wondered where the chart came from rather than pouncing immediately upon a dark accusation with such energetic gusto.

I think perhaps there is nothing more to learn on this topic, and we should step back while we can still be friends. Once 'liar liar pants on fire' becomes part of the conversation, then it has run its useful course. Continuing the argument from here will only represent a contest of passions.

Signy, I'd like to thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge of the subject matter. You have helped me to understand the topic on a deeper level. (Though of course not as deeply as you understand it. I content myself with drippings of Wisdom.)

Sky, thank you for arguing counterpoints. I found you also to be much more informed than I am, and you presented a good alternative angle with which to study the problem.

I think there is good ground between you to improve our collective attitudes towards vaccination. I think that ultimately you both would like to see the same thing: The most effective medicine possible.

I am glad that there are people who understand the dangers of ignoring medical science, and I am glad that there are people who are not content with the status quo of current progress. As long as there are scientists, and as long as there are those who rail against the limitations of current science, then there will be improvement beneficial to both.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 5:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think that ultimately you both would like to see the same thing: The most effective medicine possible.

No, we would not. Although it IS embarrassing, I'm able to admit when I'm wrong. CTS is not. That is the difference between us. And I'm sorry I did what seems (to you) to be a fatal disservice to my argument over a personal point, because CTS is one of worst cherry-pickers of data that post here, and I'm sad that you can't see that. That may dent my relationship with you too- which I would regret because you are one of the more reasonable people here- but I'm not going to pander the truth for it.

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 6:01 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

You did not do a disservice to your argument. You did a disservice to a person.

I have insulted people before, been rude before, hurled incorrect accusations before. I am a human being. This is a universal failing.

I see that you have a lot of sorrow:

"I'm sorry I did what seems (to you) to be a fatal disservice to my argument"

But that's not what there is to be sorry about.

You have a brilliant, beautiful mind, Signy. I couldn't reach it with a ladder. I'll never be half the thinker you are.

So maybe I focus my talents in other areas. Areas inconsequential to a higher thinker. But they are important to me.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 6:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You have a brilliant, beautiful mind, Signy. I couldn't reach it with a ladder. I'll never be half the thinker you are.

Not true. Tony, you ask incisive, meaningful questions, including the one where you ask (in essence) What are we vaccinating for, if people who are vaccinated are protected? Asking the right questions is 99.999% of being brilliant. No, even more than that. It is, it truly is. Where science fails, it's because scientists don't ask the right questions.

I let my temper get the better of me. I try not to, but I did. I don't regret it on a personal level, but that's my failing, not yours.

So carry on with whatever it is you're doing. Anyone who can manage to be polite... humane, even... and still be so smart has got to be doing something right.

BTW- FWIW there are others here that I consider to be far more intelligent than me... including you. They have reached their insights by paths very different from mine... some by empathy, others by hardscrabble experience, some by (it seems to me) having just a touch of schizophrnia, others by just being born brilliant, I guess. I'm just a middle-of-the-pack kind of person.

Maybe that's why I sometimes go out of my way to make people feel small. Again, my failing. The data should speak for itself; I do a disservice to the truth that way.

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 7:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
ONE of your arguments is that vaccinations don't do much in reducing the sequelae of illness.

I never made this argument.

What I said was the graphs of lower incidences of a disease do not give us any information on sequelae of illness. You can't ASSUME just because there are lower incidences, there are less complications.

Quote:
you insist that vaccines are ineffective.

Again, I have never made this argument.

I thought I listed my positions on vaccines at the start. Perhaps you did not read them.

ETA: All right, I will relent and explain myself this time.
In some people, vaccines are effective, immunizing them against infection.
In some people, vaccines are only partially effective, resulting in subclinical infection.
In some people, vaccines are duds.

Vaccines are effective, but its effectiveness has been greatly exaggerated by ignoring the subclinical infections and duds, not to mention all the misdiagnoses.

I could continue on and on defending myself against the hordes of strawmen you throw at me. But I hope all other readers can see for themselves what I actually believe and what I don't--despite of mountains of baseless accusations thrown out by Siggy. As usual.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I think that ultimately you both would like to see the same thing: The most effective medicine possible.
No, we would not.

Speak for yourself.

I would like to see the most effective and safe medicine possible. Yes. Yes, I would.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 7:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I am glad that there are people who understand the dangers of ignoring medical science, and I am glad that there are people who are not content with the status quo of current progress. As long as there are scientists, and as long as there are those who rail against the limitations of current science, then there will be improvement beneficial to both.

You oughta be a diplomat. You got talent out the waz.

I have more info to put out there. But if this is an indication that people are tired of the cat fights and are bowing out of this conversation, I will stop too. I am not really interested in talking to Siggy about this, as there is nothing we say to each other that we haven't said and fought about before.

While I am still here, I was looking for incidence rates of disease from before the 1950's, and found this.

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/harpub/pol_all.htm

I am not saying I agree with this author, though the author makes a good point that we must look at other factors of both causation and cure. Anyway, it is a good graphic of the timeline of polio.

We also need to consider epidemics that came and went without the use of vaccines. Their graphs look very much like the polio graph. It is called an epidemic wave.

http://www.liv.ac.uk/geography/research_projects/epidemics/epidemic_wa
ve.html

We will never know if vaccines alone are responsible for the decline of polio or if it would have gone on its own anyway.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 8:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
You have a brilliant, beautiful mind, Signy. I couldn't reach it with a ladder. I'll never be half the thinker you are.
Not true. Tony, you ask incisive, meaningful questions, including the one where you ask (in essence) What are we vaccinating for, if people who are vaccinated are protected? Asking the right questions is 99.999% of being brilliant. No, even more than that. It is, it truly is. Where science fails, it's because scientists don't ask the right questions.

I fully concur, Anthony.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 8:38 AM

Since I have caved and stooped to defending myself, I will indulge one more time for this.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But do we stop vaccinating because the vaccines aren't perfect?

No. I have never advocated that people stop vaccinating.

I have advocated personal choice, making the decision with a trusted health consultant. Some people will choose to vaccinate. Good for them. Some people will choose not to vaccinate. Good for them.

Quote:
That seems to be what CTS is advocating,....

A lot of interesting falsehoods about me seem true to you. I will chalk it up to your having a very good imagination. CTS, The Monster, in 3D!!!

Quote:
Because HER choice would place us back in the days of sweeping, deadly epidemics

If vaccines immunize as effectively as the CDC claims, a small proportion of refusers would not endanger them. Dropping the vaccination rate from 99% to say, even 80%, (imagine that the current 1% of refusers grow into 20%) will still be incapable of bring back the old sweeping, deadly epidemics.

Quote:
(epidemics which she tends to deny were eliminated by vaccination. Because the statics aren't "good enough" for her. )

I am not denying. I am questioning if they were eliminated by vaccination. Rejection and doubt are two different things.

I hope that clarifies where I stand. Not for you, Siggy, because you enjoy using your imagination. But for Byte, and Anthony, and Frem, in case there was confusion.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 9:33 AM

CHRISISALL

Washing one's hands was a revolutionary idea way back. It did away with lots of illnesses.
Simple but effective.

Now it's complicated because of money.
Crappy is the operative word.
Crappy data correlation, crappy supervisors, crappy pay, crappy motivation, crappy standards, in essence, all that is best in the corporate mentality.

I trust in NOTHING that is motivated by profit alone.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 10:46 AM

Ok, from the last post on down...

Magons

Quote:
Frem, we seem to be trying to out do one another with interminally long posts and I am almost through with this, just from running out of things to say.

Aye, and it weren't even intentional on either of our behalf - I think it gratifying to exchange views without the usual biases and hostility for once, very much so.

Quote:
I think that mainstream medicine has given us much to be thankful for, including vaccination. But I also see that it doens't do so well on the wellbeing aspect of health. It tends to focus on fixing illness, rather than looking at people's general wellbeing and I believe that is why people often tend to turn to alternative medicines. I guess there is also a sense of medical assistance being more of a sausage factory rather than focusing on individuals needs. I've been lucky enough to have local doctors who are not like that.

HA! sausage factory is indeed an apt description - most docs over here don't spend one bloody second with a patient they don't absolutely have to, and the human-contact part of it is almost entirely missing.
I actually disputed one bill recently, a follow-up (i.e. required ass-covering for their malpractice insurance, of ZERO medical necessity) in which I visited a Rheumatology specialist - the flunkies took my vital signs and then the doc comes in, and in five minutes flat realizes there's nothing here TO follow up and sends me on my merry...
I highly disputed $145.00 USD for this (and won that dispute) cause that's just bullshit.

Quote:
I also have some concerns about how across the counter herbal medicines are produced whatgoes into them, how they are handled, what they are mixed with. There tends to be a lot less scrutiny and accountability for this type of medicine. I say this having experience of packaging spirolina in what was basically a terribly unhigenic sweat shop.

Oh indeed, the problem with involving the FDA is their asinine concept of banning shit outright - were they to just insure truth in labelling and toss in a disclaimer about the lack of testing/approval I'd be more inclined to perhaps go with that, provided the issue of them being little more than a mouthpiece for Big Pharma can also be addressed...

Quote:
I also dispute the claim that herbal is gentler or safer. Some plants can kill you if ingested, some can give you organ failure, some bring on psychosis. Nature is not nor ever has been gentle. She's a freaking bitch quite frankly. Some herbal remedies (such as St John's wort) can interfere with other medicines such as the pill or tablets people take for heart problems.

Well only a stone-blind idiot would come at it that way, not that there's any shortage of those in any profession save maybe Architecture...
(Funny, I've NEVER met a stupid architect, never, weird, eh ?)
But when done properly, any old-ways healing is always, ALWAYS done at the least possible and moved up, instead of going in slam-bang-boom like modern medicine does - in fact I think that might be a source of otherwise unexplained complications by upsetting the bodys natural balances...
That said, there's times for slam-bang-boom, the turnaround on that Acute Febrile-whateverthehellitwas, came as a result of the mad-science doctor dropping a concentration of steroids and other stuff into my bloodstream all at once in a fashion that'd prolly be lethal to most people, to both short-circuit the autoimmune reaction and treat the underlying problem setting it off - despite the near hysterics of the other docs it worked flawlessly, causing my immune system to re-target onto the actual problem instead of attacking it's own host, whereupon it cleaned up house so well they took even MORE blood samples cause of the medical possibilities of an immune system response that *can* curb-stomp something like that.
I told em I want royalties if they come up with anything, and they have "bought" my patience for further testing by offsetting previous medical bills in exchange.

CTS

Quote:
You are proposing to gather more data. I am all in favor of it. Most of us parents floudering in data limbo would be all in favor of it.

The problem is, how do you persuade THEM to gather more data? They don't do this because they know full well the data can turn around and bite them in the ass. Right now, vaccination is riding high on faith. Faith that vaccination = immunization. Faith that immunization lasts long enough to count when its needed. Faith that immunization actually prevents infection instead only masking symptoms. Faith that immunization prevents infection of others and spread of disease.

You're asking them to make their faith falsifiable. Make faith subject to science. More data can prove faith wrong. I don't think Big Pharma will take that risk.

There are also not a lot of people here who would want to MAKE them take that risk. Take the chance that the Holy Water with which they baptize all babies might be shown to be ineffective or dangerous? Take the chance that this iconic symbol of collective obligation be taken down a notch? I just don't see it happening.

You don't involve Big Pharma - you make it established procedure and play the science card on that part of the medical establishment which all but worships it, and you do it in a sideways fashion by which they never realize that might turn their sacred cow into cheeseburger until it's already in place and any effort to yank it or munge it up makes them OBVIOUSLY look like they're hiding something and would lead to a fullisade of lawsuits - not as easy as I make it sound here, but entirely possible, yes.

And I have one last bit to add, but I'll make that it's own post.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
This is very characteristic of subclinical infection in pertussis. Sometimes, the vaccine only masks the symptoms, but does not prevent infection. Some vaccinated people do not get symptoms at all, or have symptoms so mild they think it is only a cold. They walk around like Typhoid Marys infecting others unknowingly.

Meanwhile, unvaccinated people with full blown symptoms get blamed for spreading the disease, cause it is easy to see THEY have it. Maybe they did spread it. But it is not fair to assume the people like your son DIDN'T spread it as well.

I'm confused. IT's the symptoms which are dangerous. An infant with whooping cough cannot breathe because of the severity of the cough. The infection is spread via air born droplets that occur when the infected person coughs. If you have reduced symptoms you are less infectious. That is why the exclusion period is during the coughing stage.

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:15 AM

Regarding the abject dismissal of high-dilution homeopathy simply because there is at this time no scientific test capable of determining result brought to mind an imagined conversation from days of yore that may well have been, and certainly echos a bit for me here.

Quote:
I daresay the whole notion is but polite fiction, bacteria ? microbes? HA!
Where is there any evidence of these supposed creatures existence, when this gentleman proposes that they are too small for as to see ?
The very notion is preposterous, I say - everyone knows these maladies are caused by night vapors and miasmas, the evidence is undeniable, and this gentlemans proposal a mere scam to sell his faery powder made from of all the things, moldy bread!
I daresay we reject this obvious fiction in light of obvious personal interest, as it conflicts so greatly with established medical knowledge as to be a ludicrous pipedream.

I've read Boyle, and Semmelweis, and have on occasion read similar excoriations of damn near anyone who ever significantly advanced scientific knowledge, often in the face of tremendous opposition.
As always I am leery of dismissing claims out of hand for reasons I've already explained, and simply because we have no test that shows a result, does not necessarily mean there may not be one.
I assign no particular credibility to either "side" of that debate, as both ends of it have shown sufficient bias to not take either one seriously, so for me the jury is still out, and will REMAIN out, till such evidence I have in hand to make up my own mind - I wouldn't use such a thing as a primary treatment since I have little knowledge about it and most of the time there are better options, but nor will I dismiss it entire.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:16 AM

Quote:
But when done properly, any old-ways healing is always, ALWAYS done at the least possible and moved up, instead of going in slam-bang-boom like modern medicine does - in fact I think that might be a source of otherwise unexplained complications by upsetting the bodys natural balances...

Good mainstream medicine does the same, Frem. It SHOULDN"T go in like a bull at a gate either. Not first up.

I kind of disagree about the body's natural balances stuff. The body is at war with itself. We're full of things fighting one another, bacteria, viruses, antibodies etc etc. Plus, we deteriorate. That is the natural order of things. Bits start to go wrong and cause us pain. Basically its miraculous that any of us live past 40.

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:30 AM

Especially miraculous in one case!

Me and my primary doc actually had to tally all this crap so that we can beat the insurance company over the head with it, starting with petty stuff like Gerstmann Syndrome and working all the way down to every screw, plate, bit of plastic, sea coral and what have you - and he made the comment that I am essentially a Lich, cause there's no reason I should still be alive.. it's a realllly long list.

I did realize one thing I should be especially grateful for is that I do not suffer any psychological trauma from mechanical alteration or replacement - apparently most people do?
Guess that explains why some of my family totally freaked when they rebuilt me, save for a certain niece who thought it was way cool.

As for balances, I never said it was a harmonious balance, mind you - but there is a balance to most people, both physical and psychological, and throwing either out of whack can cause complications otherwise avoidable.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm confused. IT's the symptoms which are dangerous. An infant with whooping cough cannot breathe because of the severity of the cough. The infection is spread via air born droplets that occur when the infected person coughs. If you have reduced symptoms you are less infectious. That is why the exclusion period is during the coughing stage.

Yes, the symptoms are what kills young children. So preventing symptoms is good. Not arguing that.

What I am arguing about is the conflation of "no/few symptoms" with "not a danger to the community." It simply isn't true. Yes, respiratory droplets carry the bacteria. But the bacteria is transmissible through contaminated surfaces as well. Subclinical infection includes a mild cough and cold symptoms, which is sufficient to make the bacteria airborne.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627963/

This is an old study when the whole cell vaccine was used, but it's free, so you can read the whole article. This is just an example of a paper on subclinical infection.

It is about Israeli researchers testing 46 fully vaccinated children in the contact circles (2 day care centers) of a baby who died of pertussis. They wanted to know how the baby got it when everyone around him was fully vaccinated.

Amongst the 2-3 year olds, 10% (3 out of 30) had antibodies suggesting a recent infection, but no symptoms. One of these kids had nasopharyngeal colonization and had full blown symptoms. Amongst the 5-6 year olds (16 kids), 55% (9 kids) of the class had antibodies suggesting a recent infection, but no symptoms. 25% of the class (4 kids) had nasopharyngeal colonization; only one had full blown symptoms, while the other 3 had mild coughs.

Of course, they don't know which of these kids transmitted pertussis to the baby's family and eventually to the baby. But they conclude: "Our results indicate that children ages 5-6 years and possibly younger, ages 2-3 years, play a role as silent reservoirs in the transmission of pertussis in the
community."

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

While I was lookin at something elsewhere, this chart came to mind, and then this part leaped out in my mind as concurrent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin#Mass_production

Interesting to note the time frame there also coincides with the beginning of the ability to mass produce anti-biotics, I think it's relative, but not quiiiiite sure exactly how, gotta think about that one a bit.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You don't involve Big Pharma - you make it established procedure and play the science card on that part of the medical establishment which all but worships it, and you do it in a sideways fashion by which they never realize that might turn their sacred cow into cheeseburger until it's already in place and any effort to yank it or munge it up makes them OBVIOUSLY look like they're hiding something and would lead to a fullisade of lawsuits - not as easy as I make it sound here, but entirely possible, yes.

If you can get this ball rolling, I'd be behind you 100%.

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Interesting to note the time frame there also coincides with the beginning of the ability to mass produce anti-biotics, I think it's relative, but not quiiiiite sure exactly how, gotta think about that one a bit.

Before penicillin in the mid 1940's, you got sulfa drugs in the 1930's.

Sewer systems were installed in many cities in the late 1800's and early 1900's. It might have contributed to the sharp decline of mortality due to infectious diseases. Just a tad. :)

-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 2:22 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Regarding the abject dismissal of high-dilution homeopathy simply because there is at this time no scientific test capable of determining result brought to mind an imagined conversation from days of yore that may well have been, and certainly echos a bit for me here.

If I propose that disease is caused by microbes, and I create a test that will determine whether or not microbes are indeed a cause... such as hand washing, and I succeed, my hypothesis is looking stronger.

If I say that acupuncture works, even though I can't explain it in terms that modern medicine recognizes, but I can perform surgery on a person whose only anesthesia is acupuncture... well, then I would have to say that there is something there, even if it's not well-understood.

But if I create a test... several of them, in fact... attempting to prove that homeopathy is a valuable treatment, and I fail then maybe homeopathy isn't such a good option.

There is such a thing as the scientific method. If you can make something happen reliably over and over, well then, better get cracking and figure out what's going on. But to keep flogging a procedure for which there is NO evidence ... despite the fact that people have been looking for it ... is just like.. what? Insisting that Saddam had WMD? Still trying to create cold fusion? The best the homeopaths seem to come up with is...There may be no scientific proof that homeopathy is efficacious. But at least it hasn't hurt anybody. If there is ONE robust double-blind, placebo-controlled studies on homeopathy which show that it works, I haven't seen it. But I've seen a lot going the other way.

Jimminy. There IS a real world out there. There is also wishful thinking.

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

Sunday, December 18, 2011 2:33 PM