Debating science
JC
I've been reading on some Facebook site that a particular anti-vaccine
proponent believes that everyone should be entitled to debate science,
and not just scientists. I may have paraphrased it. I agree that
everyone is entitled to debate any topic, but that the quality of that
discussion will depend very much on the level of knowledge that the
person has on a topic.
But here's another question. Who should be allowed to fly planes?
Who should be allowed to give law advice? Who should be allowed to
give medical advice? Who do you go to to learn about quantum
physics? Who?
John
punter
Anybody who has demonstrated an understanding of the law (as it is
practiced in any particular country).
Homeopaths, chiropractors, GNM practitioners, naturopaths and anybody
else who has demonstrated an aptitude for not falling for the nonsense
of the germ theory/vaccine paradigm.
Anybody who can give coherent answers on motion, energy, mass etc but
preferably one who doesn't believe in the magic of black holes, worm
holes, dark matter etc.
Are these answers acceptable?
JC
"Anybody if they have displayed the skills required to fly one."
I agree, provided they have a licence.
"Anybody who has demonstrated an understanding of the law (as it is
practiced in any particular country)."
I agree, provided they are accredited appropriately.
"Homeopaths, chiropractors, GNM practitioners, naturopaths and anybody
else who has demonstrated an aptitude for not falling for the nonsense
of the germ theory/vaccine paradigm."
"Anybody who can give coherent answers on motion, energy, mass etc but
preferably one who doesn't believe in the magic of black holes, worm
holes, dark matter etc."
So what you're saying here Tristan is that it's OK for anyone to
discuss medicine and quantum physics, as long as they agree with your
viewpoints. Hardly a good basis to learn and debate, is it?
John
evilbadscary
I think that anyone should be able to debate science - although there
are a number of rules that those in the science industry adhere to.
The first is logic - one statement should lead to the next and there
should be a clear thread of reasoning (actually scrap that, it's not
just scientists, this is a must for all individuals atempting to
discuss anything)
The second is evidence. All claims that you suspect will be questioned
or are contentious absolutely need referencing to evidence.
The third is the veracity of the evidence. Science can not rely on
heresay or whim or a "feeling" - it has all been peer reviewed and put
through the test to be allowed into scientific literature. This is
good evidence
The fourth is that although the scientific method is rigorous,
occasionally some bad science gets through for publication. This can
be discussed and debated - but note that it has usually already been
done in the literature (therefore references for correction,
modification or retraction exist)
The fifth is that science is continually changing. New theories need
to be considered as new evidence comes to hand.
These rules sound reasonable but they are quite difficult to achieve -
most scientists take 5-10 years of training to be able to communicate
effectively in their field (don't let this put you off)
To your second question - what you are getting at here is academic
integrity. Some individuals are more believable than others when it
comes to certain topics simply because they have spent more time
researching that topic, have had more peer reviewed papers published
in that area. My only comment here is that you can not trust anyone on
the internet - each poster can say that they have certain experience
or certain background, even say that they are a certain person - this
does not mean that they are that person with that experience. How do
we get around this problem? Driver's licence? Maybe. Curriculum vitae
with referees? Maybe. The most probable way things will work out is by
experience of each individual. We could state experience in the
signature we provide
e
Evil Scientist Person
Anybody if they have displayed the skills required to fly one.
Anybody who has demonstrated an understanding of the law (as it is
practiced in any particular country).
Homeopaths, chiropractors, GNM practitioners, naturopaths and anybody
else who has demonstrated an aptitude for not falling for the nonsense
of the germ theory/vaccine paradigm.
Anybody who can give coherent answers on motion, energy, mass etc but
preferably one who doesn't believe in the magic of black holes, worm
holes, dark matter etc.
Are these answers acceptable?
Wow, such unabashed ignorance.
I'll focus on the pseudo science to begin with.
Homeopaths? The least scientific and whacky of all the pseudo
sciences? With not one single product able to pass a simple scientific
trial (double blind, placebo).
Chiropracters - not so much of an issue with them so long as they
stick to bones and what they actually study rather than claiming to
cure asthma, cancer etc.
I've not looked in to GNM so will do so now to educate myself on the
topic for future debates.
Nonsense of the germ/vaccination program? A few links/refs would be
useful. I personally have a 7 month old who is going through the full
course of vaccinations.
Black holes are not black magic. There is nothing magical about
science. It is. A combination of theory and experiments.
I am a scientist and quite regular get results that don't support my
theories. When this happens i reassess my theories and do more
experiments.
The AVN fanclub seems to simply discount any science, put their
fingers in their ears and shout "La, la, la, I can;t hear you".
Cheers
An Evil Scientist Person
JC
different ideas to myself. I dont have a problem with debating you. I
just wish youd pit up a fight. It's a tough debate as, do far, you
really haven't offered anything at all to back your claims.
I've had a lovely time discussing issues with others on this forum -
just not you.
More the point, what are you doing here debating me, when I'm clearly
someone you stated you don't want to have give advice? Aren't I one
of those people who have fallen for the "germ theory"?
So now you're an expert of astronomy and physics? Wow. Don't get
caught up in all those trivial details though. Like gravity. And black
holes.
John
JC
"We could state experience in the signature we provide". What a good
idea.
John
punter
fingers in their ears and shout "La, la, la, I can;t hear you"."
Perhaps, but we do have the power to understand irony.
punter
Tasha David
The problem with listening to some pro vaccine scientists, medical professionals etc is that they display an arrogance in dealing with parents who have legitimate concerns with vaccination. When I say legitimate, I don’t just mean through the studies, and articles that they have read, I mean actually watch your child/ren change radically in front of your eyes after vaccination!
You all seem to think this is just about science when it is not, if you were like me and saw your children that were vaccinated become disabled and sick, while their two unvaccinated younger siblings came out healthy and normal, and someone said to you, don’t worry it can’t be vaccination here are all these studies that say that it is not possible! Would you believe the studies from strangers who don’t even know your children or would you believe your own eyes?!?
You all seem to forget that we as parents are the frontlines when it comes to children’s health, especially our own. We should be working together to find the answers to this problem but instead parents are labelled as irresponsible, parasites, neglectful, even child killers and we are told to sit back and let the experts make the decisions because they know better than us, oh and didn’t you know the Wakefield study was a fraud!?!
Yes, you guys have the qualifications but we have the intimate knowledge of what led up to and following our children’s injuries, you need to stop writing off parents accounts as anecdotal and therefore unworthy of consideration.
Your statement “The AVN fanclub seems to simply discount any science, put their
fingers in their ears and shout "La, la, la, I can;t hear you".
It is statements like this that I don’t understand, how can someone who is supposedly much smarter than me, not have the maturity or the depth of character to understand that the people that are part of the “AVN fan club” are there because either their children or themselves have had adverse reactions to vaccinations or their own personal research has led them to the conclusion that vaccinations are more dangerous than we have been made to think. Why do you feel the need for all the snide comments and condescension? Are we not all mature adults???
Cheers
Tasha
JC
With all due respect, science is exactly what is required when
investigating your kind of reports. That's how medicine is advanced.
But again, with all due respect, there has never been a link found
between vaccination and autism when looked at by extremely large
population based studies. I can imagine how much you want there to be
a link, and be able to blame something, but unfortunately, the hard
truth is that it was in all probability, not to do with your
children's vaccinations.
John
Ashley L
children or would you believe your own eyes?!? "
YES! Objectivity is KEY to all scientific understanding. Parents,
particularly good parents, CANNOT be objective because good parents
are emotionally involved.
I'm not in the field of biomedical research so each time I consult a
physician I have two choices. I can trust the physician OR I can use
my skills as a researcher to investigate their claims.
As I see it, there's peril either way. I'm intimately familiar with
the perils of engaging in knowledge beyond my ken. I've seen too many
people fall down and too many get hurt meddling with things they don't
have the experience and grounding to understand. I know that reality
is often counter-intuitive and that things are not always as they seem
on first glance. On the other hand, I have to trust that a stranger
knows what they're talking about, on that score, however, I am biased
because I have seen behind the curtain.
I trust those strangers because they use the same methodology I do. I
trust those strangers because I know their critics are every bit as
eager as mine to prove them wrong. I trust those strangers because I
know EXACTLY what they've gone through to get where they are. I know
the rigors of accreditation. I trust those strangers because I know
that they know that if they blow it they'll suffer the consequences. I
know that in science, particularly in cutting-edge science, there is
no such thing as a lasting fraud.
"You all seem to forget that we as parents are the frontlines when it
comes
to children’s health, especially our own."
Except that in a relatively high density society, like ours, doctors
are tasked not only at treating the individual but at looking at the
bigger picture.
Your front line metaphor is particularly apt, a soldier in his trench
can only safeguard his own section of the line he can't see if a
breach is occurring up the the other end of his line so he lacks the
perspective to question a retreat and so must trust in his general.
"Yes, you guys have the qualifications but we have the intimate
knowledge of what led up to and following our children’s injuries, you
need to stop writing off parents accounts as anecdotal and therefore
unworthy of consideration. "
As scientists we cannot and we must not simply take your word as fact
fait accompli. Parents, particularly frightened ones, are not always
rational. Evidence must be examined rationally. Correlation is not
sufficient evidence of causation.
"Why do you feel the need for all the snide comments and
condescension? "
Principally, I suspect frustration. It's INCREDIBLY frustrating to
hear the same, tired old anti-vaccine canards that have existed since
the beginning of vaccination being told, over and over, and over again
by snake-oil salesmen.
It's UNBEARABLY frustrating when parents are linked to frauds
demonstrable liars for information about vaccines because of something
they read on the internet that was written by someone who, from an
informed point of view, clearly had no idea what they were talking
about.
It is IMMENSELY frustrating that a rational person would conceive of
sites like whale.to as a place to find quality information.
I'm not saying don't be skeptical and I'm not saying don't ask
questions, just don't ask someone whose only qualifications are from
google university.
"Are we not all mature adults??? "
Well, you know the old saying, some people grow-up, some people grow
old. Then again, some people are just cheeky blighters. You've just
got to take them as they come.
Tasha David
I never said that we didn't need any science, I said we need to work together and not discount parents just because they don't have a scientific or medical degree. In regards to there being no studies that have found a link, I have already posted studies that have suggested a link, so please let's not go down that road again.
"I can imagine how much you want there to be a link, and be able to blame something, "
"but unfortunately, the hard truth is that it was in all probability, not to do with your children's vaccinations."
Tasha
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
Tasha David
"YES! Objectivity is KEY to all scientific understanding. Parents,
particularly good parents, CANNOT be objective because good parents
are emotionally involved."
But this is exactly the problem with some doctors/scientists they are also not objective, they are taught that there is no link between vaccines and Autism, so then they discount anything to contrary! I have met countless doctors who I have told of my family's history and straightaway the wall in their minds come slamming down. Just this year when I had to take my fully vaccinated daughter to the hospital because of contracting Rotavirus, I told the attending doctor about our family history and why we don't vaccinate anymore and her response was you know the Wakefield study was a fraud don't you?!?
"Except that in a relatively high density society, like ours, doctors
are tasked not only at treating the individual but at looking at the
bigger picture."
Most doctors that I have seen don't have time to look at the big picture, a lot of medical centres now are like factory processing lines, you are lucky if you get 5 minutes of his/her undivided attention!!
"Your front line metaphor is particularly apt, a soldier in his trench
can only safeguard his own section of the line he can't see if a
breach is occurring up the the other end of his line so he lacks the
perspective to question a retreat and so must trust in his general."
How many atrocities have been committed by soldiers trusting their generals, concentration camps, genocide, rape etc There comes a time when a soldier needs to follow their principles and make their own decisions.
"As scientists we cannot and we must not simply take your word as factfait accompli. Parents, particularly frightened ones, are not always
rational. Evidence must be examined rationally. Correlation is not
sufficient evidence of causation."
Of course evidence should be examined rationally, no one is asking for scientists to be irrational and believe every word we say without question. All we are asking for, is a little respect as experts on our individual child. A parent, especially a mother spends almost every waking minute with their baby for months on end and for stay at home Mums even longer. In this time they learn each expression, sound, gesture of their child and what it means, there is no one in the world that knows their unique little baby better than them. So to be discounted just because they don't have a medical degree is just plain disrespectful.
"Principally, I suspect frustration. It's INCREDIBLY frustrating to
hear the same, tired old anti-vaccine canards that have existed since
the beginning of vaccination being told, over and over, and over again
by snake-oil salesmen."
Cheers
Tasha
Ashley L
so then they discount anything to contrary!"
They are taught nothing of the sort. When Wakefield proposed the
possible connection researchers around the world set to two tasks,
firstly, to reproduce Wakefield's observations themselves and secondly
to investigate whether there was any other evidence behind the link.
To date and to the best of my knowledge, nobody has independently and
successfully reproduced Wakefield's observations. Furthermore, no
statistically meaningful correlation has been found between
vaccination and autism.
Subsequently, doctors and researchers have declined to investigate
this connection further as evidence suggests it is a dead end. It is
not fait accompli that there is no connection, the balance of evidence
simply suggests that there is insufficient evidence and further
investigation would be a waste of precious time and money.
"Most doctors that I have seen don't have time to look at the big
picture, a lot of medical centres now are like factory processing
lines, you are lucky if you get 5 minutes of his/her undivided
attention!! "
Too many GPs, yes, I agree, but they have clinical guidelines and
assuredly someone is tasked with assessing morbidity. Further, if you
genuinely believe a physician to have been derelict in their
ministrations, for the benefit of all their patients, I suggest you
report them to the appropriate authorities.
" There comes a time when a soldier needs to follow their principles
and make their own decisions. "
A body of historical evidence suggests that when doctors do this,
people get hurt.
"In this time they learn each expression, sound, gesture of their
child and what it means, there is no one in the world that knows their
unique little baby better than them."
Many observations by parents ARE annotated. However, not all
observations can be as how well each mother knows or cares for their
child isn't quantifiable or reproducible which means that if it were
meant to be used as a diagnostic criteria then the parent MUST be
taken at face value, which simply isn't an option. This is especially
true of observations which cannot be independently verified.
"your own eyes is not true based solely on the fact that you don't
have a medical or scientific degree?!?"
There is a distinguishable difference between what you claim you saw
and what can be verified that you saw. How am I, or anyone else, to
know that what you believe now is not a post-facto rationalisation
based on something you may have read on AoA or the AVN but a
verifiable observation?
"Do you know how frustrating it is to know that your children would
have been healthy and normal if you hadn't trusted medical
professionals and vaccinated them?!?"
Would have? Why let yourself be frustrated by a possible alternative
which cannot be guaranteed to exist? Even IF we accept vaccination as
a possible risk factor, there ARE other risk factors. Without a
definitive mechanism, how can you possibly attribute causation?
Greg Beattie
Parents, particularly good parents, CANNOT be objective because good
parents are emotionally involved."
Objectivity is a mirage. It's an ideal we often strive for but never
quite achieve. Ashley, the notion that your understanding on this
issue was arrived at via an objective approach is unimaginable to
many. I believe the average parent would embrace more objectivity than
yourself in this. And I think if you found vaccines were harming our
kids en masse it would be very upsetting for you, as well as others
who use their 'position' in science to talk them up.
The purer the science the closer we may get to objectivity, but with
vaccine 'science' we're generally off in the other direction. Studies
are designed, data is collected and analysed, and conclusions are
drawn all under the belief that vaccines are modern miracles.
Objectivity comes second to peer-review, which is another great idea
in theory.
An example to illustrate my point: we're told vaccines save lives, in
fact so many lives they're considered modern miracles as I mentioned.
This is the orthodox 'scientific' position, and it's supposedly
evidence-based. Yet if you go to the "Vaccines save lives?" thread we
see no evidence for it. In fact, the available evidence suggests they
haven't noticeably saved ANY. Where's the objectivity when a whole
area of so-called science can ignore the empirical evidence showing
zero achievement and conclude the exact opposite, with a trumpet
fanfare and NO reference to the evidence? And this is the most
fundamental claim made for vaccines! That's a slap in the face of real
science.
And objectivity is not some trophy of science. We aim for it in
business and many other areas of life. We know in business that
'independent' tests establishing the effectiveness of some method, may
not be as independent as claimed. We learn to accept the principle of
'buyer beware'. Similarly in medicine a finding may not be as
objectively arrived at as claimed. That's why we want to know where
the properly designed RCTs are for vaccines in routine use. They
represent about the closest to objectivity we can expect from you
guys.
You talk about the frustration of dealing with questions such as
Tasha's. Can you even begin to imagine hers? She faces scientists who
are not objective, who make grand claims that are demonstrably false
and then ask her to just accept their opinion that what she saw happen
to her children was not a meaningful observation because she doesn't
have the 'benefit' of scientific training, and that canard of theirs,
objectivity. That sort of reassurance may work with some but it won't
work here.
Greg
Tasha David
"They are taught nothing of the sort. When Wakefield proposed the
possible connection researchers around the world set to two
tasks,
firstly, to reproduce Wakefield's
observations themselves and secondly
to investigate whether there was any other evidence behind the link."
Wakefield is not the only one to
suggest a link between vaccines and autism, why is it that no one seems to
acknowledge this? There are other studies like I have posted before that
also suggest a link, but for some reason the medical/scientific community seems
to be stuck on Wakefield as the be
all and end all of our argument against vaccines, when it is not!
"To date and to the best of my knowledge, nobody has independently and
successfully reproduced Wakefield's
observations. Furthermore, no
statistically meaningful correlation has been found between
vaccination and autism."
Here is an article from the daily mail in the UK
that states there are two studies that have replicated Wakefield's
findings
"Now a team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North
Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive
autism and bowel disease - and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for
the measles virus."
"This is the second independent study to back up Dr Wakefield. In 2001
John O'Leary, Professor of Pathology at St James's Hospital and Trinity
College, Dublin, replicated his findings."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html#ixzz1AhBevkzW
“Too many GPs, yes, I agree, but they have clinical guidelines and
assuredly someone is tasked with assessing morbidity. Further, if you
genuinely believe a physician to have been derelict in their
ministrations, for the benefit of all their patients, I suggest you
report them to the appropriate authorities.”
It is not a case of dereliction in duty of care, it is a matter of too many patients and not enough doctors, I have had to wait over two hours to see a doctor at my local medical centre, other times it is 1 and a half hours, that is why I said it is a factory processing line. This is the reality for low income families, the doctors don’t have the time to give more than 5 mins to their patients.
“A body of historical evidence suggests that when doctors do
this,
people get hurt.”
There is also historical evidence of medical professionals saving lives by breaking ranks they are called whistleblowers…
“Last year, Ramon Niekrash, a surgeon from South London Healthcare NHS trust who was suspended after reporting patient safety breaches at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, before it merged to form a new supertrust, was left with a £180,000 legal bill despite winning his employment tribunal.
A senior surgeon from the trust told The Independent that "things are out of control here, someone needs to do something". Another surgeon said: "After Ramon, there has been a general feeling of fear and most people will not complain or take a stand... the doctors are totally de-motivated."
The trust said there was "no question" of any staff member facing any consequence as a result of raising concerns.
Dr Stephen Bolsin, co-author of the JRSM paper, who exposed high death rates among babies with cardiac problems at Bristol Royal Infirmary in 1995, was forced to move to Australia after being ostracised by the NHS. His case triggered the 1998 Public Interest Disclosure Act, but doctors say it has "not been as effective as anticipated".
John Pugh, chair of the Lib Dem health policy group, welcomed the Health Select Committee inquiry, revealed in The Independent yesterday, and said he would ask the Health Secretary to consider the US model for protecting whistleblowers. "It's time to blow the whistle on whistleblowers and provide them with protection that works," he said.”
“Would have? Why let yourself be frustrated by a possible alternative
which cannot be guaranteed to exist? Even IF we accept vaccination as
a possible risk factor, there ARE other risk factors. Without a
definitive mechanism, how can you possibly attribute causation?”
They were all raised the same way on the same foods. I had normal pregnancies with all of them, delivered naturally. I didn’t even use pain relief with all my births, their apgar scores were all good. I never used over the counter medications, because I didn’t need any, I don’t smoke, drink, take drugs. We lived in normal surburban areas away from any polluting technologies. After most of them were diagnosed, the doctors sent our family to do genetic testing and the results were normal, no fragile x, retts syndrome etc. The only thing they picked up was that they were larger than normal children but they attributed that to our pacific island ethnicity. My two youngest (who were born when I was 36 and 38yrs old) should have been more susceptible to disorders, but since they were not vaccinated they are disorder free. After, what I have just shared with you, can you come up with some other reason that my children have been affected this way when the only discernible difference is their vaccination status?
I have another question; there is no debate that vaccination can cause encephalitis, why is it so hard to see that vaccine induced encephalitis can cause Autism?
Tasha David
Thanks Greg,
Well put, and so true!
Cheers
Tasha
mtp_69_i
Without making light of your personal situation at all (I am truly
sympathetic), I don't believe you can truly know that the only
difference in this case is the differing vaccination status of your
children. It may be the only difference you yourself can identify.
And while this doesn't make your observation invalid, it does not
conclusively demonstrate that any or all of the vaccinations your
affected children had were the cause of their problem. I hope you can
understand that I am not trying to attack you here. Having said this,
it is entirely possible that your children, did have adverse reactions
to a specific vaccination. In fact, given your circumstances you
could even argue that there is something fundamentally particular in
the genetic makeup of your family that makes them susceptible to
adverse reaction to a specific vaccine. Does that argue that all
vaccinations should be banned? No. Does it mean that all vaccinations
are unsafe (in the general sense)? No. What it does mean is that more
research is required to understand the mechanisms of immunisation and
the means by which this occurs. There is really no arguing that
vaccination against vaccine preventable disease represents one of the
best defenses we as a race have against serious illness. In saying
that, there is also no arguing that while this is fine in a general
sense, at the level of the individual, not all treatments will be
tolerated the same or responded to accordingly. Support of science
and the medical profession in this and other matters is paramount to
ensure that questions such as; "whether there are important
differences in the way people can respond to vaccination" can be
addressed and ultimately answered. I believe that the more we learn
about how these processes work, the less reason we will have to find
division between so called vaccine skeptics and vaccine supporters.
On Dec 12, 1:15 pm, Tasha David <tashamda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "They are taught nothing of the sort. When Wakefield proposed the
>
> possible connection researchers around the world set to two tasks,
> firstly, to reproduce Wakefield's observations themselves and secondly
> to investigate whether there was any other evidence behind the link."
>
> Wakefield is not the only one to suggest a link between vaccines and
> autism, why is it that no one seems to acknowledge this? There are other
> studies like I have posted before that also suggest a link, but for some
> reason the medical/scientific community seems to be stuck on Wakefield as
> the be all and end all of our argument against vaccines, when it is not!
>
> "To date and to the best of my knowledge, nobody has independently and
> successfully reproduced Wakefield's observations. Furthermore, no
> statistically meaningful correlation has been found between
> vaccination and autism."
>
> Here is an article from the daily mail in the UK that states there are two
> studies that have replicated Wakefield's findings
>
> "Now a team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North
> Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel
> disease - and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the measles
> virus."
>
> "This is the second independent study to back up Dr Wakefield. In 2001 John
> O'Leary, Professor of Pathology at St James's Hospital and Trinity College,
> Dublin, replicated his findings."
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-li...
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/doctors-call-for-code-t...
Katie Brockie
I am just going to concentrate on the Daily mail article from May 28th 2006.This site analyses it well:
"Back in 2006, what Beck referred to as "new American research" was actually a "poster presentation" at the 2006 International Meeting for Autism Research (IMFAR). A "poster presentation" is a way of presenting preliminary results from research.In terms of levels of evidence for a particular hypothesis, it is very weak. (The complete text of the poster presentation is below.)
Nonetheless, The Mail, through Beck, overstated the case. I suspect that Wake Forest University, and possibly the lead author, Walker, was embarrassed, and put out a press release dated June 1, 2006 press release from Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center Wake Forest Researcher Warns Against Making Connection Between Presence of Measles Virus and Autism."
Here's what Dr Walker says in the press release:
"Walker says the new research does not support the connection, and he notes that the results have not even been published in a peer-reviewed journal. “Even if we showed association (between measles virus and bowel disease) and we published it in a peer-reviewed journal, the conclusion will be simply that there is measles virus in the gut of a large number of children who have regressive autism and bowel disease. End of story.
“We haven’t done anything to demonstrate that the measles virus is causing autism or even causing bowel disease.”"
Here's what Ben Goldacre says about The Telegraph's similar story:
"Meanwhile the Telegraph says that Krigsman’s most recent unpublished claim is replicating similar work from 1998 by Dr Andrew Wakefield, and 2002 by Professor John O’Leary. But there is no such work from 1998 by Wakefield, at least not in PubMed (in that year he publishes his infamous, very different, and partially retracted Lancet paper on MMR, of course). Meanwhile it is well documented that other labs have tried to reproduce the 2002 O’Leary study and come out with different results, and that the protocol was likely to have problems with false positives because of the tests used: two perfect examples of the importance of research being fully written up and published, so it can be replicated and assessed. Oh, and the newspapers didn’t mention that Andrew Wakefield was also an author on the 2002 study along with O’Leary, nor that Wakefield is also very closely associated with Krigsman (they are doctors together at Thoughtful House, a private autism clinic in the USA).
I could go on, but instead, here is the news you didn’t read: this month, in the May issue of the Journal of Medical Virology, there was a very similar study, only this one has actually been published. It looked for measles RNA in children with regressive autism after MMR vaccination, much like the Krigsman story. It used tools so powerful they could detect measles RNA down to single figure copy numbers. But they found no evidence of the magic vaccine-strain measles RNA to implicate MMR, and perhaps because of that unfrightening result, the study was loudly ignored by the press.
Because it has been published in full, I can read it, and pick holes in it, and I am more than happy to do so: because science is about critiquing openly published data and methodologies, and in the real world, all studies have some flaws, to a greater or lesser extent. Often they are practical ones: here for example, the researchers couldn’t get ethics committee approval to use the tissue they ideally wanted to use (lumbar punctures and gut biopsies on children are a hard sell). And when they asked the anti-MMR lobby if they could have some of their tissue to work on, amusingly, they were ignored.
Those who campaign against MMR make huge and detailed critiques of the published studies which suggest that MMR is safe. Sometimes they are spectacularly ill-informed: excepting that, it is quite right that they should critically appraise the literature. But in the spirit of science, the least they could do is share data, and maybe tissue samples, but most importantly publish their scientific work, in full, openly, before their peers, rather than the press."
http://www.badscience.net/2006/06/mmr-is-back/
There's a lot more info here:
cheers
K
punter
have some flaws, to a greater or lesser extent. <
Some simple questions with what should be very simple answers:
Should the statement "vaccines are not effective" be used as the null
hypothesis? If not, why not?
If so, and if all studies have some flaws as you say, then is it or is
it not fair to say then that this statement has never been
comprehensively rejected?
And if it is fair to say this, then what on earth gives skeptics the
right to treat those of us who refuse vaccination the way they do?
On Dec 13, 6:29 am, Katie Brockie <katiebroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tasha,
> I am just going to concentrate on the Daily mail article from May 28th
> 2006.This site analyses it well:
>
> "Back in 2006, what Beck referred to as "new American research" was
> actually a "poster presentation" at the 2006 International Meeting for
> Autism Research<http://www.autism-insar.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id...>(IMFAR).
> A "poster presentation" is a way of presenting preliminary results
> from research.In terms of levels of evidence for a particular hypothesis,
> it is very weak. (The complete text of the poster presentation is below.)
>
> Nonetheless, The Mail, through Beck, overstated the case. I suspect that
> Wake Forest University, and possibly the lead author, Walker, was
> embarrassed, and put out a press release dated June 1, 2006 press release
> from Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center Wake Forest Researcher
> Warns Against Making Connection Between Presence of Measles Virus and
> Autism<http://www.wfubmc.edu/News-Releases/2006/Wake_Forest_Researcher_Warns...>
Katie Brockie
>all studies
have some flaws, to a greater or lesser extent. <
Some simple questions with what should be very simple answers:
Should the statement "vaccines are not effective" be used as the null
hypothesis? If not, why not?
Punter - here is wikipedia's definiton of the principal of a null hypothesis (I have added stuff in brackets).
"Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null hypothesis is true. (OK - assuming that "vaccines are not effective " is true, which data sets do we use? I suggest it would make sense to look at epidemiological data-sets measuring the number of cases of a particular disease in the population before and after vaccinations are introduced. )
If the data-set is very unlikely, defined as
belonging to a set of data that only rarely will be observed (usually in
less than either 5% of the time or 1% of the time), the experimenter
rejects the null hypothesis concluding it (probably) is false.
(Here we could look at various statistics showing the drop in number of cases of various illnesses as soon as vaccines are introduced into the population. Pretty much all epidemiology will support this. therefore, the data-set showing that "vaccines are not effective" will only very rarely be observed. Therefore the null hypothesis is probably false. OK?)
If the data do not contradict the null hypothesis, then only a weak conclusion can be made; namely that the observed dataset provides no strong evidence against the null hypothesis. As the null hypothesis could be true or false, in this case, in some contexts this is interpreted as meaning that the data give insufficient evidence to make any conclusion, on others it means that there is no evidence to support changing from a currently useful regime to a different one.
For instance, a certain drug may reduce the chance of having a heart
attack. Possible null hypotheses are "this drug does not reduce the
chances of having a heart attack" or "this drug has no effect on the
chances of having a heart attack". The test of the hypothesis consists
of administering the drug to half of the people in a study group as a controlled experiment. If the data show a statistically significant change in the people receiving the drug, the null hypothesis is rejected." (This is the perfect example. Replace "heart attack drug" with "vaccines", and you'll get your answer).
If so, and if all studies have some flaws as you say,
I didn't say it - Ben Goldacre did. And he was making the point that it is important for people who are conducting studies to be open and transparent about them, and share samples and information.
then is it or is
it not fair to say then that this statement has never been
comprehensively rejected?
"Vaccines are not effective." In the real world this statement has been comprehensively disproved over and over again.
And if it is fair to say this, then what on earth gives skeptics the
right to treat those of us who refuse vaccination the way they do?
How on earth do skeptics treat you punter? I am a skeptic. I'm also a mother, a researcher, a singer, an animal lover, a daughter, a sister, etc etc etc. I am a whole person, and I find it just a tad annoying when you lump all "skeptics" together, and complain about how you are treated. Give me some examples please.
thanks
K
Tasha David
"Does it mean that all vaccinations are unsafe (in the general sense)? No."
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1596261
"There is really no arguing that vaccination against vaccine preventable disease represents one of the best defenses we as a race have against serious illness."
"Support of science and the medical profession in this and other matters is paramount to
ensure that questions such as; "whether there are important
differences in the way people can respond to vaccination" can be
addressed and ultimately answered. I believe that the more we learn
about how these processes work, the less reason we will have to find
division between so called vaccine skeptics and vaccine supporters."
I so hope that vaccine skeptics and vaccine supporters could work together instead of fighting against each other, a lot more progress could be made if they did, that is why I hope that even through this debate maybe something positive could happen, even if we were just more able to understand the reasons behind why we all think the way we do and maybe gain a little respect for each other, because from what I have read so far you are all very intelligent and passionate people.
Cheers
Tasha
punter
>
> "Hypothesis testing works by collecting
> measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null
> hypothesis is true. (OK - assuming that "vaccines are not effective " is
> true, which data sets do we use? I suggest it would make sense to look at
> epidemiological data-sets measuring the number of cases of a particular
> disease in the population before and after vaccinations are introduced. )
That's your (not at all self-serving) suggestion is it? May I make amy
own self-serving suggestion instead? How about we look at the overall
health of the population before and after a vaccine is introduced,
including the mortality data. If we want to be more specific we should
look at the number of people with the same symptoms as what we used to
define a particular disease as before the vaccine is introduced.
If we can't get the data that shows this then we certainly can't
reject the null hypothesis.
>>
>
> > If so, and if all studies have some flaws as you say,
>
> I didn't say it - Ben Goldacre did. And he was making the point that it is
> important for people who are conducting studies to be open and transparent
> about them, and share samples and information.
Nothing more open and transparent then telling people that are using
something 'inert' as a placebo knowing full well that the populous'
views of what inert means is completely at odds with what you think it
should mean.
>
> > then is it or is
> > it not fair to say then that this statement has never been
> > comprehensively rejected?
>
> "Vaccines are not effective." In the real world this statement has been
> comprehensively disproved over and over again.
>
Oh I see. In the "real world". You mean the "real world" whereby
epidemiologists ignore such issues as actual mortality data and don't
concern themselves about the possibility of an extraordinary bias due
to doctors making their diagnosis on the basis of vaccination status.
>
>
> > And if it is fair to say this, then what on earth gives skeptics the
> > right to treat those of us who refuse vaccination the way they do?
>
> How on earth do skeptics treat you punter? I am a skeptic. I'm also a
> mother, a researcher, a singer, an animal lover, a daughter, a sister, etc
> etc etc. I am a whole person, and I find it just a tad annoying when you
> lump all "skeptics" together, and complain about how you are treated. Give
> me some examples please.
No thanks. I've punished myself enough reading the SAVN board. By all
means go on thinking that the skeptic movement is an open-minded bunch
of caring people who have absolutely no desire to impose their views
on other people - including by using the government to shut down
various organisations that say things that they don't want them to
say. In addition, no skeptic would ever argue that parents who don't
vaccinate their children should have their children taken away from
them.
Really they wouldn't. How could they? After all, one of them is an
animal lover with a good singing voice.
PS I should say that my comments about the behaviour of the skeptics
was definitely not directed at you. But to suggest that the skeptics
don't try and use force to shut down debate is laughable.
mtp_69_i
The idea that people should have the choice to vaccinate after
reviewing the pros and cons may sound good in principle, but the
reality is that at the level of a society, the overall pros of
vaccination far outweigh the cons (if you can call them that, risks is
probably a better term). This really is a fact and it's frustrating
arguing about it so I won't.
Nevertheless, there are many things that we could in principle have a
choice in doing, but where having that choice would be more dangerous
for society in general, than if we couldn't choose.
Drink driving for instance. I reckon I'm capable of driving after
having a few beers, so why shouldn't I? The reality is that as a
drink driver I pose a significantly greater danger to others than if I
were driving sober. As such, there are rules that try to ensure I
cannot drink and drive and if I do and get caught, then I am
penalised. If you honestly look at the incidence of vaccine injury
(serious injury, not just a fever for a couple of days) compared to
the incidence of injury or death due to vaccine preventable diseases
(either historically or in places where vaccines are not readily
available) you cannot reach any other conclusion than vaccinating is
safer (both for the individual and the general population) than not
vaccinating.
With regard to your comment about the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act (in the US). That Act was introduced because in the US,
there is a very strong culture of litigation. Vaccine manufacturers
need that Act (and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program)
to protect them from litigation, primarily from people who, for
whatever reason, were unable to understand what the possible side-
effects of a given vaccine could be, or, could not understand that
while the probability they or their child might have such a reaction
was low, it was not impossible. If 1 in every 10 people could sue a
company because they had a fever and muscle cramp for a couple of days
after a vaccine, vaccine manufacturers would quickly go out of
business and no one would be able to obtain vaccines and we would
plunge back into the dark ages of medicine where vaccine preventable
diseases accounted for the majority of deaths.
Importantly, that Act does not (emphasis!) equate to a general
statement that all vaccinations are unsafe in the general sense. It
simply acknowledges that, as with most medical procedures, there is no
guarantee there vaccines are 100% risk-free.
I found some vaccine information statements from the Californian
Department of Health and Human services which I think would be an
excellent starting point for anyone that wants to know more about the
risks associated with the majority of vaccines given to children these
days. The link is:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/default.htm#mmr
Regarding your question about whether we are making diseases more
virulent through vaccination. Your information source (Dr Charlotte
Haug) has a particular concern over the benefits of the Human
Papillomavirus vaccine (ie Gardasil). She argues that the vaccine
only targets four specific HPV strains (HPV-6, HPV-11, HPV-16 and
HPV-18), which have been shown to be the four most oncogenic strains
of this particular virus (there are about 100 strains in total). Her
concern over vaccinating specifically against these strains is that
(she speculates) it may lead to positive selection of less other, less
common strains. This idea is flawed at a few levels, but I'll just
try and explain the simplest one. The biggest problem with this idea
is that we know multiple different HPV strains can infect a single
cell at the same time. As such, there is no negatively selection
applied by one HPV strain that prevents infection by another. From
this, it is hard to see how simply removing a few of the most
oncogenic (cancer causing) strains from the equation by vaccination,
is going to at all influence the chances of infection by a different,
most likely less oncogenic, strain of the virus. Thus, it is hard to
see how Gardasil would have this particular consequence Dr Haug is
worried about. Importantly, by immunising against the most oncogenic
strains of HPV, Gardasil should greatly reduce the likelihood that
women subsequently develop cervical cancer that would normally occur
as a result of HPV infection and thus, reduce the pain and cost of
cervical cancer treatment that is borne by the individual and the rest
of society. In conclusion, I don't think Dr Haug has any evidence
that Gardasil is making things worse (as far as altering HPV strain
virulence), she is however making life difficult for Merck (the
company making Gardasil) by publishing essays full of negatively
slanted questions designed to put doubt into peoples minds about
whether vaccination against HPV is economically sensible.
Anyway, there's some food for thought for you.
Cheers,
P.
mtp_69_i
>"That's your (not at all self-serving) suggestion is it? May I make amy
> own self-serving suggestion instead? How about we look at the overall
> health of the population before and after a vaccine is introduced,
> including the mortality data. If we want to be more specific we should
> look at the number of people with the same symptoms as what we used to
> define a particular disease as before the vaccine is introduced.
>
> If we can't get the data that shows this then we certainly can't
> reject the null hypothesis."
Do it. And then tell us what it says. I reckon you'll find, as has
been hashed over and over and over again, that vaccination reduces
mortality and increases lifespan. Don't you ever get sick of being
proved wrong all the time?
[Quote: punter]
>" Nothing more open and transparent then telling people that are using
> something 'inert' as a placebo knowing full well that the populous'
> views of what inert means is completely at odds with what you think it
> should mean."
are you suggesting the "populous" don't understand the meaning of
inert? Maybe you could let everyone know how you define inert. And
then maybe you could take a survey of 50 anti-vax and 50 pro-vax
people and find out how they define it and let us know. Every bit of
information helps when explaining to the "populous" how vaccine trials
are carried out.
[Quote: punter]
> "Oh I see. In the "real world". You mean the "real world" whereby
> epidemiologists ignore such issues as actual mortality data and don't
> concern themselves about the possibility of an extraordinary bias due
> to doctors making their diagnosis on the basis of vaccination status."
>
it's funny, you also don't seem to understand what the "real world"
is. The real world is where people can see and understand that
vaccination is a critical part of our societies defense against
diseases that, unchecked, would leave thousands upon thousands of
people injured, disfigured or dead.
[Quote: punter]
> "No thanks. I've punished myself enough reading the SAVN board. By all
> means go on thinking that the skeptic movement is an open-minded bunch
> of caring people who have absolutely no desire to impose their views
> on other people - including by using the government to shut down
> various organisations that say things that they don't want them to
> say. In addition, no skeptic would ever argue that parents who don't
> vaccinate their children should have their children taken away from
> them.
>
> Really they wouldn't. How could they? After all, one of them is an
> animal lover with a good singing voice.
>
> PS I should say that my comments about the behaviour of the skeptics
> was definitely not directed at you. But to suggest that the skeptics
> don't try and use force to shut down debate is laughable."
This is pretty sad. Kate was relating to you how she does not feel
she treats anti-vax people any differently to how she would treat
anyone else and rather than acknowledge this and admit that she is in
fact a straightforward person simply arguing for what she believes in,
you lump her in with your (heavily biased) perception of people that
are pro-vax and don't give her the time of day.
Ashley L
quite achieve."
Ah. This is a prime example of the classical nirvana fallacy.
"Ashley, the notion that your understanding on this issue was arrived
at via an objective approach is unimaginable to many."
Really? I know me and, I find the incredulity of this fictitious
population incredulous. I find your incredulity to be disingenuous ad
hom. Play the ball, Greg, play the ball.
"I believe the average parent would embrace more objectivity than
yourself in this. "
I don't think so, Greg. I'm not emotionally invested. Please, stop
pretending that parents are, by and large, expected to or capable of
dealing with their own children objectively.
"And I think if you found vaccines were harming our kids en masse it
would be very upsetting for you, as well as others who use their
'position' in science to talk them up. "
Except it's not just kids that they harm, Greg, it's adults too. I'm
up to date, Greg, I know the risks and my money is where my mouth.
It's actually in my wallet and at the bank, but you get my drift.
"Objectivity comes second to peer-review, which is another great idea
in theory. "
Peer review isn't perfect therefore it's useless. Dave Grohl and Kurt
Cobain were members in what band, Greg?
"This is the orthodox 'scientific' position, and it's supposedly
evidence-based. "
Are you honestly going to tell me that you aren't aware that there's a
transparent difference between communication with the lay person and
technical communication?
"Yet if you go to the "Vaccines save lives?" thread we
see no evidence for it."
Now THERE'S a specious argument if ever I did hear one. It's not on
this site therefore it doesn't exist?
"And objectivity is not some trophy of science. "
Nobody said it was. I said, parents, especially good ones, are
emotionally involved.
"We aim for it in business and many other areas of life. "
Objectivity? In business? In an era where corporate greed precipitated
an almost unprecedented financial collapse?
"We know in business that 'independent' tests establishing the
effectiveness of some method, may not be as independent as claimed."
Obviously you're sending your material to the wrong locations for
testing, then, Greg.
"Similarly in medicine a finding may not be as objectively arrived at
as claimed."
Ah. I see where you're going with this, your good friend Viera
Schreibner's argument. They're in it to protect the vaccines. I
forget, how DID the judge describe that argument, Greg?
"That's why we want to know where the properly designed RCTs are for
vaccines in routine use."
Greg, please keep your "truet" RCT argument in that thread. I'd rather
not address the same seriously spurious semantics argument in multiple
threads because you can't keep on topic.
"You talk about the frustration of dealing with questions such as
Tasha's. "
It's not the answering of the questions, Greg, those ALL have an
answer. It's the constant insistence that certain people have for
providing technical arguments that are woefully inadequate. It's the
thinly veiled accusations of corruption levelled by people who
personally stand to gain from MAKING said claims that frustrate.
The lion's share of blame doesn't fall on the victims of fraud, Greg,
it falls on the fraudsters who refuse to take responsibility for their
claims or answer the critics.
"She faces scientists who are not objective, who make grand claims
that are demonstrably false"
I refuse to grant your premise as I don't drink your kool-aid, Greg.
"then ask her to just accept their opinion that what she saw happen to
her children was not a meaningful observation"
Her observation is not in question, rather it is her conclusion. There
is a difference, Greg.
"Wakefield is not the only one to suggest a link between vaccines and
autism, why is it that no one seems to acknowledge this?"
Because the story starts with Wakefield and devolves into a morass of
apocrypha.
"Here is an article from the daily mail in the UK that states there
are two
studies that have replicated Wakefield's findings "
Ok. Here's another issue about debating science: The opinions of
journalists, particularly those at notoriously disreputable magazines,
are not scientific fact or opinion. I have lost count of the number of
times I have seen journalists, and others, claim "new study" only to
discover that someone has written a review article of the same old
tired lies with absolutely no original content.
"Now a team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in
North
Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel
disease - and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the
measles
virus."
Case in point, I test positive for the measles virus. I'm not
autistic.
"There is also historical evidence of medical professionals saving
lives by
breaking ranks they are called whistleblowers… "
Except none of those are instances where doctors have pointed out
inadequacy in existing clinical guidelines, as defined by clinical
bodies, but rather are instances where hospitals have directed doctors
to not follow guidelines and people have gotten hurt. Nobody is
arguing that the wrong people are in charge of hospitals.
"After, what I have just shared with you, can you come up with some
other reason that my children have been affected this way when the
only discernible difference is their vaccination status?
If I knew EXACTLY what the root cause of autism was, ab initio, I
could answer your question, but I don't. Without a definitive
mechanism we're shooting blind. As I've pointed out to Meryl Dorey, we
can hunt for apparent risk factors until the cows come home, that's
not likely to be terribly helpful in identifying the root cause and
pointing ANY one thing while the mechanism is largely unknown and
saying definitively that the single thing is the definitive cause is
the business of quacks and people with dubious agendas.
"I have another question; there is no debate that vaccination can
cause
encephalitis, why is it so hard to see that vaccine induced
encephalitis
can cause Autism? "
Because brain damage caused by encephalitis isn't progressively
regressive. I realise that Meryl and Punter run roughshod over nuance
but IT IS important. This is the worst part of organisations like AoA:
They completely ignore the fact that the scientific world turns on a
few words. "Disorder similar to autism" is not scientific or legal
obfuscation for "we just don't want to call it autism because it's
politically inconvenient".
"Should the statement "vaccines are not effective" be used as the null
hypothesis? If not, why not? "
No. Obviously, because you can't put "effective" into a t-test. It
requires further arbitrary definition. Which, I think you will find,
is a typical criticism of the null hypothesis.
"The problem is that the way things are going now, our right to
choose not to vaccinate is being attacked constantly in the media"
The attacks on the media, in Australia, largely aren't focused on
compulsory vaccination. They're focused on anti-vaccine lies and the
liars that tell them.
"In the US, congress has given immunity to vaccine manufacturers
because they deem vaccines unavoidably unsafe. "
I realise that a lot of information on the net, including on the AVN,
is sourced from the US but you must remember their legal system is
very different to our own.
The government was responding to latent potential of mass litigation.
To lots of Australians this might seem unfair but tort law in the
United States is a ridiculous joke. Defendants go broke in
representations as unscrupulous lawyers engage in what our Law
Societies identify as egregiously unethical conduct, including tactics
such as "county/state hopping" (a tactic in which the EXACT same
failed suit is brought in another jurisdiction) falsification of
claimants in class actions, amongst others. Fear of tort in the US has
NOTHING to do with natural justice.
There is no mechanism which I can think of that guarantees safety. Woe
to me on the day where the risk of breaking my hip in the shower
becomes worthy of consideration. After acknowledging that a very small
percentage (which analysis shows is smaller than those who would be at
a greater risk contracting the same disease (I'm not smoking your
pipe, Greg)) of the population was harmed in an effort to protect the
greater population occupying society, they set up a no-fault
compensation system.
"I have to wonder if this is what has happening with the diseases we
are presently vaccinating against, are we making things worse? "
It's certainly a question that's under study. Even IF vaccination is
providing a viable evolutionary pressure that doesn't negate the risk
of existing strains, the most likely response, rather than cessation
of a particular vaccine, would be to add another vaccine until the
first strain can no longer be observed in the wild.
"I so hope that vaccine skeptics and vaccine supporters could work
together instead of fighting against each other, "
The problem is that the people who organise the anti-vaccine movement
won't be worked with. Rather than trying to actually improve vaccine
safety and efficacy they sell slogans like "love them, protect them,
never inject them".
"How about we look at the overall health of the population before and
after a vaccine is introduced, including the mortality data. "
Quantify overall health and provide a method to remove all
confounders.
"If we want to be more specific we should look at the number of people
with the same symptoms as what we used to define a particular disease"
Sorry, Punter, mainstream medicine doesn't subscribe to the Greg-
Punter theory that we're all not-so-secretly renaming things to
"protect the vaccines".
"Nothing more open and transparent then telling people that are using
something 'inert' as a placebo knowing full well that the populous'
views of what inert means is completely at odds with what you think it
should mean. "
I'll address this in the appropriate thread. The rest I will not
because continual playing of the victim card on behalf of the AVN is
tiresome and not at all related to the purpose of this debate.
Katie Brockie
have treated you? Well in that case, I think you must be imagining
things. Sorry.
Now - on with what you think that skeptics want to do. First, I would
expect full transparency from a charitable organisation, whatever its
views. If money is unaccounted for, I would want to know. That seems
reasonable.If I subscribe to a magazine expecting to receive 6 copies
per year, that's what I expect.
Second; if I see or hear someone giving and/or incorrect factual
information about a public health issue, I want the right to debate
them politely. I don't want to be banned and censored from speaking.
Third: If I see a parent neglecting their child, eg: hitting them, not
feeding them correctly, abusing them, or not giving them the medical
attention they need, I say, yes, take them from their parents. This
means the child/ren living with other relatives or with a foster
family until the parents are ready to look after their kids again
properly. Not vaccinating may or may not be a part (and just a part)
of this.
I have yet to see an example of skeptics "using force" to shut down
debate.
cheers
K
punter
reviewing the pros and cons may sound good in principle, but the
reality is that at the level of a society, the overall pros of
vaccination far outweigh the cons (if you can call them that, risks
is
probably a better term). This really is a fact and it's frustrating
arguing about it so I won't. <
Aaaah the mind of the "skeptic". Always questioning and critiquing.
Never taking anything for granted. Never assuming, always
investigating.
And KB wonders why I objectify them.
> > Tasha- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
punter
parents if they don't vaccinate.
Well there is your example of skeptics acting in a behaviour that I
consider absolutely reprehensible. Thank you for not forcing me to go
to the SAVN facebook site.
As for never shutting down debate. The SAVN is designed to "STOP" the
AVN. Note the name: Stop the Australian Vaccination Network. They have
rallied various governments (ie coercive bodies) to have this done. So
there you go. That is using force to suppress debate. That is your
example just then and there. It wasn't too hard to find was it?
As for giving people incorrect factual information about a public
health issue you would want to debate them. Really?
Greg has shown (take note mtp) that vaccines can't actually be
described as having saved lives. The public propaganda has us believe
that they do and that if we were to stop injecting poisons into
children we would all drop off like flies. Not once have I ever seen
you take anybody to task for this. I would have thought this abject
lie was a much greater crime than any of Meryl's supposed
indiscretions. Would it be fair to say then that your concern for
honesty is only apparent when such things threaten your prejudices and
income?
As for your innuendo about Meryl's supposed misuse of charitable funds
since when did you have such concerns about my financial health? If
so, tell me and I can inform you of where you can send me a big fat
cheque. Or would it again be fair to say that your supposed concern is
only apparent when such things threaten your prejudices and income?
punter
> own self-serving suggestion instead? How about we look at the overall
> health of the population before and after a vaccine is introduced,
> including the mortality data. If we want to be more specific we should
> look at the number of people with the same symptoms as what we used to
> define a particular disease as before the vaccine is introduced.
> If we can't get the data that shows this then we certainly can't
> reject the null hypothesis."
Do it. And then tell us what it says. I reckon you'll find, as has
been hashed over and over and over again, that vaccination reduces
mortality and increases lifespan. Don't you ever get sick of being
proved wrong all the time? >
Greg Beattie has done it. When shown the proof the skeptics shift the
goalposts to say that it is only morbidity that matters not mortality
– see the Vaccines Save Lives thread. As for getting sick of being
proven wrong, have you been going to the JC school of How To Try To
Win Arguments With Loaded Questions?
[Quote: punter]
>" Nothing more open and transparent then telling people that are using
> something 'inert' as a placebo knowing full well that the populous'
> views of what inert means is completely at odds with what you think it
> should mean."
are you suggesting the "populous" don't understand the meaning of
inert? Maybe you could let everyone know how you define inert. And
then maybe you could take a survey of 50 anti-vax and 50 pro-vax
people and find out how they define it and let us know. Every bit of
information helps when explaining to the "populous" how vaccine
trials
are carried out. >
No but I will suggest now that the skeptics correctly interpret no
more than about 20 per cent of what gets written here (including what
they themselves write). I have no problem with the populous’
understanding of the meaning of the word inert. Indeed I agree with
it. It is KB and AL that have decided inert can take on a completely
different meaning altogether. Take up your beef with them not me. But
of course, like evilbadscary you see my name and have to argue with
me, because you assume that because my final conclusion is different
to yours, so must my premises be.
I wouldn’t worry though. Even though the minds of skeptics will never
change due to seeing reason or new facts, they are infinitely
malleable when it comes to following their peers. So you will no doubt
fall into line now and come to see that inert doesn’t have to mean
harmless.
[Quote: punter]
> "Oh I see. In the "real world". You mean the "real world" whereby
> epidemiologists ignore such issues as actual mortality data and don't
> concern themselves about the possibility of an extraordinary bias due
> to doctors making their diagnosis on the basis of vaccination status."
it's funny, you also don't seem to understand what the "real world"
is. The real world is where people can see and understand that
vaccination is a critical part of our societies defense against
diseases that, unchecked, would leave thousands upon thousands of
people injured, disfigured or dead.
OK.
[Quote: punter]
> "No thanks. I've punished myself enough reading the SAVN board. By all
> means go on thinking that the skeptic movement is an open-minded bunch
> of caring people who have absolutely no desire to impose their views
> on other people - including by using the government to shut down
> various organisations that say things that they don't want them to
> say. In addition, no skeptic would ever argue that parents who don't
> vaccinate their children should have their children taken away from
> them.
> Really they wouldn't. How could they? After all, one of them is an
> animal lover with a good singing voice.
> PS I should say that my comments about the behaviour of the skeptics
> was definitely not directed at you. But to suggest that the skeptics
> don't try and use force to shut down debate is laughable."
This is pretty sad. Kate was relating to you how she does not feel
she treats anti-vax people any differently to how she would treat
anyone else and rather than acknowledge this and admit that she is in
fact a straightforward person simply arguing for what she believes
in,
you lump her in with your (heavily biased) perception of people that
are pro-vax and don't give her the time of day. >
Did you not see the PS bit? You did after all quote it (JC obviously
still has much to impart on you).
Nonetheless, here’s the thing about me. When there are people who
would like to take my children away from me (as many skeptics are only
too happy to admit to and KB herself admits that she might) I don’t
really concern myself with whether or not such people have blossoming
singing careers or pet rats or whatever. I objectify them, and I make
no apologies for doing so.
Tasha David
P,
“The idea that people should have the choice to vaccinate after
reviewing the pros and cons may sound good in principle, but the
reality is that at the level of a society, the overall pros of
vaccination far outweigh the cons (if you can call them that, risks is
probably a better term). This really is a fact and it's frustrating
arguing about it so I won't.”
What about the children out there who are going to be injured by vaccination, are they acceptable collateral damage as long as we get those vaccination rates up, which is between 90-95% already? Why do you fear the return of deadly diseases when it is well known that clean water, sanitation, good hygiene, and good nutrition was the major contributor to the decrease in mortality rates from diseases? We do not live in third world countries, we have all these things and we also have access to good medical care. Why so much fear, as Greg has already shown mortality rates were already down before most vaccines were introduced and other diseases that we did not vaccinate against disappeared on their own.
If there is evidence starting to surface about vaccines causing harm to some children, why the need to push everyone to vaccinate when the coverage rates are at all time highs???
As for comparing not vaccinating your child to driving while intoxicated, not the same thing at all, how can you compare ingesting mind altering substances to not getting vaccinated?
As for the Dr Haug presentation, yes it was about HPV but she also included a study called “Invasive Pneumococcal Disease Caused by Nonvaccine Serotypes Among Alaska Native Children With High Levels of 7-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine Coverage” so I thought it was relevant to other VPD’s.
Cheers
Tasha
mtp_69_i
Every single one of your responses fails. Your justification for all
of your dogma is that you are victim of oppression and you will never
stop resisting.
You also try and erroneously lump me in with other people responding
in these threads. I have never met or talked to any of these people
and voice only my own opinions, arguments and information. Trying to
discredit what I write here by saying it's motivated be affiliation
with other people in this debate is weak. Furthermore, your
perception of yourself as the victim (for example where you say: "like
evilbadscary you see my name and have to argue with me") only weakens
your post more. If you can't stay in the debate then stay out of it.
Your PS disclamer was also pathetic. You almost sounded like you were
actually going to stand up for yourself but pulled out at the last
minute.
Katie Brockie
So you agree then that it might be OK to take children away from their
parents if they don't vaccinate.
If you read what I wrote very carefully - you will see that that is NOT what I said at all. I said if, including other abuse and/or neglect, children were not vaccinated I think it might be a good idea to take the children away to be better cared for until things with their parents improve. Please note - if children are abused and/or neglected and they are vaccinated , I still think they should be taken for care elsewhere. So don't you dare try to ram words down my throat.
Well there is your example of skeptics acting in a behaviour that I
consider absolutely reprehensible. Thank you for not forcing me to go
to the SAVN facebook site.
punter - that makes no sense at all. what are you thinking? Who is trying to force you to go to the SAVN facebook site? You can go there of you like, or stay away if you like.
As for never shutting down debate. The SAVN is designed to "STOP" the
AVN. Note the name: Stop the Australian Vaccination Network.
Yes, that is true. the SAVN wants to close down the organisation known as AVN. NOT stop the debate.
They have
rallied various governments (ie coercive bodies) to have this done.
Government bodies are coercive bodies are they? which ones? The transport safety bureau? agriculture, fishing and forestry? the dept of conservation? Coercive bodies in your imagination I think.
Also - you realise that, if the AVN had not done anything wrong, the various government departments would have found that and moved on. But no, it seems AVN offers misleading advice, plus it has some large fionancial irregularities.
So
there you go. That is using force to suppress debate. That is your
example just then and there. It wasn't too hard to find was it?
That example is pathetic,.
As for giving people incorrect factual information about a public
health issue you would want to debate them. Really?
Greg has shown (take note mtp) that vaccines can't actually be
described as having saved lives.
Where??? greg has shown that he can cherry pick data with the best of them. Of course I want to debate incorrect information. Unfortunately I can't debate on the AVN FB page, or on the Living Wisdom blog. This is the only place.
The public propaganda has us believe
that they do and that if we were to stop injecting poisons into
children we would all drop off like flies.
Punter - you obviously have never been to Africa or Pakistan have you? If you did, you would see children dropping like flies, thousands per day, because they are not getting vaccinations.
Not once have I ever seen
you take anybody to task for this.
I would have thought this abject
lie was a much greater crime than any of Meryl's supposed
indiscretions.
What are you saying? This is not a lie.
Would it be fair to say then that your concern for
honesty is only apparent when such things threaten your prejudices and
income?
As for your innuendo about Meryl's supposed misuse of charitable funds
since when did you have such concerns about my financial health?
Innuendo? supposed misuse??? You obviously haven't read the OLGR report. I can link you a copy if you like.
If you contributed money to a charity would you like to know what it is spent on?
If
so, tell me and I can inform you of where you can send me a big fat
cheque. Or would it again be fair to say that your supposed concern is
only apparent when such things threaten your prejudices and income?
cheers
K
Katie Brockie
mtp_69_i
I'll use quotes to make this easier.
[Quote: Tasha]
> "What about the children out there who are going to be injured by
> vaccination, are they acceptable collateral damage as long as we get those
> vaccination rates up, which is between 90-95% already?"
You know my answer is going to be yes. But hopefully you understand
that acceptance of this fact is the same as my acceptance that my
pregnant wife has a risk of post-partum hemorrhage which carries a
risk of death when she goes through the birth of our first child. As
I explained, there are very few medical procedures you can undertake
without some risk. The question is, is the probability that something
bad happens greater than the probability that something good happens.
If it isn't, then it's hard to argue why you wouldn't have the
procedure.
[Quote: Tasha]
"Why do you fear the
> return of deadly diseases when it is well known that clean water,
> sanitation, good hygiene, and good nutrition was the major contributor to
> the decrease in mortality rates from diseases? "
They were/are certainly contributors to lower mortality rates in
developed countries. Is that exclusive to vaccination? No.
Vaccination has been clearly demonstrated to be protective against
infection.
[Quote: Tasha]
"We do not live in third
> world countries, we have all these things and we also have access to good
> medical care. Why so much fear, as Greg has already shown mortality rates
> were already down before most vaccines were introduced and other diseases
> that we did not vaccinate against disappeared on their own."
If you want to live in a bubble where no one from the outside comes in
and you never venture out then sure, you could probably get away with
not vaccinating against diseases which, through the wonders of
vaccination, modern medical and engineering have been eliminated from
your community. The problem is, it's basically impossible to shield
yourself and children from the outside world. Your children attend
schools/day care, you go to the shops, you might even go on a holiday
outside of your home town. All of these events involve mixing with
other people who may have been exposed to a disease for which you are
not vaccinated against. As such, you are always at risk of
infection. The difference is that vaccination against these diseases
increases the likelihood you will fight off the disease, thus not
spreading it and not suffering serious negative outcomes as a result
of the infection. Not vaccinating increases the likelihood you will
become sick enough from the infection to become a burden on the
healthcare system, spread the diseases further and possibly suffer
more serious consequences as a result of the disease. It really isn't
that hard to understand.
[Quote: Tasha]
> If there is evidence starting to surface about vaccines causing harm to
> some children, why the need to push everyone to vaccinate when the coverage
> rates are at all time highs???"
see above. I don't know what "all time high" means. I'm not arguing
we need to vaccinate now more than any other time.
>
[Quote: Tasha]
> As for comparing not vaccinating your child to driving while intoxicated,
> not the same thing at all, how can you compare ingesting mind altering
> substances to not getting vaccinated?
I was providing an example of where sometimes giving individuals a
choice to do something can be riskier for the general population than
not having that choice. You may have lost the point of the thread.
Maybe re-read your post I replied to and then read my responses.
>
Quote: Tasha]
> As for the Dr Haug presentation, yes it was about HPV but she also included
> a study called “Invasive Pneumococcal Disease Caused by Nonvaccine
> Serotypes Among Alaska Native Children With High Levels of 7-Valent
> Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine Coverage” so I thought it was relevant to
> other VPD’s.
Okay. The only stuff I looked at on the web and Pubmed from her was
about HPV (the majority of her hits) so I dealt with that. Do you
have any thoughts about my reply? Her concerns are heartening, though
not necessarily scientifically backed. Indeed, the HPV vaccination is
maybe a little harder to think about because it's purpose is to stop a
subsequent problem (cancer) that arises from infection from specific
strains of the HPV. As such, the idea is that it is not as important
to vaccinate against all HPV strains as it is to just deal with the
ones that are most oncogenic. I tried to explain why I didn't see how
this would place any positive selection on conversion of non-oncogenic
HPV strains to oncogenic. Do you get that?
If you read her stuff, you'll see that her scientific thinking on the
effects of HPV vaccine are little more than speculation. However, her
concerns about the economic cost vs benefit of the HPV vaccine
Gardasil are far more well grounded and researched.
Anyway, I get the feeling that you might not actually be thinking very
hard about my replies but simply firing back the first retort that
comes to mind. Hopefully you are getting something useful out of my
responses.
Cheers,
P.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tasha
Greg Beattie
over and over again, that vaccination reduces mortality and increases
lifespan."
Where have you been? We've been looking for this info for a long time.
I'm on a mission to gather all the evidence there is for the claim
that vaccines save lives. The thread is "Vaccines save lives?" and can
be found here:
https://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate/browse_thread/thread/964c5a098a21153e/fbdaea59d647ddc7?hl=en&
So far it's been a bit lean. Katie has submitted some from
Bangladesh... definitely worth a read when I get the papers. But rest
assured there is PLENTY of room there for you to submit more. I look
forward to it.
Thanks
Greg
Greg Beattie
I notice you sometimes take a person's post and break it down into
their every utterance. Sometimes you even split sentences up. You then
respond to these small fragments as if they were unconnected. In doing
this you avoid answering their real argument.
If we look at each paragraph in your email (some quoted below) we see
you've segmented my argument and responded to the segments without any
consideration of the whole. When I said "objectivity is a mirage" it
was obvious that was the opening thought of a larger argument - one
that proposed scientists (especially those in the vaccine area) are
less likely to be objective. By segmenting the argument you were able
to respond to 'easy targets' which themselves were mirages. You think
you scored some cheap points, but you left the real target intact.
So your claims of a nirvana fallacy are empty. Dead meaningless. It's
obvious I wasn't arguing that because objectivity is a mirage we
shouldn't embrace it. Similarly, I wasn't arguing that because peer-
review isn't perfect it has no place. I'm saying that both objectivity
and peer-review have substantial problems when it comes to vaccine
'science'.
When I said "Objectivity comes second to peer-review, which is another
great idea in theory" I suppose I could have expanded on the point to
make it clearer. Everyone wants to have their papers published. Then
they can say I've had X papers published. To be published it's
important to make your peers happy. Lines like "Vaccines have saved
more lives and prevented more suffering than any other..." espouse a
very popular othodox viewpoint, and this will make your peers happy.
Add 5 or 6 refernces to other papers that have said the same thing and
your paper has a rock solid foundation.
But this statement is not evidence-based. It isn't the result of an
objective view of the data so the statement is possibly not correct,
but it's written in 'reputable' journals so many times no peer-
reviewer would ever question it. The trouble with all this is your
paper can no longer discuss anything that's at odds with this
statement. In fact, even if you didn't explicitly make the statement
in your paper, there's no getting around the fact that it's peppered
throughout the literature. So peer-review will ensure your paper is in
accordance with it.
So, to be published in vaccine 'science' we need to write things that
keep our mates happy. Objectivity etc is secondary. And my example of
the absence of evidence for "vaccines save lives" demonstrates that
both objectivity and peer-review (in the vaccine area) have been
hijacked.
Peer-review can become a club setting where an insignia will get you
in, and good 'behaviour' will keep you there. And objectivity may be
nothing more than a declaration someone makes while pointing to that
insignia. I believe this has happened in vaccine 'science'.
Consider the experts from the tobacco industry trying to convince the
world that their products have not brought about the harm we suspect.
Objective? Now consider the experts from the vaccine industry trying
to convince the world that their products have not brought about the
harm we suspect. I think you're in no position to lecture us about
objectivity in this. You're hoping we'll just take your dignified word
that you know what these things are doing to our kids. And I guess the
essence of my post was "don't come here pointing to your insignia and
claiming the objective high ground".
Greg
Greg Beattie
hitting them, not feeding them correctly, abusing them, or not giving
them the medical attention they need, I say, yes, take them from their
parents. This means the child/ren living with other relatives or with
a foster family until the parents are ready to look after their kids
again properly. Not vaccinating may or may not be a part (and just a
part) of this."
Quoting Punter --"So you agree then that it might be OK to take
children away from their parents if they don't vaccinate."
Quoting Katie again --"If you read what I wrote very carefully - you
will see that that is NOT what I said at all. I said if, including
other abuse and/or neglect, children were not vaccinated I think it
might be a good idea to take the children away to be better cared for
until things with their parents improve. Please note - if children are
abused and/or neglected and they are vaccinated , I still think they
should be taken for care elsewhere. So don't you dare try to ram words
down my throat."
Katie
On my reading of your first quote I agree with Punter's
interpretation. Why don't you spell out what your position really is?
If I choose to not vaccinate my child, is that a reason, or even a
contributing reason, to remove that child from my care?
Greg
Greg Beattie
ones? The transport safety bureau? agriculture, fishing and forestry?
the dept of conservation? Coercive bodies in your imagination I
think."
Katie
I don't know about the situation in NZ but in Australia, yeah... we
have statutes, regulations, rules, by-laws and orders like you
wouldn't believe. I thought this was old news. We can't park in 'no
parking' areas, can't even drive on roads without a licence, we're
restricted from expectorating in butcher shops and urinating in cafes,
and we aren't allowed to build hi-rise offices without approval from
the local building inspector!! Can you believe it? And you mentioned
agriculture, fishing and forestry. We can't catch too many fish?
Female crabs are a no-no. They can even take our boat.
Is there any room across the Tasman?
Greg :-)
Andrew MacDonald
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
Katie Brockie
I was responding to punter's use of the word "coercive", which he had given very negative connotations. he said that they were the equivalent of using force to achieve an end. I was pointing out that, as you say, government bodies have those powers, but they are not neccessarily such a huge bogeyman as he portrays them.
cheers
K
Katie Brockie
the decision to not vaccinate your child may be part of a whole bundle of decisions and actions which society sees as injurious to the child's health and wellbeing.
We are talking hypotheticals here, but I can give examples. In NZ in 2002 (?) a couple was convicted of failing to provide the necessities of life for their baby son who died at 6 months from complications from lack of B12. They did not believe in conventional medicine, preferring to treat their baby with herbs. they were strict vegans and only fed their son breast milk, which lacked vitamin B12. This made him severely anemic and caused developmental problems. He was taken to hospital but his parents removed him. They also didn't vaccinate - but that is pretty minor compared to the rest.
So.... to me, this is a clear case where removing the child from the parents earlier would have saved his life. he would just need B12 injections every now and then.
I'm sure the parents thought they knew best about how to raise their son but in this case, they didn't.
Sidetrack here.... you talk about removing your kids from your care as though it is some horrific event - but for many children it actually saves their lives. My family ran a foster home for many many years, for long-term children who had been abused by their parents. You would not believe what happened to some of those children because the parents thought "we know what's best for our child, no one else if going to tell us what to do".
So, to me, not vaccinating your child is an anti-social decision, and would be a contributing factor if your children were found to be either very ill and not being given medical treatment, or if your children were also beaten, or sexually abused, or taken from school and made to basically be work slaves for you etc etc etc.
If not vaccinating is the one and only thing - of course not!
cheers
K
punter
NOT
what I said at all. I said if, including other abuse and/or neglect,
children were not vaccinated I think it might be a good idea to take
the
children away to be better cared for until things with their parents
improve. Please note - if children are abused and/or neglected and
they are
vaccinated , I still think they should be taken for care elsewhere.
So
don't you dare try to ram words down my throat>
I did read what you said very carefully. You weren't very careful when
you wrote it but I was ultra-careful in my interpretation of it. If
you believe that vaccinated and abused children should be taken away
and unvaccinated and unabused children shouldn't then aren't you
saying then that vaccination isn't a criteria at all? But you did
include it amongst the possible criteria didn't you? So my
interpretation (ie saying that you “MIGHT” think it OK) was perfectly
reasonable.
> punter - that makes no sense at all. what are you thinking? Who is trying
> to force you to go to the SAVN facebook site? You can go there of you like,
> or stay away if you like.
Ummm, you demanded examples of skeptics behaving in a disgraceful
manner. I submit though that I should have been more careful about the
use of the word “force”– I should have said “demanded”.
>Government bodies are coercive bodies are they? <
Yes. That is exactly what they are. They are funded through force (or
the threat of it) ie taxation and their regulatory powers are backed
up with force or the threat of it. But please do continue arguing
against me on the nuances of political economy (here’s a hint though –
just because I can wipe the floor with you on matters that should be
your speciality doesn’t mean that when the roles are reversed you will
have similar success).
>Punter - you obviously have never been to Africa or Pakistan have you? If
you did, you would see children dropping like flies, thousands per
day,
because they are not getting vaccinations. <
Well I have been to Africa - not Pakistan though. As for not getting
vaccinations, people in (I assume you mean) sub-Saharan Africa may
lack for many things - clean water, good emergency medicine
facilities, nutrition, but one thing they most definitely do not lack
is vaccinations. In the field of foreign aid vaccinations are
considered an easy fix. Nothing else in aid seems to work (or more to
the point everything else is an obvious failure) so the authorities -
blinded by the propaganda emanating from doctors - assume that at the
very least if they buy more vaccinations then things must improve.
They never do. They make it worse of course.
Indeed, your example actually proves (if anything) the exact opposite
of what you think it does. Africa (sub-Saharan) is about the closest
we have to a controlled experiment vis-a-vis the efficacy of vaccines
on mortality. Africa has received plenty of vaccines but everything
else has stayed much the same (in some cases gotten worse) over the
past 50 years. Presumably then, if vaccines worked, there would have
been a massive increase in life expectancy in that region despite the
lack of improvement in living standards. And yet here you are
admitting things are still terrible.
But thanks for reminding me of that example. There are so many reasons
as to why vaccinations are useless and dangerous it is often easy to
forget some of them.
So I will hold to my original position. The statement “Vaccines saves
lives” is completely unsubstantiated and all the evidence we have
suggests that they do no such thing. But if you think I or Greg are
cherry picking you are more than welcome to find data that
demonstrates that vaccines do save lives. Probably leave out the
Africa example though if I were you.
>
> > As for never shutting down debate. The SAVN is designed to "STOP" the
> > AVN. Note the name: Stop the Australian Vaccination Network.
>
> Yes, that is true. the SAVN wants to close down the organisation known as
> AVN. NOT stop the debate.
Yeah, that’s right. The SAVN’s attempts to stop the AVN have
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with suppressing the debate on
vaccination. If Meryl Dorey ran the AVN in exactly the way she does
but the AVN was a bird watching organisation then the skeptics would
be all over her like a rash.
Can I give you a hint? If you want to lie, it’s usually better if it
is a remotely plausible one.
>
>
> Also - you realise that, if the AVN had not done anything wrong, the
> various government departments would have found that and moved on. But no,
> it seems AVN offers misleading advice, plus it has some large fionancial
> irregularities.
Sorry, I almost forgot about the omnipotence and omniscience of
bureaucrats. How stupid of me. Fancy suggesting that the biases of
bureaucrats would have any impact on their decision making. Not
possible. To suggest otherwise is a conspiracy theory.
As for “misleading” advice. I have seen plenty of such advice on
government websites. For example from the immunise.health.gov.au
website:
“All vaccines currently available in Australia must pass stringent
safety testing before being approved for use by the Therapeutic Goods
Administration (TGA). This testing is required by law and is usually
done over many years during the vaccine’s development. In addition,
the safety of vaccines is monitored once they are in use, by the
Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (ADRAC) and other
organisations.
Before vaccines are made available for use they are rigorously tested
in thousands of people in progressively larger clinical trials. These
trials are strictly monitored for safety. The approval process can
take up to 10 years. As a result of such detailed testing, a number of
vaccines that failed in these early tests have never been released.”
All I can say to that is ‘Fluvax’.
In addition, using poisons as a control in testing safety is highly
misleading – some might even say fraudulent, indeed, some might even
say deliberately inflicting grievous bodily harm in the subjects.
Changing the diagnostic criteria for a disease after a vaccination has
been introduced is also misleading.
But for some reason you don’t have the slightest problem with these
three highly misleading actions do you? Anyone would think that your
system of ethics is completely self-serving.
> Innuendo? supposed misuse??? You obviously haven't read the OLGR report. I
> can link you a copy if you like.
And I can send you Meryl’s response. The point is we both know that
the reason you are going after this organisation isn’t because of your
concern about my financial wellbeing but because it represents a view
that is extremely dangerous for your profession and beliefs.
> If you contributed money to a charity would you like to know what it is
> spent on?
Of course. Before I donate money to a charity I demand that they give
me an itemised list of every single expense they have ever made and a
complete justification for every single item. If not, then no soup for
them!
> How on earth would this affect my income
Are you saying that your income has nothing to do with allopathic
medicine (if not I apologise).
punter
That's a fairly remarkable statement considering not once have I ever
a) claimed to be a victim of oppression; or b) given it as a
justification for my belief in the inefficacy of vaccines.
"Furthermore, your perception of yourself as the victim (for example
where you say: "like evilbadscary you see my name and have to argue
with me")."
That's your interpretation of my statement? If you wanted to have a go
at me through that statement wouldn't it have made more sense to
attack my obvious narcissism? The fantasy that I presumably must have
to think that my arguments are making the skeptic world quake in their
boots? But for some reason you chose to interpret that as me playing a
victim.
The only time I have ever claimed victimhood was when JC decided he
would accuse me of illegal activity. I am happy to admit that really
annoyed me. I never claimed it was "oppression" though. My claims
about the behaviour of the skeptics had nothing to do with me and was
about how Meryl, Wakefield and other people (much braver than I) have
been treated - not to mention all the parents who aren't as
narcissistic and confrontational as I who are all too easily bullied
by doctors into getting poisons injected into their babies.
I mean it would be pretty stupid if my rationalisation for not
believing in vaccinations was because I was oppressed as a result of
my stance against vaccinations. That is the sort of circular argument
that skeptics would love. Me not so much.
I guess the third point is true though. For as long as people continue
to inject poisons into children I will argue against it. Fair cop.
"If you can't stay in the debate then stay out of it."
Hahahahahaha!!!! Hate to be the one to break this to you but Greg and
I never stop debating with anybody it is the skeptics who are always
the ones to retreat. Kudos to JC and KB though they are still here
(whether that helps their cause or hinders it I will leave to the
Gods).
"Trying to discredit what I write here by saying it's motivated be
affiliation with other people in this debate is weak."
Why do you guys love to give me so much ammunition? I didn't discredit
what you wrote because of its affiliation with others I discredited
you (and others) by your affiliation with what you wrote. What you
wrote was so self-evidently unscientific, dogmatic and faithful that
it was a wonderful way for me to highlight the extremely religious
nature of the skeptics.
You obviously didn't get that, hence giving me even more ammunition to
paint skeptics as people with unbelievably poor comprehension skills.
Please do continue. I would like some of those depleted uranium shells
please.
> > no apologies for doing so.- Hide quoted text -
Katie Brockie
my income has nothing whatsoever to do with medicine.
I am a researcher for a TV production company.
Please apologise.
K
mtp_69_i
Could you please provide me with a reference that shows a vaccine
causing cancer?
Your rejection of cancer causing agents leads me to suspect you are
one of the people in the bubble I described before. How do you avoid
cancer causing agents everyday without shutting yourself away from the
world and light? It"s impossible. Try again, friend.
Cheers.
On Dec 14, 11:38 pm, Andrew MacDonald <qldbrigh...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
> Dr. P.J.McCarthy,
> why would one inject cancer inducing substances? (seems stupid to me)
>
> You will inject cancer-toxins into your new-born baby, because you believe this risk to be less than a possible childhood illness. Have you informed your wife of this?
>
> If you consider this subject to be pertinent and paramount to this debate-topic, then I concur that this debate is now closed.
>
> You accept cancer-inducing substances, I do not.
> One cannot debate this any further.
> Andrew.
>
>
> Andrew.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mtp_69_i <drpjmccar...@gmail.com>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
punter
mtp_69_i
Katie Brockie
the reason you are going after this organisation isn’t because of your
concern about my financial wellbeing but because it represents a view
that is extremely dangerous for your profession and beliefs."
Ages agio I mentioned that I work as a researcher for documentaries, many made for National geographic. You were involved in that thread I think?
So why is the AVN's view dangerous to my profession?
K
Tasha David
When the mortality rates from diseases pre vaccine era were 0 per 100000, the people were not living in a bubble, they were going about their lives normally so once again I do not see the need for such fear of life without vaccines. The problem with thinking that vaccinations prevent infections is that vaccinations also cause infections you are just swapping the wild virus strain for the vaccine strain and in the case of chicken pox causing epidemics of more harmful diseases like shingles.
“Dr. Goldman's findings have corroborated other independent researchers who estimate that if chickenpox were to be nearly eradicated by vaccination, the higher number of shingles cases could continue in the U.S. for up to 50 years; and that while death rates from chickenpox are already very low, any deaths prevented by vaccination will be offset by deaths from increasing shingles disease.”
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/09/01/12896.aspx
“Five months after 2 siblings were immunized with varicella vaccine, 1 developed zoster. Two weeks later the second sibling got a mild case of chicken pox. Virus isolated from the latter was found to be vaccine type. Thus, the vaccine strain was transmitted from the vaccinee with zoster to his sibling. Vaccinees who later develop zoster must be considered contagious. varicella-zoster, zoster, vaccine, transmission, rash, PstI.”
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/2/e28.full
I brought up Dr Haug’s presentation, not to talk about Gardasil but to present the idea of virus strain replacement issues, but I do understand what you are trying to say, I just don’t necessarily agree with it. In these studies you can see that Gardasil is basically useless in other countries where HPV 16 and 18 are not the dominant strains, these other strains seem to be just as cancer causing if not more so…
We conducted an HPV prevalence survey among Colombian women with invasive cancer. Paraffin-embedded biopsies were obtained from one high-risk and one low-middle-risk regions. GP5+/GP6+ L1 primers, RLB assays, and E7 type specific PCR were used for HPV-DNA detection. 217 cases were analyzed with 97.7% HPV detection rate. HPV-16/18 prevalence was 63.1%; HPV-18 had lower occurrence in the high-risk population (13.8% versus 9.6%) allowing for the participation of less common HPV types; HPV-45 was present mainly in women under 50 and age-specific HPV type prevalence revealed significant differences. Multiple high-risk infections appeared in 16.6% of cases and represent a chance of replacement. Age-specific HPV prevalence and multiple high-risk infections might influence vaccine impact.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20052389
Conclusion: Infections with multiple HPV types seem to act synergistically in cervical carcinogenesis. These findings have implications for the management of cervical lesions and prediction of the outcome of HPV infections. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(7):1274–80)
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/7/1274.abstract
I do take issue with you saying that I am not thinking too hard about your replies, I am, I just don’t necessarily agree with them
Cheers
Tasha
mtp_69_i
"when the mortality rates from diseases pre vaccine era were 0 per
100000, the people were not living in a bubble"
you can't be serious. I'm assuming you just accidentally left a few
digits out in front of that first 0.
Anyway,
The paper from Murillo et al regarding HPV strains in Colombia clearly
supports HPV vaccination. Their point is that the current generation
of HPV vaccines may not have sufficient coverage to address HPV strain
prevalence specifically in Latin America. If you actually read the
paper, they show that HPV 16 was the most prevalent HPV strain across
all age groups considered (in the final paragraph of results section),
and that HPV16 and HPV18 were to two most common HPV types found for
both squamous cell carcinoma (accounting for 62.3%) and
adenocarcinoma (accounting for 79.2%) (table 3). I agree they
clearly see other strains as well (HPV-45, HPV-31 etc) and also agree
that 62.3% prevalence of HPV16/18 is slightly lower than published
global figures. However, I cannot see where they show (as you say...)
that these strains
[Quote: Tasha]
"are not the dominant strains, these other strains seem to be just as
cancer causing if not more so…"
I can't see that because they don't. That is your incorrect
interpretation of the information presented.
Where they talk about multiple infections and HPV replacement, and
they say that
[Quote Murillo et al]
"The existence of multiple infections increases the possibility of HPV
replacement following vaccination and should be taken into account as
a potential decliner of vaccine impact over time, mainly in developing
nations where population risk and number of HPV types are higher.",
they are talking about the different strains replacing the "more
common" HPV16/18 strains it terms of being the most prevalent. Not
that the vaccine has somehow forced the evolution of, or selection
for, more oncogenic HPV strains than currently exist. This point is
at once, very simple and also very important to consider for cost/
benefit analyses. Their data indicates that the next 4 most common
HPV strains they detected (HPV45/31/58/33) together account for around
20% of cervical cancer cases attributed to HPV in Columbia. As such,
they recommend broadening the spectrum of HPV strains covered by an
HPV vaccine.
I hope this clears the issue up for you.
As for the chicken pox stuff, I don't see what you're getting at so
can't really make any comment.
Cheers,
P.
Greg Beattie
Tasha was by far the closest.
Measles death rate in Australia pre-vaccine was around 0.1 per
100,000. For the under-5 age group it was around 1.
Polio death rate was less than 1 (also in under-5 age group).
Tetanus - less than 1 (less than 2 in under-5 age group).
Whooping cough less than 1 (less than 10 in under-5).
Chicken pox... are you kidding?
Meningitis... around 0.3 (1 in under-5 age group)
Greg
Tasha David
|
|
1910 |
1915 |
1920 |
1925 |
1930 |
1935 |
1940 |
1945 |
1950 |
1955 |
1960 |
1965 |
1970 |
Vaccine intro |
|
T |
75 |
58 |
30 |
20 |
11 |
6 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Not used |
|
M |
11 |
31 |
17 |
10 |
11 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1969 |
|
SF |
7 |
5 |
8 |
4 |
9 |
5 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Not used |
|
WC |
53 |
34 |
32 |
27 |
25 |
18 |
11 |
10 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1953 |
|
D |
48 |
75 |
66 |
43 |
31 |
31 |
23 |
16 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1953 |
This is the quinquennial death rate per 100,000 for Typhoid, Measles, Scarlet Fever, Whooping cough and Diphtheria, so I was wrong for Measles that is actually 1 not 0 per 100,000. But I apologise for not mentioning that it was the quinquennial death rate in my earlier post.
As for the first HPV link I gave, I see what you are saying, but could not these other strains that also cause cancer then become the dominant strains, if 16 and 18 are no longer present, which would tie in to what Dr Haug was saying?
In my second link it says
“Result: At individual visits, 1.9% to 3.2% of the women were infected with multiple HPVs. Cumulatively during the first year and the first 4 years of follow-up, 12.3% and 22.3% were infected with multiple types, respectively. HSIL risk markedly increased with the number of types [odds ratio (OR), 41.5; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 5.3-323.2 for single-type infections; OR, 91.7; 95% CI, 11.6-728.1 for two to three types; and OR, 424.0; 95% CI, 31.8-5651.8 for four to six types, relative to women consistently HPV-negative during the first year of follow-up]. The excess risks for multiple-type infections remained after exclusion of women infected with HPV-16, with high-risk HPV types, or persistent infections, particularly for any-grade SIL.
What I was trying to show with my chicken pox links were, firstly vaccinated children can infect others with the vaccine strain of chicken pox, and secondly, that chicken pox vaccination has created an even worse problem in the form of increasing the rate of Shingles in people, especially young people when it was usually only found in the elderly
Cheers
Tasha.
Andrew MacDonald
> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Ashley L
their every utterance. Sometimes you even split sentences up. You then
respond to these small fragments as if they were unconnected. In doing
this you avoid answering their real argument. "
Greg, I've noticed that you sometimes come to conclusions based on
what I believe are a series of objectionable arguments. It is my view
that your arguments are constructed like a house of cards. It is my
view that attempting to argue an entire argument which is based on or
contains a significant numbers of falsehoods and fallacies is an
impractical use of words. For example, if you said: A leads to B, B
leads to C therefore A leads to C and I thought that your initial
statement, A leads to B was factually incorrect, there would be little
point in attempting to argue that A in fact does not lead to C since
the premise of your statement is false. If you think my response to
your quotes is out of the intended context, you're free to point it
out to me.
"When I said "objectivity is a mirage" it was obvious that was the
opening thought of a larger argument - one that proposed scientists
(especially those in the vaccine area) are less likely to be
objective. "
And I was saying that you were initiating your argument with a logical
fallacy.
"Similarly, I wasn't arguing that because peer- review isn't perfect
it has no place. I'm saying that both objectivity and peer-review have
substantial problems when it comes to vaccine 'science'. "
No we get to the part in the debate where I have to respond claims you
have made which are seemingly entirely based on your personal opinion
with little factual evidence provided. Irrelevant innuendo and
apathetic allegations are abound. Goody.
"Everyone wants to have their papers published. Then they can say I've
had X papers published. "
No, Greg, everyone wants to have their papers published because they
want other people in their field to read their work. Everyone wants to
have their papers published because they want to believe their work
impacts on the greater thread of science. Everyone wants to have their
work published because if you don't tell other people what you've done
there's very little point in doing it in the first place.
"To be published it's important to make your peers happy. Lines like
"Vaccines have saved more lives and prevented more suffering than any
other..." espouse a very popular othodox viewpoint, and this will make
your peers happy. "
Have you ever actually published anything in a peer-reviewed journal,
Greg, or are you just perpetuating anti-science apocrypha? Nothing
controversial ever gets published because it wouldn't get past peer
review because peer review is one big circlejerk, eh Greg? The
Wakefield Lancet paper, that never made it past peer review because it
was controversial and questioned vaccines, which all doctors love
unconditionally? When Marshall et al. and others published papers
attributing a large portion of blame for stomach ulcers onto
heliobacter pylori in spite of the long held belief that stress was
the fundamental cause of ulcers, those never got past peer review?
Contrary to popular belief and the lovely little quotes that Meryl and
punter present, in the face of convincing contradictory evidence,
scientists regularly reassess their views. That being said, the larger
your claims the stronger your evidence needs to be. If you were going
to posit that our current understanding of germ theory was completely
wrong you would need to do it with something much more convincing
then, say, GNM.
"But this statement is not evidence-based. It isn't the result of an
objective view of the data so the statement is possibly not correct,
but it's written in 'reputable' journals so many times no peer-
reviewer would ever question it. "
I won't argue that there isn't any apocrypha in science journals. The
most common form is incorrect attribution of discoveries and landmarks
to journals that have higher impact factors.
"Peer-review can become a club setting where an insignia will get you
in, and good 'behaviour' will keep you there. And objectivity may be
nothing more than a declaration someone makes while pointing to that
insignia. I believe this has happened in vaccine 'science'. "
You believe this to be the case yet the only evidence that you have
presented is a long winded critique of the assessment of morbidity of
polio pre vaccine, based on what is quite clearly a selective, almost
arbitrary analysis of the literature (I notice that you did not
responded to my observations on the work of Jim West in the Germ
Theory thread, if you choose to, could you respond in the Germ Theory
thread?), a series of epidemiologically questionable graphs about Hib
and the opinions of one Viera Schreibner who believes there is a
massive conspiracy to "protect the vaccines". You'll have to forgive
me when I say I'm not yet ready to hop onto the Good Ship Beattie.
"Consider the experts from the tobacco industry trying to convince the
world that their products have not brought about the harm we suspect.
Objective? Now consider the experts from the vaccine industry trying
to convince the world that their products have not brought about the
harm we suspect. I think you're in no position to lecture us about
objectivity in this."
Oh, fantastic, another nonspecific allegation of corruption. Journals
ask that authors declare conflicts of interest, Greg. Obviously some
authors, like Wakefield, do not do this properly but you'll find that
a) journals can only police this retrospectively and b)the majority of
scientists are quick and conclusive in their condemnation of bad
practise in this regard. If you sell your objectivity, just once, you
have no further value, Greg. Except for his groupies at AoA, Wakefield
can testify to that. That being said, consider the fellow who sells
books questioning vaccination. Objective? I don't mind the veiled
insults, I'm not in vaccine science so it's not directed at me, but I
don't think you're in a position to take the moral high ground, Greg.
"If I choose to not vaccinate my child, is that a reason, or even a
contributing reason, to remove that child from my care?"
As you are well aware, Greg, on certain questions the law operates on
what jurists perceive a reasonable person would do. Put yourself in
the seat of the jurist. The question is: what level of care would a
parent be reasonably expected to provide on the issue of vaccination?
On one side you have the general consensus of the medical community
whose current science-based approach to medicine brings us medical
marvels that can stave off the advent of death, on the other side you
have Greg-Viera-Punter. On balance of probability, who's more likely
to be right?
"why would one inject cancer inducing substances? (seems stupid to me)
"
Why let your children out in the sun where the can be exposed to
cancer rays? Seems stupid to me. Also, instead of cross posting willy-
nilly can you address this exact argument, made by me, in the 2 Toxins
too many thread.
"Ummm, you demanded examples of skeptics behaving in a disgraceful
manner. I submit though that I should have been more careful about the
use of the word “force”– I should have said “demanded”. "
Since Meryl Dorey has shut down any discussion that is specifically
critical of the AVN it's hardly fair for Punter to be allowed play a
game of "let's have a go at SAVN". I ask that if the moderators are
going to continue to allow this form of comment that they re-open the
topic of the AVN for specific discussion separate from.
"Yes. That is exactly what they are. They are funded through force (or
the threat of it) ie taxation and their regulatory powers are backed
up with force or the threat of it. "
There is a difference between an actively coercive government and a
corrective one. You denigrate the suffering of individuals in
tyrannical regimes by implying that your freedoms are anywhere near as
restricted as theirs with your trite victim routine.
Further, you and Meryl seem to have this notion that the only possible
formula for a democratic society is an ultra-libertarian (except your
children are your chattels, go figure) one founded largely on US
principles. This is fundamentally incorrect in our instance as the
Australian government is largely founded on the principles of a social
contract.
"assume that at the very least if they buy more vaccinations then
things must improve. They never do. They make it worse of course. "
Who am I going to believe, Punter or MSF? Punter of MSF? It's a tough
one but I'm going to go with MSF. (http://www.msfaccess.org/our-work/
vaccines) Sorry, Punter, after all, I always side with authority.
Also, given the large amount of aid and drug donations made to those
countries, buy is hardly the correct term.
"Africa (sub-Saharan) is about the closest we have to a controlled
experiment vis-a-vis the efficacy of vaccines on mortality."
Controlled experiment on mortality? Ha ha ha. Oh. Punter. You
trickster, you. You nearly had me there. You're a consummate Poe. Not
even you couldn't be aware of the regional instability and general
lack of infrastructure. http://bit.ly/74GPNz
"But if you think I or Greg are cherry picking you are more than
welcome to find data that demonstrates that vaccines do save lives.
Probably leave out the Africa example though if I were you. "
But it wouldn't be true data, Punter. Plus it would be based on germ
theory, which obviously cannot correct.
"All I can say to that is ‘Fluvax’. "
All I can say to that is: Read the page dedicated to flu vaccinations.
Exception that proves the rule, Punter.
"In addition, using poisons as a control in testing safety is highly
misleading – some might even say fraudulent, indeed, some might even
say deliberately inflicting grievous bodily harm in the subjects. "
Curious, if only those "some" who "might even say fraudulent" etc.
would actually address this point in the threads that they keep
starting rather than evading the specific criticisms in the
appropriate thread in an obvious attempt to derail the topic in
another perhaps we could get somewhere on the debate in this issue.
Oh, if only.
"Changing the diagnostic criteria for a disease after a vaccination
has
been introduced is also misleading. "
Changing the topic randomly and introducing material addressed in
another thread is also misleading. I don't know why you keep doing it.
"And I can send you Meryl’s response. "
Ah, yes, the infamous "wrong size box" response with infractions so
minor the OLGR considered referring the matter to the DPP.
"Are you saying that your income has nothing to do with allopathic
medicine (if not I apologise). "
Mine doesn't. Not even in the slightest. I thank you for your apology.
"That's a fairly remarkable statement considering not once have I ever
a) claimed to be a victim of oppression; "
You are, according to you, the victim of a "coercive" government, are
you not? You have been commanded, have you not, to "sacrifice" your
first born child, have you not?
"Hahahahahaha!!!! Hate to be the one to break this to you but Greg and
I never stop debating with anybody it is the skeptics who are always
the ones to retreat."
And yet neither you nor Greg consistently answer points I direct at
either of you, I do notice your propensity to pick and choose what you
respond to, and there are a number of threads in which I have
participated in which neither of you have responded at all. Perhaps
you would like to comment on my mercury thread? Nobody did despite it
being one of your all time favourite canards. Also, there's still
plenty of debating to be done over at Two toxins. Also, I should point
out that your method of "debating" includes flying off on tangents and
one time you stormed off in a huff.
"Please do continue. I would like some of those depleted uranium
shells
please. "
You live in Australia, Punter, you get a healthy dose of uranium as it
is.
Katie Brockie
and again - formaldehyde occurs naturally in the human body at higher levels than in the vaccinations.
I got my children vaccinated, and they both began to talk better and their co-ordination improved afterwards. I did not get them "injected with carcinogens". That is your fantasy.
cheers
K
mtp_69_i
Greg, you provide no reference for those death rates. Nor do you
indicate what time frame (ie 1 per day? Month? Year?).
I have no idea what Tasha's numbers are about and again there us no
reference .
Tasha,
I admire how you appear to be embracing the idea of hpv vaccination. I
agree, it may be that as hpv16 and 18 infection is eliminated,
vaccines against other strains will be required. That doesn't at all
detract from the clear evidence that currently hpv16 and 18 are the
most oncogenic strains, as clearly demonstrated in your reference.
As for the chickenpox stuff, I haven't had time to look at it. I'll
give you my thoughts on it later.
Andrew,
Where is the reference that shows vaccines cause cancer?? Please back
up your claim or admit you made it up.
Mumof8
mortality is not in the same format that I posted it in, so sorry
about that! When I read and post, I do it in Gmail and it looks fine
on there, oh well! I have personally looked up the rates from the
Australian Bureau of Statistics website and it does show that the
rates were 0 per 100000 before most vaccines, but Greg has already
posted the exact figures, thanks Greg.
Cheers
Tasha
mtp_69_i
Please see table 2 at the bottom of this page from the Australian
Government Department of Health and Aging. It is taken from the
Communicable Diseases Journal volume 31, June 2007 and was constructed
from statistics published in the public health bulletin, One hundred
years of vaccination (see reference below).
Feery B. One hundred years of vaccination. Public Health Bulletin
1997;8:61–63; Feery B. Impact of immunisation on disease patterns in
Australia. Medical Journal of Australia 1981;2:172–176.)
The table (like you) only considers death rates, which in itself
represents only a fraction of the overall cost of infection from these
disease (both in terms of health cost and loss of quality of life).
However, I'm happy to go along with using this information as a means
of demonstrating the effectiveness of vaccines, as the table clearly
shows incidence of death due to these diseases decreasing in the
decades following introduction of vaccines.
If you would like to present a graph, table or reference that we can
use to compare the incidence of death due to vaccine, I would be happy
to look at it.
Otherwise, all I understand from your post is that it seems you (like
Tasha) really do understand that vaccines can defeat disease, but you
are just too belligerent to admit it.
On Dec 15, 9:54 pm, Greg Beattie <pcmedics...@gmail.com> wrote:
punter
punter present, in the face of convincing contradictory evidence,
scientists regularly reassess their views.
You should tell that to JC. He set up the GNM thread solely for the
purpose of denigrating and ridiculing it and making sure that nobody
ever so much as considers it.
>That being said, the larger your claims the stronger your evidence needs to be. If you were going to posit that our current understanding of germ theory was completely wrong you would need to do it with something much more convincing then, say, GNM. <
I can posit anything I want based on any basis I choose thank you very
much. You are free to believe it or not based on any criteria you set
for yourself.
>On one side you have the general consensus of the medical community
whose current science-based approach to medicine brings us medical
marvels that can stave off the advent of death, on the other side you
have Greg-Viera-Punter. On balance of probability, who's more likely
to be right? >
Those with the most sound arguments.
<"Yes. That is exactly what they are. They are funded through force
(or
the threat of it) ie taxation and their regulatory powers are backed
up with force or the threat of it. "
There is a difference between an actively coercive government and a
corrective one. >
You need to go away and find out the difference between describing
something and passing judgement on it. I said the government is a
coercive institution because it is. I made no comment on whether that
was right or wrong.
>You denigrate the suffering of individuals in tyrannical regimes by implying that your freedoms are anywhere near as restricted as theirs with your trite victim routine. <
You denigrate the suffering of those who have been harmed by vaccines
by implying that their injuries are just them acting as
hypochondriacs?
Moderators can I ask that you ban AL for continuing to derail topics
by frequently resorting to these appeals to emotion? (For the benefit
of those who have no sense of humour or irony I will refer them to
AL’s post https://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate/browse_thread/thread/11a9d2f219ab70df/e3fdcbb0f71a44dc
Dec 14 8:23. Although I suspect that evilbadscary will still struggle
to grasp it.)
>Further, you and Meryl seem to have this notion that the only possible
formula for a democratic society is an ultra-libertarian (except your
children are your chattels, go figure) one founded largely on US
principles. This is fundamentally incorrect in our instance as the
Australian government is largely founded on the principles of a
social
contract. >
Every single point in this paragraph is absolute nonsense. Where do
you get the idea that I believe democracy and an ultra-libertarian
society are linked in any way? Where do you get the notion that I
believe my children are my chattels? You believe they should be
vaccinated. How many two year olds knowingly consent to having needles
stuck in them? I would be happy if vaccination had to wait until the
child was able to truly consent (say 12). Would you be happy with
that? Or would I be right in saying that your argument against parents
using them as chattels is only to justify why governments can.
What are US principles? If you mean the principles of individual
liberty then surely you must be aware that such philosophies abounded
long before the US came into being? What’s more, whilst the US
certainly became liberty’s (somewhat inconsistent) beacon it was by no
means exclusive to those lands.
Have you never heard of the Spanish scholastics of Salamanca? Locke?
Burke? Not to mention Bastiat, Turgot, Say? How about von Mises,
Menger or Hayek? It’s fine if you haven’t I just don’t understand why
you would talk about a particular philosophy that has been espoused by
many people throughout history as belonging solely to a particular
country.
As for the Australian government being founded on a social contract
what government would ever admit that it didn’t have the consent of
the governed?
Economic policies in Australia at Federation were essentially just as
free market as the economic policies in the US were. There were
differences at the margin, but both countries had strong property
rights and small government. And that was before Australia was a
democracy and when the vast majority of Americans didn’t vote.
<"assume that at the very least if they buy more vaccinations then
things must improve. They never do. They make it worse of course. "
Who am I going to believe, Punter or MSF? Punter of MSF? It's a tough
one but I'm going to go with MSF. (http://www.msfaccess.org/our-work/
vaccines) Sorry, Punter, after all, I always side with authority. >
Sorry are you trying to be ironic in saying you only ever trust
authority even as you make an appeal to authority? I must admit I
struggle to follow your attempts at wit which seem to be at your own
expense.
"Africa (sub-Saharan) is about the closest we have to a controlled
experiment vis-a-vis the efficacy of vaccines on mortality."
Controlled experiment on mortality? Ha ha ha. Oh. Punter. You
trickster, you. You nearly had me there. You're a consummate Poe. Not
even you couldn't be aware of the regional instability and general
lack of infrastructure. http://bit.ly/74GPNz
It is a controlled experiment for the purpose of the exercise ie can
we take a region for which improvements in living conditions could not
be said to be a confounding factor and still find a substantive macro
benefit to vaccinations? If we could that would be a powerful argument
for vaccinations. But we evidently can’t. This doesn’t prove that
vaccines are useless but it certainly wasn't what you guys originally
expected is it?
>"All I can say to that is ‘Fluvax’. "
All I can say to that is: Read the page dedicated to flu
vaccinations.
Exception that proves the rule, Punter. <
All I can say to that is answer the question AL. Is it misleading or
not? If so, are you going to take them to court and if it is
misleading but you won’t take them to court why not?
And I have answered your points about what is inert. You were
completely wrong by the way. Your definition of inert was incorrect
and your attempts to obfuscate the issue were just that.
>"That's a fairly remarkable statement considering not once have I ever
a) claimed to be a victim of oppression; "
You are, according to you, the victim of a "coercive" government, are
you not? You have been commanded, have you not, to "sacrifice" your
first born child, have you not? <
Can I give you a hint from someone who is funny to someone who isn’t –
when you try and make a witty response it is best to make one
predicated on my confusion rather than yours.
>"Please do continue. I would like some of those depleted uranium
shells please. "
You live in Australia, Punter, you get a healthy dose of uranium as it
<
See above comment.
> lack of infrastructure.http://bit.ly/74GPNz
>
> "But if you think I or Greg are cherry picking you are more than
> welcome to find data that demonstrates that vaccines do save lives.
> Probably leave out the Africa example though if I were you. "
>
> But it wouldn't be true data, Punter. Plus it would be based on germ
> theory, which obviously cannot correct.
>
> "All I can say to that is ‘Fluvax’. "
>
> All I can say to that is: Read the page dedicated to flu vaccinations.
> Exception that proves the rule, Punter.
>
> "In addition, using poisons as a control in testing safety is highly
> misleading – some might even say fraudulent, indeed, some might even
> say deliberately inflicting grievous bodily harm in the subjects. "
>
> Curious, if only those "some" who "might even say fraudulent" etc.
> would actually ...
>
> read more »
Tasha David
I went to the ABS website and looked up all the Australian yearbooks from 1907 to 1970, I wrote down the individual death rates for the individual diseases Measles, Whooping Cough, Diphtheria, Scarlet Fever, and Typhoid and worked out the quinquennial rate of deaths per 100000 and all of these particular diseases including the ones that we did not vaccinate against and they were down to 0 per 100000, it takes a bit of time but here is the one for 1950, you can look up the rest if you like they are all there.
http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/935244D74B909F75CA2573AD002004C0/$File/13010_1953%20section%2014.pdf
Cheers
Tasha
Tasha David
P,
I said that I understand where I went wrong with saying that HPV 16 and 18 was not the most dominant strains in Colombia, but I didn't say I embrace HPV vaccination. I also see how you could eliminate strains with vaccination, but viruses have a way of mutating, and nature never leaves a void, if something is removed to upset the balance of nature something else ends up increasing and causing problems, and we end up in an endless game of trying to rebalance what we upset in the first place. Also the side effects of this very new vaccination are not meeting the benefits outweigh the risks criteria with me!
Cheers
T...hehehe couldn't resist
mtp_69_i
with providing the graph .that shows numbers of death due to
vaccines.
Semantic arguments about how many people died from diseases are simply
making you and Greg seem more and more heartless and thoughtless.
> http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/935244D74B909F75CA...
>
> Cheers
> Tasha
Ashley L
purpose of denigrating and ridiculing it and making sure that nobody
ever so much as considers it. "
So JC is close-minded because he didn't swallow GNM whole like you
did? That's hardly a fair analysis of the situation. Furthermore, JC
is hardly a microcosm for all experimental scientists at the leading
edge of their fields.
"I can posit anything I want based on any basis I choose thank you
very much. "
So you believe things work the way they do because that's how you
think they do? Circular, much?
"You are free to believe it or not based on any criteria you set for
yourself. "
For reference, my standard criteria for credibility is usually: "What
would a reasonable person with a science background believe?
"Those with the most sound arguments. "
For your reference, the courts did not think "to protect the vaccines"
was a remotely sound argument and they're fairly jaded chaps.
"I said the government is a coercive institution because it is. I made
no comment on whether that was right or wrong. "
Again, circular logic.
"You denigrate the suffering of those who have been harmed by vaccines
by implying that their injuries are just them acting as
hypochondriacs? "
Gadzooks, a tu-quoque, red herring. Even if I was doing that, which
I'm not, it doesn't excuse the fact that you think, or like to
pretend, that you live in some form of medical tyranny. Perhaps you
were convinced by the mendacious Meryl's Medical Power over the
Innocent? I assure you, if you did live in such a state, you would
know it and your children WOULD be vaccinated. As it is, you do not
and (I presume) they are not so please stop pretending that you are in
order to elicit sympathy. You, punter, will find none here. Not once
have I failed to acknowledge that some people are harmed by vaccines.
Not once have I failed to acknowledge the risk, a risk which, you will
note, I take myself. What I refuse to accept are two things, one:
Greg's dubious arguments that vaccines don't work (including one where
he referenced someone who claimed DDT toxicity was indistinguishable
from polio despite a wealth of evidence suggesting it was) and aren't
worth the risk and two: Your overinflated estimate of the risks that
are associated with vaccination which, as I have noted, includes
analyses of extremely dubious VAERS information.
"Where do you get the notion that I believe my children are my
chattels?"
You believe, do you not, that you should hold sole discretion over the
medical treatment of your children?
"Sorry are you trying to be ironic in saying you only ever trust
authority even as you make an appeal to authority?" "
No, I was being sardonic. You couldn't detect the sarcasm? As to your
"appeal to authority" argument, my evidence was that MSF was asking
for more because they don't think vaccine coverage is sufficient. MSF:
Entirely philanthropic organisation, at the coalface in SSA (sub-
Saharan Africa) all day every day. Punter: Adamantly anti-vaccine,
allegedly went to Africa one time. It's not that they're authority
(MSF says it therefore it must be true), punter, it's that they're
legit and you're not.
"It is a controlled experiment for the purpose of the exercise ie can
we take a region for which improvements in living conditions could not
be said to be a confounding factor and still find a substantive macro
benefit to vaccinations?"
In your haste to defend your ill-conceived argument you seem to have
failed to acknowledge that general regional instability can also make
living conditions substantially worse. As one would imagine, rape,
murder and mutilation make it very difficult to assess mortality
exclusively due to disease. That being said, I'll have to let the
UNHCR know that SSA has stabilised, because you say so.
"If we could that would be a powerful argument for vaccinations. But
we evidently can’t"
Could that have something to do with the armed fellows who have a
propensity for stealing medications, including vaccines? The lack of
roads in some areas? Nah, must be because the vaccines just don't work
and we're making the rest of it up.
"All I can say to that is answer the question AL. Is it misleading or
not? If so, are you going to take them to court and if it is
misleading but you won’t take them to court why not? "
It's not misleading because they qualify the statement and dedicate an
entire page to the issue. Even if it was misleading, which it isn't, I
haven't been harmed by it so I have absolutely no grounds for tort.
"And I have answered your points about what is inert. You were
completely wrong by the way. Your definition of inert was incorrect
and your attempts to obfuscate the issue were just that. "
It's not MY definition, punter, it's the definition used by and agreed
on by chemists, codified by the International Union of Pure and
Applied Chemistry, the peak body on nomenclature. You, Punter, made
the rookie error and don't seem to want to accept that you don't get
to make up scientific definitions. But I'll be sure to watch the tread
anyway.
"Can I give you a hint from someone who is funny to someone who isn’t
– "
No, because you're really not funny. I sometimes laugh at you, but
like I told Greg, I'm often being disingenuous in my reasons for doing
so.
"I wrote down the individual death rates for the individual diseases
Measles, Whooping Cough, Diphtheria, Scarlet Fever, and Typhoid and
worked out the quinquennial rate of deaths per 100000 and all of
these particular diseases including the ones that we did not vaccinate
against "
Point of scientific order: Why did you group the data into five year
slots? Quite a few anti-vaxxers do this and it's a highly dubious
thing to do, artificially lowering the resolution of your data. If you
want to smooth your data in order to examine a trend there are more
statistically meaningful ways to do it, n-point smoothing, for
example.
> http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/free.nsf/0/935244D74B909F75CA...
>
> Cheers
> Tasha
Greg Beattie
Your figures are deaths, not death-rates. The figures I quoted are
from the GRIM books - Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and
they are per year of course.
Greg
Greg Beattie
For some reason this didn't get past moderation last time I posted it.
Fair enough I suppose... I can get a bit blunt about this particular
issue. I've removed the offending portion (I think). My apologies to
the moderator.
In the midst of this discussion about using force to implement vaccine
policy, I thought I'd throw in a little gem from Sandy Gottstein's
website. It was part of a testimony made to U.S. Congress in 1962 by
Clinton R. Miller of the National Health Federation.
"Those who believe in freedom of choice in matters of politics,
religion, and health, emphasize that minority views of one generation
become majority views of another. History has a wonderful lesson to
teach us here if we will learn it. History will record a man of one
age as a wise man, even though subsequent research might prove his
theories to be in error, if he refrained from force of any kind in
sharing of his beliefs with his disciples and contemporaries. But it
will record the same man with the same theories as a fool or a tyrant,
who uses, or allows to be used, force of any kind- not the least of
which is governmental force - to gain acceptance for his beliefs."
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/June_21_02/Scandal21.htm
Greg
Greg Beattie
There's very little I need to respond to. I made my point and you
again took air-swings with a pedantic argument.
"Objectivity is a mirage" was not a logical fallacy - it wasn't even
an argument. It was an expression... a reminder that objectivity is an
ideal that we strive for - not a commodity, nor an award presented to
one class via some golden handshake. We can see it and admire its
sincerity, but we can't grab it. The phrase was certainly no pre-
requisite for the remainder of my argument so your whole AB-BC->AC
fiasco was pointless. We all know stuff... the trick is to make sense.
And trying to restore our faith in peer-review by submitting examples
of papers which were 'controversial' is farcical. In the same post you
said... "Exception that proves the rule, Punter"... referring to
fluvax. The world has long had its mouth wide open for research
linking illness to germs, so suggesting stomach ulcers are caused by
them is hardly fundamentally unpalatable. And Wakefield.... now that's
a great example for your argument.
I restricted my criticism of peer-review to vaccine 'science' although
it obviously has wider reaching implications. You can take it on the
chin or get upset. I don't mind. The argument stands. Again, I think
peer-review is a good idea but its obvious pitfalls are being ignored,
possibly because its governed by the same 'peers'.
Your quote -"If you were going to posit that our current understanding
of germ theory was completely wrong you would need to do it with
something much more convincing than, say, GNM."
What rubbish. I wouldn't need ANY alternative. I'd point out the
bleeding obvious about its fundamental principles. A specific germ is
neither necessary NOR sufficient for a specific illness. NEITHER of
these simple tests are satified in the real world. Whoooops!!! What
shall we do? Change the theory? No - we redefine disease in terms of
the germs. That way both "necessary" AND "sufficient" are satisfied by
definition. Sound like good solid science or sticky tape?
Greg
JC
"You should tell that to JC. He set up the GNM thread solely for the
purpose of denigrating and ridiculing it and making sure that nobody
ever so much as considers it." I'm glad the penny has finally dropped
for you. That's exactly what I did and why I did it. This is a
"debate" site, remember? So far, by the way, you have yet to produce
an iota of evidence for GNM. It seems to be working, but it is an
easy target after all. i'm glad you appreciate my efforts. If you
care to debate it, please supply some references.
"I can posit anything I want based on any basis I choose thank you
very much. You are free to believe it or not based on any criteria you
set for yourself." and we are free to denigrate and ridicule your
ideas (not you personally, of course) thank you very much. Remember
punter, this is a debate. Please try and debate. Please try to
defend your ideas, rather than letting them be shown to be pointless,
as you have done so far.
Here's an idea. The sky is coloured pink with purple pocket-dots. I
have no proof. I have no way of verifying it, but I can posit
anything I want based on any basis I choose thank you very much. It's
wrong, of course, but that's the level of argument you've produced so
far.
"On balance of probability, who's more likely to be right? Those with
the most sound arguments." which, I guess, may include you, if you
ever actually make a sound argument of any sort.
John
Katie Brockie
“But please do continue arguing
against me on the nuances of political economy (here’s a hint though
–
just because I can wipe the floor with you on matters that should be
your speciality doesn’t mean that when the roles are reversed you
will
have similar success). “
Matter that should be my specialty? What do you mean?
“Can I give you a hint? If you want to lie, it’s usually better if it
is a remotely plausible one.”
He is calling me a liar
But for some reason you don’t have the slightest problem with these
three highly misleading actions do you? Anyone would think that your
system of ethics is completely self-serving.
He is saying that my system of ethics is completely self –serving.
These are all ad hominem, personal, offensive and disrespectful
comments. I try hard to be polite and respectful in my debate.
Perhaps, punter, you should try harder too. What do others think? Is
it respectful to say these things?
Thank you for apologising for getting my profession wrong.
K
mtp_69_i
this really is getting tiresome.
mtp_69_i
Not sure what side effects you've talking about...
There's nothing about the Gardasil vaccine that guarantees it will
abolish HPV, but it's a start. It may be that in time other HPV
strains will come into dominance, and vaccines may be needed to be
raised against them. The cost/benefit argument comes in here (as
discussed in your paper from the Columbians) and it is a very
compelling one. Why would a company sink millions of dollars into
something when there is currently no need for it? Once need arises,
people will pay and research/development will be done.
It's a nice observation of evolution that you post though. And for
sure, it follows as with everything, diseases evolve and we must
always be watching and researching to see these events happen and
respond as quickly as possible.
P.
punter
vaccines. "
And not once, did I ever imply that the oppression of people in
Australia was similar to that of North Korea. Hence my statement and
the subsequent mock call for your banning. Amazingly, you couldn't get
your head around what I did - despite how obvious it was.
Two other things: you used the example of a jury to make your point.
But why do we have a jury? If government appointed experts are the
best at ascertaining truth rather than just laypeople with no
knowledge of law, forensics etc, why is it that a jury of peers seems
to be a staple of Western courts? Wouldn't it be cheaper and more
accurate to just take the prosecution's case at face value?
And as for the Africa example I don't know why you are going on at me
about it. It was KB's example not mine. If you think there were too
many confounders to allow a robust conclusion then take it up with her
not me.
Skeptic logic no 26:
All pro-vaccine examples are valid to use as proof of the efficacy of
vaccines. Any examples that anti-vaccines provide are invalid even if
they use exactly the same data.
I also note your continuing proclivity to snip important text in order
to make your responses seem relevant.
> > Tasha- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
punter
"debate" site, remember? So far, by the way, you have yet to produce
an iota of evidence for GNM. It seems to be working, but it is an
easy target after all."
I assume KB's admonishment for such hubris has been held up by the
moderators.
punter
>"Where do you get the notion that I believe my children are my
>chattels?"
>You believe, do you not, that you should hold sole discretion over the
>medical treatment of your children?
I asked my daughter whether she wanted poisons injected into her and
she said no.
And my question still stands (which you skirted around and snipped
because it was completely devastating to your case): Assuming a child
doesn't want to have a needle stuck into them - do you believe they
should have autonomy on this issue? If not, who "owns" them. Parents?
Government? Scientists?
>It's not misleading because they qualify the statement and dedicate an
>entire page to the issue. Even if it was misleading, which it isn't, I
>haven't been harmed by it so I have absolutely no grounds for tort.
I guess you and I have very different views on what counts as
"qualifying" a statement. Generally to me if you qualify a statement
you do it precisely when and where that statement is made so everybody
who reads the initial message understands its full context. Presumably
your definition says you can qualify a statement by saying something
and then when that audience is no longer around tell a bunch of people
that you actually meant something completely different.
Must be one of my rookie mistakes vis-a-vis the definition of words.
Is there an international board that decides what a qualifying
statement is?
And I have to ask: on what grounds does anybody have for torts against
the AVN? (Just in case you forgot and go off on a tangent about tu
quoque, etc - that was the original point of contention).
On Dec 16, 6:49 pm, Ashley L <lockeas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Tasha David
I have read your last post and to me, it is a strange way to present the numbers, they lump all the deaths together over 10 year periods and when they show the year when vaccination began it is lumped in with the years before and after. Plus why don't they put it in a much simpler X per 100,000 form so they can factor in the changing population numbers instead of just averaging out the population number over the 10 year period?
It is not semantics to discuss the fact that the amount of people dying from these diseases just before most of the vaccines were introduced was already reduced by 90-95%, and it hardly makes me or Greg seem heartless and thoughtless. My reasons for pursuing this topic is because people are so scared that without vaccines a lot of people will die, but if that didn't happen historically then why would it happen now, especially when we have better medical services?
I am not even saying that all vaccination should stop because I know that a lot of people believe so strongly in it. Everyone should be able to make their own medical decisions, it is just when they start to try and coerce people that do not believe in vaccination to vaccinate because of their belief in vaccine induced herd immunity, that is where I have a problem!
All their arguments to take away people's right to not vaccinate are based on fear, where as I do not use fear to make my decisions, I have seen what vaccination has done to my children and it makes more sense to take our chances with naturally acquired diseases. I have also seen studies pointing to a stronger immunity being caused from naturally acquired immunity in comparison to a vaccine induced one which is then passed on to our babies...
"The study, published in the US journal Pediatrics, says that women who have been inoculated while young have far less immunity to the disease to pass on to their own offspring.
If correct, this would mean that past decades of rising immunisation rates in the UK could have left unvaccinated modern babies increasingly vulnerable to the disease, which, in very rare cases, can kill."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/503025.stmhttp://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/104/5/e59.abstract
I would also love to be able to show you an accurate graph of vaccine related deaths, but if less than 10% of all adverse reactions are reported and doctors who have seen my family history are still reluctant to say it is vaccine related, the chances of having an accurate account of vaccine deaths would (in my opinion) be very unlikely. I mean if a child dies in their sleep a few days after having their recommended vaccines wouldn't it be more likely to be listed as sudden infant death syndrome?
Cheers
T
Katie Brockie
thanks for apologising for this, now let's move on without any more nastiness.
cheers
K
aspiewarrior
enough to tell me you really don't know how to research.
On Dec 13, 4:00 pm, punter <tristanwe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Hypothesis testing works by collecting
> > data<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28statistics%29>and
> > measuring how likely the particular set of data is, assuming the null
> > hypothesis is true. (OK - assuming that "vaccines are not effective " is
> > true, which data sets do we use? I suggest it would make sense to look at
> > epidemiological data-sets measuring the number of cases of a particular
> > disease in the population before and after vaccinations are introduced. )
>
> That's your (not at all self-serving) suggestion is it? May I make amy
> own self-serving suggestion instead? How about we look at the overall
> health of the population before and after a vaccine is introduced,
> including the mortality data. If we want to be more specific we should
> look at the number of people with the same symptoms as what we used to
> define a particular disease as before the vaccine is introduced.
>
> If we can't get the data that shows this then we certainly can't
> reject the null hypothesis.
>
>
>
> > > If so, and if all studies have some flaws as you say,
>
> > I didn't say it - Ben Goldacre did. And he was making the point that it is
> > important for people who are conducting studies to be open and transparent
> > about them, and share samples and information.
>
> Nothing more open and transparent then telling people that are using
> something 'inert' as a placebo knowing full well that the populous'
> views of what inert means is completely at odds with what you think it
> should mean.
>
>
>
> > > then is it or is
> > > it not fair to say then that this statement has never been
> > > comprehensively rejected?
>
> > "Vaccines are not effective." In the real world this statement has been
> > comprehensively disproved over and over again.
>
> Oh I see. In the "real world". You mean the "real world" whereby
> epidemiologists ignore such issues as actual mortality data and don't
> concern themselves about the possibility of an extraordinary bias due
> to doctors making their diagnosis on the basis of vaccination status.
>
>
>
> > > And if it is fair to say this, then what on earth gives skeptics the
> > > right to treat those of us who refuse vaccination the way they do?
>
> > How on earth do skeptics treat you punter? I am a skeptic. I'm also a
> > mother, a researcher, a singer, an animal lover, a daughter, a sister, etc
> > etc etc. I am a whole person, and I find it just a tad annoying when you
> > lump all "skeptics" together, and complain about how you are treated. Give
> > me some examples please.
>
> No thanks. I've punished myself enough reading the SAVN board. By all
> means go on thinking that the skeptic movement is an open-minded bunch
> of caring people who have absolutely no desire to impose their views
> on other people - including by using the government to shut down
> various organisations that say things that they don't want them to
> say. In addition, no skeptic would ever argue that parents who don't
> vaccinate their children should have their children taken away from
> them.
>
> Really they wouldn't. How could they? After all, one of them is an
> animal lover with a good singing voice.
>
> PS I should say that my comments about the behaviour of the skeptics
> was definitely not directed at you. But to suggest that the skeptics
> don't try and use force to shut down debate is laughable.
aspiewarrior
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-11-340.pdf
Greg Beattie
>
> this really is getting tiresome.
mtp_69_i
I think you may have misinterpreted my post. Tasha quoted a figure for
deaths "per 100,000", you responded that she was missing a couple of
digits and supplied some figures for deaths but called them death
rates. I was merely clarifying that your figures were deaths, not
death rates (which accounts for the apparent discrepancy). OK?
Greg
Andrew MacDonald
up your claim or admit you made it up."
To: "vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com" <vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2011 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: [vaccination-respectful-debate] Re: Debating science
To: Vaccination-Respectful Debate <vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2011 12:56 PM
Subject: [vaccination-respectful-debate] Re: Debating science
Sorry Greg, I meant Andrew MacDonald.
> causing cancer?
>
> Your rejection of cancer causing agents leads me to suspect you are
one of the people in the bubble I described before. How do you avoid
> cancer causing agents everyday without shutting yourself away from the
> world and light? It"s impossible. Try again, friend.
> Cheers.
>
> On Dec 14, 11:38 pm, Andrew MacDonald <qldbrigh...@yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dr. P.J.McCarthy,
> > why would one inject cancer inducing substances? (seems stupid to me)
>
>
> > If you consider this subject to be pertinent and paramount to this debate-topic, then I concur that this debate is now closed.
>
> > You accept cancer-inducing substances, I do not.
> > One cannot debate this any further.
> > Andrew.
>
> > Andrew.
>
> > ________________________________
> > From: mtp_69_i <drpjmccar...@gmail.com>
> > To: Vaccination-Respectful Debate <vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 7:32 PM
> > Subject: [vaccination-respectful-debate] Re: Debating science
>
> > Tasha,
>
> > I'll use quotes to make this easier.
>
> > [Quote: Tasha]
>
> > > "What about the children out there who are going to be injured by
> > > vaccination, are they acceptable collateral damage as long as we get those
> > > vaccination rates up, which is between 90-95% already?"
>
> > You know my answer is going to be yes. But hopefully you understand
> > that acceptance of this fact is the same as my acceptance that my
> > pregnant wife has a risk of post-partum hemorrhage which carries a
> > risk of death when she goes through the birth of our first child. As
> > I explained, there are very few medical procedures you can undertake
> > without some risk. The question is, is the probability that something
> > bad happens greater than the probability that something good happens.
> > If it isn't, then it's hard to argue why you wouldn't have the
> > procedure.
>
> > [Quote: Tasha]
>
> > "Why do you fear the
>
> > > return of deadly diseases when it is well known that clean water,
> > > sanitation, good hygiene, and good nutrition was the major contributor to
> > > the decrease in mortality rates from diseases? "
>
> > They were/are certainly contributors to lower mortality rates in
> > developed countries. Is that exclusive to vaccination? No.
> > Vaccination has been clearly demonstrated to be protective against
> > infection.
>
> > [Quote: Tasha]
>
> > "We do not live in third
>
> > > world countries, we have all these things and we also have access to good
> > > medical care. Why so much fear, as Greg has already shown mortality rates
> > > were already down before most vaccines were introduced and other diseases
> > > that we did not vaccinate against disappeared on their own."
>
> > If you want to live in a bubble where no one from the outside comes in
> > and you never venture out then sure, you could probably get away with
> > not vaccinating against diseases which, through the wonders of
> > vaccination, modern medical and engineering have been eliminated from
> > your community. The problem is, it's basically impossible to shield
> > yourself and children from the outside world. Your children attend
> > schools/day care, you go to the shops, you might even go on a holiday
> > outside of your home town. All of these events involve mixing with
> > other people who may have been exposed to a disease for which you are
> > not vaccinated against. As such, you are always at risk of
> > infection. The difference is that vaccination against these diseases
> > increases the likelihood you will fight off the disease, thus not
> > spreading it and not suffering serious negative outcomes as a result
> > of the infection. Not vaccinating increases the likelihood you will
> > become sick enough from the infection to become a burden on the
> > healthcare system, spread the diseases further and possibly suffer
> > more serious consequences as a result of the disease. It really isn't
> > that hard to understand.
>
> > [Quote: Tasha]
>
> > > If there is evidence starting to surface about vaccines causing harm to
> > > some children, why the need to push everyone to vaccinate when the coverage
> > > rates are at all time highs???"
>
> > see above. I don't know what "all time high" means. I'm not arguing
> > we need to vaccinate now more than any other time.
>
> > [Quote: Tasha]
>
> > > As for comparing not vaccinating your child to driving while intoxicated,
> > > not the same thing at all, how can you compare ingesting mind altering
> > > substances to not getting vaccinated?
>
> > I was providing an example of where sometimes giving individuals a
> > choice to do something can be riskier for the general population than
> > not having that choice. You may have lost the point of the thread.
> > Maybe re-read your post I replied to and then read my responses.
>
> > Quote: Tasha]
>
> > > As for the Dr Haug presentation, yes it was about HPV but she also included
> > > a study called “Invasive Pneumococcal Disease Caused by Nonvaccine
> > > Serotypes Among Alaska Native Children With High Levels of 7-Valent
> > > Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine Coverage” so I thought it was relevant to
> > > other VPD’s.
>
> > Okay. The only stuff I looked at on the web and Pubmed from her was
> > about HPV (the majority of her hits) so I dealt with that. Do you
> > have any thoughts about my reply? Her concerns are heartening, though
> > not necessarily scientifically backed. Indeed, the HPV vaccination is
> > maybe a little harder to think about because it's purpose is to stop a
> > subsequent problem (cancer) that arises from infection from specific
> > strains of the HPV. As such, the idea is that it is not as important
> > to vaccinate against all HPV strains as it is to just deal with the
> > ones that are most oncogenic. I tried to explain why I didn't see how
> > this would place any positive selection on conversion of non-oncogenic
> > HPV strains to oncogenic. Do you get that?
>
> > If you read her stuff, you'll see that her scientific thinking on the
> > effects of HPV vaccine are little more than speculation. However, her
> > concerns about the economic cost vs benefit of the HPV vaccine
> > Gardasil are far more well grounded and researched.
>
> > Anyway, I get the feeling that you might not actually be thinking very
> > hard about my replies but simply firing back the first retort that
> > comes to mind. Hopefully you are getting something useful out of my
> > responses.
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > P.
>
> > > Cheers
>
> > > Tasha
>
> > --
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
Andrew MacDonald
To: vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 16 December 2011 7:49 AM
Subject: Re: [vaccination-respectful-debate] Re: Debating science
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Katie Brockie
Formaldehyde is only a cancer risk to people who work for long hours in constant contact with the substance. Sorry about the long quote but here goes:
"Several NCI surveys of professionals who are potentially exposed to formaldehyde in their work, such as anatomists and embalmers, have suggested that these individuals are at an increased risk of leukemia and brain cancer compared with the general population. However, specific work practices and exposures were not characterized in these studies. An NCI case-control study among funeral industry workers that characterized exposure to formaldehyde also found an association between increasing formaldehyde exposure and mortality from myeloid leukemia (4). For this study, carried out among funeral industry workers who had died between 1960 and 1986, researchers compared those who had died from hematopoietic and lymphatic cancers and brain tumors with those who died from other causes. (Hematopoietic or hematologic cancers such as leukemia develop in the blood or bone marrow. Lymphatic cancers develop in the tissues and organs that produce, store, and carry white blood cells that fight infections and other diseases.) This analysis showed that those who had performed the most embalming and those with the highest estimated formaldehyde exposure had the greatest risk of myeloid leukemia. There was no association with other cancers of the hematopoietic and lymphatic systems or with brain cancer.
A number of cohort studies involving workers exposed to formaldehyde have recently been completed. One study, conducted by NCI, looked at 25,619 workers in industries with the potential for occupational formaldehyde exposure and estimated each worker’s exposure to the chemical while at work (5). The results showed an increased risk of death due to leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, among workers exposed to formaldehyde. This risk was associated with increasing peak and average levels of exposure, as well as with the duration of exposure, but it was not associated with cumulative exposure. An additional 10 years of data on the same workers were used in a follow-up study published in 2009 (6). This analysis continued to show a possible link between formaldehyde exposure and cancers of the hematopoietic and lymphatic systems, particularly myeloid leukemia. As in the initial study, the risk was highest earlier in the follow-up period. Risks declined steadily over time, such that the cumulative excess risk of myeloid leukemia was no longer statistically significant at the end of the follow-up period. The researchers noted that similar patterns of risks over time had been seen for other agents known to cause leukemia.
A cohort study of 11,039 textile workers performed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) also found an association between the duration of exposure to formaldehyde and leukemia deaths (7). However, the evidence remains mixed because a cohort study of 14,014 British industry workers found no association between formaldehyde exposure and leukemia deaths (8).
Formaldehyde undergoes rapid chemical changes immediately after absorption. Therefore, some scientists think that formaldehyde is unlikely to have effects at sites other than the upper respiratory tract. However, some laboratory studies suggest that formaldehyde may affect the lymphatic and hematopoietic systems. Based on both the epidemiologic data from cohort and case-control studies and the experimental data from laboratory research, NCI investigators have concluded that exposure to formaldehyde may cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in humans."
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/formaldehydeFormaldehyde in minute amounts is not carceinogenic.
The dose makes the poison, remember.
So.... my babies had more farmaldehyde already in their bodies than what is in vaccines.
cheers
K
Martin Bouckaert
Formaldehyde does not accumulate in the environment, because it is
broken down within a few hours by sunlight or by bacteria present in
soil or water. Humans metabolize formaldehyde quickly, so it does not
accumulate, and is converted to formic acid in the body. In the tiny
doses in vaccines, it is harmless, no matter what age.
Martin Bouckaert
Better check that your house or furniture aren't killing your kids.
Martin Bouckaert
normal functions of the body to produce energy and build the basic
materials needed for important life processes. This includes making
amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins that the body
needs. And, studies have shown that for a newborn of average weight of
6 -8 pounds, the amount of formaldehyde in their body is 50-70 times
higher than the upper amount that they could receive from a single
dose of a vaccine or from vaccines administered over time. see:
Heck HD, Casanova-Schmitz M, Dodd PB, Schachter EN, Witek TJ, Tosun T.
1985. Formaldehyde (CH2O) concentrations in the blood of humans and
Fischer-344 rats exposed to CH2O under controlled conditions. Am Ind
Hyg Assoc J 46(1):1-3;
Cascieri TC, Clary JJ. 1992. Formaldehyde -- oral toxicity assessment.
Comments Toxicol 4 (4): 295-304;
Dhareshwar SS, Stella VJ. 2008. Your prodrug releases formaldehyde:
should you be concerned? No! J Pharm Sci 97(10):4184-93.
Andrew MacDonald
6 Surprising Places Formaldehyde Hides
http://www.health-report.co.uk/formaldehyde-fact-sheet.htm
To: vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 18 December 2011 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [vaccination-respectful-debate] Re: Debating science
Andrew MacDonald
6 Surprising Places Formaldehyde Hides
http://www.health-report.co.uk/formaldehyde-fact-sheet.htm
Katie Brockie
that is a really interesting study. I like this bit:
"Despite claims that MMR vaccination causes autism,
research does not support this association [27-30].
These claims are also ironic in light of our results,
which demonstrate that MMR vaccination (through the
rubella component of the vaccine) actually prevents
cases of autism and other ASDs through the prevention
of CRS. Although a disparity between public opinion
and scientific fact is evident, physicians and other
healthcare providers are in a prime position to address
the issue."
When will people stop flogging the dead "vaccines cause autism" horse, and actually support real research into the real causes!
cheers
K
mtp_69_i
The graph in the link I provided shows deaths per decade. How is that
not a rate?
The only discrepancy is that you seem to think that because less than
1 in 100,000 people died of a certain vaccine preventable illness,
then vaccines didn't improve anything. I disagree. The fact is that
significantly more people died of these diseases before vaccines were
introduced and after introduction, the rates of death due to these
disease declined significantly. Through advances in our understanding
of molecular biology and immunology, we also have some handle on how
vaccines do this, in that we understand that the immune system can be
effectively primed to recognise specific diseases and thus made ready
to deal with them more swiftly. How does this priming happen? By
exposing the immune system (little white blood cells cruising around
in your blood, lymph and tissues) to an inactive form of the disease
(or even just a piece of it) so that it can see what the disease looks
like and increase the number of cells specifically trained to
recognise and destroy that disease. So this isn't just a
correlation. We understand why deaths decreased after the intro of
vaccines, not just that they did.
More importantly though, how can you justify deaths due to preventable
diseases? And furthermore, where is your graph that shows deaths due
to vaccines since their introduction??
Semantics are killing your argument and you're belligerently
stonewalling yourself into contradicting a clearly observable
phenomenon.
mtp_69_i
Dear Andrew MacDonald,
You completely made up your statement that; "vaccines cause cancer".
There is no evidence for it.
If you repeat one more time that "formaldehyde is a known carcinogen"
then I'm going to have to deduce that you cannot, in fact, understand
simple english. That statement ("formaldehyde is a known carcinogen),
as Katie very nicely showed, is completely meaningless in and of
itself.
"the world is witnessing an explosion of autism and various types of
cancer and our best medical teams do not know what is... etc etc
etc..."
And the best you can come up with is vaccines are causing it??
Seriously??? How often does the statement "correlation does not equal
causation" need to be made before you understand that you can't just
say things are so because you reckon they seem to happen at the same
time?
Lets correlate something else. Take the statement:
"The world is witnessing an explosion in advances for medical
technologies and thus, our best medical teams are making new diagnosis
every day, with more accurate and specific identifications of
diseases, than ever before."
Would it not then follow that a consequence of these advances is that
we (as a society) hear more about specifically which cancer killed a
friend, workmate, loved one, than ever before? That we (as a society)
feel more comfortable with medical terminology and thus, more able to
inquire about how and what caused a disease to affect people we know,
which in turn puts pressure on the scientific and medical professions
to understand these things further too? From these advances wouldn't
we be more likely to observe and diagnose differences in diseases that
historically we could not, thus creating the impression that there are
suddenly more diseases around, but when in fact, these diseases have
always been there (and always affected us) but that we either never
lived long enough to see them or were not able to distinguish them
from other diseases?
Really? Vaccines are doing it? Wake up Andrew!! I think the bubble
is beginning to distort your perception of reality.
[Quote: Andrew]
why don't you set out to prove that a (sic) tiny-drop of chemical has
no effect on the cell.
Why? So I can help you catch up on the education that every child in
Australia (outside of the bubble) has by the time they finish 10th
grade? This is a ridiculous statement. I prove it everyday at work.
I grow cells in defined chemical media which contains (you guessed it)
chemicals! Sodium Chloride (NaCl) - that's a chemical! Sodium
Bicarbonate (Na HCO3) - that's a chemical! Glucose - that's a
chemical!
Did you actually want me to look at any specific chemicals? Not that
it really matters either way, that information is freely available
from a variety of sources. One I like to visit is made available by
Sigma Aldrich
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/safety-center.html
Anyway Andrew,
I think you've confused the title of this thread. We are here
supposedly debating science, not teaching it.
On Dec 18, 9:53 am, Andrew MacDonald <qldbrigh...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Hi drpjmccar...@gmail.com
> You asked ...."Andrew, Where is the reference that shows vaccines cause cancer?? Please back
> up your claim or admit you made it up."
>
> Make up what?
> Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen.
> Formaldehyde is an ingredient of vaccines.
>
> Without wanting to repeat from below, you accept trace amounts. I do not.
> The world is witnessing an explosion in autism and various types of cancer, and our best medical teams, do not know what is causing this explosion.
>
> You have insinuated that I live in a bubble. I do not. Do you?
> Don't resort to insults.
>
> Despite your efforts, you have not allayed my concern over the ingredients found in vaccines.
> Without attacking me, why don't you set out to prove that a tiny-drop of chemical has no negative effect on a cell.
> Or do you accept that it does and you have no desire to limit your exposure to harmful toxins found everywhere around us today?
> Andrew.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: mtp_69_i <drpjmccar...@gmail.com>
> To: Vaccination-Respectful Debate <vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 16 December 2011 9:18 AM
> Subject: [vaccination-respectful-debate] Re: Debating science
>
> From: Andrew MacDonald <qldbrigh...@yahoo.com.au>
> To: "vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com" <vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 15 December 2011 10:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [vaccination-respectful-debate] Re: Debating science
>
> Dr. P.J.McCarthy,
> yes, one reference is to formaldehyde, which is an ingredient in many vaccines.
>
> Formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
>
> No-one lives in a bubble, but many do practice safe-living, which includes checking for harmful chemicals in our food prior to purchase, and not injecting carcinogens into a new-born child, among many other routines people choose for themselves and family.
> Andrew.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
>
> Greg, you provide no reference for those death rates. Nor do you
> indicate what time frame (ie 1 per day? Month? Year?).
>
> I have no idea what Tasha's numbers are about and again there us no
> reference .
>
> Tasha,
> I admire how you appear to be embracing the idea of hpv vaccination. I
> agree, it may be that as hpv16 and 18 infection is eliminated,
> vaccines against other ...
>
> read more »
Martin Bouckaert
how vaccines might be more beneficial for people likely to have autism
Martin Bouckaert
formaldehyde has been observed to be very rapidly metabolised by the
body. And just because you can't find a study, doesn't mean there
isn't one. Are you sure you're looking for one?
Tasha David
Interesting excerpts from the CRS study…
“This study relies on estimates from Chess’s evaluation of children with CRS. Fombonne, et al., published on the link between autism and other medical disorders in 1997 [22]. The investigators found the rate of CRS among autistic children to be 0.6%, but the association between autism and CRS was not significant.”
“Our study is subject to a number of limitations. Because CRS and ASD prevention were estimated through mathematical modeling, the accuracy of prevention estimates is determined by the model parameters.”
“Our results are limited in that we had to rely on the 1971 Chess study [7] for estimates of the percentage of CRS cases presenting with an ASD; no comparable data were available elsewhere.”
So again, we are talking about estimates and not real figures, and they can’t even show a significant link between CRS to Autism in this study. Certainly not a strong case for vaccines being preventative in the risk Autism.
Here is study done this year that shows a much stronger link between Autism and Pink Disease survivors
“The results showed the prevalence rate of ASD among the grandchildren of pink disease survivors (1 in 22) to be significantly higher than the comparable general population prevalence rate (1 in 160). The results support the hypothesis that Hg sensitivity may be a heritable/genetic risk factor for ASD.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21797771
But if you just read “Theoretical Aspects of Autism Causes” another study released this year, you will see that vaccines are far from being debunked as a cause of Autism.
Cheers
T
Tasha David
We are not flogging a dead horse here at all, if there are studies suggesting a link then the book is certainly not closed on the argument.
"The United States Government and Dr. Geberding, Director of Vaccines at Merck & Co., Inc. say that autistic conditions can result from encephalopathy following vaccination (Child Health
Safety, 2010)."
If Autistic conditions can be caused from encephalopathy following vaccinations why would Autism caused by encephalopathy following vaccinations be such an impossibility?
Cheers
T
punter
can't tell the difference between me quoting someone vs me stating my
own opinion. That's just sad man. That was enough to tell me you
really don't know how to do research - at least not in the English
language.
I also note that KB approves of your comments.
Probably best I don't say anything.
For the record, I don't have a problem with using Wiki for definitions
etc, but obviously I don't take them as the arbiter on controversial
issues.
> > don't try and use force to shut down debate is laughable.- Hide quoted text -
Katie Brockie
On sources of information, shall we make it a group rule to not use wikipedia as a ref?
cheers
K
Katie Brockie
"This is, at best, a very strange paper. Consider these questions:
1) why aren’t they reporting a high autism prevalence in the people who had very high mercury exposures and who showed signs of pink disease? If there is a genetic susceptibility, why isn’t it seen in those with the greatest exposures?
2) why isn’t there a report of high autism prevalence in the children, just the grandchildren? My guess is that the response from some will be that the grandchildren received higher doses of mercury in vaccines than did their parents. Which again would beg the question of where is the high rate of autism in those exposed to the teething powders, especially those who developed pink disease.
The conclusions of this paper have some major logical hurdles to overcome, to say the least. And this is even before the methods are addressed. For example, this all hinges on reports by the grandparents. Not on an actual prevalence measure of the decendents.
If is already well established that the rise in mercury exposures from childhood vaccines was not the cause of the rise in autism prevalence estimates. It has always been clear that autism is not similar to mercury poisoning symptoms. The mercury hypothesis has been harmful, both to public health and the autism communities The time for papers which pose intriguing questions on this subject has past. Studies with weak methods and poor logic are irresponsible in today’s world."
And "theoretical aspects of autism causes " is not a study - it's a review. And a crappy one at the.
Again - here's what an expert in these matters says:
Dr. Ratajczak states that the DNA from vaccines is human
DNA. Even if that human DNA did undergo homologous recombination, it
would still be human DNA making human proteins. Yet Dr. Ratajczak claims
that homologous recombination turns that cell into “altered self.”
However, the body recognizes a cell as foreign or “altered” through the
expression of its cell surface proteins. Consequently, the only likely
currently known mechanism by which homologous recombination of human DNA
from vaccines might conceivably result in such an autoimmunity
phenomenon would be if the DNA from the vaccine somehow resulted in the
expression of a foreign or altered protein on the cell surface that the
immune system could recognize as foreign. That would mean either
integrating into the gene for a cell surface protein or producing a cell
surface protein itself. While not impossible, that’s pretty darned
unlikely to happen on a scale that would affect more than a single cell,
a few at most. To recap: To do what Dr. Ratajczak claims, human DNA
from vaccines would have to:
- Find its way to the brain in significant quantities.
- Make it into the neurons in the brain in significant quantities.
- Make it into the nucleus of the neurons in significant quantities.
- Undergo homologous recombination at a detectable level, resulting in either the alteration of a cell surface protein or the expression of a foreign cell surface protein that the immune system can recognize.
- Undergo homologous recombination in many neurons in such a way that results in the neurons having cell surface protein(s) altered sufficiently to be recognized as foreign.
That’s leaving aside the issue of whether autoimmunity in the brain or chronic brain inflammation is even a cause of autism, which is by no means settled by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, quite the opposite. It’s not at all clear whether the markers of inflammation sometimes reported in the brains of autistic children are a cause, a consequence, or merely an epiphenomenon of autism.
In other words, Dr. Ratajczak’s hypothesis is incredibly implausible on the basis of what we know about molecular biology and human biology. "http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/anti-vaccine-propaganda-from-sharyl-attkisson-of-cbs-news-2/
cheers
K
mtp_69_i
This pinks disease paper is really interesting! I need to have a
proper read of it. As I've said to you before, it is possible that
some people may have a genetic predisposition to sensitivity to a
particular vaccine. Luckily for us in Australia, no mercury in present
in any vaccines given except the hep B vaccine which contains minute
amounts of thiomersal. An good fact sheet for mercury can be found
here
www.ncirs.edu.au/immunisation/fact-sheets/thiomersal-fact-sheet.pdf