Anti-vax

[ImprobableJoe]

Well, I certainly would like to stay. I don't think anyone likes being told to leave. But at the same time if that is the general consensus here, and I am not welcome it only makes sense to leave right? I'm not stubborn and arrogant such that I will impose my presence where I am not wanted to be.

Nobody told you to leave, stop being so damned dramatic. You're seeing conspiracies everywhere, aren't you? The medical industry is a giant evil conspiracy, and now so is LOR? :lol:

 

[Aught3]

You prove to me diphtheria was eliminated by the toxoid or the shot.

Two studies showing the effectiveness of diphtheria toxoid:
Chen et al (2000) Ukraine, 1992: First Assessment of Diphtheria Vaccine Effectiveness during the Recent Resurgence of Diphtheria in the Former Soviet Union
Bisgard et al. (2000) Diphtheria Toxoid Vaccine Effectiveness: A Case"Control Study in Russia
Both concluded that the vaccine showed over 95% effectiveness.

And how does MSG relate to vaccines? Glad you asked. Many vaccines actually have MSG in them.

So do mushrooms what's your point? MSG is perfectly fine to eat or be injected with.

I know a few families who had their kids vaccinated and literally they had perfectly healthy kids one day, they got the vaccine, and within 24 hours it was irreparable damage.

Personal anecdotes aren't evidence.

Immunosuppressive therapies, including irradiation, antimetabolites, alkylating agents, cytotoxic drugs and corticosteroids (used in greater than physiologic doses), may reduce the immune response to DECAVAC vaccine.

That makes sense someone who is immune suppressed will have a reduced immune response to the vaccine. You actually understand how vaccines work right?

No safety and immunogenicity data are available regarding concomitant administration of DECAVAC vaccine with other US licensed vaccines.

Marshall et al (2009) Primary and booster immunization with a diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B (DTPa-HBV) and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine administered separately or together is safe and immunogenic. Tested the safety of combinations of vaccines concludes they are safe.

Animal reproduction studies have not been conducted with DECAVAC vaccine. It is also not known whether DECAVAC vaccine can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman or can affect reproduction capacity.

Salama et al (2009) A Randomized Controlled Trial of Oral Administration of Tetanus Toxoid (TT) Versus Tetanus and Reduced Diphtheria (Td) in Pregnant Women. Gave Td vaccine to pregnant women safe for both mother and infant.

DECAVAC vaccine is not approved for use in infants and children younger than 7 years of age. Safety and effectiveness of DECAVAC vaccine in this age group have not been established.

Right it's the adult version of the diphtheria vaccine there are other shots for children which have been shown to be safe. Capeding et al. (2003) Safety and immunogenicity of three doses of an eleven-valent diphtheria toxoid and tetanus protein, conjugated pneumococcal vaccine in Filipino infants

The clinical study that evaluated the immunogenicity and safety of the tetanus and diphtheria toxoids contained in DECAVAC vaccine did not include sufficient numbers of subjects aged 65 years and over to determine whether they respond differently than younger subjects.

Diphtheria vaccination is still recommended to the elderly. The benefits outweigh the risks. Which clinical study by the way - Author/Title please.

The following adverse events have been spontaneously reported during the post-marketing use of Td manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur Inc. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequency or establish a causal relationship to vaccination.

Self-report data is the most unreliable. Show me a animal trial with negative results and maybe you will have something. Here's an actual study on adverse reaction to diphtheria vaccination. I haven't read but I'm sure you can tell me if the researchers found something concerning. Jackson et al. (2009) Risk of medically attended local reactions following diphtheria toxoid containing vaccines in adolescents and young adults: A Vaccine Safety Datalink study

Now you are just lying. Here's what I mean - you read a little factoid on some anti-vax site and because you agree with it you assume it is correct (confirmation bias). Then - without checking it's accuracy - you post it here thus perpetuating the misinformation. Wilfully spreading misinformation is lying in my book.

 

[paradigm667]

Nobody told you to leave, stop being so damned dramatic. You're seeing conspiracies everywhere, aren't you? The medical industry is a giant evil conspiracy, and now so is LOR?

Why put words in my mouth? When did I ever say conspiracy? All I'm saying is if I am asked to leave I will.

Two studies showing the effectiveness of diphtheria toxoid:

Yes, but where is the evidence that historically diphtheria was certainly without doubt reduced due to the vaccine and nothing else? This I cannot find anywhere.

So do mushrooms what's your point? MSG is perfectly fine to eat or be injected with.

Right. At least in theory. The problem is, the concentration and the form it is found in.
People say the same things about Aspartame stating it's made up of things that are "found in nature". Yet this argument is easily invalidated by looking at the fact that it is a question of concentration, and the fact that there is no vitamin/mineral/coenzyme complexes that are found with these free-floating animo acids which makes them function like poisons in the body.

A very simple example is fruit juice vs. whole fruit. One promotes diabetes, the other reverses it.
When we take a reductionist approach to these things and assume that our brilliant chemists in the labs know what they are doing in terms of how it will act in the body, these questions are often asked after the fact. Not during the process of deriving these substances.

To support MSG is to support degeneration and ill-health of the population. But believe what you want.

Personal anecdotes aren't evidence.

They are, they are just not conclusive evidence. They have to be documented. But what happens when you have many people who have kids with these problems, thousands of people, and they are ignored. Their stories aren't documented. The causes of their children's disorders are not linked to vaccines, even though there is strong correlation indicating the vaccine was the trigger. What do you do then? Pretend there is no epidemic?

That makes sense someone who is immune suppressed will have a reduced immune response to the vaccine. You actually understand how vaccines work right?

You mean, don't work, right?

Marshall et al (2009) Primary and booster immunization with a diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, hepatitis B (DTPa-HBV) and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine administered separately or together is safe and immunogenic. Tested the safety of combinations of vaccines concludes they are safe.

Nice, just because the title says "safe" doesn't mean anything. The study was done basically to look to see if production of antibodies occurs for both vaccines. Apparently it does, as the study goes on to state. The study was only interested in a time frame of just one month after administration.
Vaccines have many toxins in them that bioaccumulate. There is reason to believe that this could be a possible problem when more and more vaccines are introduced. Where is the longterm data that shows this vaccine is individually safe, and where is the short term data that shows that all the toxic components of the vaccine are detoxified 100% by the body within that month?

They did not look for this. They simply looked for symptoms that were unquestionably due to vaccine damage, and only within a month after the injection.

If that satisfies you, great. I am not at all satisfied. I think it is the case that the risks outweigh any ostensible benefits.

And just as an aside, the notion that detection of antibodies in the blood necessarily implies "immunity" is a joke.

Salama et al (2009) A Randomized Controlled Trial of Oral Administration of Tetanus Toxoid (TT) Versus Tetanus and Reduced Diphtheria (Td) in Pregnant Women. Gave Td vaccine to pregnant women safe for both mother and infant.

Again, what's the period of time, and what were the diagnosing criteria for what counts as a "vaccine induced illness?"

If you do not want to make it appear that any vaccine induced illnesses happened, you simply recategorize them as "correlational, but not caused by vaccine" or whatever method is desired. Where is the long term data that these are safe?

Now you are just lying. Here's what I mean - you read a little factoid on some anti-vax site and because you agree with it you assume it is correct (confirmation bias). Then - without checking it's accuracy - you post it here thus perpetuating the misinformation. Wilfully spreading misinformation is lying in my book.

See that's funny, because you do the same thing.

 

[paradigm667]

I dont want to get off track, but Zeit was a pile of crap.

Sounds like a very well argued point. Have you seen Zeitgeist Addendum? It is quite a bit different than the first movie. But I have to admit, you calling it a pile of crap really did open my eyes. Now I see it in a whole new way.

Aught, I agree that personal experance aint proof but I do find it funny the only anti vax person I have ever known has sickly kids.

Interesting. I know 4 families that have been anti-vaccine for decades, and none of their kids are sickly at all. In fact I have never seen one of them sick.

I also find it very funny that when you look at unvaccinated populations, like the Amish, you find no autism. The only times you hear of it are when there are kids who had been in the past vaccinated before entering the community.

 

[Talono]

And I love it when people blindly quote prepackaged articles that "prove" the flu shot works and trust that they were legitimate studies.

The claim I contested is not whether or not the vaccine works, but whether or not there is evidence. Refute the studies themselves as being illegitimate or cede your claim that "there is not ONE bit of data[/u] that proves the flu shots work for children or adults."

The NIH and Cochrane Group have independently come to the conclusion that flu vaccine is not effective in the elderly.

NIH Findings: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/14/health/main674098.shtml

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061026/flushot_report_061026/20061026?hub=Health

Certain studies by the NIH and reviews by Cochrane Collaboration conclude that the flu vaccine is not effect in the elderly. Agreed, moving on.

The flu vaccine will not prevent you from getting the flu, but if you do get one of the strains you were vaccinated for, you'll have the flu for 4 hours less than you would have without the flu shot. Yes, I said 4 hours.

Citation?

The Cochrane group even looks at sub-groups such as children under two and asthmatics and found the flu vaccine to be as effective as placebo. ie not effective.

The Cochrane Collaboration found that the vaccine is not effective in children under the age of two. Agreed, moving on.

And, please if you still want to get a flu vaccine, insist on the mercury-free version. You have to be 550 pounds to excrete the 25 micrograms of mercury in a mercury-containing flu shot. Where does the rest of it go? Your brain, liver, and kidneys.

Citation?

Do you people understand? MERCURY plays no role in the body. It terminates microtubule synthesis. It thus will damage our neurons. There are studies that prove this for sure.

Ok, Mercury is bad for you. The issue at hand is whether the mercury content in the vaccines is bad for you. Can you cite studies for this?

Another influenza season is beginning, and the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will strongly urge Americans to get a flu shot. In fact, the CDC mounts a well-orchestrated campaign each season to generate interest and demand for flu shots.
But a recent study published in the October issue of the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine found that vaccinating young children against the flu appeared to have no impact on flu-related hospitalizations or doctor visits during two recent flu seasons.

That study concluded that the vaccine had no impact on flu-related hospitalization/doctor visits in those two flu seasons. Agreed, moving on.

At first glance, the data did suggest that children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years derived some protection from vaccination in these years. But after adjusting for potentially relevant variables, the researchers concluded that "significant influenza vaccine effectiveness could not be demonstrated for any season, age, or setting" examined.

The full text of the article from the Archives of pediatric and Adolescent Medicine can be found here:
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/162/10/943#SEC4
The quote however, is no where to be found inside the article.

Please cite your sources when you copy paste.
http://stanford.wellsphere.com/general-medicine-article/new-studies-confirm-the-flu-shot-still-doesn-t-work/543199

The article includes the above two paragraphs provided in your post are a statement by Dr. Joseph Mercola, who according to wikipedia "criticizes many of the practices of mainstream medicine and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), particularly vaccination" and "has received two warnings from the FDA for marketing nutritional products in a manner which violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."

The article also says that the vaccine only reduces the flu by 4 hours, but doesn't provide a source that says that.

Additionally, a Group Health study found that flu shots do not protect elderly people against developing pneumonia -- the primary cause of death resulting as a complication of the flu. Others have questioned whether there is any mortality benefit with influenza vaccination. Vaccination coverage among the elderly increased from 15 percent in 1980 to 65 percent now, but there has been no decrease in deaths from influenza or pneumonia.

This paragraph is also part of Dr. Mercola's statement. The burden to cite it, however, is on you now.

What you don't realize when you cite those studies is that they are bogus. They cheat. They compare people at different times of the year, or different age groups, etc. If someone gets a flu shot, comes down with pneumonia the next day, that's "coincidence" and doesn't get listed as an adverse effect.

Evidence?

If you actually worked in the medical field and were around these people and saw them day in day out, you would know what most nurses do: those who get the flu shot, are not any healthier than those who do not.

What I would know, is that my anecdotal experience does not count as substantial evidence.

Also, can you cite any article that says nurses believe that?

Also, using that as evidence would be an appeal to authority.

When they measure "time away from work" they only take into consideration if it was from the flu. If it is from pneumonia, or from some other kind of adverse reaction (which are numerous) it simply doesn't get counted.

Evidence?

But bravo to you for copying and pasting without actually understanding how the numbers and figures are derived.

At least I cite the stuff I copy and paste.

Blah blah blah rant

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I dont want to get off track, but Zeit was a pile of crap.

Yep, and apparently it brainwashes people into thinking that they are the first person to see it and talk about it, and they believe that we haven't debunked it a million times already... just like the anti-vax nonsense. Every person newly exposed to it seems to think they are owned a personal hearing on the subject, even though it has been measured and found unworthy over and over( and over and over...) again.

 

[Aught3]

Yes, but where is the evidence that historically diphtheria was certainly without doubt reduced due to the vaccine and nothing else?

No, you're missing the point. It's like I've been saying and showing - the rate of diphtheria reduced due to the vaccine, antibiotics, the antitoxin, better care by doctors, better diet, and improved sanitisation. It's on you to demonstrate that sanitisation and diet are the only significant factors with causal links to diphtheria decrease if you can.

People say the same things about Aspartame stating it's made up of things that are "found in nature". Yet this argument is easily invalidated by looking at the fact that it is a question of concentration, and the fact that there is no vitamin/mineral/coenzyme complexes that are found with these free-floating animo acids which makes them function like poisons in the body.

A very simple example is fruit juice vs. whole fruit. One promotes diabetes, the other reverses it.
When we take a reductionist approach to these things and assume that our brilliant chemists in the labs know what they are doing in terms of how it will act in the body, these questions are often asked after the fact. Not during the process of deriving these substances.

Yeah, fruit juice and aspartame are not MSG. Tbh, this is sidetracking us from diphtheria unless you have some evidence that there is MSG in the diphtheria vaccine and that the vaccine causes harm to those injected.

But what happens when you have many people who have kids with these problems, thousands of people, and they are ignored. Their stories aren't documented. The causes of their children's disorders are not linked to vaccines, even though there is strong correlation indicating the vaccine was the trigger. What do you do then? Pretend there is no epidemic?

I would look for the evidence. Do you have a epidemiological study demonstrating the link? No? Then stop pretending like you do.

"That makes sense someone who is immune suppressed will have a reduced immune response to the vaccine. You actually understand how vaccines work right?"
You mean, don't work, right?

How they are supposed to work then. I'm serious, you say you are a student of medicine but if you don't understand why an immunodeficient person would have a reduced beneficial response to a vaccine then perhaps you should educate yourself before discussing these things.

Nice, just because the title says "safe" doesn't mean anything.

Except that the vaccine is safe.

Vaccines have many toxins in them that bioaccumulate.

Evidence of bioaccumulation due to vaccination please.

And just as an aside, the notion that detection of antibodies in the blood necessarily implies "immunity" is a joke.

Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence.

See that's funny, because you do the same thing.

Wrong the difference between us is that I am backing up my arguments with evidence and peer-reviewed scientific studies. You appear not to understand vaccines or the mechanism of their action and you consistently fail to back up your blatant misinformation.

It's becoming a case of put up or shut up.

 

[paradigm667]

Paradigm, I'm not going to get all serious about a lame movie.

Fair enough. Don't.

So yes, I'm just going to be blunt and offer my proof.

Great. That's fine as well.

Yep, and apparently it brainwashes people into thinking that they are the first person to see it and talk about it, and they believe that we haven't debunked it a million times already... just like the anti-vax nonsense. Every person newly exposed to it seems to think they are owned a personal hearing on the subject, even though it has been measured and found unworthy over and over( and over and over...) again.

Debunked what? The first Zeitgeist? Sure. It's been debunked by many people. It's controversial material. When you have controversial material it is incredibly easy to find material supporting the status quo, and thus thoroughly debunk it.
Zeitgeist Addendum, however, is a bit different. Not too much conspiracy there. Mostly just information. Some people do not like the Venus Project, because they think of it as communistic in nature, which it isn't. So it is misinterpreted.
The movement is one of the largest truly grass-roots movements around, it will probably fail to "change the world" but in it I find principles that I agree with more than any other person or movement I have been exposed to, so I support it.

I don't spend my time "debunking" everything that I don't agree with and hating on it, as much as I think of supporting that which I do see value in. If I am wrong for this I do apologize. But forgive me for seeing there are major flaws in our current system.

You say you have debunked Zeitgeist a million times, but what of the second movie? That as well? I only ask out of curiosity. There didn't really seem like there was a whole lot to debunk, perhaps there was some where one could have a differing opinion. But I don't know about debunk.

In friendship.

 

[Aught3]

I also find it very funny that when you look at unvaccinated populations, like the Amish, you find no autism. The only times you hear of it are when there are kids who had been in the past vaccinated before entering the community.

Wrong, Amish populations vaccinate. Yoder & Dworkin (2006) Vaccination usage among an Old-Order Amish community in Illinois. Only 8% of Amish children in this community are completely unvaccinated.

Start providing evidence for these blatant assertions or I'm going to assume you are deliberately trying to mislead us.

 

[paradigm667]

No, you're missing the point. It's like I've been saying and showing - the rate of diphtheria reduced due to the vaccine, antibiotics, the antitoxin, better care by doctors, better diet, and improved sanitisation. It's on you to demonstrate that sanitisation and diet are the only significant factors with causal links to diphtheria decrease if you can.

Right, that's a fair argument. And what convinced me is that you can see two important trends that I found to be significant historically:
-Similar bacterial diseases at the time that were in high prevalence as well were likewise showing trends of decrease despite no vaccine (typhus, scarlet fever, et al)
-Areas of the world that didn't vaccinate had the same decline

But here's one way that I can provide an alternative hypothesis for how to curb diphtheria, in fact a major reason why I think it was curbed, that has nothing to do with the vaccine:

"Two factors have great influence on the ability of Corynebacterium diphtheriae to produce the diphtheria toxin: (1) low extracellular concentrations of iron and (2) the presence of a lysogenic prophage (virus) in the bacterial chromosome. The gene for toxin production occurs on the chromosome of the prophage, but a bacterial repressor protein controls the expression of this gene. The repressor is activated by iron, and it is in this way that iron influences toxin production. High yields of toxin are synthesized only by bacteria under conditions of iron deficiency. this information is important in the pharmaceutical production of the diphtheria toxoid which is manufactured from the toxin."

It is just as logical an approach to raise the nutritional levels of the people who are sick first, make sure they specifically also have proper iron levels, and see what happens.

I am a big proponent of not doing anything that harms the patient first. We like to look at the body in terms of it being like a kind of machine. A machine which we have a very rudimentary understanding of, and thus we reduce the effects of other things on the body to insignificant, simply because we assume it must be so, or because we have not studied them.

But nature doesn't care if you understand it or if you think one thing about it or not. Atoms in a molecule don't care whether you think they are going to act as acids or bases, they do so regardless. It is our job to find out. And when our understandings are not in tune with actual reality, nature, then we make dumb choices.

The fact is, if we can achieve a goal without running ANY risk to the patient, it is always the best option to try first. It may not be the sexy option. Or the one that makes the most profit for the businesses, but it often times, is the most long lasting, and efficacious, and risk free.
Whether you believe diphtheria vaccine protects or not, one cannot doubt the fact that low iron levels are a prerequisite for the disease to manifest. Wouldn't it not be a wise plan of action to assure these needs are met?
Also in an individual with proper iron levels and general nutrition, there is such low risk for death from this disease nowadays that it makes one wonder why we need to be so gung ho about vaccinations. After all, there is something called "natural immunity" right? Often times patients are left with the impression that:
-If they do not get the vaccine the child will surely get the disease
-There is no other way to protect against the disease except for the vaccine.

I think this type of thinking is very prevalent in the lay population. I think that is unfair.



As far as the comment about "we know mercury is toxic, what makes you think it is toxic in the vaccines"...I just think that if we know a substance is toxic to us, it is wise to not put it in our bloodstream. Any of it. Am I crazy for thinking this?

 

[paradigm667]

Wrong, Amish populations vaccinate. Yoder & Dworkin (2006) Vaccination usage among an Old-Order Amish community in Illinois. Only 8% of Amish children in this community are completely unvaccinated.

Start providing evidence for these blatant assertions or I'm going to assume you are deliberately trying to mislead us.

I'm not trying to deliberately do anything. You can stop accusing me of misleading. I cannot speak on behalf of ALL Amish people. I definitely should have said SOME Amish communities. Because that is all I know...I know that SOME Amish communities do not vaccinate. Such as the one Dan Olmsted mentions in his article "Age of Autism"
http://poodledog.com/health-care-for-poodles/no-autism-for-unvaccinated-amish/

I do not know that ALL Amish folks refuse or take the vaccines. I know that that specific community didn't. And they had no autism. I find that of interest. It's not conclusive proof, but it's not fair to just have the door shut in your face and be called a name just because you raise a red flag. How about instead of "debunking" me you educate me? Instead of being so cold and unfriendly, you take your egos out of it? As if I'm spitting in your face by questioning some of our contemporary science which doesn't convince me.

 

[Aught3]

As if I'm spitting in your face by questioning some of our contemporary science which doesn't convince me.

Actually I'd rather you spit in my face than continue to promote this nonsense. Heard of the Jenny McCarthy Body Count? Congratulations you are now contributing towards these preventable illnesses and deaths. IMO this is much worse than a little saliva.

Dan Olmsted forgot to include any data in his Amish report, we have no idea whether the phenomenon he describes is real or fictional (like your posts). Even if Amish populations have low incidence of autism and vaccination; the correlation does not imply causation. As autism has a genetic component insular communities are a far more likely cause of the low autism rates.

Another source: Doja A, Roberts W (2006). "Immunizations and autism: a review of the literature". Can J Neurol Sci 33 (4): 341-6.
This is a meta-study of the literature showing no link between vaccination and autism. Try again.

How about instead of "debunking" me you educate me?

Oh, you've already shown yourself impervious to education. I'm perfectly capable of having reasonable discussions with reasonable people.

 

[paradigm667]

Actually I'd rather you spit in my face than continue to promote this nonsense. Heard of the Jenny McCarthy Body Count? Congratulations you are now contributing towards these preventable illnesses and deaths. IMO this is much worse than a little saliva.

Industry sponsored fear mongering bullshit. We are more than happy to have these celebrities peddle their bullshit like Bono and his project(red) peddling or Oprah supporting similar money-driven endeavors, or the vast amount of all the celebs who blindly support "got milk" or whatever bullshit it being peddled. But forbid it that one of them happens to have something significant strike them close to home and then get educated and start speaking out against it.

We don't open up a dialog with Mrs.McCarthy and say "wow, sorry about your child. Here's why I think you are wrong about your claims." Instead it's a modern day witch hunt. There is no need for slander. She's not mandating anyone to be forced to not vaccinate. She's advocating informed consent. If that's a crime then I am guilty as well.

It's always nice when the nice celebs act as idiot puppets. We all love them then. When they mindlessly profess opinions and say things that the corporations tell them to say. But as soon as even one of them speaks their mind, we crucify them. Instead of offer help. I like the mentality. The same mentality of a fearful and uncertain individual. Who has to result to personal attacks and slander if they know they are right? Doesn't seem to be very honorable to me...

Dan Olmsted forgot to include any data in his Amish report, we have no idea whether the phenomenon he describes is real or fictional (like your posts). Even if Amish populations have low incidence of autism and vaccination; the correlation does not imply causation. As autism has a genetic component insular communities are a far more likely cause of the low autism rates.

No data? Who's funding it? Nobody wants to fund it, and then they call foul on no data. What do you want there to be? As far as the genetic link, I wonder what about our genes would be causing an exponential rise in autism in direct correlation with increased vaccination.

Oh, you've already shown yourself impervious to education. I'm perfectly capable of having reasonable discussions with reasonable people.

I think I'm being reasonable indeed. I advocate the precautionary principle.

 

[Giliell]

OK, back to the autism/vaccination claim.

Yes, humans are hard-wired to make a causal connection between things that happen one after another.
Because those of our ancestors who figured out that there is a connection between the birds flying off in a panic, the loud roar and the sabertooth-tiger attacking were more likely to get a headstart and live to see another day, while the other ones got eaten.
So far, so good.
Only that this is totally no use in science.
I recommend C0nc0rdances very good video on the uselesness of common sense in science:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60uJ7sOx_1A

And I'm just going to quote myself from the first post I made here:

Did you know that the MMRV vaccination makes your child have 4 molars within days of the vaccination, virtually painless?
No? You didn't?
Funny, happened to my daughter and since one thing happened after the other, the first one must clearly be the cause of the second one, doesn't it?
And that's all there is to the anti-vaccination claims.
MMR Vacciantion is usually administered twice at the age of 12 and 18 months. This is also the time when often first signs of autism can be noticed.
SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occurs by definition in the child's first year. During their first year there'll always be a vaccination close by, and since we still don't know the cause of SIDS, only risk factors, some people attribute SIDS to vaccination.

Now, take my claim about the molars and the vaccination.
Would you give that claim any credit?
Why not?
Do you mistrust my statement, the actual event?
Why should you?
Or do you mistrust the conclusion I made?
Now, if I could get you 100 mums telling that story, would that count as evidence?
Or would we still insist on a double-blind study, comparing large groups of 12 months old, their dental status, the apparent problems they have toothing, and so on?
Would you accept my claim if the study showed a significant statistical correlation between the molars and the vaccination, having carefully removed all other factors?
Most likely, wouldn't you?
Now, why has the "Vaccines cause autism" movement been unable to conduct any such valid study in the last 30years when those claims were first made, when other risks and side-effects of vaccination have been well documented?

I agree that autism and also stuff like AD(H)S are horribly over-diagnosed (Yes, the makers of Ritalin and such like to earn money), but it is also true that they weren't diagnosed at all (or hardly) 50 years ago, just like kids with legathenia or dyslexia would just be called stupid.
Now, taking an extreme religeous group who might still on the large not accept such disorders at all as a proof that they don't get autism is hardly scientific.

 

[Aught3]

Yeah the vaccine/autism link seems to be a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc after this therefore because of this (the post hoc fallacy). Vaccines causing autism is actually one of the bogus science examples I like to use, it's one of those 'facts' that everyone has heard of but is totally unsubstantiated by any form of evidence.

 

[paradigm667]

Yes, humans are hard-wired to make a causal connection between things that happen one after another.

See, but this can go both ways. For instance noticing a decline in disease, and noticing vaccination being implemented. That's not a very good argument, because the rates of autism have never been anywhere near where they are now. To assume that autism is simply "better diagnosed" these days is quite the tall tale.

I recommend C0nc0rdances very good video on the uselesness of common sense in science:

I really liked this video. I have seen one very similar to it in the past.

The very notion of vaccination was based on exactly what this video warns about. Namely, using "common sense" to attack a problem. Common sense was "Hey milkmaids aren't getting smallpox. They are working with cows that have cowpox. Therefore, they probably are somehow becoming immune to smallpox via this route." Furthermore, the notion that things outside the body cause disease in and of itself is a "common sense" approach, which I do not use.
We find disease and we ask "what thing caused this disease?" In the beginning it was evil spirits, god, a curse, or daemons. We replaced this with miasmas, filth and even "others" or "foreigners." Always blaming things outside us. This eventually led to the hypothesis of microorganisms being the cause, as soon as we were able to observe them under the microscope.
We look at healthy person's blood, we see no bacteria growing. We look at an unhealthy person's blood, and we see bacteria overgrowth. Therefore: bacteria is the cause of the disease.
It's common sense. Germs cause disease, germs must be attacked. But this theory is extremely poor at predicting future health.
Example, children who have ear infections and take an antibiotic for it, have an increased risk of future ear infections than those who do not. And those who remove refined grains and dairy from the diet without taking any antibiotics have one of the highest success rates of preventing future infections.
http://www.eardoc.info/news/antibiotics-are-really-bad-solution-for-ear-infections/


Why? Mainstream science says "because this allows for the bacteria to become 'resistant' to the antibiotic and thus come back". But that doesn't answer the question of why treating someone for an ear infection with antibiotics makes them more likely to have future ear infections. It makes sense that treating someone with an antibiotic might make future ear infections more difficult to treat with the same meds (because the bacteria adapted to the antibiotic), but it doesn't answer why the actual incidence of ear infection in the future is more likely to happen. You see, that's what makes no scientific sense, and yet that's what we see. Why? Because bacteria are NOT our enemies. That's why.
In the case of an ear infection in the body what we have is the CAUSE of this problem occurring first, then the tissue damage that accompanies it, THEN we have bacteria overgrowth because bacteria is there breaking down the tissue that is dead and dying. That's bacteria's job. Nature's recyclers.
You kill the bacteria, the junk and waste is still building up in the body. Yes you might not have the bacterial overgrowth, but if you stop doing the things that lead to the damage to the area (stop eating dairy, grains, don't take vaccines) the bacteria can clean up the damaged tissue and break it down, eventually having done its job, it will itself die off as it is no longer needed in the body and homeostasis is reached again.

The same thing happens in the blood with what we call a candida "infection." It's not. And most people know this. It's a candida overgrowth. And why does this happen? Too much sugar in the blood. When we consume lots of processed foods and lots of fatty foods, we mess with insulin and its ability to shuttle sugar to the our cells. Blood sugar levels rise, this is a bad thing, so we secrete more insulin. When we overwhelm our body and insulin is at a maximum and we are still having high sugar levels in the blood, it becomes dangerous. So, its the backup that kicks in. Candida starts to grow. Why? To break down the sugar, because normal body function isn't able to. All people with candida have to do is go on a mono-meal diet or a fast, and their candida will subside in a matter of days. Every time. Because as it is finished breaking down the excess sugar, it dies off itself. It's not our enemy. It's our friend. But we try and attack the candida as if it is there to harm us.

I didn't figure this information out because of common sense. I used the scientific method, and I simply kept asking "why" until I was in possession of knowledge. To this day, people who adjust their dietary habits reverse these problems and for good. People who use antibiotics, have problems. We should be in fact GLAD that bacteria are so good at becoming resistant to antibiotics. They are a part of us. Why kill them just because they are in proliferation at the same time as we get disease? This goes back to the fundamental attribution error of mistaking cause and effect.

Many aspects of science are amazingly accurate. For instance radiometric dating, or astronomy, or propulsion, electronics and production/synthesis of plastics and polymers. But other avenues in science are contaminated by the money system and these are associated with much controversy. Medicine is one such field. In the realm of treating disease, it is one of the biggest failures of our modern times. It's a multi billion dollar industry, and people who are part of it, or studying to become part of it, do not want to face the facts and the disgusting reality.

Do not hate on me because I have figured this out. I value my health and my fellow neighbors' health. My grandpa of 97 years old recently had a series of 3 vaccines for the flu over the last 3 years. After the first one, he felt a bit dizzy for a day but nothing major. After the second one, he actually got the flu immediately after. After the third one, he got a flu and pneumonia. He ended up treating it with an antibiotic which his doctor friend gave him. It went away (the pneumonia, that is). He then came all the way from Europe to the US (in Arizona) to stay with my mom for a while. The pneumonia came back. He went to the doctor. They said "You have pneumonia. You have to go on an antibiotic immediately."

I got news of this and I said. "No. Do not give him the antibiotic. Lets do a less invasive approach if he agrees." He was more than happy to do so after being explained the potential consequences of both approaches. My mom bought the antibiotic and kept it in a bag on the kitchen table. If there was a worsening of his symptoms, we could always give it to him and do so immediately.
Instead we got him on just simple R & R. He consumed massive amounts of vitamin rich fruit and veggie juices and salads. He eliminated salt, dairy, all animals products, and almost all cooked foods from his diet. In the first 2 days of this, my entire family was about to blow a gasket. They were calling my mom nonstop begging her to give him his "much needed medication."

The illness stayed constant for the first 3 days. But it didn't get any worse. After 1 week there was no more hoarseness to his voice. After 2 weeks he was able to start taking walks around the house. At 4 weeks we went back to see the doctor having taken no antibiotics. The doctor, of course, assumed he had taken them looked at his X-ray and did an auscultation. "Excellent!" he said. "There is not even a trace of anymore infection or any audible obstruction. Glad we got you on the medicine soon enough."
"Actually doc, we never put him on the meds."

....Awkward situation. But it's the truth. And all across the country and all around the world people are starting to tell their doctors how they have managed to overcome diseases without use of harsh medicines. FIRST DO NO HARM. Do we even know what this means anymore? I think not. And when someone does take control of their own destiny without drugs, they are "anti-science." Yeah. Right.

Now, take my claim about the molars and the vaccination.
Would you give that claim any credit?
Why not?

No, because there's no plausible MECHANISM.
With autism, there IS. Not only that, the molar thing is nothing NEW. Autism IS.
Thank you.

I agree that autism and also stuff like AD(H)S are horribly over-diagnosed (Yes, the makers of Ritalin and such like to earn money), but it is also true that they weren't diagnosed at all (or hardly) 50 years ago, just like kids with legathenia or dyslexia would just be called stupid.

LOL!
Come on now. Dyslexia is NOT autism. You are functional with this condition, and it is very obvious why it might not be diagnosed, because it is not so overtly blatant. Autism is not anywhere near what dyslexia is. Just ask a school teacher. That has been in the business for decades. They will laugh at you if you tell them "better detection." As if we we knew how to split electrons and yet didn't know when a child was autistic. Come on, I don't even think YOU truly believe that. lol.

Now, taking an extreme religeous group who might still on the large not accept such disorders at all as a proof that they don't get autism is hardly scientific.

...I don't even know how to respond to this. In fact I am almost offended. I don't agree with religion, I am not Amish. But to suggest they wouldn't accept a diagnosis, therefore there isn't any autism...is grasping desperately for an excuse.

Yeah the vaccine/autism link seems to be a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc after this therefore because of this (the post hoc fallacy).

I could say the same thing for vaccination as a whole as I said above.

Vaccines causing autism is actually one of the bogus science examples I like to use, it's one of those 'facts' that everyone has heard of but is totally unsubstantiated by any form of evidence.

When the medical industry decides "hey, we're not gonna examine this possibility" then you have what's called absence of evidence. But there is another fallacy that is equally valid here and that is assuming absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Sorry. I just am not impressed, nor convinced, by the rhetoric I am hearing from you folks. It is much akin to shooting the target before it's even put up. You hear claims like "autism and vaccines" and before you take a logical approach, you go to the mainstream news and industry sponsored venues and see "ok, what is it that I should think about autism and vaccines. What opinion should I have? OK, I should believe X, Y, Z. Great! Autism is subject to better diagnosis, there is no causal link to mercury, there might be a genetic component. OK great! Got my opinion. Now let me go debunk all the "idiots"."

Good for you. Doesn't make you right, and it doesn't make you a very intelligent researcher.

cheers.

 

[paradigm667]

And actually, here is a great article on this subject matter. I would like to hear your thoughts:

http://www.naturalnews.com/026843_health_food_nutrition.html


In friendship-

 

[Talono]

And actually, here is a great article on this subject matter. I would like to hear your thoughts:

http://www.naturalnews.com/026843_health_food_nutrition.html


In friendship-

"As an observer of human behavior, one of the most fascinating things I've ever witnessed is really smart people dying of diseases that are easily preventable through basic nutrition (vitamin D, plant juices, targeted supplements, superfoods, etc.). I know doctors dying of cancer who take chemotherapy over vitamin D supplements."

Well duh. Those things lack enough support to be promoted by major reputable organizations that are either treat people or regulate treatments.

"I know members of MENSA who are killing themselves with junk foods and diabetes. I know extremely intelligent attorneys and physicists who are among the smartest people in their respective fields; but when it comes to basic health, they're completely ignorant.

In fact, if you look around at all the "smart" people you know, you're likely to find the vast majority of them are incredibly ignorant when it comes to their own health. They know nothing about basic nutrition, the benefits of superfoods or the dangers of pharmaceuticals. They eat processed junk foods, dairy products and food products contaminated with pesticides and toxic chemicals. They may be the smartest people in the world in their labs or offices, but when it comes to their own bodies, they are among the most ignorant people on the planet.
"

Because smart people are perfect, right?

To be an expert in astrophysics, you have to spend many years studying astrophysics. To get really good at law, you have to study law. If you want to get good at anything, you have to focus on it, learn about it, and invest some time learning how it works.

That's what I've done with the subject of health and nutrition (and you too, probably). And yet I'm not an expert in astrophysics, nor law, nor brain surgery. Importantly, I don't have to be an expert in those areas because I don't practice in those areas.

The important thing about learning is not that you are gaining new knowledge, but that you are gaining correct knowledge. Being that he is a writer for NaturalNews, I doubt that this man has done his studying in a way that minimizes gaining of incorrect knowledge.

And yet -- here's the important part -- all those physicists, attorneys and surgeons do have a physical body they need to take care of. They all need to become proficient in basic human health, regardless of whatever other specialties they might pursue.

In other words, everyone with a body needs to learn the basics of taking care of that body. And yet most of the smartest people in the world today have spent essentially zero time learning about human health. So even with their high IQs, they make childish, ignorant decisions when it comes to their own health. They may be doctorate-level academic thinkers in their own fields, but when it comes to protecting health and preventing disease, these people haven't even graduated from kindergarten yet.

You see this quite frequently in the geek community, by the way. Junk food, pharmaceuticals and caffeinated soda drinks seem to go hand-in-hand with the wired, pale and frenzied computer brainiacs who are, after all, smarter than everybody else. They can write DRM decryption code with one hand while they eat MSG-laden fried snack chips with the other. Like everybody else, they are high-IQ, highly-specialized experts in their fields who remain woefully uneducated when it comes to their own health.

I my opinion, it is not health education that is the problem. It is about people caring about their own health. In high school, my biology teacher, who was also practicing podiatrist, would tell us about doctors who smoke, were obese, or were just plain careless about their own health. I doubt that these doctors were ignorant about the harmful affects of smoking and obesity. They were probably just more concerned with their own ambitions, work, and other aspects of their lives just as many other people are.

To say that these people are "uneducated when it comes to their own health" is just a setup to lure people into the intellectual cesspool that is the "natural health" industry. "These people don't know about health, but I do! Sign up for my newsletter to read the entire article!" is the message of this article. Just visiting the website to read the article, I am bombarded by ads that promote such unsupported crap like acupuncture training, "top anti-viral remedies" book, the book's publisher themselves, and "Valley of Longevity Shampoo" that is sold by the damn article writer.

 

[Aught3]

See, but this can go both ways. For instance noticing a decline in disease, and noticing vaccination being implemented.

The differeces are:
- a plausible mechanism for the relationship
- concordance
- repeatability of the pattern

The very notion of vaccination was based on exactly what this video warns about. Namely, using "common sense" to attack a problem. Common sense was "Hey milkmaids aren't getting smallpox. They are working with cows that have cowpox. Therefore, they probably are somehow becoming immune to smallpox via this route."

Yeah then he tested it and found that cowpox infection prevented smallpox infection. It was unethical and dangerous but Jenner proved that his vaccine worked.

Candida is our friend? This is just daft. I'll link to some graphic pictures of Candida infection this is the kind of suffering that has been reduced thanks to modern medicine http://images.google.co.nz/images?hl=en&q=candida+infection&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=

No, because there's no plausible MECHANISM.
With autism, there IS.

No there's not. Post some evidence or stop lying.

When the medical industry decides "hey, we're not gonna examine this possibility" then you have what's called absence of evidence.

Except the vaccine/autism link has been investigated and I gave you the title of the meta-study, put up or STFU.

At least you've finally admitted that you deny the germ theory of disease. A theory that's well substantiated by a preponderance of evidence (none of which you'd be interested in I'm sure). It is akin to denying the theory evolution or gravity.

 

[Talono]

As far as the comment about "we know mercury is toxic, what makes you think it is toxic in the vaccines"...I just think that if we know a substance is toxic to us, it is wise to not put it in our bloodstream. Any of it. Am I crazy for thinking this?

No, that is common sense, but common sense has no place in science. The mercury in vaccines is not elemental mercury, but thimerosal, a compound that is about 50% mercury by weight. In 1931 study in which 22 individuals were ejected with a 1% thermiosal solution intravenously, up to 26mg/kg, showed no toxic effects except sloughing of the skin in two individuals. They were only observed for one day though, I will give you that.
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#tox (Under Thermiosal Toxicity)

Nonetheless, many vaccines do not contain thermiosal and those that do have reduced or eliminated their thermiosal content to levels that are equal to or less than 0.1 mg/ml :

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm (2008 table)

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/do...0-Tab-07-CBER-Thimerosal-in-Vacinnes-vol6.pdf (2005 table pg 8-13)