-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Anti-vax
- Thread starter Aught3
- Start date
Actually, the swineflu vaccine is a conspiracy to make people work out less, leading to an obesity pandemic (WATCH OUT AFRICA... sorry, I do realize that I am a horrible human for that joke) which leads people to use collodial silver because it's way healthy. And I have very convincing evidence! I took the vaccine, and I had a fever for a whole night and a sore shoulder for three days! QED!!!
Also, this site ( http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewforum.php?f=48) shows a clear connection between the two, as both topics are on the same page being dismissed by the same people! These people are clearly the conspirators, the NWO, something they also dismiss, proving beyond a doubt that they ARE the new world order. Also, there is a discussion on this board about who the new world order is, proving that there has been two previous world orders, and that the one before this one still considers itself the NEW world order, thus the conflict.
Also, the presidents of the US are reptilians.
Edit: Pardon the link, I tried to make it look better but the HTML editor didn't want me to succeed (I guess I doesn't like recursive linking).
Also, this site ( http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewforum.php?f=48) shows a clear connection between the two, as both topics are on the same page being dismissed by the same people! These people are clearly the conspirators, the NWO, something they also dismiss, proving beyond a doubt that they ARE the new world order. Also, there is a discussion on this board about who the new world order is, proving that there has been two previous world orders, and that the one before this one still considers itself the NEW world order, thus the conflict.
Also, the presidents of the US are reptilians.
Edit: Pardon the link, I tried to make it look better but the HTML editor didn't want me to succeed (I guess I doesn't like recursive linking).
Maddysinbree
New Member
As a nurse, a naturopath, a nutritionist and a research scientist I agree with most of the comments made by Jim Carey in his article. If you study the history of disease, the pharmaceutical companies take a lot of credit for stopping the spread of disease through vaccinations that is unwarranted. I have 3 science degrees that I have undertaken since one of my sons suffered meningitis post his MMR vaccine and was left with a permanent disability. My older son who is fully vaccinated has still had every childhood diseases and my youngest has had none and wasn't vaccinated (as I wanted to study it first). Pharmaceutical companies put profits first and unfortunately accumulated effects of vaccines are not studied. The side effects of vaccines is down played and less than 1% of children that have side effects are documented. Up to a third of vaccinated children still get the diseases that they are vaccinated against (and NOT milder cases)
Stimulate your child's immune system naturally though breast feeding and increased nutrition, and ask the legislators to push for more unbiased research!
I know that I will get a lot of flack from this post. There are a lot of people that will say it is rubbish and that I am doing damage by being anti vaccine,,,, but I am sorry.... People need to do significant research (not just through the published pharmaceutical research on PubMed) and look into what they are giving their children and then be free to make up their own minds.........................
Stimulate your child's immune system naturally though breast feeding and increased nutrition, and ask the legislators to push for more unbiased research!
I know that I will get a lot of flack from this post. There are a lot of people that will say it is rubbish and that I am doing damage by being anti vaccine,,,, but I am sorry.... People need to do significant research (not just through the published pharmaceutical research on PubMed) and look into what they are giving their children and then be free to make up their own minds.........................
Damn right you'll catch a lot of flack for this, at least from me you will.
First off, two things: I don't necessarily buy that you're any kind of researcher, but that doesn't really phase me.
Second, I've written a blog post on the subject over a year ago. It might be very slightly out of date, but I'm fairly sure it's still mostly up to standards.
Really? I would agree if you had said "pharmaceutical companies often take a lot of false credit" or "pharmaceutical companies can't, as a rule, be trusted", but vaccinations are actually one of the few areas where this sort of criticism is almost completely unwarranted.
Could you give any source at all that supports your statement?
Sadly, side effects do happen. However, science advances and better vaccinations are found.
I don't know where you live, but my guess would be that you live in either the UK or US and that your son was vaccinated in the early 1990s, would I be correct? If I am, do you know which strain of mumps-vaccination your son received? If it was in the early 1990s or before, it's highly likely he was vaccinated with the Urabe mumps strain, which indeed has a lot of side effects. Better research was conducted and today, at least in Western countries, vaccination is conducted almost universally with the Jeryl Lynn strain. Not only is that strain generally safer, effectiveness goes up from 73% (Urabe strain) to 83-88% (Jeryl Lynn strain). Cochrane review of MMR vaccine (2012)
I absolutely agree that we should conduct better research on not only all vaccines, but all medicine in general. I'm absolutely for the notion that medical companies should not control research and be able to fake results for their own profit. However, you're chucking out the baby with the bath water by dismissing obviously helpful medicine.
Indeed, the Cochrane collaboration remarks: "The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."
So while the vaccine does prevent the target diseases, the vaccination itself has many side effects. Regrettable, yes. Preventable, yes. But a reason to not get vaccinated?
I myself was vaccinated as a baby and, because the more expensive but safer vaccination was not available, I was given a less expensive and very unsafe vaccination. (Now that I think about it, it might have been the Urabe-strain, I'll have to ask my Mom...) I suffered some rather unpleasant adverse effects, but was nursed back to health my modern medicine. Do I reject the evidence in favour of vaccinations simply because of my negative experience? Do I become irrational and a fear-monger? No, I appraise the evidence and go with it.
And yet, children with the vaccination have an 83%+ chance of not contracting the disease. Why is that if they're ineffective? The evidence is enormous: Before the rubella vaccination was introduced, the US had an average of 30,000 cases and 1% of pregnancies were affected by congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) during the 1964-65 US epidemic, leading to roughly 20,000 miscarriages and disabled babies. In 1969, a live attenuated virus vaccine was licensed (see my blog post) and today we have less than 4 cases in the US.
My guess is that your older son has a weak immune system to begin with, while your younger one was protected by herd immunity. It's possible, but of course I can't know that.
Yes to the first, absolute NO to the second. Every single health organisation, independent or not, is in strong support of vaccinations. That's not because they dick around all day and are paid by the powerful pharmaceutical companies, but rather because they've appraised the evidence and found it to be robust enough to warrant the support. That's not to say that there aren't problems with individual strains or that there isn't better research to be had or even that the research methodology is particularly good. The Cochrane collaboration, arguably the least biased and best source for medicine out there, concludes every single time that more and better research on these particular topics is required, but the also agree that vaccinations are definitely effective!
Source?
Source?
The lowest figure I could find wasn't 33% (or 1/3rd) but rather 27% (or close to 1/4th), but that was 20 odd years ago. Modern effectiveness is often over 80%, so the number of children getting the disease even though they were vaccinated was about 17% and less. Indeed, the most recent strains seem to have an effectiveness of 95%, but that comes from an unverified source so take that last figure with a pinch of salt.
The NHS site is more trustworthy and very interesting to read:
Q: Will I have to pay for the MMR vaccination?
A: No, MMR vaccination is available to adults and children free on the NHS.
So much for pharmaceutical companies making a huge profit off of people. Additionally, MMR vaccinations aren't protected by patent any more, so a country can produce them at immensely low costs.
Q: Can you still get measles after the MMR vaccination?
A: It’s extremely unlikely, but you need two doses of MMR to be fully protected. The first dose of the MMR jab protects 90% of those who receive it, and the second dose tops this up to 99% protection. Almost all of the children in the Welsh outbreak who caught measles were either completely unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated.
So 90-99% protection according to the NHS, which I would view as largely trustworthy. Interesting part about the "Welsh outbreak" too, don't you think?
A further excellent provider of information is the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with its Measles Vaccination site as well as the statistics and surveys page. Among the literally hundreds of articles, tables and so on, we find this independent report. Here, we find the following quotes:
the incidence has remained less than 1/ million population continuously since 1997
and
The majority of the measles cases (2001-2011) were unvaccinated (65%) or had unknown vaccination status (20%). A majority (88%) of the cases represented importations or import-associated infections.
and
Incidence of rubella was less than 1 per 10 million and incidence of CRS was less than 1 per 5 million births.
Compare that last figure (1/10 million or roughly 320 cases) to the 30,000 or so cases before that!
I'll continue:
Rubella and CRS elimination was documented and verified in the United States in 2004.
and finally
The level of vaccine reluctance and refusal is of concern. If it continues to rise, it will pose a threat to sustainability of measles and rubella/CRS elimination. Both public and private sectors need to be engaged to reduce the level of vaccine refusals both domestically and globally.
By the results of this independent report, you're actively encouraging people to not have a vaccination for a preventable disease. I've already given my own thoughts on that subject and would therefore claim that you're promoting death and suffering.
Yes, absolutely. But also vaccinate your children!
First off, two things: I don't necessarily buy that you're any kind of researcher, but that doesn't really phase me.
Second, I've written a blog post on the subject over a year ago. It might be very slightly out of date, but I'm fairly sure it's still mostly up to standards.
Really? I would agree if you had said "pharmaceutical companies often take a lot of false credit" or "pharmaceutical companies can't, as a rule, be trusted", but vaccinations are actually one of the few areas where this sort of criticism is almost completely unwarranted.
Could you give any source at all that supports your statement?
Sadly, side effects do happen. However, science advances and better vaccinations are found.
I don't know where you live, but my guess would be that you live in either the UK or US and that your son was vaccinated in the early 1990s, would I be correct? If I am, do you know which strain of mumps-vaccination your son received? If it was in the early 1990s or before, it's highly likely he was vaccinated with the Urabe mumps strain, which indeed has a lot of side effects. Better research was conducted and today, at least in Western countries, vaccination is conducted almost universally with the Jeryl Lynn strain. Not only is that strain generally safer, effectiveness goes up from 73% (Urabe strain) to 83-88% (Jeryl Lynn strain). Cochrane review of MMR vaccine (2012)
I absolutely agree that we should conduct better research on not only all vaccines, but all medicine in general. I'm absolutely for the notion that medical companies should not control research and be able to fake results for their own profit. However, you're chucking out the baby with the bath water by dismissing obviously helpful medicine.
Indeed, the Cochrane collaboration remarks: "The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."
So while the vaccine does prevent the target diseases, the vaccination itself has many side effects. Regrettable, yes. Preventable, yes. But a reason to not get vaccinated?
I myself was vaccinated as a baby and, because the more expensive but safer vaccination was not available, I was given a less expensive and very unsafe vaccination. (Now that I think about it, it might have been the Urabe-strain, I'll have to ask my Mom...) I suffered some rather unpleasant adverse effects, but was nursed back to health my modern medicine. Do I reject the evidence in favour of vaccinations simply because of my negative experience? Do I become irrational and a fear-monger? No, I appraise the evidence and go with it.
And yet, children with the vaccination have an 83%+ chance of not contracting the disease. Why is that if they're ineffective? The evidence is enormous: Before the rubella vaccination was introduced, the US had an average of 30,000 cases and 1% of pregnancies were affected by congenital rubella syndrome (CRS) during the 1964-65 US epidemic, leading to roughly 20,000 miscarriages and disabled babies. In 1969, a live attenuated virus vaccine was licensed (see my blog post) and today we have less than 4 cases in the US.
My guess is that your older son has a weak immune system to begin with, while your younger one was protected by herd immunity. It's possible, but of course I can't know that.
Yes to the first, absolute NO to the second. Every single health organisation, independent or not, is in strong support of vaccinations. That's not because they dick around all day and are paid by the powerful pharmaceutical companies, but rather because they've appraised the evidence and found it to be robust enough to warrant the support. That's not to say that there aren't problems with individual strains or that there isn't better research to be had or even that the research methodology is particularly good. The Cochrane collaboration, arguably the least biased and best source for medicine out there, concludes every single time that more and better research on these particular topics is required, but the also agree that vaccinations are definitely effective!
Source?
Source?
The lowest figure I could find wasn't 33% (or 1/3rd) but rather 27% (or close to 1/4th), but that was 20 odd years ago. Modern effectiveness is often over 80%, so the number of children getting the disease even though they were vaccinated was about 17% and less. Indeed, the most recent strains seem to have an effectiveness of 95%, but that comes from an unverified source so take that last figure with a pinch of salt.
The NHS site is more trustworthy and very interesting to read:
Q: Will I have to pay for the MMR vaccination?
A: No, MMR vaccination is available to adults and children free on the NHS.
So much for pharmaceutical companies making a huge profit off of people. Additionally, MMR vaccinations aren't protected by patent any more, so a country can produce them at immensely low costs.
Q: Can you still get measles after the MMR vaccination?
A: It’s extremely unlikely, but you need two doses of MMR to be fully protected. The first dose of the MMR jab protects 90% of those who receive it, and the second dose tops this up to 99% protection. Almost all of the children in the Welsh outbreak who caught measles were either completely unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated.
So 90-99% protection according to the NHS, which I would view as largely trustworthy. Interesting part about the "Welsh outbreak" too, don't you think?
A further excellent provider of information is the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with its Measles Vaccination site as well as the statistics and surveys page. Among the literally hundreds of articles, tables and so on, we find this independent report. Here, we find the following quotes:
the incidence has remained less than 1/ million population continuously since 1997
and
The majority of the measles cases (2001-2011) were unvaccinated (65%) or had unknown vaccination status (20%). A majority (88%) of the cases represented importations or import-associated infections.
and
Incidence of rubella was less than 1 per 10 million and incidence of CRS was less than 1 per 5 million births.
Compare that last figure (1/10 million or roughly 320 cases) to the 30,000 or so cases before that!
I'll continue:
Rubella and CRS elimination was documented and verified in the United States in 2004.
and finally
The level of vaccine reluctance and refusal is of concern. If it continues to rise, it will pose a threat to sustainability of measles and rubella/CRS elimination. Both public and private sectors need to be engaged to reduce the level of vaccine refusals both domestically and globally.
By the results of this independent report, you're actively encouraging people to not have a vaccination for a preventable disease. I've already given my own thoughts on that subject and would therefore claim that you're promoting death and suffering.
Yes, absolutely. But also vaccinate your children!
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
Me too.
Kindest regards,
James
Me too.
Kindest regards,
James
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
Kindest regards,
James
The more, the better.WarK said:
Kindest regards,
James
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
Most People Who Try To Persuade Anti-Vaxxers Fail. But Scientists Just Discovered A Better Way:
James
Most People Who Try To Persuade Anti-Vaxxers Fail. But Scientists Just Discovered A Better Way:
Kindest regards,
James