Vaccinations, Pt 2
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 17:51
VIEWED: 18576
PAGE 1 of 2
Continued from here:
http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=50306&p=4
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To review and maybe help kick off further discussion, CTS indicated some interest in knowing more about Sig's comments about autism at birth and various causes.
At least, I think that's what the context was.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, that was Frem. Frem's interested in Sig's comments on autism. Not me.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
To review and maybe help kick off further discussion, CTS indicated some interest in knowing more about Sig's comments about autism at birth and various causes.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Well, anyway, such comments are likely to be informative and thought provoking.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Well, anyway, such comments are likely to be informative and thought provoking.
Or oversimplistic and unoriginal parroting of medical propaganda.
Autism is a very complicated issue. You can't simply dismiss all potential environmental links by repeating the mantras, "Autism is found at birth" and "Parents only happen to notice autism right about the same age as vaccinations, but are too stupid and superstitious to know one couldn't possibly cause the other."
I once attended an autism/vaccination panel at DragonCon. The panel consisted of people from sciencebasedmedicine.org. The same tripe Magon and Siggy have been talking about is what they say, over and over and over again. Like an annoying broken record. At the root of it all is an obtuse refusal to listen to parents.
Currently, an average of 1 in 110 children is diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Granted, not all of them, or even a majority of them, are concerned about vaccines. But it still leaves a shitload of parents who are.
I see at least two choices here. Either you give a shit to what these parents have to say, or you don't and write them off as the equivalent of Truthers.
But those mantras have no real information or thought provocation. They are strictly a silencing platform, to shut parents like me up.
If perchance, you give a shit about these parents, the first thing you can do is look into regressive autism, a subtype of autism where the child loses previously gained skills.
http://psychsoma.co.za/psychdigest/autism_spectrum_disorders/
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Before people start strawmanning me with positions I don't believe and statements I never made, I am going to summarize where I stand. For the record. If you are going to attack me, please attack me for one of the following.
1. To date, I have seen no good or conclusive evidence linking vaccines to autism.
2. To date, I have seen no good or conclusive evidence exonerating vaccines from autism.
3. Autism Spectrum Disorder is a heterogeneous disorder. It is practically a wastebasket diagnosis mixing many different diseases under the same umbrella.
4. There is significant over and underdiagnosis in ASD, leading to unreliable numbers.
5. Distinguishing subtypes with better and more precise clinical definitions is critical before we can even tackle etiology ("causes"). This step has never been done properly.
6. It is likely different subtypes have different etiologies. For example, it is likely classic Kanner autism with no GI symptoms has a different "cause" than regressive autism with severe GI symptoms.
7. Abandon the idea of "cause" and study mechanisms. The idea that any one disease has one "cause" is overly simplistic. Etiology is a question of mechanisms that involve many different factors in both environment and genetics. This is true not only of autism, but all diseases.
8. I am concerned something in some vaccines may be a possible factor for triggering or exacerbating autism in a subgroup of children. I believe a series of rigorous mechanistic and pharmokinetic studies should be done to test hypotheses of which ingredients it might be, if any at all.
This is all for now.
The above is only my opinion. It is not truth or fact. If you want to attack me for a position that is not listed above, I would appreciate being asked if I actually subscribe to that position. Thank you.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, um. I don't know that a faith in the medical establishment is necessarily an indication of not giving a crap about parents, or their children.
I think Sig cares about the kids. Maybe she's just concerned infants don't get fatal cases of whooping cough or something. Some people will use a hammer to remove a screw, other people might use a Phillips head. Maybe established medicine is more like a bludgeon against a problem than something more subtle with less side effects, but that doesn't mean either side of the debate is for certain wrong or is abusing their children.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I believe it means they don't give a crap about THESE parents. Or their children. They are what are considered "acceptable losses" for the good of society.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well, um. I don't know that a faith in the medical establishment is necessarily an indication of not giving a crap about parents, or their children.
If you give a crap about someone, you listen to them. Really listen.
Not listen while rolling your eyes and mentally making looney circles gestures. Not listen while thinking, "How ignorant and superstitious and gullible you must be to even think there might be a connection!" Not listen while telling them they are crazy for even considering biomedical treatment.
Just sayin'.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wouldn't even go that far. People will believe what they will. Few people go through their life sneering to themselves that "yes, these little nobodies will be acceptable losses for the greater good."
That might be the unfortunate RESULT of the actions and beliefs, but that's causes what is called in the mental health biz a psychological investment with cognitive dissonance - a person is probably not going to accept that some belief of theirs might harm people, so they double down on thinking how GOOD their belief is for society even if evidence contradicts it.
If you ever meet someone who thinks what they believe WILL hurt people, but wants to continue doing it for the greater good, THEN you have a real problem on your hands.
Now, I feel I'm still undecided on this issue, and that traditional medicine has it's good and bad points. I don't think either you NOR Sig are bad people just because you don't agree on this issue, and hey, I don't even think you are all NATURALISTIC MEDICINE! And I don't think Sig is all TRADITIONAL MEDICINE HAS NO FLAWS! I've seen both of you willing to admit each method has it's shortcomings. What I haven't seen is a willingness to imagine you might both have good intentions when it comes to talking about types of medicine, or a recognition that neither of you are all one way.
I'll stand up for anyone who I think is being misunderstood, misinterpretted, or maligned. Each of you are human and deserve that much.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Sky,
I'm not sure whether your ire is directed at me or not, but you've come across as a bit aggressive in this matter.
Is it because I welcomed commentary from another person? Suggested it might be thought provoking?
These are not slings or arrows aimed at your outrageous fortune. I am sorry if you perceived offense.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well, um. I don't know that a faith in the medical establishment is necessarily an indication of not giving a crap about parents, or their children.
I think Sig cares about the kids. Maybe she's just concerned infants don't get fatal cases of whooping cough or something. Some people will use a hammer to remove a screw, other people might use a Phillips head. Maybe established medicine is more like a bludgeon against a problem than something more subtle with less side effects, but that doesn't mean either side of the debate is for certain wrong or is abusing their children.
Too true, Byte. You are a wise woman.
Frem.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
There's PLENTY of myth and voodoo in modern medicine, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiopathic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptogenic_disease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnosis_of_exclusion
These are not myth OR voodoo. The first two are acknowledging that there are some diseases where the cause or root is unknown. The second is the way that diagnosis is determinied. Seems sound to me. Do you have a better idea.
Quote:
Belive me, I have recent PERSONAL experience with this, via "acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis" in combination with an autoimmune reaction and what they think was a mild stroke - just because they hide "we have no fucking idea" within medical doublespeak and fancy latin doesn't mean that ain't what they're saying.
And again, they have no bloody idea how to even treat it outside of steroids either, and were it not for one of them doctors actually listening to what the hell I was telling them instead of treating me like a piece of furniture I'd probably be dead.
And I think personal experience contributes a lot to ones world view, even though that is stating the bleeding obvious. By and large I have pretty good experiences with the medical profession. By and large. I have had the experience of being treated like a lump of meat by an arrogant gynocologist and have seen my mother treated condescendingly upon her death bed, which was pretty um.... But largely, medical professionals from ambos to nurses to doctors and specialists have been competent and compassionate, and kept me well informed and my family and I have had good medical treatment. So that is my experience so far. You've got to remember as well that I've only paid minimal dollars for such care. A couple of private treatments, and some gap payments for scans and GP appointments etc and everything else has been free. I've heard people whinge about their treatment at our local (public) hospital, but I really never have had cause for complaint, other than some long waits in casualty but that is to be expected. They triage cases, and if you are low priority, you wait.
Quote:
By NO means am I unaware of the near-miracles that *properly executed* modern medicine can provide, Corvera and Aziz are freakin mad geniuses, and the rest of my collective of mad-science doctors are no slouches either, the mere fact that I am mobile at all is very much one of those miracles - but doctors are not gods, they're bioware mechanics, and just like taking your car to a mechanic, taking your body to their office is no guarantee they actually DO know what the hell they're doing, or that they won't pull a fast one on you - my scratch and dent doc is in cahoots with certain folks who make anti-cholesterol drugs, for example (they pay for his golf junkets) and as a result will "push" his diagnosis and examination to include screening even if unwarranted, which I blow off cause he's a decent sort even so and doesn't ask questions about where the scratches and dents came from.
But I think there is a difference is saying some doctors are better than others, or some are incompetent than saying you distrust the whole tenet of modern medical science, or distrust the bulk of medical r
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not at all at you, Anthony. You have never offended me, and I doubt you could.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I'm not sure whether your ire is directed at me or not, but you've come across as a bit aggressive in this matter.
Byte, that was beautifully said. Thank you for defending the intentions of the other side, as well you should. You are right. When I am emotional, it is easy for me to not stop at criticizing the ideology I disagree with, but also blame the people who embrace said ideology.
I am bitter about this issue. I am bitter at the sciencebasedmedicine rhetoric at DragonCon I am reminded of. I am bitter at the dismissal of concerned parents by telling them they don't know what regression means, or that they are simply making a superstitious and spurious connection between vaccines and autism. This issue hits very close to home, because I have listened to many stories from these parents when I used to be involved with vaccine choice activism. I can still hear their stories in my head. It makes me grieve for the loss of the children they used to have. It makes me angry that so few people listen to their voices.
Anthony, I think when you said some of these ideas used so frequently to brush these parents aside were "thought provoking," it pushed a button. I lashed out.
I apologize. That was not good debate. I stand corrected.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm.. well, for the record, CTS is strawmanning me on the autism issue. Even though most cases of autism are present at birth I never said that autism is not environmental. I proposed all kinds of possibilities for the increase in autism, from the plethora of chemicals in the modern diet to lack of sunshine or eggs. After all, if you've got 50,000+ industrial chemicals to think about, plus all kinds if dietary and lifestyle changes, why stop at vaccines??? (HINT: prejudice may play a part.)
Also, the late diagnosis is not because of lazy parents but lazy medicine. Often the parents... moms particularly... are acutely aware than "something is wrong", but no matter how they bring it up to the pediatrician (assuming they even have insurance and a pediatrician to talk to) they are often advised Kids develop and different rates, just give it time
SO.
What I said was that limiting the scope of inquiry to vaccines is unrealistically restrictive. It is true that autism is a grab-bag of symptoms. Therefore, it is also likely that autism represents a constellation of causes, not just one.
AFA the cure (vaccines) being worse than the disease... has anyone looked at the complication rate of measles? Pertussis? Polio? Smallpox? Each parent has to make a choice... risk the disease, or risk the vaccine? In most cases, the disease is worse. Our daughter, who was neurocompromised at birth, got chicken pox the old-fashioned way... from other kids. Chicken pox, not the vaccine, chicken pox, sent her into a 1-hour seizure from which she NEVER recovered. Her seizures were "kindled"... that is exactly how it sounds... and from there she went into seizure after seizure, and from there into a regression which left her lost in her own house, mute, and trembling. THAT was the death of our bright but seizure-prone little girl.
There is a risk to doing nothing, as well as risk to doing something. Some parents are so frozen by the fear of treatment that their children suffer far far worse consequences. I have spoken with parents whose children were having 10-20 seizures per day, the kids constantly gorked out postictally, but mom or dad was paralyzed by the thought of medication side effects (?!?!?). The treatment of seizures is complex, multiple medications are not more effective than one, but no medication at all is usually much worse than one.
There are, alas, no absolutely reliable indicators as to which medication (or vaccine) will be effective for which child, and which child will get a trip to hell.
So when it comes to ANY treatment, you have to ask yourself: what is the risk of doing nothing? What is the risk of doing something?
For Gardasil, I have to ask: what is the consequence of doing nothing? The consequence is that child will become infected with HPV and possibly develop cervical cancer (for which there is already good screening and treatment). What is the risk of the vaccine? It seems more than the risk of the disease.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I give you the CDC.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
If you ever meet someone who thinks what they believe WILL hurt people, but wants to continue doing it for the greater good, THEN you have a real problem on your hands.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#risk
Quote:
Measles and Rubella vs. MMR Vaccine
Even one serious adverse event in a million doses of vaccine cannot be justified if there is no benefit from the vaccination. If there were no vaccines, there would be many more cases of disease, and along with the more disease, there would be serious sequelae and more deaths. But looking at risk alone is not enough - you must always look at both risks and benefits. Comparing the risk from disease with the risk from the vaccines can give us an idea of the benefits we get from vaccinating our children.
DISEASE
Measles
Pneumonia: 6 in 100
Encephalitis: 1 in 1,000
Death: 2 in 1,000
Rubella
Congenital Rubella Syndrome: 1 in 4 (if woman becomes infected early in pregnancy)
VACCINES
MMR
Encephalitis or severe allergic reaction:
1 in 1,000,000
Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis vs. DTap Vaccine
DISEASE
Diphtheria
Death: 1 in 20
Tetanus
Death: 2 in 10
Pertussis
Pneumonia: 1 in 8
Encephalitis: 1 in 20
Death: 1 in 1,500
VACCINES
DTaP
Continuous crying, then full recovery: 1 in 1000
Convulsions or shock, then full recovery: 1 in 14,000
Acute encephalopathy: 0-10.5 in 1,000,000
Death: None proven
The fact is that a child is far more likely to be seriously injured by one of these diseases than by any vaccine. While any serious injury or death caused by vaccines is too many, it is also clear that the benefits of vaccination greatly outweigh the slight risk, and that many, many more injuries and deaths would occur without vaccinations. In fact, to have a medical intervention as effective as vaccination in preventing disease and not use it would be unconscionable.
Research is underway by the U.S. Public Health Service to better understand which vaccine adverse events are truly caused by vaccines and how to reduce even further the already low risk of serious vaccine-related injury.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In other words, CTS, you balance the risk: If my child has a 1/1000 chance of getting polio there is a 50% serious complication rate. If my child gets the vaccine, there is a 1/100000000 serious complication rate.
Hmm... which to choose? Gosh, I can't figure this one out!
For everyone else, please read my post previous to CTS where I describe how our daughter was permanently done in neurologically and intellectually by good old-fashioned chicken pox.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you. But I got it from this conversation.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hmm.. well, for the record, CTS is strawmanning me on the autism issue. Even though most cases of autism are present at birth I never said that autism is not environmental.
Quote:It seemed to me you were denying the role of environment.
Sig: Autism is present AT BIRTH. Just to make this pellucidly clear, autism is present BEFORE vaccination. Got an explanation for that?
CTS: Possible explanation, if indeed there are both genetic and environmental factors in the etiology of autism. Genetics loads the gun. Environment pulls the trigger.
Sig: Nope. AUTISM is present at birth. Try again.
Quote:I have no desire to stop at vaccines. I suspect everything from mercury in the air and ocean, EMFs, MSG in foods, etc to possibly play a role in damaging developing neural pathways. We were discussing autism and vaccines, cause you know, that is what that (and this) thread was about, vaccination. But I would be happy to talk about autism in general and consider vaccination as only one of many possible variables.
I proposed all kinds of possibilities for the increase in autism, from the plethora of chemicals in the modern diet to lack of sunshine or eggs. After all, if you've got 50,000+ industrial chemicals to think about, plus all kinds if dietary and lifestyle changes, why stop at vaccines??? (HINT: prejudice may play a part.)
Quote:Then we agree on both these points.
What I said was that limiting the scope of inquiry to vaccines is unrealistically restrictive. It is true that autism is a grab-bag of symptoms. Therefore, it is also likely that autism represents a constellation of causes, not just one.
Quote:We agree again.
Each parent has to make a choice... risk the disease, or risk the vaccine?...
There are, alas, no absolutely reliable indicators as to which medication (or vaccine) will be effective for which child, and which child will get a trip to hell.
So when it comes to ANY treatment, you have to ask yourself: what is the risk of doing nothing? What is the risk of doing something?
Position #9 for me: I believe each parent should make this difficult decision individually, hopefully with consultations with a trusted health care professional. Parents are stuck with the consequences; they must be able to make the decisions. I oppose one-size-fits-all, compulsory medicine or vaccination policies.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You assume those numbers are valid.
Originally posted by SignyM:
In other words, CTS, you balance the risk: If my child has a 1/1000 chance of getting polio there is a 50% serious complication rate. If my child gets the vaccine, there is a 1/100000000 serious complication rate.
If you were selling polio vaccines, what kind of numbers would YOU put on the package?
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The gubmint is not standing over you with a gun, making you vaccinate. They give you a choice: vaccinate if you want to send your child to public school. Or homeschool. The choice is yours. The problem is, you want to be able to make the choice without consequence, especially if you create a risk to others. So you want to send your unvaccinated child to school freely. Well, it doesn't work that way. You're not about to get the bennies for free.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Those numbers were only hypothetical. However, my mom used to be a Kenny therapist for polio victims when she was young, before the polio vaccine came out. Yeah, the good old days... when kids wound up in iron lungs, or in leg braces or wheelchairs, and people were afraid to let their kids out of the house because of the epidemics.
You assume those numbers are valid
http://ncmuseumofhistory.org/exhibits/healthandhealing/topic/17/
Quote:
Just as World War II ended, the most severe epidemics hit the nation. Most polio outbreaks began in the summer. Since children were most frequently affected, communities reacted with dread, often closing down public swimming pools and movie theaters. The epidemic peaked in North Carolina and the United States in 1952, when a record 57,628 cases were reported nationally. Some referred to the national state of panic as “polio hysteria.”
The following year, Dr. Jonas Salk and his associates developed an injectable polio vaccine made from inactivated virus. Schoolchildren by the thousands were vaccinated, reducing the incidence of polio by almost 90 percent within two years. Later, the Salk vaccine was replaced by the Sabin oral vaccine, which was easier and less expensive to administer.
But yanno what CTS? You're very closed-minded. You couldn't even see that that "the sky is blue" if it is something that crossses your particular ideology. I have no interest in talking with you any further on the topic.
However, if anyone else cares to join in on a rational discussion of vaccines, I'd be happy to talk. Also, please read my post previous to CTS where I describe how our daughter was permanently done in neurologically and intellectually by good old-fashioned chicken pox.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's still not quite what I mean... Risk is something different than for absolute certain people being harmed and dying. I was more thinking of the Operative, and his bombing a civilian settlement.
While I agree with you that I don't understand a mindset that includes an assessment of allowable risk, I don't think that is out and out malicious. I encounter a lot of that kind of thinking in toxicology and environmental clean up. There are pitfalls and limitations, of course, but I can't say that they have been intentionally negligent or intentionally brought harm to anyone by basing cleanup standards to a 1:1,000,000 risk.
I do understand why you might be frustrated by doctors who don't want to listen, or certain kinds of traditionalism and hostility to alternative ideas in many fields of science, especially since it can sometimes take twenty years for an idea to gain credibility in some fields.
And I can't say I can understand WHY there would be a vaccine panel at Dragon-Con. Bizarre.
Sig: I don't see the chicken pox thing? Here I thought I had a bad case, my family might be susceptible to that, though, my dad has outbreaks of shingles so I probably will too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The gubmint is not standing over you with a gun, making you vaccinate. They give you a choice: vaccinate if you want to send your child to public school. Or homeschool. The choice is yours. The problem is, you want to be able to make the choice without consequence, especially if you create a risk to others. So you want to send your unvaccinated child to school freely. Well, it doesn't work that way. You're not about to get the bennies for free.
Quote:
In Australia, vaccination is not compulsory, but various incentives and reminders aim to promote it. First, payment of the maternity allowance at 18 months and the childcare benefit requires up-to-date vaccination according to the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR),5 unless a medical practitioner has notified the ACIR of a contraindication or serologically confirmed immunity, or has discussed conscientious objection with a parent. Second, at school entry, documentation of full vaccination is required in most Australian jurisdictions, with children who do not have such documentation or serological proof of immunity to specific diseases, such as measles, able to be excluded from school attendance if suspected cases occur. Although the United States is often quoted as having laws for mandatory vaccination, the practical effect of these laws is also limited to exclusion of unvaccinated children from school during outbreaks, although preschool attendance for such children can be barred altogether.6 Italy is one of a few countries where there is compulsory vaccination, but only for diphtheria, tetanus, polio and hepatitis B. However, this has not been enforced for many years.7 To find examples of truly compulsory vaccination, it is necessary to go back to the 19th century. In England, the Vaccination Act of 1853 made smallpox vaccination compulsory for all infants in the first three months of life, on pain of fine or imprisonment. Its enactment spawned riots in several towns and an active anti-vaccination movement. In 1898, a new Vaccination Act removed these penalties and introduced the concept of "conscientious objector" into English law.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_04_170203/mci10747_fm.html
Additionally, if you are a parent who chooses not to vaccinate, your children benefit from the majority of people being vaccinated, as they are less likely to encounter contagion. The herd benefit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Problem with this whole debate so far is that everyone involved has really damned obvious biases and there's a damned lot of close-minded hostility going on, as well as certain assumptions being made by all sides which ain't even necessarily true.
Which leads to the flamethrowers coming out, and folks getting all personal about it, and spikes any notion of rational debate before it even gets off the ground cause of rage-induced blindness and the perceived need to defend a position at all costs even when someone is pointing out damn obvious flaws in it.
Which is again, why I am hesitant to even enter these discussions, but I suppose in for a penny, in for a pound and I'll ask that you at least freakin PRETEND to keep an open mind and actually LISTEN to each other instead of filing people (human beings, remember?) into a goddamn category and then dismissing that category entire cause it's easier than discussing the matter like rational people.
Okay ?
Okay.
That being said, onto the topic - and I'll start with Magons here.
Quote:
These are not myth OR voodoo. The first two are acknowledging that there are some diseases where the cause or root is unknown. The second is the way that diagnosis is determinied. Seems sound to me. Do you have a better idea.
Imma call bullshit right up front - if it's "myth and voodoo" when ONE 'side' does it, then it's the same thing when the other 'side' does it, quid pro quo here.
Now in lieu of actually managing to determine the root cause, you work with what you got, especially if the patient doesn't have time for you to sit there and figure it the hell out, you simply do the best you can with what you have, I understand that completely - but I felt the need to point out that modern medicine still has a damn lot of guesswork in it, and to call that guesswork "myth and voodoo" when non-traditional medicine uses the SAME DAMN METHODS, is a form of ridiculous partisanship, I think.
The important thing, is to treat the patient, and while finding the root cause and addressing it is very important it is a secondary concern when you have a suffering human being in the equation - but all too much of the time due to lack of resources or desire, there's no followup to determine the root cause, which is one of the places modern medicine has FAR better capacity than non-traditional medicine, and yet all too often fails to do this - that I point this out isn't a condemnation, but rather in an effort to expose what seems to be a blind spot in conventional treatment which should not be.
Quote:
And I think personal experience contributes a lot to ones world view, even though that is stating the bleeding obvious. By and large I have pretty good experiences with the medical profession. By and large. I have had the experience of being treated like a lump of meat by an arrogant gynocologist and have seen my mother treated condescendingly upon her death bed, which was pretty um.... But largely, medical professionals from ambos to nurses to doctors and specialists have been competent and compassionate, and kept me well informed and my family and I have had good medical treatment. So that is my experience so far. You've got to remember as well that I've only paid minimal dollars for such care. A couple of private treatments, and some gap payments for scans and GP appointments etc and everything else has been free. I've heard people whinge about their treatment at our local (public) hospital, but I really never have had cause for complaint, other than some long waits in casualty but that is to be expected. They triage cases, and if you are low priority, you wait.
Yanno, I get the notion that the practice of medicine in some countries is significantly better done than it often is here - sounds like the land down under does a better job of it overall, in fact it seems a lot of places do, probably cause they don't have the incestuous collusion between insurance, big pharma, and a medical establishment gone corrupt in the name of profit - I HAVE noticed that a lot of the better
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:LOL. That's what I get for agreeing with you. I'm not jumping with joy at the thought of speaking with you either. I think it is a good call to cease speaking to each other.
Originally posted by SignyM:
But yanno what CTS? You're very closed-minded....I have no interest in talking with you any further on the topic.
Quote:You've mentioned this 3 times now. I think they get it.
Also, please read my post previous to CTS where I describe how our daughter was permanently done in neurologically and intellectually by good old-fashioned chicken pox.
I am sorry to hear what happened to your daughter. Truly tragic. You have my sympathies.
My final comment to you, and you need not respond, because this is rhetorical. Substitute "vaccine" for "chickenpox," and you'll get the heartache *I* have heard from parents.
Have a nice life, Siggy.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hmm.. well, for the record, CTS is strawmanning me on the autism issue. Even though most cases of autism are present at birth I never said that autism is not environmental. I proposed all kinds of possibilities for the increase in autism, from the plethora of chemicals in the modern diet to lack of sunshine or eggs. After all, if you've got 50,000+ industrial chemicals to think about, plus all kinds if dietary and lifestyle changes, why stop at vaccines??? (HINT: prejudice may play a part.)
Also, the late diagnosis is not because of lazy parents but lazy medicine. Often the parents... moms particularly... are acutely aware than "something is wrong", but no matter how they bring it up to the pediatrician (assuming they even have insurance and a pediatrician to talk to) they are often advised Kids develop and different rates, just give it time
SO.
What I said was that limiting the scope of inquiry to vaccines is unrealistically restrictive. It is true that autism is a grab-bag of symptoms. Therefore, it is also likely that autism represents a constellation of causes, not just one.
AFA the cure (vaccines) being worse than the disease... has anyone looked at the complication rate of measles? Pertussis? Polio? Smallpox? Each parent has to make a choice... risk the disease, or risk the vaccine? In most cases, the disease is worse. Our daughter, who was neurocompromised at birth, got chicken pox the old-fashioned way... from other kids. Chicken pox, not the vaccine, chicken pox, sent her into a 1-hour seizure from which she NEVER recovered. Her seizures were "kindled"... that is exactly how it sounds... and from there she went into seizure after seizure, and from there into a regression which left her lost in her own house, mute, and trembling. THAT was the death of our bright but seizure-prone little girl.
There is a risk to doing nothing, as well as risk to doing something. Some parents are so frozen by the fear of treatment that their children suffer far far worse consequences. I have spoken with parents whose children were having 10-20 seizures per day, the kids constantly gorked out postictally, but mom or dad was paralyzed by the thought of medication side effects (?!?!?). The treatment of seizures is complex, multiple medications are not more effective than one, but no medication at all is usually much worse than one.
There are, alas, no absolutely reliable indicators as to which medication (or vaccine) will be effective for which child, and which child will get a trip to hell.
So when it comes to ANY treatment, you have to ask yourself: what is the risk of doing nothing? What is the risk of doing something?
For Gardasil, I have to ask: what is the consequence of doing nothing? The consequence is that child will become infected with HPV and possibly develop cervical cancer (for which there is already good screening and treatment). What is the risk of the vaccine? It seems more than the risk of the disease.
Yanno, imma just quote the whole thing, cause while coming AT it from opposite ends of the spectrum we do seem to have found a middle ground where we DO agree, proper diagnosis, and fully informed consent being at the root of it.
Now if we can just hold our prejudices at bay for a bit, we can roll with this.
I think, regarding autism-spectrum disorders, the keypoint of all of it is really simple: WE NEED MORE DATA.
We simply do not have ENOUGH to go making decisions, and the lack of effort to obtain more info is kind of appalling to me, since we're treating symptoms for the moment which is at most a delaying action doomed to fail as much as treating tuberculosis with nyquil - when we SHOULD be finding and addressing the root cause, or at the very LEAST eliminating factors that can be eliminated, in an effort to home on in what the causes are or may be.
That's not to say do nothing in the meantime, as you yourself have noted can be as dangerous as doing the wrong thing - but WHILE we do
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is it?
Originally posted by Bytemite:
That's still not quite what I mean... Risk is something different than for absolute certain people being harmed and dying.
If the risk is 1 in a million, and you vaccinate 30 million people, guess how many kids are getting hurt? The "risk" part is simply not knowing WHO exactly would be hurt. The hurt part is a statistical certainty.
It is Russian roulette with a large number of people. Each person is taking a risk. But the bullet is coming out sooner or later.
In public health policy, those 30 are acceptable losses for the greater good, the saving of say, 300 lives.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The gubmint is not standing over you with a gun, making you vaccinate. They give you a choice: vaccinate if you want to send your child to public school. Or homeschool. The choice is yours. The problem is, you want to be able to make the choice without consequence, especially if you create a risk to others. So you want to send your unvaccinated child to school freely. Well, it doesn't work that way. You're not about to get the bennies for free.
That's a liars choice - a magicians hand fake.
It assumes the ABILITY of the parent to homeschool, or financial ability to use a private school without that restriction.
Look no further than the case of Maryanne Godboldo for just how badly that can go wrong, or Rick Perry's attempt to mandate Gardasil.
In Maryannes case it came as a result of her reaching the limit of her ability to homeschool her child and resorting to public school for lack of choice, either educationally neglect her child, or take the risk - wasn't a lot of CHOICE involved there, and the results have been apallingly tragic.
I think we also need more education options, but that's another topic.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You want to dig here, on this forum?
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I think, regarding autism-spectrum disorders, the keypoint of all of it is really simple: WE NEED MORE DATA.... but WHILE we do that, we really need to buckle down and start freaking diggin, right ?
Do you want to focus on the many possible factors in autism? Or do you want to stay on the topic of vaccinations and their pros and cons?
I say we start a new thread on autism, if that is what you're looking for. Cause vaccinations? Siggy/Magon and I haven't said anything we all haven't heard before. If we talk at all on this topic, it is for the benefit of third parties like you and Byte and Anthony.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That's a liars choice - a magicians hand fake....
In Maryannes case it came as a result of her reaching the limit of her ability to homeschool her child and resorting to public school for lack of choice, either educationally neglect her child, or take the risk - wasn't a lot of CHOICE involved there, and the results have been apallingly tragic.
I have told this story before, but will again. I communicated with a mother who was in a dilemma. She lived in WV, where there were no religious exemptions from compulsory vaxes. She had a son, who developed regressive autism after a vaccine. Assured by her pediatrician there was absolutely no link, she vaccinated her second son, who also developed autism shortly after vaccination. Now she faces the choice for her 3rd son. Her husband had left her alone with 3 sons. As a single parent, she had to work and couldn't afford to homeschool. But she couldn't bring herself to take the risk with her third son either. Her "choice" was to vaccinate or move to another state with exemptions. Not much of a "choice."
It is not a choice if only the well-to-do have such choices. Compulsory vaccination laws penalize the poor while exempting the wealthy. Not the sort of thing I expect progressives to support, but there it is.
Liberals will make an exception of what they support for vaccination, the sacred cow and iconic symbol of "collective duty," the darlingest tenet of liberalism. More darling than equity for the poor.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It was part of a "Skepticism" track, to balance out all the sci-fi and fantasy at the convention.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And I can't say I can understand WHY there would be a vaccine panel at Dragon-Con. Bizarre.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The hell? Yeah, everyone likes a hard dose of reality in their escapism and being lectured by imagination nazis. Good thinking DC, sounds like a fun time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte, LOL. Imagination nazis. That's good. Bingo.
I listed 9 positions I support regarding autism + vaccination. I figured I should do a similar outline, on the record, regarding vaccination in general. That way, my arguments don't have to come out all piecemeal.
1. The benefits of vaccination have been greatly exaggerated. The true extent of benefits are not known. Vaccines do appear to be effective, but the industry has "helped out" the effectiveness by common advertisement/propaganda tricks in order to sell more vaccines. For example:
a. The definition of polio was changed after the vaccine came out so that there was a dramatic drop in people who were diagnosed with polio. Now with the same symptoms, they were diagnosed with labels like "aseptic meningitis."
b. A clinical entity identical to smallpox still breaks out amongst humans. It is called "monkeypox," and vaccination's reputation of eradicating "smallpox" remains intact.
c. The contribution of increased sanitation and refrigeration in the sharp decline of disease is completely ignored the history of vaccination.
d. The existence of subclinical infections is also largely ignored by the industry. That is, in many cases, vaccination appears to boost defenses enough to suppress symptoms, but not enough to protect them from infection. So a lot of vaccinated people are walking around as symptom-free carriers of the disease, spreading it around like Typhoid Mary. Symptom-free vaccinated carriers don't get diagnosed, so disease rates remain low despite widespread infection. The conflation of "symptom = infection" distorts true disease rates.
2. The risks of vaccination have been largely downplayed or even denied. The true risks are not known.
3. Big Medicine has an incestuous relationship with Big Pharma. Vaccination studies produced by either industry must be reviewed with as much of a critical eye as global warming studies done by Big Oil, or lung cancer studies done by Big Tobacco. It's called conflict of interest.
4. The overwhelming majority of vaccination studies done by Big Pharma/Big Medicine have flawed methodology, murky definitions, and invalid conclusions. They appeared to be conducted not to find truth, but to support specific desired results.
5. The anti-vaccination camp distort and exaggerate as well, just in the opposite direction: downplaying or denying benefits and exaggerating risks.
6. With propaganda on both sides, parents don't have a lot to go on in deciding "benefits vs. risks," as both are unknown.
7. Herd immunity is a theoretical construct that never had much empirical support. However, it made for a good propaganda tool for compulsory vaccination policies. Herd immunity is moot with the existence of subclinical infection.
8. Not all vaccinated persons develop immunity. The conflation of "vaccination = immunity" serves only to sell vaccines. If we were truly concerned about true immunity and not just vaccine sales, we would only require antibody titers in order to be admitted to school. Vaccinated, but non-immunized children pose as much of a public health danger as unvaccinated, non-immunized children. Buying the vaccine alone shouldn't give you a free pass.
9. I adamantly oppose all compulsory vaccination laws. If vaccines work like they say, then vaccinated children should have no fear from unvaccinated ones. Immunocompromised children are in a tough situation no matter what. They need to be more careful of vaccinated Typhoid Mary's than they do of fully symptomatic unvaccinated kids who are easier to avoid.
All the same disclaimers apply. (This is just my opinion, blah blah.)
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
It is clear that there continue to be strong emotions tied to this issue. However, as someone who has more dirt under my fingernail than knowledge about the subject matter, I appreciate the discussion for its educational value.
I wonder if a study has been conducted on the people who have experienced negative side effects from vaccines.
I imagine such a study would be hampered by the reticence of the medical community to make links between vaccinated persons and the illness that may result. They would likely fear a public hysteria that would cause all vaccines to be feared.
However, if common factors between recipients with complications could be found, be they genetic or chemical or whatnot... then a test might be made that could screen out those likely to suffer complications. For group A, vaccinating is best. But for group B, avoiding vaccination is better.
I wish that there wasn't so much ego and money involved in the topic, because without those two components, the truth could be found much easier. That truth, if discovered, could bring 'acceptable losses' to zero.
But when pocketbooks, reputation, and high emotion rule a medical issue, it will prove nearly impossible to find the truths that may make the process better.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FREM RE MARYANN: Last I heard, this had nothing to do with vaccination. I get the general drift, but you are conflating two issues with two others.
This cases had nothing to do with the education department, and nothing AT ALL to do with "compulsory vaccination", so as a reply to the topic of vaccination, it is irrelevant.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If the risk is ten thousand in a million if you DON"T vaccinate, guess how many kids are getting hurt? The "risk" part is simply not knowing WHO exactly would be hurt. The hurt part is a statistical certainty.
If the risk is 1 in a million, and you vaccinate 30 million people, guess how many kids are getting hurt? The "risk" part is simply not knowing WHO exactly would be hurt. The hurt part is a statistical certainty.
There. Fixed it for you.
Byte is familiar with risk-based analysis. Risk-based analysis is why we clean up rivers, or clean up the air. Because out of the 12 million people in the LA basin we don't know WHO will get hurt, we only know that 8000 people will die this year due to excess particulate matter in the air. And don't forget, pollution control has a cost, just like vaccination has a cost. It costs money, and therefore it costs lives. We just don't know who. Sometimes the real world presents us with hard choices.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
TONY: Yes, it would be an interesting study. I did a quick search and didn't find any results, but this is a highly technical field, so I will have to go to other databases for better results. I will say, however, that the fact that the data doesn't pop up on a specific search tells me this is not a wildly funded topic.
Not sure if this is all genotype-related, though. It may be related to how much stress a child is under at the time of vaccination. Studies had shown that the blood-brain barrier is a lot more permeable under stressful situations, and most of the negative reactions (neurologically, anyway) appear to be immune-mediated. BTW, the immune system (white blood cells specifically) is NOT expected to be in the brain, and white blood cells are naive to brain proteins.... that is, they see brain proteins as "other", not "self".
That is one of the purposes of the blood brain barrier: to keep white blood cells out of the brain, where they are likely to do more harm than good (unless, of course, someone has an actual brain infection). Brain chemicals and immune chemicals are the SAME chemicals, but they have very different functions. For example, calcineurin is distributed throughout the body AND brain. In the body, it is part of the immune system, but in the brain it helps form new neurons.
My point is that peeps seem to be most tweaked about neurological sequelae to vaccination. There are also profound neurological sequelae to measles, chickenpox, diphtheria, polio (especially), pertussis, tetanus, etc. If you think the complication rate of vaccination is high, you should check out the diseases themselves. They make vaccination look like a picnic.
So FWIW vaccination sequelae may not all be due to mercury or other adjuvants but to the reaction of the immune system itself, spilling into the brain and wreaking havoc where it doesn't belong. After all, is does that with the natural disease, so why not expect it would do that with the vaccine as well?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:To my knowledge, no.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I wonder if a study has been conducted on the people who have experienced negative side effects from vaccines.
They have done plenty of studies on ingredients that could cause hypothetical harm, such as thimerosal, plenty of studies on what the ratio of "adverse events" are amongst vaccinees. But study people who have reacted badly? Not that I know of.
I would love to see such studies. I recently talked to two researchers who hypothesize that there is a retrovirus going around which results in neuroimmunological damage, which is "activated" as it were, by immmunological hyperactivity--the type triggered by vaccination. Note they are not saying vaccinations are bad. Just that for persons infected with this retrovirus, vaccination is likely to give an edge to the retrovirus and carries a higher risk than for regular people. It is all hypothetical at this point, but it would be nice to investigate it. Incidentally, one of the disease pictures that may be linked to this retrovirus is autism.
Quote:Exactly. Vaccination is very similar to the global warming issue, in that a sense of "collective duty" is at stake here. There is an urgency that we have to ALL pitch in or it won't work. There is resentment towards those who do not wish to participate; there is fear that any amount of acknowledgement of doubt would break the collective spirit and disperse the effort. These emotions and politics cloud the science. Then there is the emotions and politics from the backlash against being pressured or forced to participate.
They would likely fear a public hysteria that would cause all vaccines to be feared.
Many people advocate objective science divorced from the collective bargaining process. But so far, it's not happening, unfortunately.
Quote:Exactly. That is what I want to know. Which group is at higher risk than others?
For group A, vaccinating is best. But for group B, avoiding vaccination is better.
ETA: The medical authorities have done a few studies already to medically exempt very small groups of people from certain vaccines, such as people with egg allergies, immunocompromised people, and people with certain preexisting neurological conditions. But the contraindications are very few and does not seem to be an active area of research.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Tony, I went to
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
which is a searchable database of health-related scientific papers and searched for vaccination+adverse effects and got a TON of papers...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=vaccination%20adverse%20effects
but when I tried to narrow down the search by +genotype, there doesn't seem to be much in there except the furor about autism. It seems that the autism debate has sucked the air out of real investigation. Which is a shame, because you would hope that rather than getting stuck in the mode of accusation and denial over one topic, universities and other medical researchers would have delved into the question further.
HERE are some of the papers related to adverse effect and genetic, congenital, or environmental factors. I got a little further searching for vaccine +adverse effects + common:
Severe neuropathy after diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccination in a child carrying a novel frame-shift mutation in the small heat-shock protein 27 gene.
Immunogenicity of sequential pneumococcal vaccination in subjects splenectomised for hereditary spherocytosis.
Effect of etanercept and anakinra on inflammatory attacks in the hyper-IgD syndrome: introducing a vaccination provocation model.
Live and inactivated influenza vaccines induce similar humoral responses, but only live vaccines induce diverse T-cell responses in young children.
'ASIA' - Autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants: even and odd
Quote:
Recently, Shoenfeld and Agmon-Levin described a potential new syndrome, namely ASIA - autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, that comprises four medical conditions: siliconosis, the Gulf war syndrome, the macrophagic myofasciitis syndrome and post-vaccination phenomena, characterized by hyperactive immune responses accompanied by a similar complex of signs and symptoms. Most relevantly, these conditions share a linkage represented by adjuvants. This common soil may possibly induce autoimmune or auto-inflammatory diseases in humans as it was demonstrated in different animal models. Reconsidering under a unified umbrella this apparently detached condition is not only intriguing, but also provocative, and may help in unraveling novel pathogenetic mechanisms, preventive measures, and therapeutic targets.
Research is being done, but not in the directed or comprehensive manner one might hope. Also, the genetic and environmental predispositions are likely to be as diverse and the gene pool itself, and every possible "other" factor including stress, nutrition, injury, co-infections etc. In light of the complexity of adverse effects, even with a robust research program I doubt that a common screening tool will be forthcoming any time soon, and possibly not ever.
The parent is still left with the choice: Do I face the consequence of the disease itself, or the vaccination? And society is still left with the choice: How do we properly manage the consequences of vaccination or non-vaccination?
Because when someone chooses to vaccinate, the consequences fall on them first and are unlikely to spread further. But when some chooses NOT to vaccinate, the consequences of disease fall on them first but on all other contacts right after that. Vaccination is not entirely an individual choice, as the consequences do not belong JUST to the individual.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There ARE common threats out there CTS, from the natural world, not the man-made one.
Vaccination is very similar to the global warming issue, in that a sense of "collective duty" is at stake here. There is an urgency that we have to ALL pitch in or it won't work. There is resentment towards those who do not wish to participate; there is fear that any amount of acknowledgement of doubt would break the collective spirit and disperse the effort. These emotions and politics cloud the science. Then there is the emotions and politics from the backlash against being pressured or forced to participate.
The natural world is not kind and gentle, or particularly concerned with human life. It is extremely energetic; we could be wiped out by a solar coronal mass ejection event in the next moment. Mass extinctions have happened before, due to meteors or changes in atmospheric CO2 and methane. What makes you think that mother nature is gentle and loving?
Disease and illness: pathogenic parasites, viruses, bacteria; all kinds of inherited genetic flaws; tumors and decay ... are all part of the human condition. As is overfishing. Widespread pollution. Deforestation. Global warming. There are some things in life where we don't get options ... sometimes nature presents us with harsh choices.
I know you have an oppositional streak in you a mile wide. The minute someone says... We've all got to get on board with this your hackles go up and you say Make me But you need to know when your reflexive opposition is clouding your objectivity, because at that point you are not in control of yourself... your oppositional streak is controlling you. When that happens you are unable to realistically ratio one risk versus another because your response is roiled by emotion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"because your response is roiled by emotion."
Hello,
I don't think this is unique to anyone, or absent from anyone. Whenever someone counters a belief, no matter how that belief came to be, there is an emotional reflex.
I value this discussion, but anyone here pointing and saying, "Your reason might be clouded by emotion" might as well be standing in front of a mirror.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Of course. But I also made other points, so how about responding to those?
As far as vaccination is concerned, I think it's like pollution, overfishing, global warming..
Individuals don't get to do whatever the hell they please when their actions effect others. And no matter what kind of rationalizations CTS posts, the risk of MOST diseases far outstrips the risk of vaccination, both for the individual AND for the population. Where that is not the case, there is no point vaccinating.
If parents choose not to vaccinate, they must be able to assure society that their children will not become disease vectors. BTW, we had a small outbreak of pertussis in CA recently, due to parents not vaccinating their children, so it's not like the problem is theoretical.
There ARE reasons not to vaccinate some children. A family or even individual history of adverse reactions should be enough to allow exceptions.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well put.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So FWIW vaccination sequelae may not all be due to mercury or other adjuvants but to the reaction of the immune system itself, spilling into the brain and wreaking havoc where it doesn't belong. After all, is does that with the natural disease, so why not expect it would do that with the vaccine as well?
I've been reading about chronic microglial activation and neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's. For example,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17956294
or in the case of Gulf War Syndrome and Autism:
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no2/blaylock.pdf
Now in the case of GWS and Autism, over-vaccination is a factor-of-interest in both. Other factors that may play a role include toxins, EMF exposure (which is suspected of making the BBB more permeable), nutritional deficits, emotional and physical stress, comorbid pathogens, other preexisting conditions, and of course, genetics. The complicated interplay of many variables can explain why only some people are unlucky enough to get full-blown neurodegenerative symptoms, and others aren't.
Chronic activation of microglia can result from one immunological event, such as chickenpox or chickenpox vaccination. I would not be surprised if neurological damage resulting from both disease and vaccine share some common mechanisms.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But again, the consequence of chicken pox is much greater than the consequence of chicken pox vaccination. Once you get chicken pox, the herpes virus will live forever in your nerves, and you will be at risk for shingles and other post-pox events. Not so with the vaccination.
I would not be surprised if neurological damage resulting from both disease and vaccine share some common mechanisms.
The same goes for polio. Ever hear of post-polio syndrome?
If you were to assess the complications due to measles, chicken pox, pertussis, smallpox, polio, tetanus, etc versus the complications due to the relevant vaccinations, both for the individual and for the population, what would you find?
And no uni-drectional fingerpointing to vaccines. I know there are adverse events to vaccines, and I can tell you stories too. But I also know there are adverse events to diseases. So let's skip story-telling. This is supposed to be balanced, one side weighed against the other, ratioed. In other words, rational.
Quote:Of course. You DO tend to focus on vaccines. It narrows your thinking. So you missed an important part of Gulf War Syndrome: depleted uranium.
Now in the case of GWS and Autism, over-vaccination is a factor-of-interest in both.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
>_> Statistics are never certain. A one in a million chance might never happen. A one in a million chance of risk isn't intentionally putting people into danger... It's only when risk is underestimated, as measured by real-world impact, that there's a problem.
I don't believe myself that loss of life is something that can be balanced. I believe any medical professional should try for perfection. At the same time, that's not always possible. So I can only hold someone accountable if there's clear indication of wrongdoing. If they knew better, if they falsified data to hide the danger, if they ignored or covered-up signs of something wrong, if they continued to push something dangerous because they were receiving kick-backs.
Most medical professionals I honestly just don't think question the sacred cows of the field. So they fall into the don't know any better category.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte:
Quote:Of course it can. It has to be. This isn't a case of balancing lives lost against NO lives lost. That second option? It doesn't exist. After all, we all die anyway, right?
I don't believe myself that loss of life is something that can be balanced.
We can only balance the cause and timing of death, not the eventual outcome. The eventual outcome is death. Medical perfection? PHHT! Do we live forever? Are we always healthy? Clearly not. Medicine is limited. So are our choices.
Vaccination is a case of balancing some lives lost versus quite possibly a lot MORE lives lost sooner. Like I said, we don't get to live in the best of all possible worlds, we have to live in the REAL world. This is not an issue of some authority telling us to do something, this is an issue of making the best choices out of naturally-limited options. It seems to me, though, that if you choose not to get on board, then you have to get out of the boat.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you asking me? Are we talking again?
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you were to assess the complications due to measles, chicken pox, pertussis, smallpox, polio, tetanus, etc versus the complications due to the relevant vaccinations, both for the individual and for the population, what would you find?
Personally, I am going to stick to the cease fire. No bickering.
I will respond to you only if I can say something positive and constructive about your post.
I suppose if you ask me a direct question, I will answer it sincerely.
If I were to assess the complications due to disease versus the complications due to the corresponding vaccines, both for the individual and for the population, I would find many, many statistics of dubious validity.
My answer is, after looking hard, I still don't know what the risks are for complications of disease vs. vaccinations, population-wise. Many stats compare sequelae rates of diseases back before there was widespread sanitation, refrigeration, good treatments, and nutritional education. Contemporary stats have problems with small sample sizes and drug interferences, for example. No one genuinely looks at stats of vaccine-related adverse events. So, it is all complicated and murky. No good, clean studies. A lot of guesswork biased by political agenda.
Individual-wise, the risks have to take into account family medical history of reactions to both disease and vaccines, preexisting conditions, neuro-immunological complications, allergies, previous reactions to disease/vaccines, etc. It is the sort of detailed and thorough assessment one should get with a trusted health consultant.
That is what I would find. I cannot paint with a broad brush that risks of disease far outweigh the risks of vaccinations, or vice versa. I don't believe the data is there to support either conclusion.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, yes, yes, yes...all this applies to Big Pharma vis-a-vis vaccines. Just one example, SV40 contamination of the polio vaccine.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
So I can only hold someone accountable if there's clear indication of wrongdoing. If they knew better, if they falsified data to hide the danger, if they ignored or covered-up signs of something wrong, if they continued to push something dangerous because they were receiving kick-backs.
Sometimes it is not just kickbacks, but a genuine belief that some losses are acceptable in this War on Germs. It is the attitude Siggy is preaching right now: the overwhelming number of lives saved by vaccines justifies the few lives lost to vaccines. The Greater Good.
Quote:Agreed. But I do fault the medical leadership, such as the CDC, AMA, etc. They are in cahoots with Big Pharma.
Most medical professionals I honestly just don't think question the sacred cows of the field. So they fall into the don't know any better category.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is there something wrong with the greater good? What are you suggesting as an alternative then, the greater evil? 
As for your supposed review of the sequelae of vaccination versus disease, and you not finding "good" statistics either way, you only have to compare the death rates of polio, smallpox, measles etc versus the death rates of the vaccines. The statistics do not have to be perfect to be compelling, especially when they are wildly out of balance. If YOU can't see it then
I challenge others to do the comparison: Death rates due to smallpox v death rates due to smallpox vaccine. Death rate due to polio v. death rate due to polio vaccine. etc. Please look this up for yourselves.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let me put that another way then:
*I* personally REFUSE to balance between two potential loses of life, because I consider it Not Good Enough. So whoever is working on this stuff best be researching better ways to bring all those unnecessary deaths - from either cause - to zero.
I figure that's a worthy goal. And if they aren't doing that, at some point they DO become responsible for the people who DO die.
You propose a false dilemma - it is not just the greater good and the greatest evil, there's also the GREATEST GOOD to consider as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do you refuse to balance losing 100,000 lives versus losing 10? Because - and let me repeat- we are not in the best of all possible worlds. If you do not do one, you will have the other. Which do you choose?
Betterment is a worthwhile goal, but we don't have the luxury of waiting for perfection. All we can aim for is... better. Not "best", "better".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Again, false dilemma. Technology can be improved. Only IF technology is being researched and improved will I be placated despite what happens in the transition period.
Are vaccines in a transition period to something that works better, so less people die all around?
If not, perhaps it should be.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Vaccines ARE being improved. There have been changes from celluar pertussis to acellualr pertussis. There have been changes in adjuvants. But do we stop vaccinating because the vaccines aren't perfect? That seems to be what CTS is advocating, which is why I snidely suggested that she is in the "greater evil" category. Because HER choice would place us back in the days of sweeping, deadly epidemics (epidemics which she tends to deny were eliminated by vaccination. Because the statics aren't "good enough" for her. 
)
May I rather patronizingly suggest that anyone who wants to talk about vaccines first research the epidemics of yesteryear? That way, everyone would have some historical insight about the diseases that humanity faced, which killed off millions and millions of people, and for which "homeopathy" would be about on-par with holy smoke and praying to the gods.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Of course not. But perhaps people could be screened for sensitivity or the potential for complications, before receiving a vaccine?
We do that in all other fields of medicine. Is vaccination such a conveyer belt of pushing patients through that it doesn't matter any potential harm done to those patients?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, now you're just being offensive, and I wasn't even particularly against you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I went through that with Tony. A quick search of pubmed let me to realize that the causes of adverse vaccine reactions are as diverse as the human genetic code and plus environmental differences combined. It is unlikely that "a" screening test will be devised which will be reliable for everyone.
Of course not. But perhaps people could be screened for sensitivity or the potential for complications, before receiving a vaccine?
Of course, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be working on it. Perhaps they would be able to take a person's WBC, expose them to the vaccine, and then take those educated WBC and see if they cross react with some brain proteins, or something. I'm sure they would learn a lot about the immune system and the brain, even if they never did come up with a good screening test.
Quote:I SAID I was being patronizing, didn't I? But yanno what? Maybe those who discuss the merits and disadvantages of vaccination really SHOULD look at the epidemics that vaccines (for the most part) eliminated. There really is no way to remove vaccine benefits from the discussion (much as CTS would like to) and no way to have a reasonable discussion without it.
Well, now you're just being offensive, and I wasn't even particularly against you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bravo.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Are vaccines in a transition period to something that works better, so less people die all around?
If not, perhaps it should be.
And that is all many of us are asking for.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes people could be screened. Right now, they aren't doing any research on that. No REAL research, that is. If they did, we could start screening. First for one thing, then another.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Of course not. But perhaps people could be screened for sensitivity or the potential for complications, before receiving a vaccine?
We do that in all other fields of medicine. Is vaccination such a conveyer belt of pushing patients through that it doesn't matter any potential harm done to those patients?
But that requires 1) Big Pharma to acknowledge there IS potential for complications, far greater than they are already acknowledging right now, and 2) Big Pharma to be willing to part with the profit lost from decreased sales.
#1 implies liability for the complications which already occurred.
#2 equals less money.
Why should Big Pharma take the high road, when the current low road is working just fine? It is so much easier and cheaper and more profitable to just ride the rhetoric Siggy is preaching. They have legal immunity from most claims of damage. Zero liability. Forced sales. Near universal market. If you don't buy, we'll just threaten to bring polio and smallpox back. Works every time.
Why fix something that ain't broken? Not broken for Big Pharma, that is. What possible incentive do they have to fix a single damn thing?
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
nevermind
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I thought I had replied to you, Frem. Must have gotten eaten by the gremlins. ;) I just wanted to respond to your call that this had become an irrational, offensive debate full of flame throwing and rage, that actually I don't see it. Looking through the thread it's a rational discussion, with some emotion. And as you yourself continuously post using strong emotive language (on any topic) and often full of outrage (on any topic), I think you are being a bit of a cheeky bugger to call out anyone else here.
Back to the topic.
Quote:
Imma call bullshit right up front - if it's "myth and voodoo" when ONE 'side' does it, then it's the same thing when the other 'side' does it, quid pro quo here.
Now in lieu of actually managing to determine the root cause, you work with what you got, especially if the patient doesn't have time for you to sit there and figure it the hell out, you simply do the best you can with what you have, I understand that completely - but I felt the need to point out that modern medicine still has a damn lot of guesswork in it, and to call that guesswork "myth and voodoo" when non-traditional medicine uses the SAME DAMN METHODS, is a form of ridiculous partisanship, I think.
Well I call bullshit on your bullshit. At least mainstream medicine does testing and research into effacacy. yes, I agree with the sentiment expressed here about the less that desirable nature of profit making organisations conducting research into medical matters that may have an impact on their bottom line. Research can be funded by indepandant bodies, usually government funded. So I guess for some of you that would prove a bit of a dilemna - about who should do it. I fall in favour of the independant body and rigourous overview of all medical research. Still I wander.... the issue is that mainstream medical treatments are subject to research, testing and evaluation. 'Natural' remedies - not so much and some not at all.
Quote:
The important thing, is to treat the patient, and while finding the root cause and addressing it is very important it is a secondary concern when you have a suffering human being in the equation - but all too much of the time due to lack of resources or desire, there's no followup to determine the root cause, which is one of the places modern medicine has FAR better capacity than non-traditional medicine, and yet all too often fails to do this - that I point this out isn't a condemnation, but rather in an effort to expose what seems to be a blind spot in conventional treatment which should not be.
Of course I agree, but I think 'root cause' can be problematic and difficult to determine. Sometimes there is no other cause of action to say -'we don't know yet' but we know this works. My husband had a bout of labyrithitis recently. They know what it is, but not really why it happens. THey admitted enough. They know that manipulation by a phsyio seems to work (and it did) but they are still plenty of questions over the whys. Well that is just life really. A lack of answers doesn't mean bad or bogus science, it just means 'still looking'.
Quote:
But I digress, just lets take it as given till we know more that conventional medicine over here is far more hit-or-miss than it is in the land down under, which is one of my problems with it, yes.
I am continually horrified by what I hear of medical treatment in the US, the inequity of your system, the overdiagnosis and overuse of drug treatments, especially for children. And yet, and yet... some of the radical and advance treatments orginate in the US.
Quote:
Maybe they do, maybe they don't - but one shouldn't assume all people who question something have the same reasons for it, or have the same intentions or hold the same views, people are people - and my interest isn't in dismissing it, so much as improving it and maybe putting a little fire to the backsides of those who'veNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ahem.
And that is all many of us are asking for.
How many quotes of yours would you like me to pull out where you say otherwise?
And BTW, nobody is saying that vaccines shouldn't be improved. But that was not your original point anyway. You're still pretty much fixated on vaccines and autism... perservating over a topic that is meaningless to most cases of autism, and of absolutely no help at all in improving vaccines generally.
BTW, there IS liability for vaccine damage. Thought you might like to add that to your grab bag of knowledge so you don't wind up making mistaken claims in the future.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
FREM RE MARYANN: Last I heard, this had nothing to do with vaccination. I get the general drift, but you are conflating two issues with two others.
This cases had nothing to do with the education department, and nothing AT ALL to do with "compulsory vaccination", so as a reply to the topic of vaccination, it is irrelevant.
It absolutely did.
The initial problems her daughter suffered were as a result of a vaccine reaction in response to the battery of vaccines required for public school attendance, again, something Maryanne felt she had little choice about since she had reached the limit of her ability to homeschool, did not have the resources for private school, and as such was fresh out of other options.
Where it went to hell was the complications caused by folks with an agenda shoving an all but blacklisted psychotropic on the kid (Risperdal) as a treatment for reasons unknown, after Maryanne went to them thinking they might be able to help - and when she sought other options they threw a hissy and wound up that nutcase Mia Wenk, and it all went downhill from there.
But the original spark that lit the fire was a vaccine reaction, so it's quite, quite relevant, especially as an example of the kind of cascade failure that the fallout from one can entail, as too can complications related to autism spectrum disorders.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some might find this paper from JAMA of interest. It has mortality rates by infectious disease from 1900 to 1996.
http://www.cwbpi.com/AIDS/reports/JAMATrendsArmstrong.pdf
On page 6, there is a chart on mortality rates for diphtheria, pertussis, measles, and polio.
Vaccines were introduced for routine use by the general public in the following years.
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccines
Diphtheria: DTP mid 1940’s.
Pertussis: DTP mid 1940’s.
Measles: 1963
Polio: Salk inactivated 1955, Sabin oral live 1962.
Now you can mentally draw vertical lines on that graph to mark when each vaccine was introduced.
As you can see, studying the pattern of death rates of these diseases before and after the vaccines does not conclusively tell us how many lives the vaccines saved.
Yes, people died more back then from these diseases than they do now.
But in context of the big picture, it is less clear whether those people would have been saved anyway, even with or without vaccines.
I'm not saying vaccines didn't save any lives. I am saying it is unclear just how many lives vaccines DID save. Not all lives saved can be attributed to the vaccines.
So a straight comparison of death rates before vaccines (implying those lives were saved by vaccines) and death rates because of vaccines (which is contentious in and of itself) is not really possible with the limited data we have.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:As a consumer of homeopathy, I can address this mystery.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
They question the research behind the vaccinations, dispute the science and yet they pretty much all would use homeopathic remedies, which regardless of the effecacy is based on pretty dubious scientific thinking.
There may be no scientific proof that homeopathy is efficacious. But in 200 years of its use, almost no one has complained of injury from it. No one has had a seizure, or regression, or death, from the use of homeopathy.
If vaccines were equally safe as homeopathy, you'll find people wouldn't complain about its science either. They only bring up the dubitable science to argue you have no grounds for forcing vaccination on them.
Primum non nocere. First do no harm.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If parents choose not to vaccinate, they must be able to assure society that their children will not become disease vectors."
Hello,
I am confused on this point.
Just who are their disease-vectoring children placing at risk?
Certainly not anyone who was vaccinated, if I understand the purpose of the procedure.
And those who have not been vaccinated are accepting the risk of not vaccinating.
So when speaking of a duty 'to society,' just who are we trying to protect by suggesting universal vaccination?
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, because it has no effects whatsoever.
no one has complained of injury from it [homeopathy]
Quote:If homeopathy were as effective as almost anything else in modern medical armamentarium (vaccines, antibiotics, antivirals and anti-retrovirals, etc.) then we would all be using it instead.
If vaccines were equally safe as homeopathy, you'll find people wouldn't complain about its science
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'll go on this point by point down the line, if you will...
Siggy
Quote:
So FWIW vaccination sequelae may not all be due to mercury or other adjuvants but to the reaction of the immune system itself, spilling into the brain and wreaking havoc where it doesn't belong. After all, is does that with the natural disease, so why not expect it would do that with the vaccine as well?
Damn good point that, plus the notion of "all of the above" being a factor collectively rather than individually - which is one reason for my interest, again we don't KNOW, and we damn well should at least take steps to find out.
Re: Pubmed - always seem to find ourselves there, don't we ?
For all it's perils the internet is a wonderful thing, it is...
Yeah, the Adjuvants issue needs more focus, and I took am annoyed at the mudslinging taking precedence over proper freakin research which done correctly would in short order at LEAST give us a minimally effective screening system for those most likely to have bad reactions - nothin perfect, but at least a basis to start upon, yes ?
Quote:
There ARE reasons not to vaccinate some children. A family or even individual history of adverse reactions should be enough to allow exceptions.
It should, the damn MMR nearly killed me - but even so we should explore other options for those individuals which may work with less risk, and we haven't done that either cause of the kind of black/white all or nothing thinking in this which bothers me so much.
Re: Risk Assessment and Choice.
Comes down to it, the instant you start making that choice for others, you've crossed the moral event horizon, cause you're talking about a KNOWN risk, one created BY taking a specific action (vaccination) with deliberate intent - versus an unknown risk potentially created by inaction (not vaccinating).
If I decide to play russian roulette, the action of picking up the revolver and pulling the trigger is a deliberate, intentional action, if I do nothing the risk from that action is not present and never will be.
Yes, I might then get hit by a truck, struck by lightning, or fall down the steps, but those events are not deliberately, personally created risks.
Therefore the CHOICE should always, always come down to the individual, cause the way I see it anything less is someone ELSE picking up that revolver and pointing it at me, while denying any personal responsibility which follows from inflicting a risk upon others without their consent.
Sure, life is a hard place sometimes, but nothing within it gives anyone ELSE the right to make my medical decisions for me, and the moment we go down that path regardless of what contrived excuse is used to justify it - imma dig in my heels and fight back, cause I know what lies at the bottom of THAT slope.
Byte
You've nailed the principle as well, although in less detail, I myself DO consider it a false dilemma, especially since we have capabilities TO do better and do not use them cause of a certain scientific interia I find apalling, to the point where a lot of it seems more faith and religion than science cause every time an advance or new data calls it into question, it's often dismissed out of hand, and that offends me on a scientific level.
CTS
Quote:
Yes people could be screened. Right now, they aren't doing any research on that. No REAL research, that is. If they did, we could start screening. First for one thing, then another.
But that requires 1) Big Pharma to acknowledge there IS potential for complications, far greater than they are already acknowledging right now, and 2) Big Pharma to be willing to part with the profit lost from decreased sales.
#1 implies liability for the complications which already occurred.
#2 equals less money.
Why should Big Pharma take the high road, when the current low road is working just fine? It is so much easier and cheaper and more profitable to just ride the rhetoric Siggy is preaching. They have legal immunity from most claims of damage. Zero liability. Forced sales. NearNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So CTS, looking at the link that you provided, which you say is unclear about the effect of vaccination, the charts include
Quote:The charts also include "tuberculosis, diphtheria, pertussis, measles, typhoid fever, dysentery, syphilis ("syphilis and its sequelae"), and AIDS".
Influenza and pneumonia constituted the largest single disease category, averaging 44.4% of all infectious disease death
Hmmm. Of those, how many are actually vaccinated against? Nothing creates confusion like looking at graphs that have little... if anything!.... to do with vaccination!
Quote:So the reduction in mortality is related to the introduction of antibiotics (another conspiracy, I'm sure!). Many of the epidemic diseases are bacterial, but for the viral diseases (measles, mumps, smallpox, polio etc) there is either good medical support (oxygen, fluids, etc) or vaccination.
The disease categories that contributed most to this decline were pneumonia and influenza, which fell sharply from 1938 to 1950 and subsequently leveled off for several years, and tuberculosis, which fell abruptly from 1945 to 1954 and continued to fall until the mid 1980s. These declines coincided with the first clinical use of sulfonamides (1935), antibiotics (penicillin in 1941 and streptomycin in 1943), and antimycobacterials (streptomycin, first used against tuberculosis in 1944, para-aminosalicylic acid in 1944, and isoniazid in 1952).
When they do address vaccine specifically, they say:
Quote:
polio mortality fell only marginally during the first 4 decades and then increased until the first polio vaccine was licensed in 1955.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, measles and polio specifically
Pertussis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:As a consumer of homeopathy, I can address this mystery.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
They question the research behind the vaccinations, dispute the science and yet they pretty much all would use homeopathic remedies, which regardless of the effecacy is based on pretty dubious scientific thinking.
There may be no scientific proof that homeopathy is efficacious. But in 200 years of its use, almost no one has complained of injury from it. No one has had a seizure, or regression, or death, from the use of homeopathy.
If vaccines were equally safe as homeopathy, you'll find people wouldn't complain about its science either. They only bring up the dubitable science to argue you have no grounds for forcing vaccination on them.
Primum non nocere. First do no harm.
That is because they contain no active properties, other than what is to be found in water. They do no harm, because they don't do anything.
The harm in homeopathy comes when it is used instead of life saving treatments, or delay use of life saving treatments. As the article quotes, the homeopathic vaccinations make claims that they can be used instead of standard vaccinations, and yet they contain nothing that will provide any protection against possibly fatal or serious illness. I still maintain it'd dangerous in the hands of some people.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, we seem to be trying to out do one another with interminally long posts and I am almost through with this, just from running out of things to say.
I put homeopathy in a different category to naturopathy. No one with any wit would poo poo willow bark as not having healing properties, seeing as how aspirin is made from it. Empirical testing has been done on a number of popularly used plants which have found them to possess the useful medicinal properties observed. I have no issue with this. St John's Wort has come out extremely well in clinical trial as an effective use for depression, passiofloura assists with sleeping, as does valerian. Peppermint tea is indeed a wonderful cure for indigestion, senna for constipation. I have used all of these.
I think that mainstream medicine has given us much to be thankful for, including vaccination. But I also see that it doens't do so well on the wellbeing aspect of health. It tends to focus on fixing illness, rather than looking at people's general wellbeing and I believe that is why people often tend to turn to alternative medicines. I guess there is also a sense of medical assistance being more of a sausage factory rather than focusing on individuals needs. I've been lucky enough to have local doctors who are not like that.
I also have some concerns about how across the counter herbal medicines are produced whatgoes into them, how they are handled, what they are mixed with. There tends to be a lot less scrutiny and accountability for this type of medicine. I say this having experience of packaging spirolina in what was basically a terribly unhigenic sweat shop.
I also dispute the claim that herbal is gentler or safer. Some plants can kill you if ingested, some can give you organ failure, some bring on psychosis. Nature is not nor ever has been gentle. She's a freaking bitch quite frankly. Some herbal remedies (such as St John's wort) can interfere with other medicines such as the pill or tablets people take for heart problems.
But no I have no really issue with herbal remedies, as long as they are not making bs claims of doing something they do not or prevent people from choosing treatments which may ultimately save or extend their lives - a la steve jobs
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2011/10/24/steve-jobs-cancer-
treatment-regrets/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just wanted to add that we also had an outbreak of whooping cough, largely due to the number of people in this area who are unvaccinated. And we all got it. My son who was immunised most recently had it mildly, but we got it badly. However, the risk factors are for babies who tend to die if they get a bad dose, and that is what you immunise for.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Most of the time, they are not used in life-threatening conditions.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
The harm in homeopathy comes when it is used instead of life saving treatments, or delay use of life saving treatments.
Sometimes, they are used together WITH life saving treatments. For example, a man who has had asthma all his life may use homeopathy together with his steroid inhaler 2x a day. He finds that he feels better, and decreases his use of his inhaler to only 1x a day. As he gets stronger, he is able to wean off his inhaler completely. He becomes asthma-free and ceases to use either inhaler or homeopathy. He is cured. Now maybe homeopathy did it, or maybe it didn't. The man doesn't care. He is still cured. If he relapses, he still has his inhalers to fall back on. He was never in any danger. Primum non nocere.
Quote:Yes, many people assume that because homeopathy could not possibly work, that it doesn't. Yet, millions of people in the world experience otherwise. You can discount millions of experiences worldwide in order to persist in your prejudice against it. Just as long as you don't try to keep us from using it, please feel free to indulge in your opinion.
As the article quotes, the homeopathic vaccinations make claims that they can be used instead of standard vaccinations, and yet they contain nothing that will provide any protection against possibly fatal or serious illness.
I used to have recurrent and extremely painful gallbladder attacks. Gallbladder surgery was my only recourse. After 3 months of a homeopathic remedy, my attacks disappeared and never returned. Saved me the expense AND the side effects of gallbladder surgery. Now you can say how dangerous and ineffective homeopathy is, but your saying so doesn't mean a thing for the millions of people around the world for whom it has helped and for whom it was anything but dangerous.
But we digress. Your original point was you didn't understand the double standard anti-vaccinationists have on the science of vaccines and the science of homeopathy.
I explained there was no double standard. Science only matters when something is expensive and harmful (high costs/risk). Science doesn't matter so much when something is completely harmless, and when you do it right, there is very little cost or risk. Then why not try it even when something isn't scientifically proven?
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is very characteristic of subclinical infection in pertussis. Sometimes, the vaccine only masks the symptoms, but does not prevent infection. Some vaccinated people do not get symptoms at all, or have symptoms so mild they think it is only a cold. They walk around like Typhoid Marys infecting others unknowingly.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
My son who was immunised most recently had it mildly, but we got it badly.
Meanwhile, unvaccinated people with full blown symptoms get blamed for spreading the disease, cause it is easy to see THEY have it. Maybe they did spread it. But it is not fair to assume the people like your son DIDN'T spread it as well.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I am sorry you were confused.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Nothing creates confusion like looking at graphs that have little... if anything!.... to do with vaccination!
I have taken the liberty to copy it here, along with the dates I asked you to mentally insert. My point, again, is that vaccines cannot take sole credit for saving lives lost to these diseases.
This graph is found on page 6, top right hand corner.
http://www.cwbpi.com/AIDS/reports/JAMATrendsArmstrong.pdf
Regarding your graphs, I agree with you that diagnoses of pertussis, polio, and measles decreased dramatically after introduction of vaccination. No dispute there.
These graphs, however, do not tell us the following:
1. How many complications and what kind of complications followed pertussis, polio, and measles. (This was your original question.)
2. Severity and duration of these cases before and after vaccination (relevant to your point about sequelae).
3. How many pertussis, polio, and measles cases we would have today without vaccinations, given different sanitation standards and disease awareness protocols.
4. How many pertussis, polio, and measles cases today can be treated and palliated effectively today, to avoid the complications found in the past.
5. How many pertussis, polio, and measles cases at the time of these graphs went undiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of diagnostic bias (which is well documented)
6. How many pertussis, polio, and measles infections at the time of these graphs were undiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of subclinical infections.
ETA:
7. In the case of polio, how many cases at the time of these graphs were undiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of a change in the definition of polio.
ETA:
8. I would very much like to see the graph of incidence rate of these diseases going back to 1900. Many diseases were already on the decline.
I reiterate that the vaccine question is complicated with many factors unexplored and questions unanswered. It is difficult to paint with a broad, conclusive brush that disease sequelae are worse than vaccine adverse reactions, or vice versa.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How do you do that, when they have the DOJ in their pockets?
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I am rather in favor of a big boot in the ass, or a kick in the pocketbook, as an incentive, myself.
Quote:You are proposing to gather more data. I am all in favor of it. Most of us parents floudering in data limbo would be all in favor of it.
One thing to add to that, this VAERS underreporting problem has to be solved, and I propose we do that by instead of soley reporting ADVERSE reactions, that all immunizations and aftereffects or lack thereof be compiled (in such a fashion as to protect patient privacy, since I am all too aware of how databases can be misused) so that not only can adverse events and what may have caused them be determined, but also the ACTUAL effectiveness or lack thereof of any specific vaccine can be tracked - a method by which they could be improved upon or even tested against alternative measures on a quantifiable basis.
...Simply EXPAND the VAERS data collection and make it part of procedure - it's even cost effective.
The problem is, how do you persuade THEM to gather more data? They don't do this because they know full well the data can turn around and bite them in the ass. Right now, vaccination is riding high on faith. Faith that vaccination = immunization. Faith that immunization lasts long enough to count when its needed. Faith that immunization actually prevents infection instead only masking symptoms. Faith that immunization prevents infection of others and spread of disease.
You're asking them to make their faith falsifiable. Make faith subject to science. More data can prove faith wrong. I don't think Big Pharma will take that risk.
There are also not a lot of people here who would want to MAKE them take that risk. Take the chance that the Holy Water with which they baptize all babies might be shown to be ineffective or dangerous? Take the chance that this iconic symbol of collective obligation be taken down a notch? I just don't see it happening.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Excellent question. Most excellent.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Sig: "If parents choose not to vaccinate, they must be able to assure society that their children will not become disease vectors."
Anthony: Just who are their disease-vectoring children placing at risk?
Certainly not anyone who was vaccinated, if I understand the purpose of the procedure.
And those who have not been vaccinated are accepting the risk of not vaccinating.
So when speaking of a duty 'to society,' just who are we trying to protect by suggesting universal vaccination?
The people to be protected are:
1. Immunocompromised children for whom vaccines are contraindicated. This demographic is very small, but it is thought "herd immunity" would keep the disease from spreading, and thus protect these vulnerable population. Less than universal vaccination would destroy "herd immunity."
a. Herd immunity is a theoretical and mathematical concept that has never been proven empirically. The model assumes that vaccination = immunization, and immunization = absence of infection.
b. The assumption that vaccination = immunization is false, as you will see in #2 below. The assumption that immunization = absence of infection is also false, because subclinical infection is well documented.
c. Therefore, immunocompromised children are not as protected by "herd immunity" as believed. In fact, they may be more risk by vaccinated Typhoid Marys.
2. Vaccinated children for whom vaccination was a "dud."It is widely acknowledged that vaccination effectiveness is not 100%. Kids who are vaccinated, but not immunized, are vulnerable to infection. Unvaccinated kids spread disease to "dud vaccinees," vaccinees for whom the vaccines failed to work.
The real question is, what is this percentage of "dud vaccinees"?
Take a look at this long list of outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations.
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/scandals/july_5_02/outbreaks_in_highly_
vaccinated.htm
As you can see, sometimes the percentage of dud vaccinees is pretty darn high. Furthermore, these outbreaks empirically disprove the idea that immunocompromised kids are protected by "herd immunity."
What is the response to empirical evidence that vaccines actually FAIL a lot more than expected?
Buy more vaccines of course! And more often! Even if it only has a 50% success rate, MORE vaccines will make that 50% into a LARGER number of children.
----
In summary, unvaccinated children must be forced to vaccinate to protect 1)unvaccinated children who WANT to vaccinate but can't, and 2)vaccinated children whom vaccines FAIL to protect.
You're not allowed to WANT to not vaccinate, see?
My opinion is, preventing choice is not truly about protecting public health. It is about selling vaccines.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS One of the reasons why I can't take you seriously is that you will fervently argue two exactly contradictory arguments, one right after the other, without even noticing that both arguments can't possibly be true at the same time. Which BTW you just did.
ONE of your arguments is that vaccinations don't do much in reducing the sequelae of illness. The OTHER argument is the vaccinations make symptoms so mild that some people don't even know they are ill
Quote:.... a backhand acknowledgment that vaccination does indeed work to reduce the sequelae of disease. Logically, you can't have both way, although I'm sure you spend much time and many posts trying.
Some vaccinated people do not get symptoms at all, or have symptoms so mild they think it is only a cold
So, to recap the vaccination discussion: Despite clear evidence that vaccines have been effective at reducing the incidence of targeted diseases AND their sequelae, you insist that vaccines are ineffective. Your argument seems to be that because antibiotics and sanitation made large advances in the treatment of bacterial infectious diseases (pneumonia, etc) vaccines are therefore able to be disposed of in the armamentarium against ALL infectious disease, without providing any successful treatment model* for viral diseases such as polio, chicken pox etc.
* You suggest that homeopathy is effective, or at least innocuous. Is that your treatment model for polio?
You focus on the concern that vaccines cause autism to the point where you have not ever really considered any other possible causes, even when it is clear that most cases of autism are present at birth.
In fact, you focus on the negative consequence vaccination exclusively. This thought takes up so much room in your mentation about vaccines that it is somehow "unclear" that vaccines reduced the incidence of disease like polio and smallpox, and that for MOST people getting the disease is far worse than getting the vaccine.
As a mental exercise, consider California's own little mini-epidemic of pertussis. Even with modern medicine available, there were 9143 cases which resulted in ten infant deaths. Even vaccination- as bad as you think it is - doesn't have that fatality rate! But yanno what? All of these facts are wasted on you. You will give a little ground, only to circle back the next time, claiming that widespread autism and vaccines are even a viable topic of thought. This this is clearly not the case, as most cases of autism (and the biomarkers that go with it) are present at birth. It will continue to be "unclear" (to you) that vaccines prevent or lessen the impact of the scourge of serious diseases like polio, smallpox, pertussis, tetanus, rubella. In your mind, homeopathy will be a successful mode of treatment, because vaccines, antibiotics and chemotherapy are just part of a conspiracy by big pharma to shove ineffective medications at us.
Quote:
Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It's this: Facts don't necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.
I'm not arguing to change your mind. Like rappy, you will toss a lot of chaff... much of it self-contradictory or blatantly unsupported by any sort of evidence whatsoever.. to support your belief structure. Clearly, you are not about to look at evidence with an unbiased eye.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" On page 6, there is a chart on mortality rates for diphtheria, pertussis, measles, and polio.
That is a blatant lie which is completely contradicted by the article in which it appears. "
Hello,
I consulted the page indicated and found the indicated chart. Are you saying the chart does not correlate to the findings of the article?
--Anthony
ETA: The source quote seems to have been edited while I was typing my response, and no longer appears as I found it. The new quote is:
Quote:
That is a blatant misrepresentation of what the chart includes. The chart includes influenza and pneumonia - which the article takes pains to point out represent the VAST burden of disease- as well as syphilis, AIDS and other infectious diseases. Your statement was a blatant lie. I just wanted to point that out. Glad we got that out of the way!
However, I do not understand what is being claimed as a lie here. Can I get an elaboration?
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I stand corrected and will retract my accusation. The chart labels were not clear on the screen that I was using at the time. I will, however, point out that the article makes a POINT of mentioning the reduction in polio deaths, which is not evident from the chart. If the axes were expanded, you would see the reduction in deaths and incidence, and I have provided charts for this which show the effects of vaccination in a milieu of modern sanitation, modern medical treatment, and modern communicable disease control.
I also will point out (again) the mortality rate of the last pertussis outbreak in CA, with roughly 9100 incidents and 10 infant deaths, even in a milieu of modern medicine. Vaccination does not have that anywhere near that mortality rate.
The point is not that major advances weren't made in the past. The question is where to go from here. If we were to remove vaccination from the armamentarium, we would quickly go back to a level of illness and death that people in the modern world would find unacceptable.
One other point that nobody has really touched on: modern transportation. In day past, sanitation sucked. The level of wealth was so low that most people had to work until they died, so even taking off a week for rest was unheard of. Antibiotics, electrolytes, and oxygen were unavailable. My grandmother had eight children during the depression, but only four survived to adulthood (causes of death, as near as can be discerned after-the-fact: pneumonia, TB, meningitis, and??) and one who survived (my mom) has post-polio syndrome.
The one thing they had in their favor was very slow to non-existent transportation... except in WWI when troops was moving everywhere, which prolly made the influenza epidemic much worse than before. Although outbreaks occurred, they tended to stay more localized.
With the advent of widespread use of the car, and (later) the airplane, spread of infectious disease got a whole new dimension.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I would be rather embarrassed at triumphantly declaring someone a liar, only to discover my error a short time later.
I know the cumulative emotional momentum of the people in an argument can lead to such unfortunate outbursts, perhaps even clouding reason.
A rational, reasonable person might have wondered where the chart came from rather than pouncing immediately upon a dark accusation with such energetic gusto.
I think perhaps there is nothing more to learn on this topic, and we should step back while we can still be friends. Once 'liar liar pants on fire' becomes part of the conversation, then it has run its useful course. Continuing the argument from here will only represent a contest of passions.
Signy, I'd like to thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge of the subject matter. You have helped me to understand the topic on a deeper level. (Though of course not as deeply as you understand it. I content myself with drippings of Wisdom.)
Sky, thank you for arguing counterpoints. I found you also to be much more informed than I am, and you presented a good alternative angle with which to study the problem.
I think there is good ground between you to improve our collective attitudes towards vaccination. I think that ultimately you both would like to see the same thing: The most effective medicine possible.
I am glad that there are people who understand the dangers of ignoring medical science, and I am glad that there are people who are not content with the status quo of current progress. As long as there are scientists, and as long as there are those who rail against the limitations of current science, then there will be improvement beneficial to both.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, we would not. Although it IS embarrassing, I'm able to admit when I'm wrong. CTS is not. That is the difference between us. And I'm sorry I did what seems (to you) to be a fatal disservice to my argument over a personal point, because CTS is one of worst cherry-pickers of data that post here, and I'm sad that you can't see that. That may dent my relationship with you too- which I would regret because you are one of the more reasonable people here- but I'm not going to pander the truth for it.
I think that ultimately you both would like to see the same thing: The most effective medicine possible.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
You did not do a disservice to your argument. You did a disservice to a person.
I have insulted people before, been rude before, hurled incorrect accusations before. I am a human being. This is a universal failing.
I see that you have a lot of sorrow:
"I'm sorry I did what seems (to you) to be a fatal disservice to my argument"
But that's not what there is to be sorry about.
You have a brilliant, beautiful mind, Signy. I couldn't reach it with a ladder. I'll never be half the thinker you are.
So maybe I focus my talents in other areas. Areas inconsequential to a higher thinker. But they are important to me.
--Anthony
_______________________________________________
"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not true. Tony, you ask incisive, meaningful questions, including the one where you ask (in essence) What are we vaccinating for, if people who are vaccinated are protected? Asking the right questions is 99.999% of being brilliant. No, even more than that. It is, it truly is. Where science fails, it's because scientists don't ask the right questions.
You have a brilliant, beautiful mind, Signy. I couldn't reach it with a ladder. I'll never be half the thinker you are.
I let my temper get the better of me. I try not to, but I did. I don't regret it on a personal level, but that's my failing, not yours.
So carry on with whatever it is you're doing. Anyone who can manage to be polite... humane, even... and still be so smart has got to be doing something right.
BTW- FWIW there are others here that I consider to be far more intelligent than me... including you. They have reached their insights by paths very different from mine... some by empathy, others by hardscrabble experience, some by (it seems to me) having just a touch of schizophrnia, others by just being born brilliant, I guess. I'm just a middle-of-the-pack kind of person.
Maybe that's why I sometimes go out of my way to make people feel small. Again, my failing. The data should speak for itself; I do a disservice to the truth that way.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I never made this argument.
Originally posted by SignyM:
ONE of your arguments is that vaccinations don't do much in reducing the sequelae of illness.
What I said was the graphs of lower incidences of a disease do not give us any information on sequelae of illness. You can't ASSUME just because there are lower incidences, there are less complications.
Quote:Again, I have never made this argument.
you insist that vaccines are ineffective.
I thought I listed my positions on vaccines at the start. Perhaps you did not read them.
ETA: All right, I will relent and explain myself this time.
In some people, vaccines are effective, immunizing them against infection.
In some people, vaccines are only partially effective, resulting in subclinical infection.
In some people, vaccines are duds.
Vaccines are effective, but its effectiveness has been greatly exaggerated by ignoring the subclinical infections and duds, not to mention all the misdiagnoses.
I could continue on and on defending myself against the hordes of strawmen you throw at me. But I hope all other readers can see for themselves what I actually believe and what I don't--despite of mountains of baseless accusations thrown out by Siggy. As usual.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Speak for yourself.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:No, we would not.
I think that ultimately you both would like to see the same thing: The most effective medicine possible.
I would like to see the most effective and safe medicine possible. Yes. Yes, I would.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You oughta be a diplomat. You got talent out the waz.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I am glad that there are people who understand the dangers of ignoring medical science, and I am glad that there are people who are not content with the status quo of current progress. As long as there are scientists, and as long as there are those who rail against the limitations of current science, then there will be improvement beneficial to both.
I have more info to put out there. But if this is an indication that people are tired of the cat fights and are bowing out of this conversation, I will stop too. I am not really interested in talking to Siggy about this, as there is nothing we say to each other that we haven't said and fought about before.
While I am still here, I was looking for incidence rates of disease from before the 1950's, and found this.
http://www.vaclib.org/sites/harpub/pol_all.htm
I am not saying I agree with this author, though the author makes a good point that we must look at other factors of both causation and cure. Anyway, it is a good graphic of the timeline of polio.
We also need to consider epidemics that came and went without the use of vaccines. Their graphs look very much like the polio graph. It is called an epidemic wave.
http://www.liv.ac.uk/geography/research_projects/epidemics/epidemic_wa
ve.html
We will never know if vaccines alone are responsible for the decline of polio or if it would have gone on its own anyway.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I fully concur, Anthony.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Not true. Tony, you ask incisive, meaningful questions, including the one where you ask (in essence) What are we vaccinating for, if people who are vaccinated are protected? Asking the right questions is 99.999% of being brilliant. No, even more than that. It is, it truly is. Where science fails, it's because scientists don't ask the right questions.
You have a brilliant, beautiful mind, Signy. I couldn't reach it with a ladder. I'll never be half the thinker you are.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since I have caved and stooped to defending myself, I will indulge one more time for this.
Quote:No. I have never advocated that people stop vaccinating.
Originally posted by SignyM:
But do we stop vaccinating because the vaccines aren't perfect?
I have advocated personal choice, making the decision with a trusted health consultant. Some people will choose to vaccinate. Good for them. Some people will choose not to vaccinate. Good for them.
Quote:A lot of interesting falsehoods about me seem true to you. I will chalk it up to your having a very good imagination. CTS, The Monster, in 3D!!!
That seems to be what CTS is advocating,....
Quote:If vaccines immunize as effectively as the CDC claims, a small proportion of refusers would not endanger them. Dropping the vaccination rate from 99% to say, even 80%, (imagine that the current 1% of refusers grow into 20%) will still be incapable of bring back the old sweeping, deadly epidemics.
Because HER choice would place us back in the days of sweeping, deadly epidemics
Quote:I am not denying. I am questioning if they were eliminated by vaccination. Rejection and doubt are two different things.
(epidemics which she tends to deny were eliminated by vaccination. Because the statics aren't "good enough" for her.
I hope that clarifies where I stand. Not for you, Siggy, because you enjoy using your imagination. But for Byte, and Anthony, and Frem, in case there was confusion.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Washing one's hands was a revolutionary idea way back. It did away with lots of illnesses.
Simple but effective.
Now it's complicated because of money.
Crappy is the operative word.
Crappy data correlation, crappy supervisors, crappy pay, crappy motivation, crappy standards, in essence, all that is best in the corporate mentality.
I trust in NOTHING that is motivated by profit alone. 
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, from the last post on down...
Magons
Quote:
Frem, we seem to be trying to out do one another with interminally long posts and I am almost through with this, just from running out of things to say.
Aye, and it weren't even intentional on either of our behalf - I think it gratifying to exchange views without the usual biases and hostility for once, very much so.
Quote:
I think that mainstream medicine has given us much to be thankful for, including vaccination. But I also see that it doens't do so well on the wellbeing aspect of health. It tends to focus on fixing illness, rather than looking at people's general wellbeing and I believe that is why people often tend to turn to alternative medicines. I guess there is also a sense of medical assistance being more of a sausage factory rather than focusing on individuals needs. I've been lucky enough to have local doctors who are not like that.
HA! sausage factory is indeed an apt description - most docs over here don't spend one bloody second with a patient they don't absolutely have to, and the human-contact part of it is almost entirely missing.
I actually disputed one bill recently, a follow-up (i.e. required ass-covering for their malpractice insurance, of ZERO medical necessity) in which I visited a Rheumatology specialist - the flunkies took my vital signs and then the doc comes in, and in five minutes flat realizes there's nothing here TO follow up and sends me on my merry...
I highly disputed $145.00 USD for this (and won that dispute) cause that's just bullshit.
Quote:
I also have some concerns about how across the counter herbal medicines are produced whatgoes into them, how they are handled, what they are mixed with. There tends to be a lot less scrutiny and accountability for this type of medicine. I say this having experience of packaging spirolina in what was basically a terribly unhigenic sweat shop.
Oh indeed, the problem with involving the FDA is their asinine concept of banning shit outright - were they to just insure truth in labelling and toss in a disclaimer about the lack of testing/approval I'd be more inclined to perhaps go with that, provided the issue of them being little more than a mouthpiece for Big Pharma can also be addressed...
Quote:
I also dispute the claim that herbal is gentler or safer. Some plants can kill you if ingested, some can give you organ failure, some bring on psychosis. Nature is not nor ever has been gentle. She's a freaking bitch quite frankly. Some herbal remedies (such as St John's wort) can interfere with other medicines such as the pill or tablets people take for heart problems.
Well only a stone-blind idiot would come at it that way, not that there's any shortage of those in any profession save maybe Architecture...
(Funny, I've NEVER met a stupid architect, never, weird, eh ?)
But when done properly, any old-ways healing is always, ALWAYS done at the least possible and moved up, instead of going in slam-bang-boom like modern medicine does - in fact I think that might be a source of otherwise unexplained complications by upsetting the bodys natural balances...
That said, there's times for slam-bang-boom, the turnaround on that Acute Febrile-whateverthehellitwas, came as a result of the mad-science doctor dropping a concentration of steroids and other stuff into my bloodstream all at once in a fashion that'd prolly be lethal to most people, to both short-circuit the autoimmune reaction and treat the underlying problem setting it off - despite the near hysterics of the other docs it worked flawlessly, causing my immune system to re-target onto the actual problem instead of attacking it's own host, whereupon it cleaned up house so well they took even MORE blood samples cause of the medical possibilities of an immune system response that *can* curb-stomp something like that.
I told em I want royalties if they come up with anything, and they have "bought" my patience for further testing by offsetting previous medical bills in exchange.
CTS
Quote:
YNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
This is very characteristic of subclinical infection in pertussis. Sometimes, the vaccine only masks the symptoms, but does not prevent infection. Some vaccinated people do not get symptoms at all, or have symptoms so mild they think it is only a cold. They walk around like Typhoid Marys infecting others unknowingly.
Meanwhile, unvaccinated people with full blown symptoms get blamed for spreading the disease, cause it is easy to see THEY have it. Maybe they did spread it. But it is not fair to assume the people like your son DIDN'T spread it as well.
I'm confused. IT's the symptoms which are dangerous. An infant with whooping cough cannot breathe because of the severity of the cough. The infection is spread via air born droplets that occur when the infected person coughs. If you have reduced symptoms you are less infectious. That is why the exclusion period is during the coughing stage.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Regarding the abject dismissal of high-dilution homeopathy simply because there is at this time no scientific test capable of determining result brought to mind an imagined conversation from days of yore that may well have been, and certainly echos a bit for me here.
Quote:
I daresay the whole notion is but polite fiction, bacteria ? microbes? HA!
Where is there any evidence of these supposed creatures existence, when this gentleman proposes that they are too small for as to see ?
The very notion is preposterous, I say - everyone knows these maladies are caused by night vapors and miasmas, the evidence is undeniable, and this gentlemans proposal a mere scam to sell his faery powder made from of all the things, moldy bread!
I daresay we reject this obvious fiction in light of obvious personal interest, as it conflicts so greatly with established medical knowledge as to be a ludicrous pipedream.
I've read Boyle, and Semmelweis, and have on occasion read similar excoriations of damn near anyone who ever significantly advanced scientific knowledge, often in the face of tremendous opposition.
As always I am leery of dismissing claims out of hand for reasons I've already explained, and simply because we have no test that shows a result, does not necessarily mean there may not be one.
I assign no particular credibility to either "side" of that debate, as both ends of it have shown sufficient bias to not take either one seriously, so for me the jury is still out, and will REMAIN out, till such evidence I have in hand to make up my own mind - I wouldn't use such a thing as a primary treatment since I have little knowledge about it and most of the time there are better options, but nor will I dismiss it entire.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
But when done properly, any old-ways healing is always, ALWAYS done at the least possible and moved up, instead of going in slam-bang-boom like modern medicine does - in fact I think that might be a source of otherwise unexplained complications by upsetting the bodys natural balances...
Good mainstream medicine does the same, Frem. It SHOULDN"T go in like a bull at a gate either. Not first up.
I kind of disagree about the body's natural balances stuff. The body is at war with itself. We're full of things fighting one another, bacteria, viruses, antibodies etc etc. Plus, we deteriorate. That is the natural order of things. Bits start to go wrong and cause us pain. Basically its miraculous that any of us live past 40.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Especially miraculous in one case! 
Me and my primary doc actually had to tally all this crap so that we can beat the insurance company over the head with it, starting with petty stuff like Gerstmann Syndrome and working all the way down to every screw, plate, bit of plastic, sea coral and what have you - and he made the comment that I am essentially a Lich, cause there's no reason I should still be alive.. it's a realllly long list.
I did realize one thing I should be especially grateful for is that I do not suffer any psychological trauma from mechanical alteration or replacement - apparently most people do?
Guess that explains why some of my family totally freaked when they rebuilt me, save for a certain niece who thought it was way cool.
As for balances, I never said it was a harmonious balance, mind you - but there is a balance to most people, both physical and psychological, and throwing either out of whack can cause complications otherwise avoidable.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, the symptoms are what kills young children. So preventing symptoms is good. Not arguing that.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm confused. IT's the symptoms which are dangerous. An infant with whooping cough cannot breathe because of the severity of the cough. The infection is spread via air born droplets that occur when the infected person coughs. If you have reduced symptoms you are less infectious. That is why the exclusion period is during the coughing stage.
What I am arguing about is the conflation of "no/few symptoms" with "not a danger to the community." It simply isn't true. Yes, respiratory droplets carry the bacteria. But the bacteria is transmissible through contaminated surfaces as well. Subclinical infection includes a mild cough and cold symptoms, which is sufficient to make the bacteria airborne.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627963/
This is an old study when the whole cell vaccine was used, but it's free, so you can read the whole article. This is just an example of a paper on subclinical infection.
It is about Israeli researchers testing 46 fully vaccinated children in the contact circles (2 day care centers) of a baby who died of pertussis. They wanted to know how the baby got it when everyone around him was fully vaccinated.
Amongst the 2-3 year olds, 10% (3 out of 30) had antibodies suggesting a recent infection, but no symptoms. One of these kids had nasopharyngeal colonization and had full blown symptoms. Amongst the 5-6 year olds (16 kids), 55% (9 kids) of the class had antibodies suggesting a recent infection, but no symptoms. 25% of the class (4 kids) had nasopharyngeal colonization; only one had full blown symptoms, while the other 3 had mild coughs.
Of course, they don't know which of these kids transmitted pertussis to the baby's family and eventually to the baby. But they conclude: "Our results indicate that children ages 5-6 years and possibly younger, ages 2-3 years, play a role as silent reservoirs in the transmission of pertussis in the
community."
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
While I was lookin at something elsewhere, this chart came to mind, and then this part leaped out in my mind as concurrent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin#Mass_production
Interesting to note the time frame there also coincides with the beginning of the ability to mass produce anti-biotics, I think it's relative, but not quiiiiite sure exactly how, gotta think about that one a bit.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you can get this ball rolling, I'd be behind you 100%.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You don't involve Big Pharma - you make it established procedure and play the science card on that part of the medical establishment which all but worships it, and you do it in a sideways fashion by which they never realize that might turn their sacred cow into cheeseburger until it's already in place and any effort to yank it or munge it up makes them OBVIOUSLY look like they're hiding something and would lead to a fullisade of lawsuits - not as easy as I make it sound here, but entirely possible, yes.
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Before penicillin in the mid 1940's, you got sulfa drugs in the 1930's.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Interesting to note the time frame there also coincides with the beginning of the ability to mass produce anti-biotics, I think it's relative, but not quiiiiite sure exactly how, gotta think about that one a bit.
Sewer systems were installed in many cities in the late 1800's and early 1900's. It might have contributed to the sharp decline of mortality due to infectious diseases. Just a tad. :)
-----
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want - and their kids pay for it." - Richard Lamm
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If I propose that disease is caused by microbes, and I create a test that will determine whether or not microbes are indeed a cause... such as hand washing, and I succeed, my hypothesis is looking stronger.
Regarding the abject dismissal of high-dilution homeopathy simply because there is at this time no scientific test capable of determining result brought to mind an imagined conversation from days of yore that may well have been, and certainly echos a bit for me here.
If I say that acupuncture works, even though I can't explain it in terms that modern medicine recognizes, but I can perform surgery on a person whose only anesthesia is acupuncture... well, then I would have to say that there is something there, even if it's not well-understood.
But if I create a test... several of them, in fact... attempting to prove that homeopathy is a valuable treatment, and I fail then maybe homeopathy isn't such a good option.
There is such a thing as the scientific method. If you can make something happen reliably over and over, well then, better get cracking and figure out what's going on. But to keep flogging a procedure for which there is NO evidence ... despite the fact that people have been looking for it ... is just like.. what? Insisting that Saddam had WMD? Still trying to create cold fusion? The best the homeopaths seem to come up with is...There may be no scientific proof that homeopathy is efficacious. But at least it hasn't hurt anybody. If there is ONE robust double-blind, placebo-controlled studies on homeopathy which show that it works, I haven't seen it. But I've seen a lot going the other way.
Jimminy. There IS a real world out there. There is also wishful thinking.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Back to CTS...
We are NOW in the era where we have sewer systems, trash collection, running water, and antibiotics. All of those advances lowered the risk of dying from infectious diseases, and they reduced them a lot. But there were still epidemics. People were still dying, or getting paralyzed, from infectious diseases. There were still panics. Nobody knew who would get sick next.
In that era, my grandmother had eight children, only four of whom survived to adulthood. One died of TB, one from pneumonia, one from meningitis and one from ??? A fifth - my mom- now has post-polio syndrome. My mom was also a Kenny therapist for polio victims. It prolly didn't work (massage, passive range of motion) but it was the best they had.
This is where we were then.
Now consider that modern transportation has put a whole new shine on the idea of epidemics.
Quote:Because no evidence, no matter how good, is good enough to convince you that vaccines worked. And no evidence, no matter how poor, is poor enough to convince you that homeopathy doesn't work.
We will never know if vaccines alone are responsible for the decline of polio or if it would have gone on its own anyway.
The thing that is driving me nuts is the incredible one-side way that CTS interprets data... and that everyone accepts it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME