Vaccinations, Pt 2
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 17:51
VIEWED: 18576
PAGE 4 of 17
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