Vaccinations, Pt 2
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 17:51
VIEWED: 18576
PAGE 6 of 17
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