Vaccinations, Pt 2
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 17:51
VIEWED: 18576
PAGE 11 of 17
Indeed, she has. But getting into that side of the argument is fruitless. CTS shifts ground often enough in any argument that she can credibly say she has said a LOT of things... because she has. Even in this, she has said (variously) that vaccines DO and DON'T work to reduce symptoms, and she has also said that it isn't "clear" whether, but that she has "doubts".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem
Just a couple of points:
Homeopathy and vaccines are not at all alike.
Vaccines are based on robust observations going back to the Ottoman Empire and the protectiveness of cowpox against smallpox. Their effect is far more reliable and reproducible than homeopathy. And finally, a mechanism by which they act has been elucidated.
Homeopathy is far more related to the 'humors' theory of medicine. You know, if something causes inflammation (redness, pain, heat, swelling - the blood humor) if you give something that causes an overabundance of the blood humor but at low dose, you'll 'fix' the first thing. "Regarding the abject dismissal of high-dilution homeopathy simply because there is at this time no scientific test capable of determining result ..." There is always the treatment/ sham treatment statistical test, which indicates lack of effectiveness.
Also, your graph was weak.
The reason why people run statistical tests rather than crude graphs is to help elucidate causes.
I'll give you a theoretical set of numbers to be clear. Assume you have a population of 1M. .5M will get a disease. You inoculate 1000 people and NONE get the disease. One could conclude the vaccine is effective. But if you look at overall disease rates, you'll only see a reduction of 500 cases, a reduction too small to see statistically. You would then conclude that the vaccine didn't work.
So, to graph a timeline of disease rates with vaccination discovery dates is misleading b/c:
1) vaccines may not have been administered to large enough numbers of people to show an immediate decline in overall disease rates
2) the effectiveness of vaccines could be mis-attributed to other factors.
That's why you have experimental populations, and controls - tests the vaccines graphed have all passed with flying colors.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ooooooh. I'm so scared!
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Again, I have never made this argument."
Not true. Don't make me go back to the past where you made exactly that argument, more than once.
Calling someone a liar without any proof detracts from your credibility you know.
-----
"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
Just 'cause this thread is short on stuff like this
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, that is sweet DT. We could all use more of that!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Yes, the symptoms are what kills young children. So preventing symptoms is good. Not arguing that.
Actually you would appear to arguing exactly that. Your arguement is that preventing symtoms causes increase in infection rates (although there is no data that infection rates have ever reached pre vaccination levels). To bring this argument to a logical end, it would be better to have full blown infections so that whooping cough can be more easily diagnosed.
Quote:
What I am arguing about is the conflation of "no/few symptoms" with "not a danger to the community." It simply isn't true.
A bit more education and a few changes in processes would aid this, if it isn't already happening in your neck of the woods. Here whooping cough is a reportable infection. Therefore doctors are aware of any diagnosed outbreaks. That is why when we attended the clinic we were all tested for it, even though none of us had or ever did get the 'whoop' part of the cough. That takes an integrated health system, not all countries have that.
Secondly, people should be aware that the effecacy of the whooping cough vaccine diminishes after about 10 years. Therefore, for families with young babies, they should probably all be revaccinated, as most infants are infected by family members. It actually does not diminish the need for vaccination, but increases it.
Thirdly, given the high mortality rate for infants who have not been vaccinated, I wonder what the story would have been at that clinic if none of the children had been vaccinated. I'm guessing you would have seen a lot more deaths.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
See Frem, that is how I see people who support homeopathy. They hold onto to outdated medical thinking, that the body is filed with biles that need to be balanced and cause different affects such as sanguinity, melancholy etc etc. Ikiki outlines it better than I can. Those people are holding onto the past and refusing to ackowledge modern understanding of how the body actually works, based on scientific evidence.
You see I think you have to choose in the end. You can't use scientific data to evaluate the effectiveness or otherwise of vaccines and then kind of mutter about it being 'beyond current scientific thinking' to determine that homeopathic treatments work. I'd have more respect if people actually said - no idea about any of it, but I go with my gut and don't vaccinate and I use homeopathic rememedies.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
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.
I rate scientific evidence above anecdotal. Anecdotal is a starting point, for sure, but there has to be more. There has to be some theory as to why it would work that can be based in some sort of scientific thinking and there has to be some research to demonstrate it works. Remember, even placebos can have some degree of success in aiding with some symptoms of illnesses, so 'feeling like something works' doesn't really cut it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, that is sweet DT. We could all use more of that!
http://yippayap.com/img/post/336689.jpeg
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Select brief snippets in chronological order
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=25392
"I can say, "I lived where wildlife bubonic plague was epidemic. Because of near universal carrot-eating, no domesticated animals got the plague." Maybe they didn't get the plague because of other factors, and not because of the carrot-eating?"
"You can have 6000 peer reviewed studies. Quantity, to me, is immaterial. It is the quality of any number of studies that matters. I have not seen any quality in either vaccine or climate change research."
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=2549
"There has been no good scientific research on vaccines."
"This "fact" is not undisputed. Studies showing that vaccines produce "immunity" in the "vast majority" have been challenged as methodologically flawed."
"Give me a study that you believe is conclusive proof of effectiveness and I'll tell you what is wrong with that conclusion."
"When physicians find out someone has been vaccinated for polio, they are encouraged to look for another diagnosis." (A wholly unfounded claim btw.)
"And no one ever said the paralysis wasn't REAL. The question is, was the paralysis (and the various outbreaks) caused by the poliovirus, or Coxsackie, or echovirus, or any number of enteroviruses that present similar symptoms?"
"I have to date seen no studies proving vaccines to be either effective or safe in the "vast majority" of recipients."
"I am saying, the same clinical disease as smallpox is still going around. One may make the case that smallpox (the virus) has been eradicated, based on a technicality. For practical purposes, the disease has NOT been eradicated."
Originally posted by rue:
"I think it's clear that mandatory smallpox vaccinations have eliminated the scourge of smallpox from around the globe."
Originally posted by CantTakeSky:
"And I think it is far from clear."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME