Vaccinations, Pt 2

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 17:51
VIEWED: 18576
PAGE 12 of 17

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Monday, December 19, 2011 4:16 AM

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.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, December 19, 2011 5:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
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.

There are two issues here: disease and transmission. No symptoms is better for the first issue, disease. No symptoms makes the second issue, transmission, decidedly more difficult. There is no reason public health policy, if done correctly, can't accommodate both facts. Your policy, for example, of testing everyone whether or not they exhibit symptoms, sounds like they are already intelligently considering the subclinical problem. Good for you.

I am seeing a pattern here. I keep saying vaccination is a complicated issue, because there are layers and complex relationships amongst the variables. It is not black-and-white, all-or-nothing, always-good-or- always-bad. But you guys treat every discussion I make as if this were a unidimensional argument, then accuse me of vacillating or lying or arguing things that I am not arguing.

I am trying to urge more multifactorial thinking on this.

-----
"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

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, December 19, 2011 5:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
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.

Let's try it this way. From homeopathy consumer's point of view:

Science on vaccines:
Safety: Inconclusive.
Effectiveness: Inconclusive

Science on homeopathy:
Safety: Everyone is pretty sure it is as safe as water.
Effectiveness: Inconclusive.

Homeopathy comes out on top. Not by much, granted. But at least we know it is safer than vaccines, cause water is safer than vaccines. ;) (<-- Note the wink.)

Would you rather that I spent the money and lived with any complications of gallbladder surgery rather than give homeopathy a shot at curing me first?

Yeah, maybe you would. But I am very glad I saved a lot of money and still have my gallbladder. I don't need science to tell me that I don't have pain or symptoms anymore. I don't need science to tell me I saved a lot of money. I don't need science to tell me I don't have frequent diarrhea or whatever other common complication that arises from losing my gallbladder.

I don't care if it is the placebo effect working via a sugar pill. I care that I got the desired outcome with very little cost and almost no risk. Science can suss out the mechanism later.

Here is another story. My husband likes to travel to Africa. Keeps getting malaria, yellow fever, etc. Tried all the vaccines and prophylactics. Keeps getting sick anyway. So on the last trip, he says, "Fuck it. I'm trying homeopathy." Got bitten by mosquitoes galore. No disease whatsoever.

Maybe it was luck. Maybe it was placebo. It doesn't matter. He got the desired outcome, which he had never gotten with conventional medicine. And for a much cheaper price.

So here is the question. Would you deny him the only thing that has ever worked for him, to force him to use something that has never worked for him?

Remember, on an individual personal basis, anecdotal is all that matters.

Quote:
here 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.

There are theories, yes. And there is research demonstrating it works, yes. In fact, there was a famous one published in Nature. Here, have a read about it and laugh.

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/news041004-19.html

The problem is the same as vaccines. There are methodological flaws, murky definitions, and invalid conclusions. There are also many studies demonstrating it doesn't work. Taking the literature as a whole, there is no scientific proof whatsoever that homeopathy works. I don't cite the few studies claiming effectiveness for that reason.

But hey, despite homeopathy's not having good theories or research, I still have my gallbladder. That's what counts in the end, right?

-----
"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

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, December 19, 2011 5:35 AM

DT, ok, I give in. Awwwww.

-----
"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

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, December 19, 2011 5:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
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.

Oh no, not the point I was making at all - I was just pointing out that even modern medicine STILL has a lot of that same hidebound attitude towards anything and often breaking it involves swimming against the tide even when everyone else is flaming you...

I don't mean that in any specific sense, but since we were talking about homeopathy it seemed as good an example as any - if you want something where there actually IS some handy evidence (provided I can find it again) take as another example the notion of focused sonics as a weapon against viruses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2147084/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0042682267902760
http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/8/1/43

That same hidebound thinking you mention is also present unfortunately, in modern medicine as well, and it irritates me equally when anyone does it - science is all about questioning assumptions and discovery, and while AT THIS TIME no evidence may be present, at one time our inability to see and classify microbes or bacteria was also used as a bludgeon against those proposing that theory as well.

So for me my skepticism goes both ways, just cause we cannot determine effectiveness with the available technology, cannot identify any known mechanism, ONLY means to me that such cannot join the pantheon of scientifically validated things till we have evidence in hand - it does NOT mean we get to dismiss it out of hand and cast it aside, but that we file it as unknown-unproven till someone manages to produce peer-reviewable scientific (rather than anecdotal or empirical) evidence otherwise.

Different sorta thing, you understand ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, December 19, 2011 5:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Let's try it this way. From homeopathy consumer's point of view:

Science on vaccines:
Safety: Inconclusive.
Effectiveness: Inconclusive

Science on homeopathy:
Safety: Everyone is pretty sure it is as safe as water.
Effectiveness: Inconclusive.

Homeopathy comes out on top. Not by much, granted. But at least we know it is safer than vaccines, cause water is safer than vaccines.

Would you rather that I spent the money and lived with any complications of gallbladder surgery rather than give homeopathy a shot at curing me first?

Yeah, maybe you would. But I am very glad I saved a lot of money and still have my gallbladder. I don't need science to tell me that I don't have pain or symptoms anymore. I don't need science to tell me I saved a lot of money. I don't need science to tell me I don't have frequent diarrhea or whatever other common complication that arises from losing my gallbladder.

I don't care if it is the placebo effect working via a sugar pill. I care that I got the desired outcome with very little cost and almost no risk. Science can suss out the mechanism later.

Here is another story. My husband likes to travel to Africa. Keeps getting malaria, yellow fever, etc. Tried all the vaccines and prophylactics. Keeps getting sick anyway. So on the last trip, he says, "Fuck it. I'm trying homeopathy." Got bitten by mosquitoes galore. No disease whatsoever.

Maybe it was luck. Maybe it was placebo. It doesn't matter. He got the desired outcome, which he had never gotten with conventional medicine. And for a much cheaper price.

So here is the question. Would you deny him the only thing that has ever worked for him, to force him to use something that has never worked for him?

CTS, your POV is that the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness of vaccines, but I haven't been swayed by your arguments. Nor have I been swayed that the risk of vaccines outweighs the benefits. The reliable data is that diseases such as small pox have pretty much been irradicated, that infant mortality due to whooping cough has been substantially reduced as is the incidents of polio. Significantly and substantially post vaccination.

As for homeopathy, yes the remedies may be harmless if you are using to to assist in healing some minor ailments and aches and pains, but it is still a con. It claims to do things that it can't, but if you are happy to waste your money, and it makes you feel better, good luck to you.

I don't see it is as harmless per se, in fact I think it can be extremely dangerous. Let us say you present with a sore throat, and you receive your remedy which you take. With no improvement, your homeopath tries a variety of different remedies. She or he will discourage you from visiting a GP because she or he has a belief that western medicine is bad for the body, so you will not get blood tests, scans, xrays, or any other tests which could give you a diagnosis. It may be that you just have a very sore throat and it will go away of its own accord, or you may have cancer and miss out on receiving early treatment that could save your life.

That is why homeopathy is not always harmless. You are being treated by someone who disbelieves current scientific and medical knowledge and favours an obsolete understanding of the human body, and who shuns even that part of medicine such as pathology which can give, in certain instances, conclusive results.

Now I have no problems with a homeopath or naturapath that gets you to do the pathology or see a GP if symptoms persist, but a lot of them are zealots and won't do that or actively encourage you not to.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, December 19, 2011 6:00 AM

DT stop trying to lock up my brain while imma trying to USE it, will you!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DepletedPhlebotinumShells?f
rom=Main.WeaponizedWeakness

*blink*
*blink-blink*

D'awwwww!

-F

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, December 19, 2011 6:02 AM

Quote:
Would you rather that I spent the money and lived with any complications of gallbladder surgery rather than give homeopathy a shot at curing me first?

Yeah, maybe you would. But I am very glad I saved a lot of money and still have my gallbladder. I don't need science to tell me that I don't have pain or symptoms anymore. I don't need science to tell me I saved a lot of money. I don't need science to tell me I don't have frequent diarrhea or whatever other common complication that arises from losing my gallbladder.

No I would rather than you didn't have to spend a lot of money to use medicine that has a basis in reality. I'd rather that you had a doctor that wouldn't just rip out your gallbladder before trying something else. I'd rather that your doctor recommended surgery as a last resort.

You see I am all for having an efficient, cheap or free public health system.

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, December 19, 2011 6:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I don't see it is as harmless per se, in fact I think it can be extremely dangerous. Let us say you present with a sore throat, and you receive your remedy which you take. With no improvement, your homeopath tries a variety of different remedies. She or he will discourage you from visiting a GP because she or he has a belief that western medicine is bad for the body, so you will not get blood tests, scans, xrays, or any other tests which could give you a diagnosis. It may be that you just have a very sore throat and it will go away of its own accord, or you may have cancer and miss out on receiving early treatment that could save your life.

That is why homeopathy is not always harmless. You are being treated by someone who disbelieves current scientific and medical knowledge and favours an obsolete understanding of the human body, and who shuns even that part of medicine such as pathology which can give, in certain instances, conclusive results.

Now I have no problems with a homeopath or naturapath that gets you to do the pathology or see a GP if symptoms persist, but a lot of them are zealots and won't do that or actively encourage you not to.

In this we agree - as usual I am fundamentally perplexed by the black/white, yes/no two dimensional thinking that such entails, modern medicine has a damn lot of benefits, and so do the old ways, one is a natural progression OF the other, and both in natural concert seems a damn logical solution to me, dunnit ?

S'why I get just as irritated with an old-ways practictioner dismissing modern medicine out of hand as I do with a modern doc dismissing the old ways - it's freakin ridiculous, far as I am concerned.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, December 19, 2011 6:08 AM

Frem,

I dunno. I see that a lot of old stuff gets tested, it proves effective and then it is used. I mean, at the bare minimum, drug companies are always looking for the next big thing. As I indicated earlier, clinical trials have been undertaken on a number of natural remedies. They admit when something works. Hell, it was even determined that leeching has benefits, only now they know why.

Quote:
Medicinal leeches are now making a comeback in microsurgery. They provide an effective means to reduce blood coagulation, to relieve venous pressure from pooling blood (venous insufficiency), and in reconstructive surgery to stimulate circulation in reattachment operations for organs with critical blood flow, such as eyelids, fingers, and ears.[3][4][5] The therapeutic effect is not from the blood taken in the meal, but from the continued and steady bleeding from the wound left after the leech has detached.[2] The most common complication from leech treatment is prolonged bleeding, which can easily be treated, although allergic reactions and bacterial infections may also occur.[2]

Because of the minuscule amounts of hirudin present in leeches, it is impractical to harvest the substance for widespread medical use. Hirudin (and related substances) are synthesised using recombinant techniques. Devices called "mechanical leeches" that dispense heparin and perform the same function as medicinal leeches have been developed, but they are not yet commercially available.[6][7][8]

wiki

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE