Vaccinations, Pt 2
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 17:51
VIEWED: 18576
PAGE 14 of 17
Byte
IMO CTSky is out in PN/ Rappy land.
"There has been no good scientific research on vaccines."
This means not a single good study. Not one. Not populations studies where vaccines are used. Not field studies where rabies vaccines were used to stop the spread of rabies in coyotes north from Mexico or raccoons from Virginia. Not a lab study where animals are vaccinated then challenged with the specific disease to try to understand either vaccines or the immune system. Not the current research where the body's white blood cells are awakened to tumors and stimulated by vaccines to kill cancer.
Not. One. Single. Study.
This is rather breathtaking in it's denial of reality.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You pegged it. Nailed it on the head. Right on the money.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
"we don't have enough data about adverse reactions to vaccines or the effectiveness of vaccines to justify compulsory vaccination."
Quote:Absolutely agreed. I am pretty sure I have never claimed that homeopathy was scientific, though I have voiced interest in various studies that may shed light on hypothetical mechanisms.
but until a method of action can be proposed and tested, homeopathy is not very scientific,
Quote:Agreed again. If I speak enthusiastically about homeopathy from time to time, it is from personal, anecdotal experience. The enthusiasm is DEFINITELY not scientific.
and any argument in its favour can not be scientific.
It would be like I might speak enthusiastically about praying or Firefly. It is a reflection of personal preference, and not science.
-----
"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:That's right. Not that I've seen.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Not. One. Single. Study.
I have very high standards. Very. High. Standards.
-----
"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'll concede that. I kinda wrote it tongue-in-cheek. You know, the "wink." But, yes, you make a valid point. It was a poor argument.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
This really doesn't particularly demonstrate one is "better" than the other.
-----
"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:Except. For. What. You. Agree. With.
I have very high standards. Very. High. Standards.
Then. Very. LOW. Standards.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hallelujah. She's not my job.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I promote Firefly despite lack of data. Not everything promoted has to have data behind it. Besides, my goal here is not to promote homeopathy. It is to argue for freedom to use it. Magon, despite her opposition to homeopathy, granted me that freedom to waste my money as I see fit. That is all I want here.
Originally posted by SignyM:
But you will promote homeopathy despite lack of data showing its effectiveness,
Quote:Nope. I encourage informed consent. Discouragement of vaccine use is not the goal. Information is. If information encourages some, discourages others, so be it.
and discourage the use of vaccines despite data showing its effectiveness.
-----
"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:Been watching that CTS
Originally posted by SignyM:
Except. For. What. You. Agree. With.
Then. Very. LOW. Standards.
The Monster 3D movie again huh?
-----
"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:Um... you equate watching Firefly with choosing medical treatment in terms of importance?
But you will promote homeopathy despite lack of data showing its effectiveness- Signy
I promote Firefly despite lack of data- CTS.
Really???
------------
Knowing that CTS seems to be particularly risk-averse, I did what I thought was a pretty good back-of-the-envelope estimation of relative risk using the best data at-hand, and skewing the data towards NOT vaccinating by a factor of ten. Still came out with disease being worse than the vaccine. I invite anyone to scroll up and read the entire thing. But at least we're not talking about autism and vaccines anymore.
At this point, I really will not reply to CTS anymore. There are plenty of other, more interesting things to talk about than cover the same old ground with CTS where she insists that NO good data about vaccination exists but that homeopathy is "better". I'd rather talk about the commodification of medicine, or other alternative treatments which I personally find more interesting, like meditation and pre-/probiotics, and how to create the best medicine for everybody.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm game.
I have very mixed feelings about medicine as practiced in the US. It's very obviously driven by profit.
Profit-driven medicine has it's problems. As pretty well-documented here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande - profit-driven medicine is both more expensive and less than optimally effective.
It's what I think of as money-based business rather than science-based care.
So one thing to do would be to get profit out of medicine.
Also, I truly think that unbiased statistics will help healthcare tremendously and it's a gap the government could fill right now, without changing anything else.
Medicine is statistical. We are not many units of one uniform model. Aside from natural genetic variability, age and history are major reasons why people respond differently. And without knowing statistically what is more or less likely to work, any procedure is a shot in the dark.
When it comes to a lack of statistics, for example, and looking into studies of the efficacy of back-surgery, it turns out that the people who do the most back-surgeries are the most bullish on its efficacy, and the people who don't do back surgeries dismiss it as randomly helpful, at best.
How is it that we have no reliable statistics on the benefit of a major surgery and it's a matter of Unh-hunh! Nuh-uh! debate between two types of business? It's mind-boggling.
So simply doing the impartial studies to determine 'best practices' would go a long way to alleviating expensive, and worse, ineffective or even harmful, patient 'churning'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME