Study showing vaccines cause autism is 'elaborate fraud'.

Duoae wrote:

There's only one strain specific to each vaccine.... There's so many types of Flu, we may as well be vaccinating against the human cold. Same can be said about resistance to cold virii. By your logic we would all be laid low by colds in order to have some immunity.... that's not and isn't how it works...

That there are so many strains of flu was kind of my point. If flu vaccines don't work, then that would mean that our immune systems don't generate antibodies when we're exposed to it. If that's the case then we would constantly be sick since there are so many strains of flu constantly floating around. Since that doesn't happen it means the flu means exposure to a strain of flu triggers our immune system to fight back, which means that flu vaccines work.

And, no, we don't have to get laid low by the flu to get immunity. Like every other vaccine you just need to be exposed to a small amount of the strain or inactive versions of the virus for your immune system to recognize that it doesn't belong and generate antibodies.

OG_slinger wrote:

People *have* studied the efficacy of flu vaccines. It's just that Jefferson has a different interpretation of that data and has some criticisms on how the data was collected.

You make it sound so minor, but it's the difference between a scientific study and a bunch of hogwash. If the data isn't collected correctly, or isn't analyzed correctly, the study is no good.

If you really want to find the answer then we would need to pony up the cash to do a epidemiological study were everyone involved is swabbed and the strain typed and every person who died was autopsied to find the actual cause of death.

This could easily have been done with a tiny fraction of the money the government spent just on Tamaflu during the H1N1 scare. Look, they've never even done a study with a placebo. If you don't have a control group, how can you possibly have any valid study? (And no, cohort studies don't count as control groups.)

We know that vaccines of other diseases strengthens people's immune systems and protects them from falling ill when exposed. It would be a bit strange to say that vaccination works for all those different diseases, but mysteriously doesn't work for the flu.

Why? Do you assume that every bacteria or virus is the same? Do we have vaccinations for diabetes, asthma, ebola, HIV, cancer, or even the common cold? If it was that easy, we would have stopped all suffering a long time ago. You can vaccinate against a handful of strains each year, when you have hundreds (maybe even thousands) to choose from. And even on the years when the CDC has guessed completely wrong, the sickness and death tolls didn't even budge. I can't assume that because my windshield can stop water from entering my car, that it could stop the sun, or a boulder. They're completely different things.

Minarchist wrote:

Why? Do you assume that every bacteria or virus is the same? Do we have vaccinations for diabetes, asthma, ebola, HIV, cancer, or even the common cold?

I have to correct this one point - diabetes, asthma and cancer are not caused by viral or bacterial infections, so you can't have a vaccine for them.

OG_slinger wrote:
Duoae wrote:

There's only one strain specific to each vaccine.... There's so many types of Flu, we may as well be vaccinating against the human cold. Same can be said about resistance to cold virii. By your logic we would all be laid low by colds in order to have some immunity.... that's not and isn't how it works...

That there are so many strains of flu was kind of my point. If flu vaccines don't work, then that would mean that our immune systems don't generate antibodies when we're exposed to it. If that's the case then we would constantly be sick since there are so many strains of flu constantly floating around. Since that doesn't happen it means the flu means exposure to a strain of flu triggers our immune system to fight back, which means that flu vaccines work.

And, no, we don't have to get laid low by the flu to get immunity. Like every other vaccine you just need to be exposed to a small amount of the strain or inactive versions of the virus for your immune system to recognize that it doesn't belong and generate antibodies.

Kinda my point. I didn't say that flu vaccines don't work - i said that perhaps they are unnecessary and are actually making the situation worse over a long period of time - sort of like how giving everyone penicillin turned out to be a terrible idea. Flu vaccines work - but primarily (and perhaps only) for the types of flu they target. Like i said about the cold thing - it's pointless vaccinating against the cold since people will get it anyway and, as long as good cleanliness is followed by the population (which it currently isn't) then small amounts of virus will interact with each person's immune system - giving them immunity. However, we don't vaccinate against the flu, not because it isn't possible but because it's not effective.... i'm sure pharmaceutical companies would love to have more certified cold products on the market than they currently do so it's not like they wouldn't take advantage of that if it could be proven to work.

farley3k wrote:

I believe that she has a son with autism and felt he was cured by diet change etc. and I believe she feels it was brought on when he got a vaccine.

Interesting, so he was misdiagnosed, she blamed vaccines then credited 'diet' when he 'got better.'

The crazy thing is she could be half right. "Diet" is a very credible "cure" considering the things parents feed their kids these days.

Duoae wrote:

Kinda my point. I didn't say that flu vaccines don't work - i said that perhaps they are unnecessary and are actually making the situation worse over a long period of time - sort of like how giving everyone penicillin turned out to be a terrible idea. Flu vaccines work - but primarily (and perhaps only) for the types of flu they target. Like i said about the cold thing - it's pointless vaccinating against the cold since people will get it anyway and, as long as good cleanliness is followed by the population (which it currently isn't) then small amounts of virus will interact with each person's immune system - giving them immunity. However, we don't vaccinate against the flu, not because it isn't possible but because it's not effective.... i'm sure pharmaceutical companies would love to have more certified cold products on the market than they currently do so it's not like they wouldn't take advantage of that if it could be proven to work.

Giving people who were sick penicillin wasn't a bad idea. It saved millions of lives. I really wouldn't want to live in a world where a simple infection could kill you. Giving people who had a cold antibiotics just to shut their whiny asses up or feeding them to livestock by the handful was the terrible idea, as well as all the idiots who stop taking their full treatment of antibiotics because they feel better.

It's pointless vaccinating people against the cold because it's one mutating mofo. It simply isn't stable enough to find, type, and produce and distribute a vaccine before it mutates again, making the entire effort worthless. For the flu, it's different. The WHO and CDC have a pretty danged good track record of choosing which strain will emerge in the winter and give the vaccine manufacturers enough time to spin up production. They've only missed the call two times over the past 60 or so years which means that they're good at doing so and that the flu doesn't mutate anywhere as fast as colds do.

So, again, we back at the point where you either have believe that flus work on our immune system in an entirely different manner than every other disease or accept that flu vaccines are effective, but that we just don't know exactly how effective because of the types of studies done to date.

Minarchist wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

People *have* studied the efficacy of flu vaccines. It's just that Jefferson has a different interpretation of that data and has some criticisms on how the data was collected.

You make it sound so minor, but it's the difference between a scientific study and a bunch of hogwash. If the data isn't collected correctly, or isn't analyzed correctly, the study is no good.

An epidemiological study isn't a laboratory test. You're studying the population as a whole. That means you're either studying the case files of patients (which means you have to rely on the individual doctors who created the files for the data), comparing a sick population with a healthy population (which is a bit hard to do when one of your control population can catch the flu), or a long-term cohort study which you've already poo-pooed.

Even if you could do a widescale fully controlled test of a vaccine akin to the drug certification process all you would end up with is information about the effectiveness of the vaccine for one strain of the flu.

Minarchist wrote:

Why? Do you assume that every bacteria or virus is the same? Do we have vaccinations for diabetes, asthma, ebola, HIV, cancer, or even the common cold? If it was that easy, we would have stopped all suffering a long time ago. You can vaccinate against a handful of strains each year, when you have hundreds (maybe even thousands) to choose from. And even on the years when the CDC has guessed completely wrong, the sickness and death tolls didn't even budge. I can't assume that because my windshield can stop water from entering my car, that it could stop the sun, or a boulder. They're completely different things.

I'm not assuming every bacteria and virus is the same. I'm simply assuming that our immune system's response to them will be similar.

As Rallick pointed half the diseases you mentioned aren't caused by viruses or bacteria so they can't be vaccinated against. The common cold mutates like crazy, so it would be a lot of wasted effort to produce a vaccine that would no longer be effective. HIV is another virus famous for it's ability to quickly mutate, which is why the drug cocktails that used to be so effective at knocking it back are becoming increasingly less effective and also why we likely will never see a vaccine for HIV. As far as Ebola is concerned, the last I read there are several single strain vaccines available, promising animal tests on a vaccine good for multiple strains, and a drug treatment the Army was testing. But Ebola is an out-lier because it is exceptionally rare disease. It just grabs headlines because no one likes the idea of dying because their internal organs liquefy and you bleed from every orifice.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
farley3k wrote:

I believe that she has a son with autism and felt he was cured by diet change etc. and I believe she feels it was brought on when he got a vaccine.

Interesting, so he was misdiagnosed, she blamed vaccines then credited 'diet' when he 'got better.'

It wasn't just diet. She also subjected her son to chelation therapy, a potentially harmful (and in some rare cases even fatal) treatment for heavy metal poisoning. She recommends this procedure as a potential cure for autism.

muttonchop wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
farley3k wrote:

I believe that she has a son with autism and felt he was cured by diet change etc. and I believe she feels it was brought on when he got a vaccine.

Interesting, so he was misdiagnosed, she blamed vaccines then credited 'diet' when he 'got better.'

It wasn't just diet. She also subjected her son to chelation therapy, a potentially harmful (and in some rare cases even fatal) treatment for heavy metal poisoning. She recommends this procedure as a potential cure for autism.

I saw mention of that in her Wiki entry but didn't follow up.

Oh man, so a former Playboy model is recommending people poison their kids to 'cure' a neural disorder? That's whack.

OG_slinger wrote:

Giving people who were sick penicillin wasn't a bad idea. It saved millions of lives. I really wouldn't want to live in a world where a simple infection could kill you. Giving people who had a cold antibiotics just to shut their whiny asses up or feeding them to livestock by the handful was the terrible idea, as well as all the idiots who stop taking their full treatment of antibiotics because they feel better.

It's pointless vaccinating people against the cold because it's one mutating mofo. It simply isn't stable enough to find, type, and produce and distribute a vaccine before it mutates again, making the entire effort worthless. For the flu, it's different. The WHO and CDC have a pretty danged good track record of choosing which strain will emerge in the winter and give the vaccine manufacturers enough time to spin up production. They've only missed the call two times over the past 60 or so years which means that they're good at doing so and that the flu doesn't mutate anywhere as fast as colds do.

So, again, we back at the point where you either have believe that flus work on our immune system in an entirely different manner than every other disease or accept that flu vaccines are effective, but that we just don't know exactly how effective because of the types of studies done to date.

I really can't tell whether you're not understanding what i'm writing or are reading what you think i'm saying into what i wrote. Either way I think we're saying pretty similar things but from either end of the spectrum - as if you think i think that Flu works on our bodies in a different way and that vaccines don't work. I think we're done.

One point i should stress was that the wide-spread use of penicillin has become a good example of what not to do - hence my point in using it. I didn't feel the need to go into the nitty gritty because i wasn't advocating not giving sick people treatment. Please don't twist other people's words around to make their viewpoints appear "bad" when they're not.

If you are, or come into contact with, a small child (particularly infants) and/or seniors advanced in age, then you should get the flu vaccine. The flu can be deadly and develop into a life threatening case of pneumonia very quickly. It is not something to trifle with. I don't think adults "need" to get it, but the flu and the other diseases we vaccinate against are extremely deadly, particularly to at risk groups like infants and seniors.

Healthy adults may not need the vaccine, but it helps protect others around you who may not have a robust immune system.

That is really all I want to stress with my rantings. It is a civic duty, a solid for your fellow man, to get vaccinated. You will protect yourself, your family, and those you come into contact with. Vaccines have been a god send for public health. I can't say that enough. The only reason some people become flippant or ambivilant about it is that they have no concept of how dangerous these viruses really are. The only things on this Earth as deadly as viruses is war and genocide.

Duoae wrote:

One point i should stress was that the wide-spread use of penicillin has become a good example of what not to do - hence my point in using it. I didn't feel the need to go into the nitty gritty because i wasn't advocating not giving sick people treatment. Please don't twist other people's words around to make their viewpoints appear "bad" when they're not.

The problem with antibiotics is that people take them for viral infections when they are only for bacterial infections. They have not been overused, they have been misused.

That is also changing as the treatment paradigm is changing. Broad Spectrum is no longer the treatment of choice or a first option. Research is being focused on disease or individual tailored treatment. We may live to see a viral treatment developed from our own infected cells, scrubbed, and sent to work.

Thanks, Jenny McCarthy.

Kraint wrote:

I really hope that Wakefield and his collaborators get some old-school British justice (pike --> head).

Sadly, the wikipedia entry on Jenny McCarthy has been reverted. For a short while, it read:

... is an American adult model, comedian, actress, author, and activist/murderer whose ardent anti-vaccine quackery has doomed an unknown number of children to painful deaths by otherwise controllable diseases.

Oh, we know the numbers:

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.co...

Every parent who is caught "treating" their child(ren) with bleach should be forced into remedial parenting classes, subjected to mandatory random medical screenings to ensure no further treatments happen, and have their child(ren) removed if they are found to be continuing bleach "treatments".

That isn't freedom of religion. That's goddamned child abuse.

I first say this as a treatment for Crones that is popular in Continental Europe. There it is branded as miracle mineral spirits.

The only internal use of bleach I could condone is for emergency water purification and that is for 3-5 drops per litre or quart. Even then most people would say boil the water as your first recourse. I would even sun treat before I used bleach (at least six hours on a sunny day, a full 2 days on a cloudy day). For that all you need is a plastic water bottle or pop bottle. Just me helping you all survive the zombie apocalypse.

Farscry wrote:

Every parent who is caught "treating" their child(ren) with bleach should be forced into remedial parenting classes, subjected to mandatory random medical screenings to ensure no further treatments happen, and have their child(ren) removed if they are found to be continuing bleach "treatments".

That isn't freedom of religion. That's goddamned child abuse.

They should be immediately arrested. Immediately, no pause, no question, and treated the same as a parent who was going to give their child Drano for fun.

KingGorilla wrote:

I first say this as a treatment for Crones that is popular in Continental Europe. There it is branded as miracle mineral spirits.

Wat. I have Crohn's, who the f*cking f*ck came up with this, and does anyone have a home address so I can treat their idiocy with a hammer?

Also, I found out recently that some friends of mine are in the anti-vacc camp. I'm curious to see what their reaction will be when they start getting banned from events our group of friends has because of this(most of the group has children, 0-3 years, now). I haven't had an opportunity to talk to them in person since I found out about this, but I am rather tempted to sit them down for a full lecture on how science works the next time I see them.

What is troubling to me is we may reach a point where government if not military intervention will be needed. Left unchecked we are sewing the seeds for the next smallpox type epidemic.

I would hope for legislative intervention prior to that point. Because I am not relishing the prospect of seeing the army putting men, women, and children into quarantine because people are too stupid to get a free vaccine.

As most of you are pretty aware, I'm quite libertarian, and I absolutely support the idea of forcing vaccination on people, at gunpoint if necessary. Refusing vaccination without an excellent medical reason.... even Ayn Rand would, I think, call that person a parasite. It's refusing a tiny, tiny risk, a tiny fraction of actually catching the disease we're vaccinating for, and externalizing the costs onto all of society. Absolutely unacceptable behavior.

Yeah but Rand called everyone a parasite!

At gun point? That's pretty damn harsh. Aren't there better non-violent methods to go with first?

Edwin wrote:

At gun point? That's pretty damn harsh. Aren't there better non-violent methods to go with first?

I don't think we should be putting guns on our own citizenry unless they are committing acts of violence. Vaccines should be required by law and the state should be able to punish parents who refuse to get them with imprisonment and forcibly give the vaccine to the child.

Edwin wrote:

At gun point? That's pretty damn harsh. Aren't there better non-violent methods to go with first?

Any form of requirement is at gun point if you're libertarian.

All of these nutters that are anti vaccines make me mad. I have high functioning autism but when I was a kid we were much poorer and diagnosing it and if I were a kid today there would have been support for me and my parents as i went through the school system. instead, i got glorious teachers calling me lazy, stupid, and questioning even if i'll graduate from high school.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Edwin wrote:

At gun point? That's pretty damn harsh. Aren't there better non-violent methods to go with first?

Any form of requirement is at gun point if you're libertarian.

Don't make me philosophical. You wouldn't like me when I'm philosophical. ; D

Ulairi wrote:
Edwin wrote:

At gun point? That's pretty damn harsh. Aren't there better non-violent methods to go with first?

I don't think we should be putting guns on our own citizenry unless they are committing acts of violence. Vaccines should be required by law and the state should be able to punish parents who refuse to get them with imprisonment and forcibly give the vaccine to the child.

I would consider not getting vaccinated as a form of biological violence to the rest of the populace.

I would consider not getting vaccinated as a form of biological terrorism to the rest of the populace.

FIXED to use contemporary buzz words.