[Teutatis]

(03-28-2014 01:24 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

Also off the top of my head, if you get the flu shot annually for a number of years (I forget how many) your risk of dementia in your old age increases eight-fold or ten-fold (I forget which).

I really don't care of what you can remember off the top of your head, show me a credible source with the percentage of the population that becomes ill from vaccines and another that shows that risk of dementia increases with vaccination.

And by credible I mean, not Dr. Mercola.

[Tail Gunner]

(03-28-2014 12:42 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

It's hilarious that the world's medical community is wrong, the government is wrong, the drug companies are wrong, the scientists are wrong, basically everyone is wrong, except those lone voices of dissent who are obviously right, they know the truth that everyone else doesn't, they're the ones who we should listen to, but what are their credentials and why should we listen to them?

The very definition of blue pill thinking. At one time, all these same groups thought that the Earth was flat.

Ironically, at the same time, the bible described "the circle of the earth." People need to question everything and think outside the box.

[Tail Gunner]

(03-28-2014 01:33 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

and another that shows that risk of dementia increases with vaccination.

Quote:

ACCORDING TO HUGH FUDENBURG, MD - the world's leading immunogenetisit and 13th most quoted biologist of our time (nearly 850 papers in peer review journals) - If an individual has had 5 consecutive flu shots between 1970 - 1980 (the years of the study) his/her chance of developing Alzheimer's Disease is 10 times greater than if they had 1, two or no shots. When asked why Dr. Fudenberg stated that it is due to the mercury and aluminum buildup that is in EVERY flu shot (and in almost all childhood shots). The gradual mercury and aluminum buildup in the brain causes cognitive dysfunction. ALZHEIMERS is now expected to QUADRUPLE.

Dr. Fudenberg's comments are from his speech at the NVIC International Vaccine Conference, Arlington VA September, 1997.
Alzheimers to quadruple statement is from the John's Hopkins Newsletter of November 1998.

http://www.rense.com/general45/tentimes.htm

[clever alias]

amount if mercury in a flu shot = 1 microgram
amount if mercury in a can of tuna = .6 micrograms
two things here 1) that is a quote not backed by any evidence. he just said it. and 2) he had his license revoked in the wake of the MMR scandal.
so hes talking out his ass

[gringochileno]

I've resisted posting anything further here because anti-vaccination views are so thoroughly disproved that they're more deserving of dismissal and ridicule than substantive engagement (similarly to how I feel about debating creationists), but I'll just note that when serious researchers talk about "credible sources" they typically mean the peer-reviewed literature that you can find in scientific journals. For instance, studies like this one:

http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(...3/fulltext

abstract Wrote:

Objective
To evaluate the association between autism and the level of immunologic stimulation received from vaccines administered during the first 2 years of life.

Study design
We analyzed data from a case-control study conducted in 3 managed care organizations (MCOs) of 256 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 752 control children matched on birth year, sex, and MCO. In addition to the broader category of ASD, we also evaluated autistic disorder and ASD with regression. ASD diagnoses were validated through standardized in-person evaluations. Exposure to total antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides from vaccines was determined by summing the antigen content of each vaccine received, as obtained from immunization registries and medical records. Potential confounding factors were ascertained from parent interviews and medical charts. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess associations between ASD outcomes and exposure to antigens in selected time periods.

Results
The aOR (95% CI) of ASD associated with each 25-unit increase in total antigen exposure was 0.999 (0.994-1.003) for cumulative exposure to age 3 months, 0.999 (0.997-1.001) for cumulative exposure to age 7 months, and 0.999 (0.998-1.001) for cumulative exposure to age 2 years. Similarly, no increased risk was found for autistic disorder or ASD with regression.

Conclusion
In this study of MCO members, increasing exposure to antibody-stimulating proteins and polysaccharides in vaccines during the first 2 years of life was not related to the risk of developing an ASD.

If you go on Pubmed and actually search the literature for studies looking for links between vaccines and autism or other serious adverse effects, you'll find lots more well-conducted studies that fail to find such an association. Believing that it is a good idea not to vaccinate your children is as irrational as believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old, but significantly more harmful since it directly endangers the health of both those children and those around them (as you begin to lose the effects of herd immunity). This "issue" is about as open-and-shut as they come.

Of course, this will convince no one since opposition to vaccinations, like creationism, is not the sort of belief that is based on rational evaluation of the evidence. Hence why it's more useful to ridicule and marginalize these people than debate them.

[Vroom]

If some or all vaccinations are harmful, my kids will be spared the ill effects.
If they are not, my kids are still protected by herd immunity.

Either way - we win.

I'd like to thank all the human guinea pigs out there who did get their shots, for subjecting themselves to risks so that my kids don't have to.

[Alpharius]

(03-29-2014 01:12 AM)Vroom Wrote:  

If some or all vaccinations are harmful, my kids will be spared the ill effects.
If they are not, my kids are still protected by herd immunity.

Either way - we win.

I'd like to thank all the human guinea pigs out there who did get their shots, for subjecting themselves to risks so that my kids don't have to.

I don't know what it's like in Australia, but in the US most pre-k, k-12, and universities require immunizations prior to enrollment.

[Vroom]

(03-29-2014 07:01 AM)Osiris Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 01:12 AM)Vroom Wrote:  

If some or all vaccinations are harmful, my kids will be spared the ill effects.
If they are not, my kids are still protected by herd immunity.

Either way - we win.

I'd like to thank all the human guinea pigs out there who did get their shots, for subjecting themselves to risks so that my kids don't have to.

I don't know what it's like in Australia, but in the US most pre-k, k-12, and universities require immunizations prior to enrollment.

Nah, we just had to sign a conscientious objectors form.

[Tail Gunner]

(03-29-2014 08:28 AM)Vroom Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 07:01 AM)Osiris Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 01:12 AM)Vroom Wrote:  

If some or all vaccinations are harmful, my kids will be spared the ill effects.
If they are not, my kids are still protected by herd immunity.

Either way - we win.

I'd like to thank all the human guinea pigs out there who did get their shots, for subjecting themselves to risks so that my kids don't have to.

I don't know what it's like in Australia, but in the US most pre-k, k-12, and universities require immunizations prior to enrollment.

Nah, we just had to sign a conscientious objectors form.

It is the same in the U.S.

Quote:

There are personal, religious, medical, and proof of immunity exemptions and they vary by state. All 50 states have medical exemptions and all but Mississippi and West Virginia have medical exemptions and 18 states have personal exemptions based on personal preference and philosophy.

http://www.wikihow.com/Opt-out-of-Vaccin...Your-Child

[Teutatis]

(03-28-2014 01:35 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 12:42 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

It's hilarious that the world's medical community is wrong, the government is wrong, the drug companies are wrong, the scientists are wrong, basically everyone is wrong, except those lone voices of dissent who are obviously right, they know the truth that everyone else doesn't, they're the ones who we should listen to, but what are their credentials and why should we listen to them?

The very definition of blue pill thinking. At one time, all these same groups thought that the Earth was flat.

Yes, I'm blue pill, or whatever cute meme you want to use. I have a dark veil covering my eyes from the truth of the world. I'm so happy free thinkers like you exist to show us the real truth.

Quote:

People need to question everything and think outside the box.

Your use of trite cliches has made me realize how wrong I was.

[Teutatis]

(03-29-2014 01:12 AM)Vroom Wrote:  

If some or all vaccinations are harmful, my kids will be spared the ill effects.
If they are not, my kids are still protected by herd immunity.

Either way - we win.

I'd like to thank all the human guinea pigs out there who did get their shots, for subjecting themselves to risks so that my kids don't have to.

Sure, until the day one of your kids contracts not a contagious but an infectious disease, or when your kids get in contact with some other unvaccinated kid and contracts it, or when more and more people like you decide to opt out of vaccination and immunity threshold, which is different for different diseases, breaks down and you get outbreaks of the disease, something that is happening right now, in our modern world. Diseases that had been eradicated are returning because of anti vaccination movements. You win indeed.

[clever alias]

yeah, steo on a dirty ir piece if glass and tetnis.
look, i get the whole "question everything" i really do. but this isnt how to ne a nice guy. this is empirical science.rhat can and was tested and you just dismiss hundreds if researxhers and dozens of organizations in favor of someone like mercola, who has no rwsearch to support his claims: all he dies is blame bug pharma and market.his own drugs on unsubstantiated claims, which btw go to pay for his huge ass house.
its literally the same as.if i just claimed the pythagorean theorem of calculus was wrong because "its just mainstream.academia blowing smoke"

[Vroom]

(03-29-2014 11:58 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 01:12 AM)Vroom Wrote:  

If some or all vaccinations are harmful, my kids will be spared the ill effects.
If they are not, my kids are still protected by herd immunity.

Either way - we win.

I'd like to thank all the human guinea pigs out there who did get their shots, for subjecting themselves to risks so that my kids don't have to.

Sure, until the day one of your kids contracts not a contagious but an infectious disease, or when your kids get in contact with some other unvaccinated kid and contracts it, or when more and more people like you decide to opt out of vaccination and immunity threshold, which is different for different diseases, breaks down and you get outbreaks of the disease, something that is happening right now, in our modern world. Diseases that had been eradicated are returning because of anti vaccination movements. You win indeed.

Well you're protected, so what are you worried about? Not losing your faith are you?

[Tail Gunner]

(03-29-2014 02:35 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

this is empirical science.rhat can and was tested and you just dismiss hundreds if researxhers and dozens of organizations

You are doing exactly the same thing. Thousands of doctors oppose vaccines. There is no definitive answer. There is no good versus evil.

This conversation just proves that people prefer a simple lie to a complex truth. They would rather use their mouths than their cognitive abilities.

[Teutatis]

(03-29-2014 05:59 PM)Vroom Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:58 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 01:12 AM)Vroom Wrote:  

If some or all vaccinations are harmful, my kids will be spared the ill effects.
If they are not, my kids are still protected by herd immunity.

Either way - we win.

I'd like to thank all the human guinea pigs out there who did get their shots, for subjecting themselves to risks so that my kids don't have to.

Sure, until the day one of your kids contracts not a contagious but an infectious disease, or when your kids get in contact with some other unvaccinated kid and contracts it, or when more and more people like you decide to opt out of vaccination and immunity threshold, which is different for different diseases, breaks down and you get outbreaks of the disease, something that is happening right now, in our modern world. Diseases that had been eradicated are returning because of anti vaccination movements. You win indeed.

Well you're protected, so what are you worried about? Not losing your faith are you?

No way you can be this dense.

[Vroom]

(03-29-2014 06:49 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 05:59 PM)Vroom Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 11:58 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 01:12 AM)Vroom Wrote:  

If some or all vaccinations are harmful, my kids will be spared the ill effects.
If they are not, my kids are still protected by herd immunity.

Either way - we win.

I'd like to thank all the human guinea pigs out there who did get their shots, for subjecting themselves to risks so that my kids don't have to.

Sure, until the day one of your kids contracts not a contagious but an infectious disease, or when your kids get in contact with some other unvaccinated kid and contracts it, or when more and more people like you decide to opt out of vaccination and immunity threshold, which is different for different diseases, breaks down and you get outbreaks of the disease, something that is happening right now, in our modern world. Diseases that had been eradicated are returning because of anti vaccination movements. You win indeed.

Well you're protected, so what are you worried about? Not losing your faith are you?

No way you can be this dense.

yeah, well I would have thought the same thing about people who think that diseases which have been eradicated suddenly spring back into being, yet here we are.

By that principle, we must also be ever vigilant so as to not let Tyrannosaurus Rex, or sabre toothed tigers make a return.

[Teutatis]

(03-29-2014 06:39 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 02:35 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

this is empirical science.rhat can and was tested and you just dismiss hundreds if researxhers and dozens of organizations

You are doing exactly the same thing. Thousands of doctors oppose vaccines. There is no definitive answer. There is no good versus evil.

This conversation just proves that people prefer a simple lie to a complex truth. They would rather use their mouths than their cognitive abilities.

Wrong wrong wrong, there IS a definitive answer, which is, vaccines are safe and work, and the people who would rather believe in fairy tales and simple lies is you, not everyone else.

This debate has become too dumb, I'm not posting anything else on this thread because it's a waste of time, I'm just sorry to know some people on this planet will become unnecessarily ill due to the stupidity of the anti vaccination movement and people like Mercola and his idiotic followers who keep making him rich by buying his useless crap.

[Tail Gunner]

(03-29-2014 06:58 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 06:39 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(03-29-2014 02:35 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

this is empirical science.rhat can and was tested and you just dismiss hundreds if researxhers and dozens of organizations

You are doing exactly the same thing. Thousands of doctors oppose vaccines. There is no definitive answer. There is no good versus evil.

This conversation just proves that people prefer a simple lie to a complex truth. They would rather use their mouths than their cognitive abilities.

Wrong wrong wrong, there IS a definitive answer, which is, vaccines are safe and work, and the people who would rather believe in fairy tales and simple lies is you, not everyone else.

It is also an unassailable fact that a certain percentage of people who get vaccinated either die from the vaccine or get the disease that the vaccine was supposed to prevent.

Your problem is that you fail to see any balance between the risks and rewards, because you are blinded by your own self-righteousness. You should fear such a mindset, as it will not make your life an easy one.

[Walderschmidt]

I really like this thread and the discussion that's been going on. So, to throw more fuel into the fire:

Quote:

PRO: A 2007 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association compared the annual average number of cases and resulting deaths of various diseases before the advent of vaccines to those occurring in 2006. Before an effective diphtheria vaccine was developed in the 1930s, for example, the disease infected about 21,000 people in the United States each year, killing 1,800. By 2006 both numbers were zero. Polio, too, went from deadly (16,000 cases, 1,900 deaths) to non-existent after vaccines were rolled out in the 1950s and 1960s. Chickenpox used to infect 4 million kids a year, hospitalize 11,000, and kill 105; within a decade of a vaccine being rolled out in the mid-1990s, infections had dropped to 600,000, resulting in 1,276 hospitalizations and 19 deaths. Similar dramatic results can be found with whooping cough, measles, rubella, and more.

CON: Judging from what one reads and hears in the popular media, it is easy to conclude that the science is settled, that the benefits of each vaccine clearly outweigh the risks, and that vaccinations have played the critical role in the decline of deaths due to infectious diseases such as measles, whooping cough, and diphtheria, all of which claimed many lives in the past.

However even a cursory look at the available data quickly reveals that the mortality from almost all infectious disease was in steep decline well before the introduction of vaccination or antibiotics. Diphtheria mortality had fallen 60 percent by the time vaccination was introduced in the 1920s, deaths from pertussis/whooping cough had declined by 98 percent before vaccination was introduced in the late 1940s, measles mortality had dropped 98 percent from its peak in the U.S. by the time measles inoculation was introduced in 1963-and by an impressive 99.96 percent in England when measles vaccination was introduced in 1968. In 1960 there were 380 deaths from measles among a U.S. population of 180,671,000, a rate of 0.24 deaths per 100,000.

The takeaway here is that vaccination played a very minor role in the steep decline in mortality due to infectious disease during the late 19th century and early to mid- 20th century. Improved living standards, better nutrition, sanitary sewage disposal, clean water, and less crowded living conditions all played crucial roles.

What do y'all think about that? A similar argument has been used with the drinking age debate in how car deaths had been decreasing since 1969 due to the introduction of the seat belt a long time before National Minumum Drinking Age (NMDA) Act of 1984.

~Wald

Hat Tip: Vox Day

[Thomas the Rhymer]

(04-01-2014 10:48 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

I really like this thread and the discussion that's been going on. So, to throw more fuel into the fire:

Quote:

PRO: A 2007 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association compared the annual average number of cases and resulting deaths of various diseases before the advent of vaccines to those occurring in 2006. Before an effective diphtheria vaccine was developed in the 1930s, for example, the disease infected about 21,000 people in the United States each year, killing 1,800. By 2006 both numbers were zero. Polio, too, went from deadly (16,000 cases, 1,900 deaths) to non-existent after vaccines were rolled out in the 1950s and 1960s. Chickenpox used to infect 4 million kids a year, hospitalize 11,000, and kill 105; within a decade of a vaccine being rolled out in the mid-1990s, infections had dropped to 600,000, resulting in 1,276 hospitalizations and 19 deaths. Similar dramatic results can be found with whooping cough, measles, rubella, and more.

CON: Judging from what one reads and hears in the popular media, it is easy to conclude that the science is settled, that the benefits of each vaccine clearly outweigh the risks, and that vaccinations have played the critical role in the decline of deaths due to infectious diseases such as measles, whooping cough, and diphtheria, all of which claimed many lives in the past.

However even a cursory look at the available data quickly reveals that the mortality from almost all infectious disease was in steep decline well before the introduction of vaccination or antibiotics. Diphtheria mortality had fallen 60 percent by the time vaccination was introduced in the 1920s, deaths from pertussis/whooping cough had declined by 98 percent before vaccination was introduced in the late 1940s, measles mortality had dropped 98 percent from its peak in the U.S. by the time measles inoculation was introduced in 1963-and by an impressive 99.96 percent in England when measles vaccination was introduced in 1968. In 1960 there were 380 deaths from measles among a U.S. population of 180,671,000, a rate of 0.24 deaths per 100,000.

The takeaway here is that vaccination played a very minor role in the steep decline in mortality due to infectious disease during the late 19th century and early to mid- 20th century. Improved living standards, better nutrition, sanitary sewage disposal, clean water, and less crowded living conditions all played crucial roles.

What do y'all think about that? A similar argument has been used with the drinking age debate in how car deaths had been decreasing since 1969 due to the introduction of the seat belt a long time before National Minumum Drinking Age (NMDA) Act of 1984.

~Wald

Hat Tip: Vox Day

It was a bit of a nuisance to find the actual article, but here it is: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...eid=209448

The actual article says nothing about falling rates of disease before vaccine introduction. I was under the impression from the above quote that all the numbers are from the same article, but the numbers given about declining rates of disease before vaccine introduction are not there.

I don't know where the author got those numbers from, and it's difficult to believe that we have accurate statistics for diseases from before the vaccine era (1920's). A number of reasons could be responsible for the 'fall' in diagnoses - perhaps a shift away from guesstimates to actual data collection, or the increasing standards in medical education led to better diagnoses rather than a doctor thumbsucking out a common illness whenever he was stumped. Without knowing how the heck they collected their data the late 1800's to 1920, we can't make firm conclusions; it would be helpful if the author of the quote could explain where he got his numbers from, then I could critique his source directly.

[Alpharius]

The Onion ran an article that pretty much sums up this whole thread.

Quote:

The anti-vaccination movement has grown increasingly vocal in recent years, with a variety of organizations and public figures attempting to convince parents that immunizing their children presents more risks than benefits. Here are the cases for and against vaccinating children:

PROS

* Helps out pharmaceutical industry
* Get to puncture child with needle
* Old family syringe shop depends on it
* Habituates children to the pain of existence
* Flies in face of science by discrediting single unanimously refuted paper from 10 years ago
* Healthier children equals friendlier waiters at Chili’s down the line
Could save a few million children’s lives

CONS

* You have to go to a place
* Chance of developing autism 100 percent
* Puts the onus of character-building entirely on sports
* Without suffering through diphtheria, the flu, and measles, American children will become effete, pampered do-nothings
* Free lollipops promote unhealthy eating habits
* Child won’t get to be kindergarten’s Typhoid Mary
* Bullies parents into slavishly following actions recommended by decades of physicians’ peer-reviewed research that establishes an irrefutable scientific consensus

[Walderschmidt]

The Only Vaccination I can Truly Get Behind

Wald

[Faust]

So this has taken on an interesting twist.
A few days ago there was a post on Vox Day about an allegation that a 2004 study that showed a link between autism and the MMR vaccine in black babies deliberately misrepresented its data (That is, it lied about its findings and said that there was no link between autism and the vaccine, when there actually was one.) I glanced at the study, but the technical language was over my head and, not being a black baby or planning to have any black babies any time soon, I honestly didn't care too much. Accusations like this pop up from time to time, and nothing usually comes of them. Like many of you here, I'm not inclined to believe conspiracy theories, and I like to think that most people aren't outright evil.

Well...

Yesterday, the author of the original 2004 paper, who is a CDC employee, published a press release on his lawyer's website. In his press release, he comes out and admits that the charges are true. The CDC intentionally concealed data showing a link between vaccines and autism.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

This does not necessarily mean that the MMR vaccine gives you autism. It does, however, mean that the government is intentionally concealing data that suggests a link. Which is... concerning, on any number of levels. Score one for the conspiracy theorists, I guess.

[TheWastelander]

I'm a pro-vaccination conspiracy theorist. I have a sneaking suspicion that the anti-vaccination movement is being secretly funded and pushed by psychopathic left-wing environmentalist Malthusians who want a lot of people to die.



On topic:

That Onion article is hilarious.

[jamaicabound]

My thought is this. Vaccines are why we got rid of diseases like polio and other crazy shit that killed tons of people in previous generations. In that sense vaccines are good and worth the risk.

On the flip side if you look at the "ingredients" or things in vaccines there's some pretty terrible shit in there. Also, though no concrete evidence necessarily there's some causality to at least suggest maybe they can cause other problems.

I think for things like polio and other things of course we should get vaccinated, for something like chicken pox I'd probably say fuckit, I'd prefer to put less shit in my kids bodies and chicken pox isn't going to kill them, I'll roll the dice and chance them getting chicken pox but polio, nope.

SOmething else interesting, as long as it's a very small minority who don't have vaccines does it really matter for them? I mean if one kid in a school doesn't have a vaccine but everyone else does where is he gonna catch polio from?