Vaccinations thread.

[Scaff]

@Scaff No. You know what I meant. It wasn't a threat. Probably should have had a ? after it.

No I don't know what you mean, which is why I asked the question.

What you should probably do is actually explain what you mean.

Fortunately it will be distributed through Cinema Libre.

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/vaxxed-anti-vaccine-documentary-cinema-libre-1201741603/

Cinema Libre Chairman Philippe Diaz said in a statement, “We chose to distribute this film to correct a major issue, which is the suppression of medical data by a governmental agency that may very well be contributing to a significant health crisis. The media storm of last week also revealed another issue; the hyper mediatization by some members of the media and the documentary community who had not even seen the film, as well as Tribeca executives, which condemned it as anti-vaccine.”

Diaz also asserted that neither the film not Wakefield are anti-vaccine.

I am more than open to watching the film, but unless Wakefield has changed a great deal it will most likely be the same unproved noise and/or biased interpretation of data that he has been pedaling for the last two decades.

I of course expect them to be providing peer reviewed studies to support the claims made in the film of a link between MMR and autism, it will be needed given the million plus subject studies that have shown no link at all.

“Wakefield’s concern for the last twenty years has been about making sure that vaccines are safe for children,” he added. “This is why we decided to release the film now rather than as originally planned later in the year.”

No, Wakesfields concern for the last 20 years has been making money, that's how he started down this route and it has clearly been his focus even since. If his concern had been child safety he would not have subjected 12 of them to unneeded invasive medical examinations to try and justify a fraudulent paper in an attempt to sell his own MMR vaccine.

BTW - Are you ever going to answer the questions you have asked.

 

[x3ra]

No I don't know what you mean, which is why I asked the question.

What you should probably do is actually explain what you mean.

BTW - Are you ever going to answer the questions you have asked.

Surely you mean the questions asked of me or asked by you, but not answer the questions I have asked. See we all make mistakes, refreshing to have some one be so nice about it though.

I of course expect them to be providing peer reviewed studies to support the claims made in the film of a link between MMR and autism, it will be needed given the million plus subject studies that have shown no link at all.

So do I, and if there is evidence then you will have missed it.

No, Wakesfields concern for the last 20 years has been making money,

Fact or opinion? Citation possibly needed. His evidence may be wrong, but the pharma industry makes a whole lot more.

that's how he started down this route and it has clearly been his focus even since. If his concern had been child safety he would not have subjected 12 of them to unneeded invasive medical examinations to try and justify a fraudulent paper in an attempt to sell his own MMR vaccine.

BTW - Are you ever going to answer the questions you have asked.

Yes.

The article regarding mercury was of little use, there were no relevant figures appertaining to what quantities are officially damaging, and no figures concerning the amounts in the doses. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean that it doesn't prove that there is anything dangerous about vaccines. It could be correct, but there is no evidence proving it.

Is this graph wrong?
http://goo.gl/2TpWUv

Can you find me a graph which disproves this that you would consider to be of peer-review quality?


Let me ask you a question. What causes autism? If you don't know, then maybe you could tell me what you think causes autism?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-376203/Former-science-chief-MMR-fears-coming-true.html

"
Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, "the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history".

He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents' lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see.(So there is information that we are being denied, that you Scaff, are being denied, you should be disgusted -x3ra)

He said he has seen a "steady accumulation of evidence" from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.

But he added: "There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves."

 

[Scaff]

Surely you mean the questions asked of me or asked by you, but not answer the questions I have asked. See we all make mistakes, refreshing to have some one be so nice about it though.

So your back to quote mining and deliberately changing what has been said by people.

You have merged two totally different parts of my post to suggest a different meaning. This is not the first time you have done so, but it is the last, do so again and your gone, the AUP is quite clear of deliberately miss-leading posts.

However I do have a very specific question to re-ask you:

So you saw that yet you posted without it and then claimed he agreed with you?

That leaves us with two options:

1. You did as you say and in doing so deliberately changed the meaning of a quote to suit your own purposes (that's deliberately misleading and an AUP violation).
2. You didn't read it correctly or you misunderstood it and you are attempting to back track by being deliberately misleading (still an AUP violation).

So which is it?

Oh and for the record, as you have clearly demonstrated a pattern of quote-mining and changing the meaning of sources, then yes you will need to post all of the context from sources, and provide a direct link to the actual source (in part because I'm getting rather tired of doing it for you).

I asked it before and you disappeared, it was not however forgotten, make an answer to it the very next post you make.

So do I, and if there is evidence then you will have missed it.

How will I have missed it? A peer reviewed paper of that magnitude would be impossible to miss, and if it exists you will have no problem providing details of it.

Fact or opinion? Citation possibly needed. His evidence may be wrong, but the pharma industry makes a whole lot more.

Based in fact, Wakefield's original fraudulent paper and the background to it. Are you seriously claiming that the BMJ case did not take place, or that the paper was shown to be fraudulent didn't happen, or that he was not shown to have been acting on behalf of a legal firm targeting the MMR vaccine or that he was not developing a rival product? Hell it wasn't even the first time he'd tried to do it!

Yes.

The article regarding mercury was of little use, there were no relevant figures appertaining to what quantities are officially damaging, and no figures concerning the amounts in the doses. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean that it doesn't prove that there is anything dangerous about vaccines. It could be correct, but there is no evidence proving it.

Really?

Then you totally missed the point of the article.

No vaccine has ever contained Mercury!

They did (almost none do now) Ethyl(2-mercaptobenzoato-(2-)-O,S) mercurate(1-) sodium, a Mercury compound (which is totally different), the LD50 for which is 75 mg/kg. The maximum amount contained in a dose was/is 50 µg, which is 0.05mg, you would need to take 1,500 doses per kilo of body weight to hit the LD50 amount!

Oh and no it doesn't bio-accumulate, but has a half life in the body of circa 14 days.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#Toxicology (almost every reference at the bottom is peer reviewed)
http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/thiomersal/questions/en/
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=convert+50+µg+to+mgs&ia=answer

Is this graph wrong?
http://goo.gl/2TpWUv

I don't know!

That depends on what data was used to create it and what you are attempting to say it proves?

Without context its worthless (but given the source I can guess).

Can you find me a graph which disproves this that you would consider to be of peer-review quality?

As above. I would be more than happy to discuss your (non-peer reviewed, zero context) graph once I know what the hell you are using it to show!

Let me ask you a question. What causes autism? If you don't know, then maybe you could tell me what you think causes autism?

We don't yet know for sure (which is itself not an invitation to make crap up), however a strong body of evidence shows genetic links and mutation (and no part of a vaccine is going to alter you DNA).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2756414
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181906/


However what we do know is that across a wide range of studies that have looked at millions of subjects, not a single link to MMR has been found.
http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/MMRUK.html
https://www.autismspeaks.org/scienc...ms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-376203/Former-science-chief-MMR-fears-coming-true.html

"
Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, "the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history".

He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents' lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see.(So there is information that we are being denied, that you Scaff, are being denied, you should be disgusted -x3ra)

He said he has seen a "steady accumulation of evidence" from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.

But he added: "There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves."

And the evidence he supplies to support this is?

Oh and I do like the added claim that evidence is being suppressed (added by you), if this was presented by parent's lawyers then its not being suppressed is it!

You also failed to know (or omitted to mention) that he is a long term supporter of Andrew Wakefield, having written an open letter with him back in 2006 (saying the exact same thing - its amazing that in the decade since he's not provided one thing to support these claims).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

One-time anti-vaxxer recounts her horror at infecting her daughter with whooping cough:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-...sion-to-reject-whooping-cough-vaccine/7301836

 

[x3ra]

VAXXED - From Cover-up to Catastophe. Now available on youtube.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

VAXXED - From Cover-up to Catastophe.

Written and directed by Andrew Wakefield, who has been repeatedly discredited by the medical and scientific communities for his claims about the link between vaccinations and autism.

 

[Scaff]

VAXXED - From Cover-up to Catastophe. Now available on youtube.

Look at the quality of that peer reviewed material.

Oh wait..............

 

[TenEightyOne]

VAXXED - From Cover-up to Catastophe. Now available on youtube.

Which are the main point of that video that you feel are of the most interest? I'll confess that at over an hour I didn't watch it.

You'll find lots of references in this thread to the corrupt work of Andrew Wakefield, a former (now barred) doctor who had a strong financial interest in creating a particular (and seemingly non-replicable) outcome in his study, they might prove to be interesting reading for you.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Which are the main point of that video that you feel are of the most interest? I'll confess that at over an hour I didn't watch it.

It's an hour and a half of Wakefield trying to make out that his claims about vaccines were suppressed by a conspiracy between pharmaceutical companies and the FDA. He cites a "whistleblower" within the CDC as offering proof of this because of a report where data was deliberately omitted. However, a quick Google search reveals that the whistleblower never actually came forward and many of his conversations included in the film were recorded without his knowledge or consent, and several of them were edited during post-production. As for the data that was omitted, it was omitted because it was anomalous and the CDC had reason to believe that it was not actually collected properly.

The rest of the film is Wakefield defending himself by attacking his critics without any substance and data presented without context. The only reason that it wasn't the most embarrassing documentary of 2016 is because Dinesh D'Souza made Hilary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.

 

[x3ra]

Don't watch it then. There are three types of vaccine people, non-believers, believers and those who have a brain.

 

[Scaff]

I've watched it, nothing new, just the same old doctored interviews and misinterpreted data.

Don't watch it then. There are three types of vaccine people, non-believers, believers and those who have a brain.

Which are you then, given that you struggle to demonstrate almost any degree of critical analysis or understanding of the scientific method.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There are three types of vaccine people, non-believers, believers and those who have a brain.

The more I think about that statement the funnier it gets.

 

[Imari]

Don't watch it then. There are three types of vaccine people, non-believers, believers and those who have a brain.

Mate, you're shopping Andrew Wakefield. I don't think that speaks particularly well of your skills of critical analysis.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

There are three types of vaccine people, non-believers, believers and those who have a brain.

As a person with a brain, I will continue to be sceptical of unsubstantiated claims that vaccinations cause autism until such time as I see empirical, peer-reviewed data that proves the case.

 

[Johnnypenso]

As a person with a brain, I will continue to be sceptical of unsubstantiated claims that vaccinations cause autism until such time as I see empirical, peer-reviewed data that proves the case.

You don't normally need peer reviewed, empirical data to leap to broad, unsupportable conclusions. Why the change?

 

[Scaff]

You don't normally need peer reviewed, empirical data to leap to broad, unsupportable conclusions. Why the change?

I don't think that the claim vaccines and autism have no link is a broad unsupportable claim (unless you have some new evidence to bring to the table), and you appear to be simply using this as an opportunity to make a personal attack.

Play the ball, not the man.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

There's also a distinct difference between expressing a purely political opinion in a discussion forum, and using empirical and peer-reviewed evidence to make an informed decision with the potential to affect the life of an infant. It's not so much a case of comparing apples and oranges as it is comparing apples and giraffes.

 

[x3ra]

Never argue with a man who buys his ink by the bucketful. If you've watched the video and have any specific disagreements about what is being said in the video then please bring them on.

 

[Famine]

Never argue with a man who buys his ink by the bucketful.

What?

 

[Scaff]

Never argue with a man who buys his ink by the bucketful. If you've watched the video and have any specific disagreements about what is being said in the video then please bring them on.

It's written by a man who has a track record of lying about this very subject for personal gain, it lies about the FDA and presents no peer reviewed evidence to support it's claim at all.

As a counter one of the largest meta studies every conducted shows no link at all between MMR and autism.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If you've watched the video and have any specific disagreements about what is being said in the video then please bring them on.

Let's start with everything and go from there.

 

[x3ra]

What?

http://www.adweek.com/digital/ink-by-the-barrel-on-the-internet/


18000 posts --62 days at 5 mins careful consideration per post
56000 posts -- 194 days --"-----"------"

Lot of ink !!

 

[Famine]

http://www.adweek.com/digital/ink-by-the-barrel-on-the-internet/


18000 posts --62 days at 5 mins careful consideration per post
56000 posts -- 194 days --"-----"------"

Lot of ink !!

What does any of that have to do with Andrew "The Liar" Wakefield?

 

[Scaff]

What does any of that have to do with Andrew "The Liar" Wakefield?

He's crying conspiracy again.

 

[Pupik]

Never argue with a man who buys his ink by the bucketful.

http://www.adweek.com/digital/ink-by-the-barrel-on-the-internet/


18000 posts --62 days at 5 mins careful consideration per post
56000 posts -- 194 days --"-----"------"

Lot of ink !!

Are you implying your words are next to meaningless, then? If so, we've come to the conclusion months ago.

Please have your pets spayed and neutered, and ask for the family plan.

 

[Famine]

Please have your pets spayed and neutered

... but not vaccinated.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Never argue with a man who buys his ink by the bucketful. If you've watched the video and have any specific disagreements about what is being said in the video then please bring them on.

You've had answers in the subject of Andrew Wakefield's bogus research already. Why are we going around this again, or did you forget?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't think that the claim vaccines and autism have no link is a broad unsupportable claim (unless you have some new evidence to bring to the table), and you appear to be simply using this as an opportunity to make a personal attack.

Play the ball, not the man.

It's the opposite, saying you won't be convinced until you see emprical evidence that there is a positive link, when you're someone known for drawing broad conclusions from no evidence whatsoever. Maybe it's a change in mindset. But you're the boss so you win. 👍👍

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why are we going around this again, or did you forget?

Because he thinks the film is a magic bullet, one that invalidates all of the criticism levelled at Wakefield by exposing that criticism as part of an ongoing conspiracy to discredit him and suppress evidence of a causal link between vaccines and autism.

 

[Imari]

You've had answers in the subject of Andrew Wakefield's bogus research already. Why are we going around this again, or did you forget?

Standard practise for conspiracy theorists and the religiously afflicted. If you run up against a wall of people who seem to have answers for all your dribble, wait a year and try again. Maybe they won't notice. Maybe they'll be bored of your shenanigans and not bother.

Of course, maybe they'll be so entertained that 12 months later you still haven't managed to read your way through the original Wakefield papers and spot the flaws that they'll continue to point out what a nong you're being. Six of one, half dozen the other.