Vaccinations thread.
- Thread starter Dennisch
- 436 comments
- 25,207 views
- 279
- United Kingdom
Any evidence to back that up?
See this article. Yes and I have read his conclusion at the bottom of the page. But that's not the important bit. It's the first line that should make you feel a little foolish. You are so convinced that current mainstream medical science is so great, how come it's and I quote "The question of whether Simian Virus 40 (SV40) can cause human tumors has been one of the most highly controversial topics in cancer research during the last 50 years."
So if the doctors aren't sure, how come you are?
http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/24/26/4356.abstract
- 24,616
- Anoka, MN
Spoofy as they come.
Plus, I'd imagine if the government was doing some top secret experiment there would be more than a handful of people and an official camera recording it all...
I know sarcasm doesn't travel well on the internet, but that one seems rather obvious...
- 13,875
- Adelaide
- Neomone
It's a spoof.
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-funvax-pentagon-briefing-on-removing-the-god-gene-hoax.t317/
But even if it was plausible, so what? It's basically a biological weapon.
We all know that viruses can be used to do damage, that's the whole problem with them in the first place. That's why we need vaccination, if viruses didn't have the potential to do damage then no one would care.
Just calling a biological weapon a vaccine doesn't make it one. And it doesn't make normal vaccines into biological weapons either.
I answered your question, how about you answer mine?
==========
Not quite, though. As I think I've said before in this thread, in a country with socialised health, there are reasonable arguments to be made for cost effectiveness. It's far, far cheaper for the health system to have someone immunised than it is to deal with the actual disease. If someone wants to not be immunised, then that's fine, but they're putting an additional financial burden on the health system.
I'm not entirely sure that they've gone about it in the right way, but in a socialised health system it seems fairly reasonable to me to have a financial penalty in place to cover the increased costs that your decision is forcing on the system.
Maybe it would be better if people straight up had to pay for any treatment for a disease that they chose not to be immunised for, but then you run into the problem that if people don't have the money for it you can't in good conscience refuse treatment. Taking the money out of benefits means that everyone has to pay, and there's no jerking the system around.
I'm dubious whether this was the actual thinking that went into the program, but it seems sufficiently sensible to me whether it was intended or not.
- 1,433
- Northern Ireland
Well, the rest of the abstract seems to literally explain why.
- previous research suggested there could be a link between SV40 infection and tumour growth in humans
- later research suggested there are inconsistencies and flawed methodologies in previous research
- recent research (the "not important bit" apparently) - reinforces this view by finding inadequate evidence to link SV40 with human cancer cases.
I'm no scientist (yet), but that seemed clear enough. Since you've said you did read the abstract, and dismissed recent research as not important (you'd think it would be the most important...), presumably you're deliberately ignoring stuff that doesn't suit your argument. Whatever debate to be had, that doesn't seem on.
- 13,875
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Your logical fallacy is:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/composition-division
Just because some parts of medical science are not well understood (and I'm not even sure that your particular example is one of them, but that appears to be the point you're making), doesn't mean that other parts aren't well understood.
Seriously mate, you're not applying any critical thinking to any of this. You're finding "sources" that appear to justify the position that you've already decided that you want to hold, and just throwing them out there.
I'm willing to accept that vaccines are dangerous if there are properly performed and replicable medical studies that show as such, although I'd probably want to do it on a case by case basis, as all vaccines are not alike. Suppose you tell us what would convince you that the risks for vaccines are greatly outweighed by the rewards?
- 4,221
- Louisville, KY
- ukfan758
And saying that the risk is causing autism is automatically invalid and complete bull:censored::
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/pdf?ext=.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/cdcstudiesonvaccinesandautism.pdf
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/05May/Pages/Vaccines-not-linked-with-autism-study-finds.aspx
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(13)00144-3/pdf?ext=.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/cdcstudiesonvaccinesandautism.pdf
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/05May/Pages/Vaccines-not-linked-with-autism-study-finds.aspx
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Any drug or medical product must be declared safe for human use by organisations like the FDA. This is a very rigorous process, where every stage of developing the drug must be documented, published and peer-reviewed before they can be approved for human trials, and once those trials begin, the process starts anew. There is a vew low tolerance for drugs to fail to work as intended - as soon as they start doing things outside extremely specific parameters, the FDA will shut it down. That's why it takes years for products through the development cycle. And just about every single country has an agency like the FDA.
So, if the evidence of side-effects of vaccines is as established and as prevalent as you claim it to be, why does every agency continue to allow their use?
- 13,875
- Adelaide
- Neomone
To be fair, there are many drugs and procedures that have drastic side effects that are still approved for use. The risks outweigh the rewards. Chemotherapy continues to be used, because although it has a list of severe side effects as long as your arm, it can significantly extend the life expectancy or even cure terminal patients.
I haven't seen anything that indicates to me that normal vaccines have significant side effects. But even if they did, there would potentially still be arguments for using them based on the fact that the disease is far, far worse than the vaccine.
- 87,052
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Yeah, it's a conspiracy theory video that makes grand claims in the title ("Leaked Pentagon Video" - when was the last time that actually happened) posted without qualification by someone with an axe to grind about a particular subject.
I didn't even watch it, primarily for the exact reason I mention above, so I have no idea about the content.
Interestingly, you then go on the offensive:
Which is odd, as all I was commenting on was whether the video is real or bollocks. However it amuses me that you pillory "mainstream medical science" in one line, then hold doctors - the practitioners of mainstream medical science - up as authority next.
It begs the question that if you think doctors are authorities and are sure vaccines work, how come you aren't?
- 279
- United Kingdom
Sure it sounds far-fetched, but when has far-fetched become an argument. So he produced a film to invent a conspiracy so he could produce a film about the conspiracy? The veracity may be in question, but it certainly hasn’t been proven to be a hoax. LSD anyone?
Fancy that it's a hoax. Is that the most likely reason for the video. It may well be a hoax for a different reason.
Is it free? Does anyone stand to gain from my learning to swim? Do I live near the sea? What percentage of non-swimmers die through drowning? So what is the likelihood that I will die because I didn't learn to swim. If we take your figures then chances of dying of drowning are not that high, so I’d probably not bother learning to swim. It’s not just a maths question, it’s a subjective maths question!!! If I kept falling into deep water then I’d learn to swim. Of course that’s the argument you would make for terrorists, pat-downs, cctv etc. But on the plus side, more swimming pools would be nice. I tend not to run my life my statistics, like many people, smoke or drink or quick skydive anyone?
Of 420 58 involved running or walking into the water. Possibly running lessons or attention training may be more cost effective. 31 were people who were swimming, so could already swim, presumably, alternatiuvely they may have been learning to swim. 31 were commercial aquatics events, so presumably they could swim. 30 were anglers (hmm if I fished a lot then I’d learn to swim) 20 for scuba(probably swimmers), (58 +31 + 31 + 30 +20 + 24) and 24 in a Jacuzzi. Doesn’t say how many died in swimming pools but apparently and I quote “a small number”. Possibly a question for another thread, than in this one, as it’s not an easy question to answer. Do you want driverless cars to become compulsory (they're safer!)?
How do we know we aren’t creating more problems ?
I didn't say it was a bio-weapon, but that the potential exists for it to be there. Tainted vaccines accidentally, definite possibility, though low probability.
Isn’t that what you are doing? It's precisely because some parts of medical science are not well understood, that I can say this.
Can’t disagree with that. Difficult question. But to turn it around, to show you how difficult it is, what would it take for you to be convinced that the risks outweighed the rewards?
TRGT and Imari – You have correctly spotted that I have presented a logical fallacy, but you fall under the same fallacy but from the other side. So because some doctors say it’s fine then all doctors do, so it is?
TRGT - so what causes autism?
Yes explain to me how aspartame is safe. That was approved by the FDA.
https://funvax.wordpress.com/ Has some interesting stuff. When you look further down. Please bear in mind that it’s much easier to appear-to-debunk than to appear-to-prove. And when I say easier I mean the time taken.
Chemotherapy is a great example of what I am saying. Alternative treatments DO work, and yes sometimes doesn’t. Chemotherapy sometimes works and sometimes it doesn’t. Study on effectiveness or all types of treatment needed. Can you find me any studies which seriously studies alternative treatments? Surely that’s exactly what makes them alternative. Only when seriously studied and considered to be effective and lucrative, do they become mainstream. Acupuncture anyone? (No I don’t want to get into this any further, Imari brought up chemo, not me, end of road unless you want to start another thread).
Incidentally until they find an antidote to psychopathy then it ain’t gonna work. God-gene! Pfft
You cannot consider the FDA a referee, at least an unbiased one. In the same way that the Vatican are unbiased. "A Martino deputy told us recently that the cardinal had co-operated with embassy Vatican on biotech over the past two years in part to compensate for his vocal disapproval of the Iraq war and its aftermath – to keep relations with the USG [US government] smooth. According to our source, Martino no longer feels the need to take this approach," says the cable. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops
Famine. I don't hold them up as authorities, but since you do, then the fact that they aren't sure, should make you think.
Free society - freedom of choice.
Last edited:
- 87,052
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
- 13,875
- Adelaide
- Neomone
It's a hoax because the images on his slides are photoshopped from a 2010 paper, when the video is supposedly made in 2005. That's the end of the line. They've lied about the authenticity of the video, I'm not going to consider any other aspects of it as potentially true.
No, it's not. It's basic statistics, and you just failed.
Because people track these things, and if it appears that more problems are being created then the program is reviewed.
Same with tainted blood. Tainted cola. Tainted tap water.
Anything can be tainted when it's handled improperly. That's why vaccines and medical items in general have extremely strict regulations on how they're handled and prepared. It's still going to happen occasionally, because you can never guarantee anything, but the probability is minute if everyone does what they're supposed to.
A vaccine is no different to anything else in that regard.
I just told you, and you didn't read it. It was in the paragraph you quoted. "Properly performed and replicable medical studies that show as such, although I'd probably want to do it on a case by case basis, as all vaccines are not alike".
I had already answered your question, but you still haven't answered mine. I'll ask you for the second time: What would it take for you accept to the risks for vaccines are greatly outweighed by the rewards?
Nope. We're aware that there's a whole spectrum of how well understood various phenomena are, and we judge on a case by case basis. At this particular point in time, the overwhelming evidence is that vaccines do not cause autism, as demonstrated by numerous studies that have been extensively reviewed and replicated.
There is no fallacy in that.
We're not committing a fallacy because we don't know what causes the autism. We made no claim to. We simply know that vaccines don't.
Funvax is full of dribble and tinfoil hats. Which is why it's a free Wordpress blog, when anyone who is serious about their business can have a .com for ten bucks. They're either trolls or idiots. There may be some stuff that is correct in there, but I can't be bothered finding it. A broken clock is right twice a day.
How do you think that medical treatments end up as medical treatments?
At some point, every medical treatment and drug that we have was alternative or experimental. All those herbs and stuff that people used to take 400 years ago? They all got tested. The ones that did better than sugar pills or other suitable placebos became mainstream medicine. The ones that didn't became quackery, like homeopathy.
Anything that is new and shows potential gets an initial screening at least. If it shows promise, they do more trials. They do it this way because full on testing isn't cheap and time is not infinite. They pick the things that initial results show to have the best shot at producing something viable.
Surely the point of any medicine or medical practice is to find something that is effective. Doctors don't take homeopathy seriously because it doesn't work. There are things that work but are too expensive to be viable, and things that work but for which there's already a better (cheaper, easier, more effective, less side effects whatever) treatment available. Why take morphine for your headache when you could just take aspirin?
You seem to have this idea that there's all these amazing alternative treatments out there that are being ignored by the "mainstream". There isn't. Good stuff gets looked into, in general, and the junk gets ignored. So the irritated inventors of this tripe go and peddle it to people who don't know any better.
Let's be honest, that's people like you. You don't know enough about medicine to correctly evaluate any of the claims, and you apparently are either unwilling or unable to educate yourself enough to have a decent go. Until you understand how the testing program actually works, you'll continue to be fooled by stuff like this.
Read up on how placebos work, and how they know that sugar pills don't actually cure cancer, even though sometimes patients go into remission. Then maybe you'll have a chance of understanding how and why other treatments fail testing, and things like vaccines are considered to be hugely successful.
- 279
- United Kingdom
Really? Had your TB vaccination recently - very popular on average throughout the world. But I bet you haven't? It would be mandatory in Imari-world.
If everyone does what they're supposed to. It has happened and it will happen again.
So vaccines are not all alike. Obvious, never said otherwise.
Well if rats stopped dying when they gave them the vaccine, that would be a start.
Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four.
Ad-hominem just because it's wordpress doesn't make it false, since it would be just as easy to make it .com.
That's what I said. Ow to the last bit!
I know full well how placebos work.
- 13,875
- Adelaide
- Neomone
No, it wouldn't.
In Australia it's administered to high-risk adults, and I'm not one. Have you done the math properly for the TB vaccine? Or is this your dodgy math again?
http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/26/6/144/6
I fit none of those categories, so I don't have it. I assume I got it when I was a child, but it's almost certainly worn off by now.
Australia has an extremely low rate of TB infection, and the efficacy of the vaccine on adults varies enormously. It seems to me that as an adult, unless you're actually going to be in an area where you really expect to be exposed to TB, your risk of side effects is fairly similar to the risk that you'll catch TB, which may or may not be blocked by the vaccine.
You still don't understand statistics. You should either learn, or just start assuming that people who do this professionally are doing their jobs.
Yes, it will. So what?
Is this your argument for not using vaccines? They could be tainted? You are aware that the same argument applies to literally everything?
But sure, it's something that should be included in the calculation. So let's include the risk of random contamination to a vaccine. You seem concerned so you must have some idea of the likelihood of this occurrence. What are the chances of a given vaccine shot being contaminated? We'll add that to our risk of death or severe life altering side effects, so that both of them can be balanced against the reduced chance of getting the disease.
I see. Well, you've convinced me.
What the hell are you talking about?
The irony is that you're not presenting any evidence for your claims, and suggesting that it's our problem to disprove them.
Your mistake is thinking that I'm claiming something that I'm not. It has been proven to a fairly high standard that vaccines do not cause autism. You've had plenty of evidence for that, so that's not an argument from ignorance.
If you have actual evidence to the contrary, wheel it out. So far all you've actually presented is Wakefield. The research was discredited, Wakefield himself was shown to be a charlatan and booted out of the medical profession, and the whole thing was pretty widely accepted to be a scam based on a fairly large amount of evidence.
Surely Wakefield is not all you've got. You're claiming to be an intelligent, informed individual here. You wouldn't have been taken in as easily as that, right?
That's just supporting evidence that the dude is a troll. You've got cause and effect around the wrong way. It's a free blog because the writer doesn't take it seriously. It could still be highly accurate, and many free blogs provide quality information, but not that one.
What makes it false is that it's mostly random pages pulled from other sources to fit the dude's agenda of pushing the idea of Funvax. Which we've already established is a hoax. I've seen no hard evidence for the idea of Funvax at all.
The other sources may be legit, but then we could just be talking about them directly. They're on a range of topics, so if you want to talk about them then pick one and we'll do it.
No, I don't think you do.
Otherwise you would understand how alternative medicines could appear to work to laymen while being rejected by medical professionals. You would understand the testing and statistical methods by which we have a good idea of the rates of side effects of vaccines, what those side effects are, and the efficacy of those vaccines in preventing disease. You'd understand how we know roughly how long the vaccines last, and how the decisions are made to provide some vaccines to children but not to adults. You'd know how some vaccines aren't given to certain patients because of contraindications that are found through rigorous testing, specifically to avoid the sorts of complications that scare you so much.
There's pretty good evidence in this thread that you don't understand any of these things.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
They are if David Icke says so. Which I imagine he might.
- 13,875
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Wait, aspartame is unsafe? I've got tons of stuff in the house that has aspartame in it. I'm drinking Diet Coke right now that I'm fairly sure has aspartame in it.
I thought the deal was that the original research under which it was classified was found to be less detailed than it probably should have been, but research since (and decades of people using the stuff) have more or less proved that there's nothing to worry about.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 279
- United Kingdom
I was simply commenting on the "quality assurance" of the FDA.
Tuberculosis (TB) is a top infectious disease killer worldwide. But since you don't live in a country that it is prevalent in, then you make a subjective decision, that's why the swimming question was so rubbish. Depends where you live. Saying I fail at statistics is a crock, and akin to calling me names.
Placebos, I get a vaccine and I feel ill because I think it's going to make me ill, or vice versa. It's not rocket science, medical science maybe. Explain to me why you can't buy a placebo pill, even if they are as effective as mainstream medications.
Get measles - lifetime of immunity. That would be body sorting itself out - not placebo, not alternative.
In 1994, experiments published by the Washington University of Saint Louis linked aspartame with brain tumors in lab rats. Despite this evidence, however, the FDA refused to support further testing on aspartame. Representatives bluntly stated that the reasoning for this refusal was that such reports were not proof of a causal relationship.
In 1996, Alan Rulis, an official at the FDA, stated that the FDA would need, “a scientific basis,” to endorse further research on Aspartame. He also stated, “mere concern about a product cannot be allowed to drive a decision about a safety study.”
As a result of this attitude, aspartame remains FDA-approved and widely used in ‘sugar-free’ products to this day. David Rall, a former director of the NIEHS National Toxicology Program, summarizes, “it’s a wonderful way to ensure that it isn’t tested… discourage the testing group from testing it and then say it’s safe.”
http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm
In general, it's best to avoid the following ingredients.
- Aspartame, Acesulfame-K, Saccharin
Last edited:
- 2,532
- Netherlands
- Denur; GTP_Denur
- 13,875
- Adelaide
- Neomone
You are bad at statistics. I gave you the numbers, and you couldn't use them. You handwaved your way around them to get to the answer that you really wanted to give. Try again if you like.
Abigail's chance of catching a disease and dying from it is 5 in 10,000. Abigail's chance of death or life altering side effects from the vaccine for that disease is 5 in 1,000,000. These are the relevant probabilities for Abigail's specific situation. Should Abigail get vaccinated? Explain your answer.
You asked me if I'd get a TB vaccine, and I explained why not. You didn't give me any numbers to work with, so I used the ones for me where I live. If you want to ask me whether I'd get one if I lived in Africa, or if I was an aid worker, or whatever, then ask that. If you want to give me numbers about TB and then ask me, then do that.
It's not calling you names if it's the truth. A spade is still a spade.
You can. They're called Tic Tacs. They come in a number of varieties to treat various different diseases. Personally, I find the orange ones to be most effective. YMMV.
Tell me more about how you understand placebos.
They're not as effective as mainstream medications, that's the whole point. If a medication isn't more effective than a placebo, it doesn't get through clinical trials.You'll be interested to know that many doctors do actually prescribe placebos on a fairly regular basis.
Except that the associated risk of side effects with an actual measles infection is much, much higher than with a vaccine. One of the possible side effects of measles is death. This is why it's not often prescribed to patients.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
- 87,052
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
UK figures: In the first six months of 2013 there were 1,287 cases of measles. 257 of these people were admitted to hospital, including 39 with serious complications such as pneumonia, meningitis and gastroenteritis. One child died.
That's:
1,287 cases
257 complications requiring hospital admission
39 serious complications
1 death
If you catch measles in the UK you have a 1 in 5 chance of having hospitalisable complications, 1 in 33 chance of having serious complications and slightly better than 1 in 1,000 chance of death. Fortunately you have a 1 in 4,000 chance of catching measles due to immunity from vaccinations, because scaled up to the full population excluding the 10% natural immunity, that'd be 57,000 deaths.
The vaccine itself has a 1 in 3,000 chance of causing a febrile seizure and something of the order
of 1 in 1x10^6 chance of causing a serious complication - like anaphylaxis. There have been zero deaths attributable to the measles vaccine or the combined MMR vaccine. Or any vaccine.
If no-one is vaccinated against measles, 1 in 1,000 people will die from measles - mainly the young, old and immunocompromised. If everyone is, no-one will die from measles and, though no-one has ever died from a measles vaccine, around 1 in 1,000,000 will be at risk of death if there is no emergency treatment on hand.
UK uptake of measles vaccine is now at 92%.
- 279
- United Kingdom
http://www.vaccines.net/vaccine-induced-immune-overload.pdf
Good to hear that doctors ARE prescribing placebos.
Relevant probabilities for the scenario. Agreed. Not what you said before.
Abigail's chance of catching a disease and dying from it is 5 in 10,000. Abigail's chance of death or life altering side effects from the vaccine for that disease is 5 in 1,000,000. These are the relevant probabilities for Abigail's specific situation. Should Abigail get vaccinated? Explain your answer.
So in the UK 300 people get a life altering medical condition, 30,000 catch the disease. Doesn't it depend what the disease is? If the disease is a sniffle then I wouldn't get a vaccine. If the disease is life altering, then I get a vaccine.
Good to hear that doctors ARE prescribing placebos.
Relevant probabilities for the scenario. Agreed. Not what you said before.
Abigail's chance of catching a disease and dying from it is 5 in 10,000. Abigail's chance of death or life altering side effects from the vaccine for that disease is 5 in 1,000,000. These are the relevant probabilities for Abigail's specific situation. Should Abigail get vaccinated? Explain your answer.
So in the UK 300 people get a life altering medical condition, 30,000 catch the disease. Doesn't it depend what the disease is? If the disease is a sniffle then I wouldn't get a vaccine. If the disease is life altering, then I get a vaccine.
- 13,875
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I thought it necessary to specify in order to attempt to prevent you weaseling out of answering the question again.
I see you tried your best to weasel out again. After all, it's what separates man from the animals. Except the weasel.
No, it doesn't matter what the disease is. I said the chance of catching a disease and dying from it is 5 in 10,000. It is a potentially lethal disease.
I didn't say what the chances of catching it were, because they're irrelevant. I already know that you can't do simple math, so I'm not going to boggle you by making you multiply together the probability of catching the disease with the probability of death once you have it. That would just be mean.
So I take it your answer is you get the vaccine?
I take it that you're also convinced now? All you have to do is get relevant statistics for the vaccine and the disease. Do some simple math, and you'll know whether it's beneficial for you to take it or not. There's no need to be afraid of anything.
Your doctor will almost certainly be able to help you with this, and if they're any good will probably refuse to give you a vaccination if you don't need it. Or at least attempt to talk you out of it. They're not idiots, they don't want to create more work for themselves. They'd rather everyone was sitting at home eating crisps than clogging up their waiting rooms.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 87,052
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
... due to vaccinations.
The 2013 outbreak was a result of reduced vaccination uptake.
- 13,875
- Adelaide
- Neomone
That 65 million to 1 is actually a composite of two probabilities, that for vaccinated people and that for unvaccinated people. Both have the same chance of encountering an infection (very low in a highly vaccinated country like the UK), but if they do then the chance of death is way higher for the unvaccinated people.
You should keep in mind as well that your 65 million to one is over a period of six months. Over a period of 80 years, that's more like a 850,000:1 chance. That's still sort of passable I suppose, but it's pretty scary when you think that it's a composite of a high risk group and a low risk group.
Similar threads
