Vaccinations thread.

[Scaff]

This is truly one of those issues I cannot wrap my mind around.

How the hell can someone question and oppose the workings of vaccinations?

To a very large degree that can be laid at the door of one man.

Andrew Wakefield

It was his study that claimed a link between autism and MMR that came as over-parented concerns about having to know what caused autism were starting to gather pace. As such his claims gave the 'crunchy' parents a target, a reason why kids had autism, and even better something to blame and target.

That his study could not be replicated, that he refused to replicate results himself, that he was also working on alternate to the MMR vaccine (the success of which required the MMR vaccine to be discredited or removed from the market), that he knowingly falsified records, that his paper was retracted by the Lancet, that he was barred from practising in the UK, that has was found proven by the GMC of four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children did little to dim the views of the Anti-Vaxers. Something has also done all he can to promote (he will still pontificate on this - if you pay him enough).

Rather they see him as a hero that has been persecuted by big-phama for telling the 'truth', despite the fact (and it is) that his study of 12 children has never be able to be replicated and that a meta-study of over 1.2 million children has shown that no link at all exists between MMR and Autisim.

All of which leads me to label him one of the main causal factors in the current trend and to quite frankly be wary of anyone who is aware of the above and still find him every the least bit credible.

 

[huskeR32]

How about the flu vaccine? Not completely effective, have to take it every year, but there is no doubt that threatening the withdrawl of benefits as a way of coercing people into taking it would save lives, probably dozens or hundreds. Many hospitals now make flu shots mandatory and the penalty is termination so why not apply this principle to flu shots as well? How many lives were lost in Australia over the last 10-15 years by a handful of people not being vaccinated against measles and how many lives would have been saved with forcing people to submit to flu shots over that same period?

How many times must you make this nonsense comparison?

Measles (MMR) vaccine:
-Highly effective because the measles virus rarely mutates

Flu vaccine:
-Less effective because the flu virus mutates often and mutates quickly, rendering some vaccine formulas irrelevant within months

Because of the above, it makes sense to mandate the MMR vaccine - it's virtually guaranteed to work. On the other hand, even if you mandated the flu vaccine, there's no guarantee that the virus won't mutate, or that the WHO won't select the wrong strains for a given year's formula.

Put another way, even in this hypothetical situation you keep pushing where people are equally vaccinated against both, there would still be more deaths from the flu compared to measles.

That's why more people receive vaccinations for MMR than the flu. That's why fewer people die from MMR than the flu. Can we please put this silly comparison to rest now?

 

[TRGTspecialist]

How many times must you make this nonsense comparison?

Measles (MMR) vaccine:
-Highly effective because the measles virus rarely mutates

Flu vaccine:
-Less effective because the flu virus mutates often and mutates quickly, rendering some vaccine formulas irrelevant within months

Because of the above, it makes sense to mandate the MMR vaccine - it's virtually guaranteed to work. On the other hand, even if you mandated the flu vaccine, there's no guarantee that the virus won't mutate, or that the WHO won't select the wrong strains for a given year's formula.

Put another way, even in this hypothetical situation you keep pushing where people are equally vaccinated against both, there would still be more deaths from the flu compared to measles.

That's why more people receive vaccinations for MMR than the flu. That's why fewer people die from MMR than the flu. Can we please put this silly comparison to rest now?

Don't be so harsh, he's only asked those set of flu questions eight times previously (by my count), and perhaps he just missed all twelve answers to them (by my count), so he needs to ask the exact same questions over again. And we definitely know he isn't being argumentitive for the sake of it, by the way

 

[Scaff]

Do you question and support/oppose the withdrawl of government benefits if you refuse to have your child injected with a vaccine?

I actually care less about the benefit side that I do about allowing them into day care, etc.

Which vaccines should be a part of this, "If you don't inject your child or yourself you no longer qualify for this government benefit" style of "progressive" government?

Those that will be most effective against the most dangerous virus strains, as determined by scientific review.

How about the flu vaccine? Not completely effective, have to take it every year, but there is no doubt that threatening the withdrawl of benefits as a way of coercing people into taking it would save lives, probably dozens or hundreds.

I've already covered a lot of this, the manner in which Flu mutates means that for the most part only those who are in high risk groups should be targeted every year (such as my wife and our family) as most annual strains will be lower on the risk ladder. However when a very potent strain surfaces (as it did in the clearest example with Spanish Flu) then everyone should be taking it (and yes I would in a case such as this mandate it and also quarantine those who do not - these highly virulent outbreaks have killed millions)

Many hospitals now make flu shots mandatory and the penalty is termination so why not apply this principle to flu shots as well?

Because hospital staff are around high risk groups all the time, as such without it they pose a higher risk to those patients, what exact;y do you think would happen if you had a flu outbreak in an ICU or PICU?

How many lives were lost in Australia over the last 10-15 years by a handful of people not being vaccinated against measles and how many lives would have been saved with forcing people to submit to flu shots over that same period?

I have already answered this in detail in the thread.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Rather they see him as a hero that has been persecuted by big-phama for telling the 'truth'

That's the beauty of calling "conspiracy!" - you might not be able to prove a negative, but then you don't have to when anything the other person does can be constructed to look like a conspiracy.

 

[x3ra]

Well, apparently a little tiny number of kids have been "injured" by vaccines,

"Little tiny" is a relative term. How many?

 

[TenEightyOne]

"Little tiny" is a relative term. How many?

Here's a start, you can extrapolate as you will. Travelling in cars remains hundreds of times more dangerous than being vaccinated.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Figures published today suggest that up to 845,000 Australian children are not immunised - and this is a country of just 24 million. Suspicion of the treatment is regarded as the leading factor in this number.

 

[mustafur]

That is an alarming number does this count the children that can't take it due to Health reasons.

 

[Barra333]

I find that hard to believe. 845,000 would be a significant proportion of the under 18 population. What is the context/constraints of those numbers?

 

[Imari]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-18/child-immunisation-rates-falling-short-of-targets/7179074

He added a zero by mistake, which is why when posting things like that it's useful to add a link to a source.

It's ~84,500, which is still a lot, and there's a decent number of areas with sub-90% immunisation.

 

[x3ra]

Let me pose a question for the Vaxx-Pushers. The human race has managed to develop itself to the stage where it is able to tolerate illness. Those over the millenia, who suffered from a disease either a) fixed themselves b) were permanently disabled by the illness or c) died. In cases b or c if this was suffered before giving birth to a child then they were removed from the gene-pool. Thus improving the average gene-pool. However, if they had been given vaccines which worked, then two things would happen 1) more people alive on the planet 2) the sickest genes carry-on and are spread to the current generations.
It seems that both of these are a backwards step for the human race.

What's your justification for vaccines now?

 

[Scaff]

Let me pose a question for the Vaxx-Pushers. The human race has managed to develop itself to the stage where it is able to tolerate illness. Those over the millenia, who suffered from a disease either a) fixed themselves b) were permanently disabled by the illness or c) died. In cases b or c if this was suffered before giving birth to a child then they were removed from the gene-pool. Thus improving the average gene-pool. However, if they had been given vaccines which worked, then two things would happen 1) more people alive on the planet 2) the sickest genes carry-on and are spread to the current generations.
It seems that both of these are a backwards step for the human race.

What's your justification for vaccines now?

You don't have a damn clue how vaccines work do you?

First off, the statement " The human race has managed to develop itself to the stage where it is able to tolerate illness." is utter nonsense and I would love to see you attempt to prove so (give tolerating Ebola a go).

Secondly you seem quite happy to accept that humans can evolve, but seem to totally forget that everything else does as well, you know such as viruses (which is what makes you first claim nonsense and also renders the rest of your daft rant meaningless as well).

Thirdly the efficacy of vaccines is a known, they work. who was the last person you knew with Smallpox or Polio? How do they work, well by helping humans become an A (in your terms), they help the human immune system to identify and fight virus strains.

Finally I'm also (based on the above) going to change my alternative terms for Anti-vaxers, given the above rather than pro-virus I'm just going to go for Pro-death. Oh and what's the reason for vaccines, because they work far more effectively in reducing unnecessary death that any current alternative. I guess I'm just a bit of a dick in that regard, but I would rather not see people suffer and die unnecessarily.

Answer me this, what caused smallpox to be wiped out? Was it changes to the human genetic make-up or vaccines? Oh and I'd like to know the why behind your answer as well.

BTW - you have about a dozen other questions you have failed to answer, including Mercury...........

 

[TenEightyOne]

The human race has managed to develop itself to the stage where it is able to tolerate illness.

Source required. Hint: you're wrong.

Those over the millenia, who suffered from a disease either a) fixed themselves b) were permanently disabled by the illness or c) died. In cases b or c if this was suffered before giving birth to a child then they were removed from the gene-pool. Thus improving the average gene-pool.

Source required. Hint: see above.

However, if they had been given vaccines which worked, then two things would happen 1) more people alive on the planet 2) the sickest genes carry-on and are spread to the current generations.
It seems that both of these are a backwards step for the human race.

Source required. No hints this time.

What's your justification for vaccines now?

Much of the genuine source material that you've already provided. You just didn't read it properly, that's my guess.

 

[x3ra]

Source : me. . As to your comments 1) yes not all but if we get vaccinated for everything then at some point in the future, will we not become dependent upon them? Perhaps the martians in War of the Worlds were vaccine toting and it only took one tiny virus to render them dead (the book). 2) No source required. Either I'm wrong or I'm right. As you know I'm willing to learn. 3) Are you seriously telling me that studies have been done on this? 4) No arguments from you then. Don't want a discussion, that's up to you.


http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/110/1065

Eckard Wimmer has noted the WHO's current policy calls for cessation of OPV vaccination three years after the last case of poliovirus-caused poliomyelitis. Injectable polio vaccine (IPV) will replace OPV in countries which can afford it. The risks inherent in this strategy are immense. Herd immunity against poliomyelitis will rapidly decline as new children are born who have not been infected with wild-type viruses or were not vaccinated, a situation that has never existed in human history. Thus, any outbreak of poliomyelitis will be disastrous, whether it is caused by residual samples of virus stored in laboratories, by vaccine-derived polioviruses, or by poliovirus that is chemically synthesised with malignant intent (24).

With polio eradication there was a huge increase in non-polio AFP, in direct proportion to the number of doses of the vaccine used. Though all the data was collected within an excellent surveillance system, the increase was not investigated openly. Another question ethicists will ask, is why champions of the programme continued to exhort poor countries to spend scarce resources on a programme they should have known, in 2002, was never going to succeed.

In the final analysis, if the right lessons have been learnt and the world does not repeat these mistakes, the costs may yet be justified.

------------------------------------------------------------
We already know how dumb people are. Repeat mistakes, happens over and over again.

And here's one for the vegans out there. How do you feel about having animal being injected into your body?

Peer-reviewed http://www.vaccines.net/vaccine-induced-immune-overload.pdf

 

[Scaff]

Source : me. .

Are you published?

As to your comments 1) yes not all but if we get vaccinated for everything then at some point in the future, will we not become dependent upon them? Perhaps the martians in War of the Worlds were vaccine toting and it only took one tiny virus to render them dead (the book).

Not a black and white answer, in the case of certain viruses the answer clearly is no (Smallpox), in the case of others (Flu) then eradication is not possible.

All of which has been discussed at length in this thread.

2) No source required. Either I'm wrong or I'm right. As you know I'm willing to learn.

Your wrong, you have already been told why your wrong, you ignored it.

3) Are you seriously telling me that studies have been done on this?

You statement misunderstands how evolution (across the board words), ohh and as such. What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

4) No arguments from you then. Don't want a discussion, that's up to you.

I gave you an answer, you chose to ignore it.

http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/index.php/ijme/article/view/110/1065

Eckard Wimmer has noted the WHO's current policy calls for cessation of OPV vaccination three years after the last case of poliovirus-caused poliomyelitis. Injectable polio vaccine (IPV) will replace OPV in countries which can afford it. The risks inherent in this strategy are immense. Herd immunity against poliomyelitis will rapidly decline as new children are born who have not been infected with wild-type viruses or were not vaccinated, a situation that has never existed in human history. Thus, any outbreak of poliomyelitis will be disastrous, whether it is caused by residual samples of virus stored in laboratories, by vaccine-derived polioviruses, or by poliovirus that is chemically synthesised with malignant intent (24).

With polio eradication there was a huge increase in non-polio AFP, in direct proportion to the number of doses of the vaccine used. Though all the data was collected within an excellent surveillance system, the increase was not investigated openly. Another question ethicists will ask, is why champions of the programme continued to exhort poor countries to spend scarce resources on a programme they should have known, in 2002, was never going to succeed.

In the final analysis, if the right lessons have been learnt and the world does not repeat these mistakes, the costs may yet be justified.

Not a single bit of which shows either the OPV or IPV to be ineffective and also makes an attempt to link OPV/IPV with non-polio AFP (which has never been shown) and is in its conclusion critical of the funding programme rather than the vaccine itself.

A number of errors and rather spurious claims may well also be linked to the fact that you are once again citing a pay to publish journal.

We already know how dumb people are. Repeat mistakes, happens over and over again.

Yes, yes we do!

And here's one for the vegans out there. How do you feel about having animal being injected into your body?

Which has what to do with what exactly?

Peer-reviewed http://www.vaccines.net/vaccine-induced-immune-overload.pdf

Now tell us what it says in its conclusion and in particular the piece about author conflicts of interest?

 

[Imari]

Ah, eugenics. Nice.

 

[x3ra]

Are you published?

Is this how you have your conversations down at the pub, asking people to provide references for everything they say. Not got many mates?

Not a black and white answer, in the case of certain viruses the answer clearly is no (Smallpox), in the case of others (Flu) then eradication is not possible.

At last, an admission that it's not a black and white issue.

You statement misunderstands how evolution (across the board words), ohh and as such. What is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It's obviously too difficult to understand then since you didn't actually tell me why it's wrong. If I misunderstand survival of the fittest, and what I stated (in my own words) is wrong then tell me why (in your own words).

Not a single bit of which shows either the OPV or IPV to be ineffective and also makes an attempt to link OPV/IPV with non-polio AFP (which has never been shown) and is in its conclusion critical of the funding programme rather than the vaccine itself.

A number of errors and rather spurious claims may well also be linked to the fact that you are once again citing a pay to publish journal.

If you say so, then it must be right.

Which has what to do with what exactly?

Mandatory for vegans!!!!


I notice you ignored the 47,000 who got paralysed through vaccines. Nice job.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Is this how you have your conversations down at the pub, asking people to provide references for everything they say.

Is that how you answer all of the quesrions put to you - by avoiding them?

We're in the middle of a discussion about the scientific merits of vaccination. You claimed to be a source on the subject. Therefore, @Scaff is well within his rights to ask you to prove your credentials.

At last, an admission that it's not a black and white issue.

To one part of your question. Not to the entire question despite your presentation of it.

 

[Scaff]

Is this how you have your conversations down at the pub, asking people to provide references for everything they say. Not got many mates?

I will take that as a no then.

I do however see that you are back to the personal attacks, something you have already been told is not acceptable and is not permitted by the AUP, do not repeat this kind of behaviour. So that will be Logical Fallacy number one for you (ad-hominem attacks).

At last, an admission that it's not a black and white issue.

That particular point is not black and white, but then again I've never described it as such, quite the opposite in the posts I have made discussing differing strain numbers and mutation rates among viruses. So that will be Logical Fallacy number two for you (Straw Man).

It's obviously too difficult to understand then since you didn't actually tell me why it's wrong. If I misunderstand survival of the fittest, and what I stated (in my own words) is wrong then tell me why (in your own words).

I already have, you assume two things.

1. That evolution is targeted, its not, as such no guarantee exists that any natural immunity anyone has will become the common genetic trait.
2. Even if the above were to happen (and if it did it would be totally random) it would only be effective if viruses did not also evolve. Unfortunately they do evolve and do so at a far, far faster rate than humans do (as they have a much shorter life span and reproduce in vastly greater numbers).

As such its a 'race' that the human genome is highly unlikely to win. Hence the reason why I asked the question (that you ignored).....

"Answer me this, what caused smallpox to be wiped out? Was it changes to the human genetic make-up or vaccines? Oh and I'd like to know the why behind your answer as well."

....which was in the same post that I answered (in my own words) this question the first time!

So that will be Logical Fallacy number three for you (argument from ignorance)

If you say so, then it must be right.

No the source you provided says so. At no point in that paper does it state that vaccines are ineffective at controlling Polio.

So that will be Logical Fallacy number four for you (appeal to authority - a good one in this case as you get what your authority is saying wrong).

Mandatory for vegans!!!!

What's mandatory for vegans?

If you are claiming that its being vaccinated then that's a straw man, as no one is being forced to do anything. Its still a choice. One you don't like, but that doesn't change the fact that no-one is being forced to do anything.

You also seem to be inferring that all vaccines contain animal products or by-products, which is untrue. Take for example Flublok, a flu vaccine that is totally suitable for vegans.

So that's Logical Fallacy numbers five and six, a straw man and affirming the consequent.

I notice you ignored the 47,000 who got paralysed through vaccines. Nice job.

How could I have ignored something that the source doesn't say?

At no point at all does that paper say that 47,000 people got paralysed through vaccines. What it says is.....

"Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated."


....which in itself is a Post Hoc Logical Fallacy (I wonder why they chose a Pay to Publish Journal for this paper?)

The paper provides no proof of a causal link, outright lies when they say its not been investigated (they even cite a Lancet paper that did just that - which found no causal link and attributed it to better reporting of cases). As such to claim that the principle of primum-non-nocere (first, do no harm) was violated is nonsense as it assumes that the vaccines were the cause (which is another logical fallacy - Circular reasoning and Post Hoc).

They also cite no other country’s NPAFP rates, which is not a big surprise given that many don't show any form of correlation at all, further weakening such a claim. In fact in the paper I just linked to the country with the highest rate of NPAFP in 2015 also had the lowest levels of Polio vaccination rates.

So no I haven't ignored anything, rather you have either no actually read the paper in question, or you have read it and not understood it, or you have read it and simply made a claim up that it doesn't even support. However given that you clearly want to find something you have twisted it to meet you desire, that's a Logical Fallacy as well, see if you can work out which one.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

 

[x3ra]

Well Raul Andino agrees with what I said.

Either we develop an AIDS vaccine, or the virus and humans will evolve together. Part of the human race will die, and the resistant group will survive.

From USCF magazine volume 21 (Raul Andino, PhD. Professor, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, UCSF)

So I wasn't too far out in understanding evolution was I? He's an advocate of vaccines, I understand why, but it doesn't mean I have to agree. Different meta-level.
Because whilst I understand that vaccines protect you from disease, is it possible that we are storing up a whole bunch of trouble for the human race later on. It is possible that a tainted vaccine could cause an epidemic of cancers 40 years later ?

Edit
Don't worry, it could.

The Institute of Medicine Report

In July 2002, the National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Committee convened a study into SV40 and cancer which culminated in a report published in October 2002. According to the IOM report “SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer”:

The committee concludes that the biological evidence is strong that SV40 is a transforming [i.e., cancer-causing] virus, . . . that the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions, [and] that the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure from the polio vaccine is related to SV40 infection in humans. (From Immunization Safety Review: SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer, supra note 45, at 6–8.)

Don't tell me . It's not peer-reviewed so it doesn't count.

 

[Scaff]

Well Raul Andino agrees with what I said. From USCF magazine volume 21 (Raul Andino, PhD. Professor, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, UCSF)

No he really doesn't. Not to your claim that vaccines are pointless as it would be better for natural immunity to 'fix' everyone, once the weak ones were dead.

You see he clearly states that the virus and humans will both continue to evolve and you also quote-mined what he said as well. missing out some rather important points, such as the very next line:

"We want to change the course of this Darwinian picture"

So what he's saying is what I said, that some people will be immune, but others will not and we will not win a 'race' with a virus in this way (that's the bit you missed out you see).

What you also omitted is that he disagrees with you to the point that his main field of work is developing a HIV vaccine!!

Source

So once again you have either not actually read it, read it and not understood it or 'edited' it in an attempt to suit your own desires.

So I wasn't too far out in understanding evolution was I?

Yes, yes you were.

He's an advocate of vaccines, I understand why, but it doesn't mean I have to agree.

He's a little more than that.

Because whilst I understand that vaccines protect you from disease, is it possible that we are storing up a whole bunch of trouble for the human race later on. It is possible that a tainted vaccine could cause an epidemic of cancers 40 years later ?

This has already been answered for you, you know the last time you said pretty much the same thing.

Everything carries risk, now vaccines (and medicine in general) is subjected to some of the toughest standards that exist at every stage from development, to testing, to production, to distribution, application and beyond. Far, far higher than just about everything else that a person comes into contact on a daily basis.

So I will ask you the same question I did the last time you used this particular line. Do you live in a hermetically sealed bubble and eat nothing?

The Institute of Medicine Report

In July 2002, the National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Committee convened a study into SV40 and cancer which culminated in a report published in October 2002. According to the IOM report “SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer”:

The committee concludes that the biological evidence is strong that SV40 is a transforming [i.e., cancer-causing] virus, . . . that the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure could lead to cancer in humans under natural conditions, [and] that the biological evidence is of moderate strength that SV40 exposure from the polio vaccine is related to SV40 infection in humans. (From Immunization Safety Review: SV40 Contamination of Polio Vaccine and Cancer, supra note 45, at 6–8.)

So the scientific method and testing I outlined above identified this and resolved it (or do you believe that nothing was done about this and its still being used)?

Please let me know what you have in your life that is 100% risk free?

Edited to add:

I knew that quote didn't look right, where did you get that from, as its not from the actual paper? The term 'cancer-causing' has been added; which changes the tone completely (and is also incorrect - virus transformation can indicate it can cause cancer - but it is not always the case, and even when it does it raises the risk it does not automatically mean you will get cancer).

Your source I am fairly certain would also not mention the abstract from the original report (and given I know exactly what web-site your version originated from I also know why):

"Some of the polio vaccine administered from 1955–1963 was contaminated with a virus, called simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from the monkey kidney cell cultures used to produce the vaccine. Most, but not all, of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Once the contamination was recognized, steps were taken to eliminate it from future vaccines. Researchers have long wondered about the effects of the contaminated vaccine on people who received it. Although SV40 has biological properties consistent with a cancer-causing virus, it has not been conclusively established whether it might have caused cancer in humans. Studies of groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955–1963 provide evidence of no increased cancer risk.

However, because these epidemiologic studies are sufficiently flawed, the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence was inadequate to conclude whether or not the contaminated polio vaccine caused cancer. In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research. See Box ES-1 for a summary of all conclusions and recommendations."

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221118/
Actual paper (not a quote mined version) is attached.

Your quoting and citation are now starting to appear to be deliberately misleading. From this point on provide direct links to all your sources.

Don't tell me . It's not peer-reviewed so it doesn't count.

Don't answer for me again. Last time I will ask.

 

[x3ra]

No he really doesn't. Not to your claim that vaccines are pointless as it would be better for natural immunity to 'fix' everyone, once the weak ones were dead.

You see he clearly states that the virus and humans will both continue to evolve and you also quote-mined what he said as well. missing out some rather important points, such as the very next line:

"We want to change the course of this Darwinian picture"

Yes I saw that. Don't you get it yet. We WANT to change the Darwinian picture. Survival of the not-fittest!!!??? That's my point.

So what he's saying is what I said, that some people will be immune, but others will not and we will not win a 'race' with a virus in this way (that's the bit you missed out you see).

What you also omitted is that he disagrees with you to the point that his main field of work is developing a HIV vaccine!!

No I didn't. I saw that. Would you like me to post every word of every article that I reference? Or you just enjoy having a pop.

So once again you have either not actually read it, read it and not understood it or 'edited' it in an attempt to suit your own desires.

This has already been answered for you, you know the last time you said pretty much the same thing.

Everything carries risk, now vaccines (and medicine in general) is subjected to some of the toughest standards that exist at every stage from development, to testing, to production, to distribution, application and beyond. Far, far higher than just about everything else that a person comes into contact on a daily basis.

So I will ask you the same question I did the last time you used this particular line. Do you live in a hermetically sealed bubble and eat nothing?

No. And if they want to make vaccines compulsory, then I wouldn't have a choice. Just trust Big Brother, yeah right.

So the scientific method and testing I outlined above identified this and resolved it (or do you believe that nothing was done about this and its still being used)?

Please let me know what you have in your life that is 100% risk free?

Edited to add:

I knew that quote didn't look right, where did you get that from, as its not from the actual paper? The term 'cancer-causing' has been added; which changes the tone completely (and is also incorrect - virus transformation can indicate it can cause cancer - but it is not always the case, and even when it does it raises the risk it does not automatically mean you will get cancer).

Your source I am fairly certain would also not mention the abstract from the original report (and given I know exactly what web-site your version originated from I also know why):

"Some of the polio vaccine administered from 1955–1963 was contaminated with a virus, called simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from the monkey kidney cell cultures used to produce the vaccine. Most, but not all, of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV). Once the contamination was recognized, steps were taken to eliminate it from future vaccines. Researchers have long wondered about the effects of the contaminated vaccine on people who received it. Although SV40 has biological properties consistent with a cancer-causing virus, it has not been conclusively established whether it might have caused cancer in humans. Studies of groups of people who received polio vaccine during 1955–1963 provide evidence of no increased cancer risk.

However, because these epidemiologic studies are sufficiently flawed, the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence was inadequate to conclude whether or not the contaminated polio vaccine caused cancer. In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research. See Box ES-1 for a summary of all conclusions and recommendations."

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221118/
Actual paper (not a quote mined version) is attached.

Your quoting and citation are now starting to appear to be deliberately misleading. From this point on provide direct links to all your sources.


Don't answer for me again. Last time I will ask.

Surely what that says is, it was only the methodology that was resolved. Not the damage done to the patients. It says studies provide no evidence of increased cancer risk. But these studies that provide no evidence are sufficiently flawed. And that's because it's virtually impossible to prove causality. Right? Especially if you don't want to find it. Pharmaceutical industry is the one of the biggest businesses in the world. They have vested interests in keeping their dodgy experiments and fudging results. That's what bothers me. If I find any interesting news articles which back-up my thoughts I will post them in this thread.

Especially when you consider that this is "Opinions and current events"

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes I saw that. Don't you get it yet. We WANT to change the Darwinian picture. Survival of the not-fittest!!!??? That's my point.

Nooo... "survival of the fittest" isn't Darwin, that's Spencer. Darwinism is about adaptation and the loss of organisms. Changing the Darwinian picture might be important for, say, your mother if it was found that the biological max-age of her heart was 55. That would be important for you too, of course.

No I didn't. I saw that. Would you like me to post every word of every article that I reference? Or you just enjoy having a pop.

I can't and won't speak for @Scaff but from my own point of view I would like to know the particular parts of some of your sources that make you think what you do... so yes, it would be helpful for you to highlight those parts to us.

No. And if they want to make vaccines compulsory, then I wouldn't have a choice. Just trust Big Brother, yeah right.

I didn't realise that we were talking about compulsory vaccination. As you say, if they're compulsory then you wouldn't have a choice. That's in the definition of the word. However, just because one thing is compulsory that doesn't mean that you are forced to trust a second thing as you suggest in your example. So no, don't trust if you don't want to. It would be good to see you make decisions based on proper evidence though.

Surely what that says is, it was only the methodology that was resolved. Not the damage done to the patients. It says studies provide no evidence of increased cancer risk. But these studies that provide no evidence are sufficiently flawed. And that's because it's virtually impossible to prove causality. Right?

Wrong, this is a very good example (imo) of the way you skim sources for quote-mining purposes. That finding of the 1950s/1960s studies was the raison d'etre for the paper you didn't read in full. Read it again.

 

[Scaff]

Yes I saw that. Don't you get it yet. We WANT to change the Darwinian picture. Survival of the not-fittest!!!??? That's my point.

Now aside from you continuing to demonstrate a lack of understand of evolution and Dawin's works, if you have at any point in your life (and I include in that when you were born) had any medical treatment then you have done exactly the same!

If you have eaten any food, drank any liquid then you have done exactly the same.

No I didn't. I saw that. Would you like me to post every word of every article that I reference? Or you just enjoy having a pop.

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).

No. And if they want to make vaccines compulsory, then I wouldn't have a choice. Just trust Big Brother, yeah right.

Vaccines are not mandatory, ergo your claim is nonsense. But Ok, Vegans, something, random claim, noise, wild accusation, evil big brother.

Got it.

Surely what that says is, it was only the methodology that was resolved. Not the damage done to the patients. It says studies provide no evidence of increased cancer risk. But these studies that provide no evidence are sufficiently flawed. And that's because it's virtually impossible to prove causality. Right?

Wrong.

I mean its not as if its not clearly laid out in my post that you quoted.

"However, because these epidemiologic studies are sufficiently flawed, the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee concluded that the evidence was inadequate to conclude whether or not the contaminated polio vaccine caused cancer. In light of the biological evidence supporting the theory that SV40-contamination of polio vaccines could contribute to human cancers, the committee recommends continued public health attention in the form of policy analysis, communication, and targeted biological research. See Box ES-1 for a summary of all conclusions and recommendations."

It states that as the studies are flawed that its not possible to conclude in one way or the other if the contaminated vaccines caused cancer, you have (I suspect to suit your own agenda) flipped those around the other way.

You seem to have forgotten (in less than a day) that you cited a source that used it to try and claim that vaccines have caused cancer. The report is not what is being misleading, its your source by editing and quote mining it that is being misleading (and arguably so are you by using it in the same manner).

Its also lays out what should be done to resolve this, which makes you next point utter nonsense..........

Especially if you don't want to find it.

More proof (if any was needed) that you have not actually read the paper. Its recommendations are quite clear.....

PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE RECOMMENDATIONS
Policy Review

• The committee does not recommend a policy review of polio vaccine by any of the national or federal vaccine advisory bodies, on the basis of concerns about cancer risks that might be associated with exposure to SV40, because the vaccine in current use is free of SV40.

Policy Analysis and Communication

• The committee recommends that the appropriate federal agencies develop a Vaccine Contamination Prevention and Response Plan.

Research

• The committee recommends development of sensitive and specific serologic tests for SV40.
• The committee recommends the development and use of sensitive and specific standardized techniques for SV40 detection.
• The committee recommends that once there is agreement in the scientific community as to the best detection methods and protocols, pre-1955 samples of human tissues should be assayed for presence or absence of SV40 in rigorous, multi-center studies.
• The committee recommends further study of the transmissibility of SV40 in humans.
• Until some of the technical issues are resolved, the committee does not recommend additional epidemiological studies of people potentially exposed to the contaminated polio vaccine.

......just as its quite clear that you are quite happy to ignore anything that differs from your world view. What is more amazing is that this was a document that you actually cited, admittedly via a 3rd party who quote-mined it to try and mislead (and you still have not answered my questions on that - but what the hell, they can just join the very big list of things you don't want to answer)

Pharmaceutical industry is the one of the biggest businesses in the world. They have vested interests in keeping their dodgy experiments and fudging results.

They are also one of the single most regulated and monitored industries on the planet. However I think you will find that those within it that are dishonest have, for the vast majority, been exposed by science, peer review and the methods outlined in this thread to date (you know - like the anti-vax poster-boy Wakefield).

That's what bothers me. If I find any interesting news articles which back-up my thoughts I will post them in this thread.

Does that mean we are going to be treated to some more Natural News and Dr Oz? Why not thrown in some Tenpenny and David Wolfe as well, they are always good for a few minutes entertainment.

Especially when you consider that this is "Opinions and current events"

It is, and you are free to post in it as long as the AUP is followed, just as any member who wishes to is free to reply. However I have to be honest, I do hope that the standard of debate we get from you in future is better than that witnessed so far.

 

[x3ra]

I agree. It does not say that they cause cancer. No evidence for it causing cancer. And I will answer your question regarding the article you quoted in natural news and mercury, sometime later in the week, and other questions I may not have answered ( it may take some time).

 

[TenEightyOne]

Andrew Wakefield has made a film called Vaxxed that was scheduled to be shown at the Tribeca Film Festival. It has now been withdrawn. BBC.

No answers from @x3ra on the previous post, I see.

 

[x3ra]

No. not yet.

Fahrenheit 451 next.

 

[Scaff]

No. not yet.

Fahrenheit 451 next.

You plan to start burning books?

 

[x3ra]

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

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.

“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.”