Vaccines: how do I talk to my anti-vac wife about it?

[trusetheeker]

If you give people distilled water for any significant amount of time, there is a good chance you will make them dehydrated.

Do you know why?

Go on, impress me with your 'science' of 'natural hygiene'.

No thanks. You brought it up so perhaps you can enlighten me. Perhaps they should just give their clients pure H₂O? (or is that bad for you as well?)

 

[trusetheeker]

And how did the 'men before shamans and priests' manage to "naturally" distill their water?

Good question and if you think that it's relevant, good luck in your research.

 

[trusetheeker]

Twelve children died in 1928, so vaccines are evil? 1928? Really? You don't think there have been any improvements since then?

Wow.

I know that there have been serious improvements. Most of them are in the areas of marketing and damage limitation (mostly from lawsuits.) Any monetary damages to be paid come out of the taxpayers pockets so we get it from both ends!

 

[Tomblvd]

Good question and if you think that it's relevant, good luck in your research.

For all these pages you won't shut up about "natural health", but now you grow quiet?

IOW, you don't know.

 

[trusetheeker]

In order to answer that, you need to tell us if getting measles from a wild virus is safer than getting it from a vaccine. Do show your work by posting the title, journal, date and main author of the peer reviewed papers that support your statement that vaccines are not necessary.

Remember that measles tends to cause severe affects from deafness, paralysis, blindness and even death in one out of a thousand cases. So make sure your evidence is quite solid. It also spreads quite easily and quickly, which is why it returns so fast. That is why one kid can infect so many in San Diego, CA... and why it went from almost extinct to endemic in the UK shortly after the media got a hold of Wakefield's error filled press release (his Lancet paper did not show a relationship between any MMR and autism, he just lied in the press conference).

And remember that although all patient examinations, lab results, peer reviews etc will be conducted by people whose careers depend on not bucking the system, that is no reason to question their findings. I'm not claiming that there is a conspiracy here - just a climate that doesn't engender complete honesty.

 

[trusetheeker]

Um- the incredibly extensive testing that is performed on these samples? Tests of toxicity, tests to look for cryptic or infectious viruses, testd of safety in animals and in phase I, II, and III clinical studies? Maybe that's how?

Makes me wonder why I'm concerned. These procedures didn't help much when Baxters sent out vaccine samples containing live H5N1 bird flu viruses.

The Baxter 'accident'

One such "accident" recently involved the drug company Baxter, which is one of two companies contracted by WHO to produced a vaccine against the H1N1 virus.

In February 2009, Baxter sent out vaccine samples containing live H5N1 bird flu viruses. The samples were sent to 18 countries from Baxter's Austrian laboratory and the contamination was discovered by laboratory workers in the Czech Replublic.

If not for that discovery, that "accident" would have indeed caused a serious avian flu pandemic, as the avian flu is much more lethal than the curren H1N1 swine flu. Baxter admitted the "mistake" but set many people thinking if it was a genuine mistake, because pharmaceutical companies are supposed to have many levels of controls that make such an "accident" virtually impossible. So again, this fuelled conspiracy theories.

Still, everybody's allowed at least one little mistake!!!

 

[trusetheeker]

For all these pages you won't shut up about "natural health", but now you grow quiet?

IOW, you don't know.

Considering that the movement had it's beginnings with Isaac Jennings, who, after practicing traditional medicine for 20 years in Derby, Connecticut, began formulating his ideas about orthopathy in 1822, WTH does it have to do with the 'men before shamans and priests?'

Yes, I don't know what the 'men before shamans and priests' did regardless of the subject. Does it make me a lesser person?

 

[Stomatopoda]

You know, you're on the internet, and can just google the answers. There's really no excuse for not being able to answer middle-school chemistry questions.

"Natural" is a worthless argument. Everything that exists is natural. Termite mounds and skyscrapers are indistinguishable on any scale that matters to the universe.

 

[Estellea]

Here is hard data about autism in children: http://www.tacanow.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/autism-statistics-2009.jpg

From: http://www.tacanow.org/family-resources/latest-autism-statistics-2/

TACA is a well-known "vaccines cause autism" and curebie group. Showing a graph of vaccines and autism rates is completely meaningless as a correlation between autism and the increase/decrease of scores of factors could also be shown.

I can't see how such study could be difficult. Just compare vaccinated children with children who haven't taken the vaccine and compare the autism statistics! Maybe that's what they have done, but then why did it take so long time for the fraud article to be exposed?

Study design 101: What is the prevalence of unvaccinated children? What is the difference you are looking for? Potential (and real) bias: Parents who either have an autistic child and believe that vaccines were causal are unlikely to have a subsequent child unvaccinated, that and parents who have simply bought into the "vaccines cause autism" mantra will have eschewed vaccines. This leads to likelihood that one would actually find more unvaccinated autistic children. Besides, there aren't enough unvaccinated children in any one developed country to find a statistically meaningful difference.

But isn't the Lancet a peer-review journal? How could the article pass the peer-review in the first place if the fraud was so easy to detect?

There were actually questions raised by the reviewers with regards to the methods and results interpretation but Dr. Horton (Lancet editor in chief) dismissed them and published anyway. Besides, Wakefield's conflicts of interest weren't disclosed at the time of submission. The failure wasn't in the review but poor judgement by the editor and shenanigans by Wakefield et al.

Este

 

[trusetheeker]

You know, you're on the internet, and can just google the answers. There's really no excuse for not being able to answer middle-school chemistry questions.

"Natural" is a worthless argument. Everything that exists is natural. Termite mounds and skyscrapers are indistinguishable on any scale that matters to the universe.

I'm not sure who you're addressing but, in any event, I'm genuinely sorry that you feel this way.

 

[Belz...]

Correction: Animal foods are only lethal to you if you are a vegan/vegetarian. No problem for meat eaters! My apologies for the confusion.

Are you trying to win some strawman championship or something ?

 

[Belz...]

Ooh, my turn! Linky link!

You're asking him to prove a negative. You do know that, right ?

 

[trusetheeker]

Are you trying to win some strawman championship or something ?

I'm really just trying to point out how ridiculous it is to imply that I'm criticising meat just because I don't eat it!

 

[Belz...]

I'm really just trying to point out how ridiculous it is to imply that I'm criticising meat just because I don't eat it!

I asked you a question. Your inability to read and understand simple English is laughable.

 

[trusetheeker]

You're asking him to prove a negative. You do know that, right ?

I disagree. If Tatyana cannot prove that there is no foetal tissue in a vaccine, then they have made a completely useless remark and I think that's worth pointing out.

 

[trusetheeker]

I asked you a question. Your inability to read and understand simple English is laughable.

I answered your question as I saw fit. Get over yourself and ask useful questions if you want useful replies.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I think this was explained to you in an earlier thread. Just in case I am wrong: In any drug or vaccine trial, you need to have a fairly uniform population so any negative effects can be observed above background. If you admit a lot of ill people into the study before a vaccine treatment, you would never be able to tell if the treatment caused that illness. All drug trials have very strict rules for who can be tested or not for that reason. Typically far more people are eligible for treatment after the treatment has been tested and approved.

That's like saying people, lets say 40%, who are likely to be able run 5 miles test the safety of running shoes then requiring by law everyone to run 5 miles.

How to determine if a toddler had a negative reaction to a vaccine:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm

That has nothing to do with determining whether a baby/toddler suffered a reaction.

 

[Estellea]

I disagree. If Tatyana cannot prove that there is no foetal tissue in a vaccine, then they have made a completely useless remark and I think that's worth pointing out.

If you had a clue about vaccine manufacturing, then you would know this. There is no foetal tissue in vaccines, it's physically impossible as the filter sterilisation process will not allow a single mammalian cell through, let alone tissue.

Este

 

[Capsid]

What viruses? Did I say viruses? I said "what else is hitching a ride" so why would think that was limited to viruses?

Hmmm, viruses hitch a ride, but I did ask you what else you had in mind?

 

[Capsid]

Ooh, my turn! Linky link!

Here's a 119 page document for the specifications needed to make the MMR vaccine. I didn't read it thoroughly but I couldn't find anything in there that mentions foetal material. The diploid cell lines (such as MRC5) have been derived from a foetus but if you look around page 70 onwards there is a list of tests these cells must be subjected to including that they don't contain any adventitious agents (bacteria and viruses).

Link: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_840_(part2).pdf