Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomblvd said:
Why is someone who is willing to misrepresent the truth like this allowed to post here?

For those of you who didn't follow the link, here is an unedited, but shortened version:



This goes beyond trolling into outright dishonesty.
Click to expand...

But you see, CM has no financial stake in this, so zir lies don't matter.

At least, that's what zie tell us over in the Holocaust thread...
 
74% chance of no answer, 19% chance of some nonsense one-liner rationalization which he never discusses in any further detail.
 
Clayton Moore said:
How did I ignore anything? I pointed out that they were not all U.S. studies.
Click to expand...

You asked for US studies.

You were given US studies, with a few from other countries.

You then completely ignore the US studies and only address the foreign studies. Unless you mentioned them somewhere we all missed.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clayton Moore said:
How did I ignore anything? I pointed out that they were not all U.S. studies.
Click to expand...

You asked for US studies and you were handed them on a plate.

What exactly is wrong with the US studies listed?

Why did you ignore the ones which directly satisfied your request?

Why did you only quote the non-US ones in that list, when you requested US studies?

Why do I hear the dulcet tones of goalposts on the move?

Why do I feel an urge to chuck a billy goat at the bridge?

What on earth is wrong with you?

Why do you lie?
 
Tomblvd said:
You asked for US studies.

You were given US studies, with a few from other countries.

You then completely ignore the US studies and only address the foreign studies. Unless you mentioned them somewhere we all missed.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited for civility.
Click to expand...
And then he tried to backpedal frantically.

The sad thing is that I have no doubt he actually believes what he's saying, even when he contradicts himself. Anything to prop up his position.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe oral vaccines should replace vaccinations.


Oral vaccines are particularly attractive for immunizing populations in developing countries for several reasons. First, contaminated needles and syringes are major problems both for health workers and for environmental safety in many developing countries where there is a high prevalence of HIV and hepatitis B and C [16-18]. Because they obviate the need for needles and syringes, oral vaccines allow less qualified health workers to carry out immunization. Second, the simple logistics of oral vaccines are highly compatible with mass immunization campaigns [19,20]. Lastly, in most societies both adults and children generally prefer an oral vaccine to a parenteral injection.

Despite the attractions of oral vaccines for developing countries, many oral vaccines, both live and non-living, have proven to be less immunogenic or less protective when administered to infants, children or adults living in low socioeconomic conditions in less-developed countries than they are when used in industrialized countries (Table 1). Thus, there is a poorly understood 'intestinal barrier' to successful immunization of people in less developed countries who receive oral vaccines. Here, I review this phenomenon, provide examples and possible explanations, and offer suggestions for establishing the basis of the phenomenon.
Click to expand...


http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/129
 
Why would we willingly change to a method that has been proven to be less protective? Whynot stick to a more effective methodology? Contaminated needles can be avoided by simply adopting disposable oneuse needle kits.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Why would we willingly change to a method that has been proven to be less protective? Whynot stick to a more effective methodology? Contaminated needles can be avoided by simply adopting disposable oneuse needle kits.
Click to expand...

Despite the attractions of oral vaccines for developing countries, many oral vaccines, both live and non-living, have proven to be less immunogenic or less protective when administered to infants, children or adults living in low socioeconomic conditions in less-developed countries than they are when used in industrialized countries (Table 1)
Click to expand...


There you go.
 
So you have data comparing oral vaccines in developing nations to oral vaccines in first world nations.

That quote does not appear oral vaccines to injected vaccines. (Which is I assume what you meant. Replacing "vaccines" with oral vaccines is a nonsense. Oral vaccines are vaccines.)

A brief scan of the literature suggests most injected vaccines are in that form to maximise immune response. Taking into account your "we" seems to mean "Americans" where as mine meant "human kind" (hence the suggestion of how injected vaccines can negate cross contamination risk) I will repeat the question: why should there be a swap to oral vaccines?

Comparing how oral vaccines perform in differing environments is distinct from a comparison to other forms of vaccination, and in itself not enough to suggest it is equally or more effective.
 
So, your argument against using the more effective method (needles) is that the alternative is LESS effective under certain conditions?
 
This insistance on only US studies suggest no understanding that science is science where ever it is conducted and does not follow national boundaries
 
abaddon said:
Hear that squeak? That's the goalposts on the move.

Come on, Clay, address the US studies provided.
Click to expand...

Never happen.

The thread will be ignored until CM is spoon fed another link by someone who tells zie it will support zir crap -- which zie will then post without actually reading rather than scanning for mied quote potential (and that only if zie isn't also spoon fed the cherries).

Zie will never explain why, if it is the composition of the vaccines which is the problem, the manner of delivery matters -- except perhaps to whine "it's common knowledge" and run away again.

Hey, CM: I keep changing the baby's nappies, and zie keeps pooping in them. I can cite millions of parents who have the same experience. Shouldn't we just stop changing them, then the babies won't poop?
 
Clayton's posting strategy always reminds me of the joke about why computer programmers spend so much time in the shower: because the shampoo bottle says, "Lather, wash, repeat." As soon as he thinks we forgot about his demand for "US studies," he will repost any one of his earlier repertoire of debunked arguments against vaccination and begin a whole new cycle.
 
TSR said:
Never happen.

The thread will be ignored until CM is spoon fed another link by someone who tells zie it will support zir crap -- which zie will then post without actually reading rather than scanning for mied quote potential (and that only if zie isn't also spoon fed the cherries).

Zie will never explain why, if it is the composition of the vaccines which is the problem, the manner of delivery matters -- except perhaps to whine "it's common knowledge" and run away again.

Hey, CM: I keep changing the baby's nappies, and zie keeps pooping in them. I can cite millions of parents who have the same experience. Shouldn't we just stop changing them, then the babies won't poop?
Click to expand...
Perhaps not. But the terminal death throes may provide some fleeting amusement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom