• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Border Reiver said:
Apparently, that article does exist - however it is part one of two (and part two is not generally acknowledged on anti-vac sites. A report on both articles is here:
<snip>

Translation for Robert - This may not be the best vaccine that we can use so lets not stop looking for a better one, but in the interim Salk's vaccine will do.
Click to expand...

Cheers, BR.
 
Robert Prey said:
Yeah, I want to bring Polio back. Why? Because I like to see people suffer. What a ridiculous comment.
Click to expand...
It's not a ridiculous comment at all considering what you are arguing and the only alternative being ending vaccination. In spite of your misrepresented graphs, polio morbidity did not decline until the introduction of mass vaccination.

Robert Prey said:
The fact is herd immunity is always a factor in any epidemic. To what extent natural herd immunity played in eradicating Polio as versus vaccines? That is an open question.
Click to expand...

No, it's only an open question to dunderheads who don't know the first thing about disease epidemiology. Polio hasn't been eradicated yet but how many cases are reported in the world now as opposed to pre-vaccine?

Fact is, there is a whole lot of cooked statistics involved, including the fact that 95% of cases have no symptoms and are therefore not reported and the fact that in 1954 the disease was re-defined to re-classify many of the reported cases as meningitis.
Click to expand...
Another anti-vaxx canard easily disassembled. Polio stats needed to be tracked more precisely in order to elucidate vaccine effectiveness. Prior to the vaccine all AFP cases were essentially treated the same; polio diagnosis criteria was tightened to try and eliminate false diagnoses. It's what medical science is supposed to do.

"In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August, 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings, revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)
Prior to 1954, all that was required was an examination on admittance and another 24 hours later; if the classic polio symptoms were discernible, the patient was considered to have polio. No lab test, and no residual paralysis were required to establish a paralytic polio case definitely. When the new criteria was established in 1954, for a case to be reportable as polio, residual paralysis had to linger for 60 days or longer. From this time onward, all cases in which paralysis lasted less than 60 days would no longer be classified as polio! Overnight, the majority of cases that would have been diagnosed as polio, were now shifted into a new disease category, cocksackie virus, or aseptic viral meningitis."
Click to expand...

Do you have a point here? Do you think PCR was being conducted then? You say that better diagnostic criteria implemented was a bad thing.

Este
 
Estellea said:
It's not a ridiculous comment at all considering what you are arguing and the only alternative being ending vaccination. In spite of your misrepresented graphs, polio morbidity did not decline until the introduction of mass vaccination.



No, it's only an open question to dunderheads who don't know the first thing about disease epidemiology. Polio hasn't been eradicated yet but how many cases are reported in the world now as opposed to pre-vaccine?

Another anti-vaxx canard easily disassembled. Polio stats needed to be tracked more precisely in order to elucidate vaccine effectiveness. Prior to the vaccine all AFP cases were essentially treated the same; polio diagnosis criteria was tightened to try and eliminate false diagnoses. It's what medical science is supposed to do.



Do you have a point here? Do you think PCR was being conducted then? You say that better diagnostic criteria implemented was a bad thing.

Este
Click to expand...

A series of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacies.
 
Robert Prey said:
A series of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacies.
Click to expand...
That isn't a response. My comments were rather straight-forward but if you are having difficulty forming a cogent response, you can ask questions or keep changing the subject when you have shown to be in gross error as you have been doing.

Este
 
Border Reiver said:
Apparently, that article does exist - however it is part one of two (and part two is not generally acknowledged on anti-vac sites. A report on both articles is here:

The Dr. Greenberg was questioning the way the statistics were collected, not the effectiveness of the vaccine. A later comment of his:

"I am agnostic [as to the effectiveness of Salk] like Dr. Kleinman. I am
sorry that I do not know what the effectiveness of the Salk vaccine is.
Since nothing else is available, there seems to be no alternative but to
push the use of it. I don't think we should do so in ignorance, nor too
complacently, believing that as long as we have some partially effective
there is no need to have something better. The USPHS is, in effect, saying,
"Let's face it: we were burned the last time by getting into this business
to quickly; so thius time we are going to be more cautious.' By being more
cautious, we may make a mistake by accepting a better polio vaccine too
slowly. And that's what I am trying to emphasize: They must realize they are
making this mistake possible. The issue must be pursued."

Translation for Robert - This may not be the best vaccine that we can use so lets not stop looking for a better one, but in the interim Salk's vaccine will do.
Click to expand...

In other words, in deciding whether or not to vaccinate, it might be wise to think twice.
 
Mr Prey once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the matter under disccusion.

You have shown you do not understand technical explanations and discussions in other threads and here again we see your lack of technical understanding this time of vaccines.
 
Robert Prey said:
In other words, in deciding whether or not to vaccinate, it might be wise to think twice.
Click to expand...
And so if people make the choice to vaccinate that is somehow the incorrect choice? What if a critical number of people decide not to as we are seeing with measles, mumps and now rubella? Since you aren't answering questions anyway, don't complain about the number.

Este
 
What about the decline in deaths that is not down to any sort of natural immunity, but to the use of medical technology before vaccination?

No word on infection rates before vaccination?

Is this just another place to set up a dodge dealership?
 
Robert Prey said:
ONe question at a time, please.
Click to expand...


You're free to answer one question at a time. However, I don't see why they must be posed to you one at a time. Unless, of course, there's some medical reason. I'm sure we'd all be willing to make the effort if we thought there was a good reason for your apparent need to retard the conversation.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
You're free to answer one question at a time. However, I don't see a reason why they must be posed to you one at a time. Unless, of course, there's some medical reason. I'm sure we'd all be willing to make the effort if we thought there was a good reason for your apparent need to retard the conversation.
Click to expand...


Is obvious trolling a good reason?
 
Robert Prey said:
ONe question at a time, please.
Click to expand...

One question (and this question is aimed at Clayton as well): Do you even care about this issue at all?

I ask because it's starting to look like I hit the nail dead on when I said that you'd like an outbreak of [insert contagion here] just so you can accuse the [insert agency here] of not doing enough to protect people from it.

I mean let's take a look at Autism for example. Hardly an outbreak of deadly zombie virus or anything, but not only do you accuse the [insert agency here] of not doing enough to protect children from it but you also accuse them of causing it in the same breath.

What do you think that tells me and the other, more rational posters and lurkers on this thread?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom