• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why are 2014 doctors so afraid of a child getting the measles when the 1950s doctors and parents were not?

Shouldn't the treatment of childhood diseases have improved, with the advent of super computers, to close to removing death and serious complications as a worst case(s) for most childhood diseases?
 
measles is a virulent disease and it has improved it is called vaccination against it.

Until the anti vaxxers created hysteria about the MMR jabs measles was on the way out in most developed countries, thanks to them it has killed people and injured children.

Your 1950's 2013 attempt at comparison is irrelevant.

What is provably the case is anti vaccine hysteria has caused real harm and a set back to the eradication of an horrendous disease.
 
Last edited:
Why are 2014 doctors so afraid of a child getting the measles when the 1950s doctors and parents were not?

Shouldn't the treatment of childhood diseases have improved, with the advent of super computers, to close to removing death and serious complications as a worst case(s) for most childhood diseases?

Because the treatment of childhood diseases has gotten so good that we don't want any kids to die. They weren't so afraid of it back in the 1950s because they thought there was nothing that could be done! Do you have any idea what the death rate of measles was back then? And how far it's dropped now thanks to vaccinations?
 
Why are 2014 doctors so afraid of a child getting the measles when the 1950s doctors and parents were not?

Shouldn't the treatment of childhood diseases have improved, with the advent of super computers, to close to removing death and serious complications as a worst case(s) for most childhood diseases?
Hm. Interesting questions. But very, very similar to questions you've asked before. I think you might find these posts informative:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8640756&highlight=1950s#post8640756

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8871025&highlight=1950s#post8871025

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9623587&highlight=1950s#post9623587
 
I was there. Kids didn't even go to the doctor for measles.

Bed rest and draw the curtains.
In the 1950s thousands went to the mortuary, never mind the doctor. But I repeat myself: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8871025&highlight=1950s#post8871025

There were 1400 deaths from measles in England and Wales during the 1950s. That's just deaths. There's also the serious complications that survivors would have suffered. Serious enough to hospitalise them.

Bed rest and draw the curtains may have been OK for milder cases, but we don't vaccinate to prevent mild cases do we? We vaccinate to prevent death and serious complications from measles. Which occurred in the 1950s and still occur now.

Modern measles death: http://justthevax.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/i-called-it-first-measles-death-in.html

More: http://www.who.int/csr/don/2000_08_09/en/index.html?

...and there are still others. Like Germany in 2006, for example.
 
There's the first post. What was my contention again?
There are no real "contentions" in the first post on 25th April 2011 (getting to 23 years now!).
There are invalid, unsupported assertions though.

There is the CT assertion that the lack of conspiracy evidence is evidence of a conspiracy, e.g. the lack of evidence that man did not walk on the Moon is evidence that man did not walk on the Moon.

"Big pharma and the mainstream media insist vaccines are absolutely safe" remains absolutely wrong. Drug companies tell doctors about the known dangers of vaccines. There are many news articles about the dangers of vaccines - you have cited some, Clayton Moore :eek:!

"but close to NONE of the vaccines are tested with a control group" is also wrong as has been pointed out to you before and yet again lately.

There is the obvious fact that ambulance-chasing lawyers exist!

The media pretty much crucifies anyone who dares suggest a link between autism and vaccines because those people present arguments that practically demand crucifixion :D.
They ignore the scientific evidence that there is no link between autism and vaccines.
They cite the retracted 1998 paper of Andrew Wakefield.
They ignore simple facts. For example that autism is able to be diagnosed around the age that children get the 18-month vaccination. Thus a correlation between the 2 is expected. But they go on about 'thousands' of anecdotes by parents who noted that correlation and ignore the millions of unrecorded anecdotes of parents whose children were not diagnosed with autism.
etc.

The last assertion is unsupported and vague: "an industry/community with such a poor drug testing track record".
What is the drug testing track record of the drug industry, Clayton Moore?
What is the criteria that determines whether such a record is "poor" or not, Clayton Moore?
 
Last edited:
http://www.endowmentmed.org/content/view/284/35/

No Autism in Unvaccinated Amish Community
An author on the web who relies on anecdotes only!
The web page is about the demand that the USA look at autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated USA children almost as if USA children were different from children in other countries, e.g. the 537,303 Danish children in A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism studied.

The real problem with a USA study is finding compatible vaccinated and unvaccinated populations so that confounding factors can be eliminated. The Amish are especially incompatible given their life style.

The myth that Amish do not vaccinate:
Anecdotal Amish-don’t-vaccinate claims disproved by fact-based study

The myth that Amish do not get autism: Prevalence Rates of Autism Spectrum Disorders Among the Old Order Amish at "a rate of approximately 1 in 271 children".
Before this study it was anecdotally thought that the rate was very low -the Amish anomaly.
 
Why are 2014 doctors so afraid of a child getting the measles when the 1950s doctors and parents were not?
What is your evidence that 1950s doctors and parents were not afraid of a child getting the measles, Clayton Moore?

Measles Elimination in the United States has some statistics about measles in the US over the years.

Personally I would be afraid of my child getting a disease that could put them in bed for days, in the hospital or even kill them. I would be very afraid in the 1910's. I would be less afraid in the late 1950's since better treatment of measles had been developed (the mortality rates declined from ~26 deaths/ 1000 reported cases in 1912–1916 to ~1 death/ 1000 reported cases in 1956 to 1960).

As an aside - what is special about the 1950's? Why not ask about the 1840's?
 
There's the first post. What was my contention again?
Fine. Given all of your excrutiating contortions throughout this thread is it any small wonder no one can pinpoint your exact claim? But I'll prove you wrong yet again.
The proof of the pudding that there are conspiracies at high levels of society is media's insistence that there are NONE.
In order for there to be a conspiracy then billions of people shouldn't be privy to it and the rest of your post contradicts a conspiracy.
Let's see. Big pharma and the mainstream media insist vaccines are absolutely safe but close to NONE of the vaccines are tested with a control group. They have convinced much of the American public that questioning the safety of vaccines is criminal.
False. No one claims vaccines are absolutely safe but nice strawman. Many vaccines are tested with control groups. This took five seconds to find. Now are you going to do the honest thing and admit you were wrong or continue dodging?

Next up, who and how has convinced the American public that questioning vaccine safety is criminal? Who has gone to jail or prosecuted? Meanwhile we have both passive and active surveillance systems in place; anyone can make an entry to the former and have it investigated if enough information is entered and independent investigators can mine the latter for vaccine adverse events and potential correlations for further investigation. In addition there are investigators all over the world publishing about vaccine safety/adverse events.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=vaccine+adverse+events. Once again I will ask you if you will do the intellectually honest thing and admit your claim was wrong or continue dodging?

Yet commercial after commercial airs up front and personal that if you've taken DRUG X, Y, or Z contact my law firm. Now you know those drugs, I think ZOLOFT is the star of the newer ripe for litigation drugs, were supposed to be tested with a control group! What happened.
So there is this conspiracy to convince us all that drugs are safe and the big bad Pharma Cabal controls everything yet they are routinely fined millions and billions of dollars, inspected, have production lines shut down, drugs pulled off the market and public notices posted all hiding out in the open. How good of a conspiracy can this be Clayton? Why hasn't Ben Goldacre been deaded for his excellent expose of pharma shenanigans? Better yet why wasn't he disappeared prior to its release?

Secondly, drugs and vaccines are treated very differently in terms of production, testing and marketing; the latter are biological products given to healthy people for prevention so the safety profile has to be far far higher than therapeutic drugs. This translates to more stringent testing, production and handling. And if you don't wish to believe me then you have simply got to do some heavy lifting and start investigating this using legitimate sources.

And the media pretty much crucifies anyone who dares suggest a link between autism and vaccines. Why would the media trust and speak out for an industry/community with such a poor drug testing track record?
Give some examples of this please and start supporting your claims. At one time, which lasted years by the way, Wakefield was a media darling getting favourable interviews and even stints speaking at U.S. Congressional hearings. Then he was found to have abused special needs children and committed scientific fraud. Robert Kennedy Jr. enjoyed the same favourable attention after his excrable thimersal piece in Rolling Stone Magazine and of course that was found to be so rife with errors and hyperbole it too was retracted. So they did it to themselves.

Este
 
Why are 2014 doctors so afraid of a child getting the measles when the 1950s doctors and parents were not?

Shouldn't the treatment of childhood diseases have improved, with the advent of super computers, to close to removing death and serious complications as a worst case(s) for most childhood diseases?
Old territory; please follow your own claims to their logical conclusion. Since when would super computers be responsible for "removing death and serious complications as a worst case(s) for most childhood diseases?" Vaccination has done an extremely good job of eliminating some of the worst childhood diseases and attenuating others. Prevention will always be better than cure/treatments. Do we not eat healthy diets and exercise in order to prevent disease? But you would have us not recommend these measures and focus more on just cure/treatment where there may never be any?

Este
 
The thread has been put on Moderated status. Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader
 
Why are 2014 doctors so afraid of a child getting the measles when the 1950s doctors and parents were not?
I lived in the 1950's. My doctors were terrified, not to mention the parents, because children got sick died, and there was little they could do to prevent it.

I contracted measles. I was one of the lucky ones, and didn't die. Some of my contemporaries weren't so lucky.

Medical science marches on, but if you stand in the way out of ignorance, people die. Just like they used to. Please don't bring back the 1950's; we don't need to relive the terror when we can do so much better now.
 
Why are 2014 doctors so afraid of a child getting the measles when the 1950s doctors and parents were not?
Not factually true.

Shouldn't the treatment of childhood diseases have improved, with the advent of super computers, to close to removing death and serious complications as a worst case(s) for most childhood diseases?
Not sure what you think "super computers" have to do with medical research but in general, yes - vaccines have contributed greatly to "removing death and serious complications as a worst case(s) for most childhood diseases." Life expectancies have increased over time, mostly due to surviving infancy and childhood illnesses.
 
Not factually true.


Not sure what you think "super computers" have to do with medical research... <snip>[/URL]

I think I have this one figured out. I think Clayton Moore is saying that by now, computer-aided medical research should have come up with more effective cures and treatments for diseases and making it so we don't have to vaccinate children anymore. (Please correct me if my statement is wrong, Clayton; I don't want to misstate your argument.) Assuming that this is the right interpretation, then there is an old saw that covers this ground nicely: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." It is easier to develop a vaccine that will enable your body to prevent a disease from doing damage, than it is to develop a cure that will selectively destroy the disease's cells while not damaging the body. Not to mention that by the time symptoms are presented, some diseases have already done significant damage, and that may not be reversible even if the patient is cured by some miracle "super-computer" generated cure.
 
Why are 2014 doctors so afraid of a child getting the measles when the 1950s doctors and parents were not?

Shouldn't the treatment of childhood diseases have improved, with the advent of super computers, to close to removing death and serious complications as a worst case(s) for most childhood diseases?

Why "childhood"? Why not adults too? Why do we still have the common cold and all this other good stuff?

Oh, and appeal to incredulity. <snip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/vaccine-skeptics_b_4548510.html?just_reloaded=1


Why the Press Shouldn't Dismiss Vaccine Skeptics


How hard, for example, should it have been for the press to notice the views of Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former head of the National Institute of Health, the former head of the American Red Cross, and the former Chair of the White House Cabinet Group on Biotechnology, one of several White House positions she held in service to three U.S. presidents.

Dr. Healy criticized the public health establishment for being "too quick to dismiss [vaccine concerns] as irrational...The more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science, if you look at the research that's been done in animals, if you also look at some of these individual cases, and if you look at the evidence... what you come away with is that the question [of vaccine safety] has not been answered."


<snip>


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rule 4. Do not quote long passages of an article available on the internet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
clayton an op ed piece is not science so one Dr has reservations about vaccines, that is not a slam dunk statement that all vaccines are dangerous.

The evidence is overwhelming vaccines on the whole are very safe and a very effective form of preventative medicine, the hard evidence is there to be seen.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/vaccine-skeptics_b_4548510.html?just_reloaded=1


Why the Press Shouldn't Dismiss Vaccine Skeptics





<snip>


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for Rule 4. Do not quote long passages of an article available on the internet.
Dr. Healy has no expertise in vaccinology and all you posted was her unsubstantiated opinion (please see my previous post for links to studies and surveillance systems). What vaccine safety issues have been dismissed? Please provide specific examples. Oh by the way, Dr. Healy was actively involved defending and assisting tobacco companies and their "science" to disprove links between their products and lung cancer.

Este
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom