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

[excaza]

I wonder how long he'd survive in Africa or Central America with his 'natural hygiene'

 

[trusetheeker]

Gotta love the germ theory deniers, who apparently believe that an autism diagnosis after being vaccinated is because of the vaccine, but getting the flu after your contagious coworker coughs on you isn't because of the virus. Amazing.

Stomatopoda, no real contradiction if it were the case. As we don't appear to know exactly what causes autism as yet, we cannot really rule out vaccines as a culprit. Injecting young children with foreign substances which begins on day one might be a cumulative process that MMR is taking the heat for but that doesn't mean that the viruses were specifically to blame. There's so much more in that vial concoction that could be at fault.

 

[excaza]

As we don't appear to know exactly what causes autism as yet, we cannot really rule out vaccines as a culprit.

And as a corollary to this wonderful line of logic, because we don't know exactly what causes alzheimers, we cannot rule out chewing gum as the culprit.

 

[Estellea]

Stomatopoda, no real contradiction if it were the case. As we don't appear to know exactly what causes autism as yet, we cannot really rule out vaccines as a culprit. Injecting young children with foreign substances which begins on day one might be a cumulative process that MMR is taking the heat for but that doesn't mean that the viruses were specifically to blame. There's so much more in that vial concoction that could be at fault.

Just because we don't know what the aetiology of the disorder is, doesn't mean we can't rule candidates out, like vaccines. If you care to look at the actual studies regarding autism aetiology, genes, infectious disease in utero and abhorrent in utero neurological development have produced more biologically-plausible explanations than your "injecting foreign substances" claim. Which, as you present it, it's obvious that you don't even know what these "foreign substances" are so you hone in on them out of ignorance and fear. Take your own advice and educate yourself.

Este

 

[trusetheeker]

Is this a game to you?

http://jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html

Seriously, you've been going on for pages about how the entire medical industry is evil, how countless people are being exploited, kept sick, and killed, how millions of childrens suffer from autism and other health problems because of a giant scam...

...and when we take the topic seriously, all of a sudden that's a red flag to you?

Sorry but you cannot say that you're taking this subject seriously AND post a link to the Jenny McCarthy Body Count propaganda.

So you're confessing you don't have the ability to think critically?

No. You're showing that your reading skills are faulty.

Possibly. The difference, of course, is the fact that today, most of us are blessed with the ability to empirically analyze our actions and work out their actual outcomes. Instead of, say, deciding to have our morals dictated from above by clergy, blame some innocent woman for an epidemic, or deciding that the Jews were behind 9/11. Or, for that matter, starting a campaign to end vaccination because you're terrified of Big Pharma.

Your use of the word "most" is intriguing. Does that mean most of the people you know or are you oblivious to the impact that religion and political groups still have on the multitudes.

Yes there are some people who blame the Jews for everything so why not 9/11. Using that as a means to stifle proper investigation of the 9/11 evidence is irreprehensible and an affront to the victims and their families.

The campaigns to end vaccination is rooted in preventing death and injury due to vaccination. Distrust of Big Pharma is just a natural reaction to its reputation.

 

[Lamuella]

you claimed to know"the cause and cure of cancers, MS, diabetes, atheriosclerosis, AIDS, arthritis, etc". Would you mind sharing?

 

[Travis]

Sorry but you cannot say that you're taking this subject seriously AND post a link to the Jenny McCarthy Body Count propaganda.

Why not? She kills people. If someone listens to you and doesn't vaccinate then you are killing people too.

The campaigns to end vaccination is rooted in preventing death and injury due to vaccination. Distrust of Big Pharma is just a natural reaction to its reputation.

Will you also get behind the campaign to end the use of seat belts in cars? After all a small number of people are injured by seat belts every year. And who cares how many lives they save? We only want perfect solutions.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Sorry but you cannot say that you're taking this subject seriously AND post a link to the Jenny McCarthy Body Count propaganda.

Why not? Has a lack of vaccination killed this many or hasn't it?
Either way, you miss my point: I know that "you're putting effort into this, so you're hiding something/know you're wrong" is a common red herring from CT-ers, but we're not discussing whether the Moon Landing was fake. We're talking bout a serious matter. Hence, you pointing out that we're taking this very seriously as if that somehow worked against us... doesn't reflect well on you.

Vaccines are just nature's way of holistically healing the ravages of disease brought on by evil humors. All things on this earth are natural, and things made by man are even more so. Mercury is a pure, healing substance, and other metals like aluminum are similarly so.

The bioquantum pathogenetic effects of vaccines sets up an EMF which imparts unique healing and prophylactic powers. If the vaccines are injected directly into the blood stream, as they almost always are, this power is amplified within the neuroendocrine immune axis in the brain.

Any apparent ill effect from vaccines is merely the body's way of implementing energy healing and is harmless, and any persisting ill effects are the result of mistaken attempts by parents to seek alternative healing modalities instead of letting the vaccine's regeneration effects take their natural time course.

That's... actually very well written. Almost worthy of a nomination. Disagree with the content and the idea behind it, of course, but still, good job!

 

[Tomblvd]

Stomatopoda, no real contradiction if it were the case. As we don't appear to know exactly what causes autism as yet, we cannot really rule out vaccines as a culprit. Injecting young children with foreign substances which begins on day one might be a cumulative process that MMR is taking the heat for but that doesn't mean that the viruses were specifically to blame. There's so much more in that vial concoction that could be at fault.

No. Since there are cases of children who have not been vaccinated developing autism, it is safe to say it is not the "culprit".

 

[Clayton Moore]

No. Since there are cases of children who have not been vaccinated developing autism, it is safe to say it is not the "culprit".

I doubt that. Go to Lancaster.

 

[trusetheeker]

Your scoff at my request to hold the conspiracy theory belies your launch into one. Who has "questioned and try to buck the system are automatically ostracized"?

I'll come back to this one later as I don't keep a list of references to hand.

I showed you literally thousands of studies that do question vaccine safety, granted some are by nutters in nutter journals but that is only a handful, the rest are by bona fide researchers.

Once again, I only reviewed a handful but what I saw wasn't studies questioning the vaccine safety but studies purporting to answer the questions about vaccine safety. As I only have access to the abstracts and that doesn't tell me who funded the study, it only leaves me with more questions.

Unlike you (taking you at your word,) I don't have the training that enables me to correctly analyse all this science so I have to use the tools I have and one of those tools is to see what various expert opinions say about it. The experts that link what I don't know with what I do know so that it harmonises will influence me more than those whose scientific opinions are at odds to my knowledge. There's always a chance that I'll get the wrong end of the stick but time and experience will tell. The number of supporting opinions is not a key factor although it does add reassurance.

How else do you explain how the IOM generated this monster report on...gasp...vaccine complications?

I'm a bit stymied by this release which is sufficiently atypical of the medical industry. Are they admitting minor faults to smokescreen something bigger? Or are they confident that it won't generate much in the way of bad press.

From what I've read, it is a damning exposé of the quality of medical and scientific endeavor. Study after study gets thrown out due to procedural flaws and conclusions of "insufficient evidence" are rife.

In the words of the Committee Chair, Ellen Wright Clayton:

Although the committee is optimistic that more can and will be known about vaccine safety in the future, the limitations of the currently available peer-reviewed data meant that , more often not, we did not have sufficient scientific information to conclude whether a particular vaccine caused a specific rare adverse event.

She also had this to say about the level of scientific understanding:

Alleged adverse effects that appear to be immune mediated, as many of them are, are more challenging, in part because the biology is not completely understood. One potentially useful line of inquiry as science advances is to assess whether the vaccine recipient who suffers harm had a preexisting susceptibility to that particular adverse event as such studies may provide insight into the mechanisms by which such events occur.

It begs the question, "Why are you messing with something that you don't completely understand?"

You don't get to justify ignorance to outright lying by your go-to "experts" with "they're just doing what they think is right", because there is a mountain of scientific evidence which simply flies in the face of theirs and your claims. But science is hard isn't it?

I'm not quite with you on this one. I was referring to the mainstream, conventional, modern medicine practitioners. It's their ignorance to outright lying that is reducing the global population to physiological cripples. These are the "experts" who treat pregnancy as a disease, childbirth as a disease, childhood as a disease, menopause as a disease, who basically treat life as a disease requiring constant vaccines, antibiotics, antidepressants, hormone treatments and pills for even the slightest discomfort.

Oh really? Like who?

Later

They are most certainly not favourable conclusions but simply, sane and rational presentations of vaccine adverse events and effects. Emotional weepy testimonials may do it for you but that ain't science.

Science is largely animals being tortured for the good of humanity. Why not extend this to humans? Oh, yes. You already do but usually in places like the Phillipines and Guantanamo and Alabama

You know, I'm actually on the fence about influenza vaccine effectiveness data, however, Thomas Jefferson is a bit skewed in his reviews on influenza vaccines as his group routinely dismiss excellent clinical and population epidemiological studies simply because they are not his Holy Grail, randomised-control trials (RCT). That said, most studies in his review are not funded by industry and negative conclusions are still published and there to read.

I'm warming to this Jefferson fellow. Sounds like a man with a scientific bent unlike those vaccine scientists who say it would be immoral to deprive a control group of the protection of a vaccine for the sake of a trial. We'll just assume that the vaccine is safe and effective. Or alternatively, count as a placebo the vaccine sans the virus because we know that all the adjuvants and preservatives are safe and won't affect the trial.

Not at all and I'll give you an example, Sammelweis (although his pariah status was more due to him being a dick than a medical heretic). Go ahead, name a single scientist who was ostracised simply for questioning vaccine safety.

Later.

By the way, you quoted T. Jefferson, who questions vaccine safety all the time and how has he not been rubbished?

I'll ask him.

NVICP judgements are all online. Do you mean to tell me that you didn't even take a modicum of effort to check the veracity of her claim? Hmm, I seem to be more questioning than you, so much for me being a sheep.
Dare I ask how you could possibly reconcile these two statements? I read studies and weigh the available evidence (and have the requisite formal education and experience to do so), you swoon at testimonials and you're telling me to get educated? Your statements typify the anti-vaxxer.

Thanks, I think? I'm still none-the-wiser about where to view NVICP judgements but considering that the claimants have to prove causation, I'm surprised that any claims are ever paid out. I can't see too many doctors lining up to give evidence in the claimants favor. Still, $billions have been paid out so somethings working. By paying out, it keeps the claimants from being able to sue the manufacturer directly and who cares because it's the public paying the bill, not the corporation or the medical industry. Just tack another $billion onto the national debt.

You're dodging; Brian Deer isn't the only source for Wakefield's patent which you admitted was damning, blew it off because it's on Deer's website and you won't even find your own copy to compare? That's cheap and lazy and don't think it's going unnoticed.

No I'm just playing your game of making poorly supported attacks on people.

As for Wakefield's qualifications and collaborations, I'll make it simple; he has none and either rejects collaborators findings or finds those who will produce the results he wants. He developed his so-called measles vaccine by himself unless you want to count the layman whose child Wakefield injected with transfer factor without any approval. Watta guy.

Another attack and an implication that Wakefield invented being selective with findings. If time allows, I'll include some evidence of that with my list of disreputables.

 

[Lamuella]

I doubt that. Go to Lancaster.

you doubt that there have been cases of unvaccinated children developing autism?

 

[Tomblvd]

you doubt that there have been cases of unvaccinated children developing autism?

He has to. Otherwise it completely destroys his premise (which it does).

 

[trusetheeker]

That's not a documentary; it's a big testimonial. Deer has validated all of his claims about Wakefield with that pesky evidence you don't seem to be very fond of.

Este

Nicely timed. Here's Wakefield's defamation petition against Deer, the BMJ and BMJ's Godlee. http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/04/BritMedJ.pdf. It seems that everything that you've been accusing Wakefield of is unfounded but doubly true about Deer and Godlee. At the moment, it's just claim and counterclaim but the difference is that Wakefield's claim will be tested in a court of law where the defendents have the right to defend themselves whereas Wakefield was condemned in a court of GMC without right of defense or appeal.

A few highlights from the petition:

Defendants knowingly and with actual malice misrepresented information, data and diagnoses [patient records] for the purpose of creating the false impression that it was Dr. Wakefield who had manipulated or altered data or diagnoses.

Defendant Godlee's editorial falsely states that, "data had been substantially misrepresented in order to give the result Wakefield needed." Defendants further falsely state that the GMJ had confirmed "extensive falsification" in the Lance Paper and defamatorily refers to the Lancet case studay as Dr. Wakefield's concocted "MMR scare" and falsely states that it was not merely "bad science," but a "deliberate fraud." Similarly false were Godlee's and the BMJ's claims that "in no single case can the medical records be fully reconciled with what was published," by Dr. Wakefield. Additionally, the editorial falsely claims that Dr Wakefield's findings were not honestly documented which resulted in a "deeply shocking" "breach of trust."

"Interestingly, at the time the editorials and the Deer article were published, the Defendants failed to disclose the fact that the BMJ received significant revenue from the very vaccine manufacturers whose products need further investigation."

Will you be offering yourself as a character witness for Deer and Godlee as you've spent so much time repeating their venom?

 

[Lamuella]

Will you be offering yourself as a character witness for Deer and Godlee as you've spent so much time repeating their venom?

you claimed to know "the cause and cure of cancers, MS, diabetes, atheriosclerosis, AIDS, arthritis, etc". Would you mind sharing?

 

[Estellea]

Your scoff at my request to hold the conspiracy theory belies your launch into one. Who has "questioned and try to buck the system are automatically ostracized"?

I'll come back to this one later as I don't keep a list of references to hand.

So you made this claim without a single person in mind? How is it that I could recall, from memory, an example? I will hold you to this by the way.

I showed you literally thousands of studies that do question vaccine safety, granted some are by nutters in nutter journals but that is only a handful, the rest are by bona fide researchers.

Once again, I only reviewed a handful but what I saw wasn't studies questioning the vaccine safety but studies purporting to answer the questions about vaccine safety. As I only have access to the abstracts and that doesn't tell me who funded the study, it only leaves me with more questions.

Bollocks, even the abstracts outline the adverse events, i.e. complications that are due to vaccines and many are free texts so you are simply sticking your fingers in your ears and lalalaling away.

Unlike you (taking you at your word,) I don't have the training that enables me to correctly analyse all this science so I have to use the tools I have and one of those tools is to see what various expert opinions say about it. The experts that link what I don't know with what I do know so that it harmonises will influence me more than those whose scientific opinions are at odds to my knowledge. There's always a chance that I'll get the wrong end of the stick but time and experience will tell. The number of supporting opinions is not a key factor although it does add reassurance.

Do you realise that you just admitted confirmation bias? You seek out "experts" that confirm your pre-conceived notions and reject those that are counter to them. That is not critical thinking at all, that is what you call sheep do.

How else do you explain how the IOM generated this monster report on...gasp...vaccine complications?

I'm a bit stymied by this release which is sufficiently atypical of the medical industry. Are they admitting minor faults to smokescreen something bigger? Or are they confident that it won't generate much in the way of bad press.

From what I've read, it is a damning exposé of the quality of medical and scientific endeavor. Study after study gets thrown out due to procedural flaws and conclusions of "insufficient evidence" are rife.

In the words of the Committee Chair, Ellen Wright Clayton:

Although the committee is optimistic that more can and will be known about vaccine safety in the future, the limitations of the currently available peer-reviewed data meant that , more often not, we did not have sufficient scientific information to conclude whether a particular vaccine caused a specific rare adverse event.

She also had this to say about the level of scientific understanding:

Alleged adverse effects that appear to be immune mediated, as many of them are, are more challenging, in part because the biology is not completely understood. One potentially useful line of inquiry as science advances is to assess whether the vaccine recipient who suffers harm had a preexisting susceptibility to that particular adverse event as such studies may provide insight into the mechanisms by which such events occur.

It begs the question, "Why are you messing with something that you don't completely understand?"

No, that would be "raises the question". So it seems as though you haven't done much in the way of examining the evidence if you didn't even know about the existence of the IOM, which puts out reports such as this every couple of years. It runs rather contrary to your claims that everyone is bought by pharma and no vaccine safety research has been done. As a matter of fact, vaccines are the most studied pharmaceutical there is and reports such as this and Cochrane Systematic Reviews are generated to identify gaps in vaccine safety and efficacy studies. Do you even know about the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project? Ask yourself how do we know about vaccine complications if they have never been studied according to you.

You don't get to justify ignorance to outright lying by your go-to "experts" with "they're just doing what they think is right", because there is a mountain of scientific evidence which simply flies in the face of theirs and your claims. But science is hard isn't it?

I'm not quite with you on this one. I was referring to the mainstream, conventional, modern medicine practitioners. It's their ignorance to outright lying that is reducing the global population to physiological cripples. These are the "experts" who treat pregnancy as a disease, childbirth as a disease, childhood as a disease, menopause as a disease, who basically treat life as a disease requiring constant vaccines, antibiotics, antidepressants, hormone treatments and pills for even the slightest discomfort.

More crazy talk. How is it that global population, particularly in undeveloped countries, is still rising? Please consider something for me, if you ever acquire Lyme Disease, will you refuse antibiotics? I know what you are reading (NaturalNews, Health Ranger and Mercola) so it isn't a surprise that you view medicine the way you do.

They are most certainly not favourable conclusions but simply, sane and rational presentations of vaccine adverse events and effects. Emotional weepy testimonials may do it for you but that ain't science.

Science is largely animals being tortured for the good of humanity. Why not extend this to humans? Oh, yes. You already do but usually in places like the Phillipines and Guantanamo and Alabama

You're dodging again; I'm not interested in your strawman arguments, no one raised the spectre of animal testing, nor human rights violations, although I don't even know if that would be applicable to Alabama.

You know, I'm actually on the fence about influenza vaccine effectiveness data, however, Thomas Jefferson is a bit skewed in his reviews on influenza vaccines as his group routinely dismiss excellent clinical and population epidemiological studies simply because they are not his Holy Grail, randomised-control trials (RCT). That said, most studies in his review are not funded by industry and negative conclusions are still published and there to read.

I'm warming to this Jefferson fellow. Sounds like a man with a scientific bent unlike those vaccine scientists who say it would be immoral to deprive a control group of the protection of a vaccine for the sake of a trial. We'll just assume that the vaccine is safe and effective. Or alternatively, count as a placebo the vaccine sans the virus because we know that all the adjuvants and preservatives are safe and won't affect the trial.

Kind of blows your claim out of the water that vaccine critical scientists are villified now doesn't it? There is no assumption that a vaccine is safe and effective, they are tested and sometimes issues arise that can only be observed on a population basis. Not all vaccines are viral you know. It would be highly unethical to withhold a vaccine that is established to be safe and effective for the sake of a perfect RCT, but I wouldn't expect you to grasp that since you probably don't even know about research ethics to begin with.

By the way, you quoted T. Jefferson, who questions vaccine safety all the time and how has he not been rubbished?

I'll ask him.

That should be an admission of a mistake on your part, not more dodging and hand-waving.

NVICP judgements are all online. Do you mean to tell me that you didn't even take a modicum of effort to check the veracity of her claim? Hmm, I seem to be more questioning than you, so much for me being a sheep.
Dare I ask how you could possibly reconcile these two statements? I read studies and weigh the available evidence (and have the requisite formal education and experience to do so), you swoon at testimonials and you're telling me to get educated? Your statements typify the anti-vaxxer.

Thanks, I think? I'm still none-the-wiser about where to view NVICP judgements but considering that the claimants have to prove causation, I'm surprised that any claims are ever paid out. I can't see too many doctors lining up to give evidence in the claimants favor. Still, $billions have been paid out so somethings working. By paying out, it keeps the claimants from being able to sue the manufacturer directly and who cares because it's the public paying the bill, not the corporation or the medical industry. Just tack another $billion onto the national debt.

Again, how can you make such outlandish claims when you don't even know about these sources? Did you even bother to read the transcripts from the Omnibus Autism Proceeding? NVICP judgements are online here. Claimants (petitioners as they are called in this court) do not have to show causality but that the vaccine was more likely than not to have caused/contributed to the complaint and there are even "table injuries" which are a list of known injuries from vaccines that petitioners use to contract their cases. In other words, with appropriate medical documentation, the petitioner is automatically awarded compensation. You are wrong about suing vaccine manufacturers; if petitioners accept compensation from NVICP, then they can't sue the manufacturer, which is to their benefit since that would require a full tort proceeding. They can try their case in the NVICP and win or lose, can still go after the manufacturer if they don't accept the NVICP judgement.

You're dodging; Brian Deer isn't the only source for Wakefield's patent which you admitted was damning, blew it off because it's on Deer's website and you won't even find your own copy to compare? That's cheap and lazy and don't think it's going unnoticed.

No I'm just playing your game of making poorly supported attacks on people.

More bollocks; I have supported my claims very well. You can easily find Wakefield's patent from another source and compare; the fact is, you don't want to because you know that it wasn't altered.

As for Wakefield's qualifications and collaborations, I'll make it simple; he has none and either rejects collaborators findings or finds those who will produce the results he wants. He developed his so-called measles vaccine by himself unless you want to count the layman whose child Wakefield injected with transfer factor without any approval. Watta guy.

Another attack and an implication that Wakefield invented being selective with findings. If time allows, I'll include some evidence of that with my list of disreputables.

Heh, read Cedillo v. HHS, specifically Dr. Nicolas Chadwick's and Stephen Bustin's testimonies. Wakefield buried his negative results and instead sought out Dr.s Kawashima, O'Leary and Uhlmann to find measles in samples from autistic children, which were found to be non-existent and laboratory contamination at best, intentional fraud at worst. I have provided you with ample evidence, I can't make you read it but don't complain or accuse me of unvalidated claims when I have yet to see any from you.

Este

 

[Chris Haynes]

You do realise that you are on a sceptics' forum and you are going to have to bring more to the table than your opinion. ...

Though you have to admit his machinations to avoid answering questions with anything close to reality is kind of amusing. It makes one wonder how he manages in a society that has computers and internet, both things he is using to post here.

 

[trusetheeker]

Do you also think that food should be eaten raw?

Yes. Raw fruit and those succulent vegetables which can be eaten and enjoyed raw. Any "food" that cannot be eaten uncooked is best not eaten but needs must according to circumstances.

 

[excaza]

Yes. Raw fruit and those succulent vegetables which can be eaten and enjoyed raw. Any "food" that cannot be eaten uncooked is best not eaten but needs must according to circumstances.

He said 'food,' not just fruits and vegetables.

 

[trusetheeker]

"Centuries of evidence"? "Toxicosis"? "Restoring homeostasis"? What a bunch of eugenics rubbish and sick too. The mortality for measles dropped significantly with that evil cure, antibiotics. What kind of medieval nonsense are you going on about?

You know a lot about your chosen subject but are typically unaware of the most important information concerning health. You must be a doctor. Believing that anti-biotics are lifesavers does not make them so.

You would do well to read Ross Horne's Health & Survival in the 21st Century. It will open your eyes to a vast world of contrary opinion that will help you focus your misinformation strategy. Otherwise read anything by Herbert Shelton, TC Fry, Douglas Graham,...

Ah, germ theory denier too, crank theory magnetism in action. Please tell me how dead people from measles infections are in better shape than before "they went in"? Did infectious disease never kill or permanently disable prior to modern medicine? Given your detachment from reality, I should let your posts speak for themselves.

Este

What's to deny. The germ theory was killed off decades ago by Koch and his annoying postulates. You know it was, because the industry quit looking for germs and went after viruses. Now that virus theory is also dying, it's all bad genes. The gene theory of disease will also starve due to lack of real evidence but as with germs and viruses, you guys will ignore the unpalatable proof and carry on regardless with your life-destroying potions.

The "infectious" diseases that killed people before modern medicine took over were actually malnutrition combined with putrid air, water and living conditions. That malnutrition wasn't necessarily from a lack of food but often from a surfeit of unwholesome food. Look how easily scurvy and rickets were eradicated once some bright spark noticed how consuming fruit and veg and, in the latter case, fish oil made an important difference.

Look at all the people who don't get any of the diseases of civilisation because either they're uncivilised or because they understand the causes of health and avoid the pitfalls of conventional living.

And as for your dead measle patients, it wasn't the measles that killed them. It was a lack of knowledge on the behalf of their health providers and parents that might have been forgivable 200 years ago but in the last century or more, the medical profession has actively suppressed the truth about disease, to protect their lucrative industry and exalted positions within society.

The history of modern medicine reads like a neverending disaster story and the cemeteries are full with the victims whose lives were cut short by the carnage.