Vaccinia Immunization-Pros and Cons

[BillHoyt]

The poll would be prefaced by asking the voter to read the CDC guidance on whether or not to take the vaccination. It would be based on "informed" judgement instead of your rants or, for that matter, mine.

A poll measures very little other than people's opinions. Often, it only measures the opinions they think they should report. It never measures the truth about nature or rational risk decisions. In fact, and if you wish, I can begin giving you multiple citations about how bad the average person is in making any statistical trade-off decisions.

The only piece of datum we are talking about is the self-evident statement by the CDC that says up to 52 persons per million, as a result of taking this particular vaccination, could develop a life threatening adverse effect. That's means a very serious, life threatening event. It means you can die. That's what life threatening means. You can die tomorrow, next week, next month or five years later. They don't know. We have never given millions of people a 50 year old vaccine before. The whole proposition is problematic and unpredictable in spite of Israeli examples which are irrelevant because they used a fresh vaccine which they only stopped giving in 1996 not a stock of 14 million vials sitting in a CDC wharehouse for thrity to fifty years.

The first vaccine being used is from 1982. That is not thirty years old. Neither is it 50. And several successful clinical studies have already been done with this vaccine. But no, we are only arguing over one datum. And HHS has already ordered production of more vaccine.


The 52 figure you keep carping about in different ways, all of them wrong. The CDC says that 14 - 52 vaccine-naive individuals per million could develop potentially life-threatening adverse reactions. The CDC furthermore says that 1 -2 per million could die. They do know, sir. The estimate is that 1-2 per million could die.

Stop the lying. Stop the distortions. Stop the false accusations.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Originally posted by BillHoyt A poll measures very little other than people's opinions. Often, it only measures the opinions they think they should report. It never measures the truth about nature or rational risk decisions. In fact, and if you wish, I can begin giving you multiple citations about how bad the average person is in making any statistical trade-off decisions.

So much for trusting your fellow board mates to reach a rational decision based on research provided by the CDC. Does how bad the average person is in making "statistical trade-off" decisions include yourself?

The first vaccine being used is from 1982. That is not thirty years old. Neither is it 50. And several successful clinical studies have already been done with this vaccine. But no, we are only arguing over one datum. And HHS has already ordered production of more vaccine.

Are you talking about the Israeli vaccine? So what, it is not the same vaccine. Are you talking about the NYC Board of Health vaccine (they don't even call it the NYC Board of Health anymore--changed its name decades ago. The 14 milion vials in CDC storage was clearly traced to the NYC Board of Health (archaic name) strain, so named because it was ordered up for the 1947 incident. If not, yes, I agree ... 1982 vintage vaccine is ony a mere 22 years old at the beginnng of last year.

The 52 figure you keep carping about in different ways, all of them wrong. The CDC says that 14 - 52 vaccine-naive individuals per million could develop potentially life-threatening adverse reactions. The CDC furthermore says that 1 -2 per million could die. They do know, sir. The estimate is that 1-2 per million could die.

A potentially life threatening reaction is what it says it is. You can, could or might die from it. Geez. What's so hard about understanding what life threatening means? The stat that 1 to 2 died from actual administrations is a statistical fact; 52 potentially life thrteatening adverse events is a different static, just as worrisome. Moreso because we don't know how long the follow-up was, how good it was or whether some deaths chalked off to non-vaccine causes may be included among the those potentially life threatening ones. Again, this is nether here nor there. No amount of risk is worth taking a vaccine pre-emptively for a non-exustent threat when you can take it post exposure if you had to.

Stop the lying. Stop the distortions. Stop the false accusations.

Stop your twisting of the facts, distorting the meanings of term "life threatening" and ignoring the CDC's own guidelines and guidances on this matter. You betray an hysterical attitude that leads people to panic and make ill considered decisions. Calm down, step back, review the CDC guidances and think real hard about this. It is more important than our personal rants.

 

[BillHoyt]

Are you talking about the Israeli vaccine? So what, it is not the same vaccine. Are you talking about the NYC Board of Health vaccine (they don't even call it the NYC Board of Health anymore--changed its name decades ago. The 14 milion vials in CDC storage was clearly traced to the NYC Board of Health (archaic name) strain, so named because it was ordered up for the 1947 incident. If not, yes, I agree ... 1982 vintage vaccine is ony a mere 22 years old at the beginnng of last year.

Nope. That was the vaccine used last year, sir. You quacks fall for a duck blind every time. Bye, moron.

 

[SteveGrenard]

My vote: I will wait for a new vaccine and do not want any of the 1972 or earlier or 1982 or earlier vaccine and I consider very strongly the CDC argument that one can be vaccinated post exposure or even post outbreak (w/o exposure) if it ever occurs.

I guess also Dr. Fauci is now a quack. Oh well.....

text edited by Lisa
Anthony S. Fauci, M.D.
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Bethesda, MD 20892

This article was published at www.nejm.org on March 28, 2002

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/346/17/1319

I edited this because the entire article was cut and pasted. Please feel free it click on Steve's link to the article. Yes, it is work friendly and all that stuff.

Edited to add complete link. -- Pyrrho
Edited to correct invalid link. -- Pyrrho

 

[CFLarsen]

full text of Fauci's remarks and citation follows:

....

This article was published at www.nejm.org on March 28, 2002

Your post has been reported for violations of copyright.

 

[Lisa]

Steve, I have sent you a PM.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Sorry. Even though the Advisory was published in the NEJM, it was also issued elsewhere. The article in question was written by Dr. Anthony Fauci of the US NIH and in his capacity at the NIH and not in any private capacity. He is a paid employee of the U.S. government and the American taxpayors. Just like Hal Bidlack.
It is no different than the President's speech appearing in the NY Times.
As a taxpayor, I am entitled to use this work which I have given him credit for in this ongoing argument against Mr. Bill Hoyt.

If the Moderators find in favor of Hoyt and Larsen in this matter, feel free to delete the post and I'll be done with it.
After all they are the protected ones. Even Larsen who is not even an American and who does not pay American income taxes and can tell me, an American, not to use material belonging to the American taxpayor and apparently get away with it with the backing of the moderators.

Then the mgmt of this board can go on allowing the strip club bouncer to continue to advise the public here to get smallpox vaccinations without the facts from such reputable experts as Dr. Fauci.

We should all take our medical advice from strip club bouncers from now on.

Edited to add:


Notice also people they pull this at 3 AM EST and give poster 1/2 hour. Funny.


This is shameful situation which deserves an airing and will get it.......
in fact worldwide. What we have here is a man who says he is a strip club bouncer panicking the American public with rants that we should be vaccinated for smallpox in contravention to all expert opinion and advisories put out by the CDC. Who has lied about the years of vaccine manufacture which Dr Fauci's article proves. And now this article has been contracted, behind my back. But what else do you expect when dealing with certain privileged characters on this forum such as Hoiyt, the strip club bouncer.


So just to make it clear, in my own words people. The material censored by Moderator Lisa and Moderator Larsen contained proof that Hoyt is a misleading liar regarding the dates of the vaccine manufacture. Now that they have deleted it and it is buried in a much larger article, they are backing Hoyt's mispreresentation.

 

[Pyrrho]

Sorry. Even though the Advisory was published in the NEJM, it was also issued elsewhere. The article in question was written by Dr. Anthony Fauci of the US NIH and in his capacity at the NIH and not in any private capacity. He is a paid employee of the U.S. government and the American taxpayors. Just like Hal Bidlack.
It is no different than the President's speech appearing in the NY Times.
As a taxpayor, I am entitled to use this work which I have given him credit for in this ongoing argument against Mr. Bill Hoyt.

The text is hosted at http://www.nejm.org there is a copyright notice at the bottom of the page; the details of the copyright requirements are here: http://www.nejm.org/aboutnejm/copyright.asp

Regardless of who pays Dr. Fauci's salary, his editorial is a copyrighted work. You copied it from a web site that has a clear and unambiguous list of rules for use of material published there.

If the Moderators find in favor of Hoyt and Larsen in this matter, feel free to delete the post and I'll be done with it.
After all they are the protected ones. Even Larsen who is not even an American and who does not pay American income taxes and can tell me, an American, not to use material belonging to the American taxpayor and apparently get away with it with the backing of the moderators.

Then the mgmt of this board can go on allowing the strip club bouncer to continue to advise the public here to get smallpox vaccinations without the facts from such reputable experts as Dr. Fauci.

We should all take our medical advice from strip club bouncers from now on.

We're not finding "in favor of Hoyt and Larsen". We're enforcing the rules of this Forum regarding the reposting of copyrighted materials without permission. This has been explained to you time and time again. The material you posted does not belong to the American taxpayer; it is not in the public domain. According to the rules here, you can post an excerpt, but not the entire article.

You keep claiming that Hoyt, Larsen, and others enjoy protected status here. They do not. They, however, have not routinely broken the rules. You keep breaking the same one, over and over again.

 

[CFLarsen]

Sorry. Even though the Advisory was published in the NEJM, it was also issued elsewhere. The article in question was written by Dr. Anthony Fauci of the US NIH and in his capacity at the NIH and not in any private capacity. He is a paid employee of the U.S. government and the American taxpayors. Just like Hal Bidlack.
It is no different than the President's speech appearing in the NY Times.
As a taxpayor, I am entitled to use this work which I have given him credit for in this ongoing argument against Mr. Bill Hoyt.

If the Moderators find in favor of Hoyt and Larsen in this matter, feel free to delete the post and I'll be done with it.
After all they are the protected ones. Even Larsen who is not even an American and who does not pay American income taxes and can tell me, an American, not to use material belonging to the American taxpayor and apparently get away with it with the backing of the moderators.

Then the mgmt of this board can go on allowing the strip club bouncer to continue to advise the public here to get smallpox vaccinations without the facts from such reputable experts as Dr. Fauci.

We should all take our medical advice from strip club bouncers from now on.

Saved for posterity.

Steve, it doesn't matter if Fauci is a "paid employee of the U.S. government", he still owns the right to his own material. You are not "entitled" to use this work, even if you do (for once!) give credit. You can quote from it, but not post it entirely. It does not belong to American tax payers. It belongs to the author.

Your beef with me, Bill or anyone else has nothing to do with this. Copyrights are international, it doesn't matter if I am not American, or what Bill does for a living. That you can even bring it up only shows what a lowlife you are.

Ah...I see Pyrrho was - for once - faster than me....

 

[Pyrrho]

Sorry. Even though the Advisory was published in the NEJM, it was also issued elsewhere. The article in question was written by Dr. Anthony Fauci of the US NIH and in his capacity at the NIH and not in any private capacity. He is a paid employee of the U.S. government and the American taxpayors. Just like Hal Bidlack.
It is no different than the President's speech appearing in the NY Times.
As a taxpayor, I am entitled to use this work which I have given him credit for in this ongoing argument against Mr. Bill Hoyt.

If the Moderators find in favor of Hoyt and Larsen in this matter, feel free to delete the post and I'll be done with it.
After all they are the protected ones. Even Larsen who is not even an American and who does not pay American income taxes and can tell me, an American, not to use material belonging to the American taxpayor and apparently get away with it with the backing of the moderators.

Then the mgmt of this board can go on allowing the strip club bouncer to continue to advise the public here to get smallpox vaccinations without the facts from such reputable experts as Dr. Fauci.

We should all take our medical advice from strip club bouncers from now on.

Edited to add:


Notice also people they pull this at 3 AM EST and give poster 1/2 hour. Funny.


This is shameful situation which deserves an airing and will get it.......
in fact worldwide. What we have here is a man who says he is a strip club bouncer panicking the American public with rants that we should be vaccinated for smallpox in contravention to all expert opinion and advisories put out by the CDC. Who has lied about the years of vaccine manufacture which Dr Fauci's article proves. And now this article has been contracted, behind my back. But what else do you expect when dealing with certain privileged characters on this forum such as Hoiyt, the strip club bouncer.

So just to make it clear, in my own words people. The material censored by Moderator Lisa and Moderator Larsen contained proof that Hoyt is a misleading liar regarding the dates of the vaccine manufacture. Now that they have deleted it and it is buried in a much larger article, they are backing Hoyt's mispreresentation.

I keep forgetting your penchant for editing your posts.

Lisa has not censored anything. Larsen is not a moderator. Nobody on the moderator team is backing anyone in this thread. We are simply enforcing Rule 4. The article is available at the location you copied it from. If you intend to make a "worldwide" announcement of all this, nobody can stop you. You'll simply be advertising your own failure to comply with a rule that has been explained to you time and time again.

 

[SteveGrenard]

You realize Pyrrho the copyright law you are writing and precedents you are establishing . If a speech by the President of the United States or of the NIH appears on a website otherwise copyright that website now owns that speech instead of just being a source for that speech?
By this token, I could open a website and put everything in the public domain I can find on it and then you will have to pay me for it from now on. Interesting. Maybe I will put Dr Fauci's article on my own website and then give myself permission to use it.

I am gonna have to get some expert advice on that one. See you later.

 

[CFLarsen]

Edited to add:

Notice also people they pull this at 3 AM EST and give poster 1/2 hour. Funny.

Not true. You posted this at 6:38 AM (give or take a few minutes, because the forum clock is off). You can't even lie properly.

This is shameful situation which deserves an airing and will get it.......

Oh, yes, Steve. You can rest assured that it will.

in fact worldwide. What we have here is a man who says he is a strip club bouncer panicking the American public with rants that we should be vaccinated for smallpox in contravention to all expert opinion and advisories put out by the CDC. Who has lied about the years of vaccine manufacture which Dr Fauci's article proves. And now this article has been contracted, behind my back. But what else do you expect when dealing with certain privileged characters on this forum such as Hoiyt, the strip club bouncer.

Concentrate on what Bill says. Not what he does.

So just to make it clear, in my own words people. The material censored by Moderator Lisa and Moderator Larsen contained proof that Hoyt is a misleading liar regarding the dates of the vaccine manufacture. Now that they have deleted it and it is buried in a much larger article, they are backing Hoyt's mispreresentation.

"Much larger article"? You simply copied and pasted the whole article, you liar. It is not "buried" in any way.

You want to go "worldwide" with this, Steve? Please tell us how.

You realize Pyrrho the copyright law you are writing and precedents you are establishing . If a speech by the President of the United States or of the NIH appears on a website otherwise copyright that website now owns that speech instead of just being a source for that speech?
By this token, I could open a website and put everything in the public domain I can find on it and then you will have to pay me for it from now on. Interesting. Maybe I will put Dr Fauci's article on my own website and then give myself permission to use it.

I am gonna have to get some expert advice on that one. See you later.

Oh, do get back to us on this, Steve. Everyone knows you never will.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I am gonna have to get some expert advice on that one.

For once, you are correct.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Please Pyrrho please spare me the anti-gamesmenship rhetoric regarding Hoyt and Larsen and that group. You, I and everybody fully well know that Larsen's reporting of the thread and your responses were based on the need to support Hoyt, a strip club bouncer in opposition to Dr. Fauci, a prominent medical expert on the payroll of the American taxpayor (which is why his speech was not in a paid part of the NEJM website).

That's what it comes down to. Black and white, very simple. The strip club bouncer becomes JREF's expert on smallpox vaccine. The CDC advisories and Dr. Fauci's speech, which instead of legitimately responding to, become ignored. An electronic form of book burning is simply what it is.

 

[Pyrrho]

You realize Pyrrho the copyright law you are writing and precedents you are establishing . If a speech by the President of the United States or of the NIH appears on a website otherwise copyright that website now owns that speech instead of just being a source for that speech?
By this token, I could open a website and put everything in the public domain I can find on it and then you will have to pay me for it from now on. Interesting. Maybe I will put Dr Fauci's article on my own website and then give myself permission to use it.

I am gonna have to get some expert advice on that one. See you later.

Maybe you should get some expert advice, instead of relying on your own misunderstanding of copyright law.

The website you copied it from has clear and unambiguous rules regarding use of materials published there.

This Forum has a clear and unambiguous rule regarding the use of copyrighted materials.

You are in violation of both sets of rules.

 

[Pyrrho]

Please Pyrrho please spare me the anti-gamesmenship rhetoric regarding Hoyt and Larsen and that group. You, I and everybody fully well know that Larsen's reporting of the thread and your responses were based on the need to support Hoyt, a strip club bouncer in opposition to Dr. Fauci, a prominent medical expert on the payroll of the American taxpayor (which is why his speech was not in a paid part of the NEJM website).

That's what it comes down to. Black and white, very simple. The strip club bouncer becomes JREF's expert on smallpox vaccine. The CDC advisories and Dr. Fauci's speech, which instead of legitimately responding to, become ignored. An electronic form of book burning is simply what it is.

You are free to post excerpts of Dr. Fauci's editorial for purposes of discussion, as per Forum rules. If you cannot abide by the rules for copyrighted materials, that is not my problem. I will continue to enforce that rule no matter who breaks it.

I've told you before, ad hominem arguments do not affect me. Save yourself the time and trouble and don't bother trying to insult me.

 

[SteveGrenard]

First I will make sure that Dr Fauci's remarks are not copyright. Then I will repost his entire remarks. If not, I will do as you suggest. I suggest you investigate what I said re why Dr Facui's remarks are not copyright, even though they appear on a website which is.

Thank you.

The very real problem here is not Dr Fauci's remarks. It is the gamesmanship of invoking rule#4 to suppress information favorable to their side (e.g. Larsen, Hoyt et cie) even when there is no legitimate reason to invoke it as in this case.

 

[Mercutio]

The very real problem here is not Dr Fauci's remarks. It is the gamesmanship of invoking rule#4 to suppress information favorable to their side (e.g. Larsen, Hoyt et cie) even when there is no legitimate reason to invoke it as in this case.

Suppress? Funny...when I clicked on the link, the whole thing was right there.

The irony is, more people will read it now because of all this bickering than would have read it in the cut-and-paste form.

 

[Pyrrho]

First I will make sure that Dr Fauci's remarks are not copyright. Then I will repost his entire remarks. If not, I will do as you suggest. I suggest you investigate what I said re why Dr Facui's remarks are not copyright, even though they appear on a website which is.

Thank you.

Dr. Fauci's editorial was printed in The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 346, no. 17, April 2002. A PDF of the article is available here:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint...3219966313_1128&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=nejm

It, too, carries a copyright notice.

The very real problem here is not Dr Fauci's remarks. It is the gamesmanship of invoking rule#4 to suppress information favorable to their side (e.g. Larsen, Hoyt et cie) even when there is no legitimate reason to invoke it as in this case.

Had you not copied the entire article, this would not be a problem at all.

 

[SteveGrenard]

M: The irony is, more people will read it now because of all this bickering than would have read it in the cut-and-paste form.


That would not be ironic. That would be a good thing. Many people here are too lazy to click on links. This has been proven to me when they come back after obviously not having read a link I provided.

You're right though. Some people are also too lazy to read long posts.

So its a no-win situation. In this case Hoyt made a curt, one, two liner remark about the last vaccine used was made in 1982. This was made by Wyeth at their Marietta, PA plant.......a plant plagued by regulatory problems, cited many times by the FDA and even shut down by them.

Fauci truthfully disclosed that the "1982" vintage vaccine batch included vaccine made "before 1982." Bouncer Hoyt didn't disclose this. Fauci also disclosed the stockpile of 14 million vials of vaccine made last in 1972 and "before 1972" (32 and MORE years ago). Hoyt neglected to mention this also or that it was being "checked" and tested. The plan was to water it down to make millions more doses. Everyone neglected to mention which vaccine was going to be tried on the millions of health care workers and first responders the administration wanted to vaccinate a year ago. Hoyt implies it was the 1982 vaccine. The truth is nobody said anything about that. What Hoyt doesn't know is I have seen the vaccine vials slated to be used last year. And sorry, whatever it is, I am not personally interested in taking that vaccine right now in the absence of exposure, an outbreak or even a threat of an exposure.

In the meantime those who want to go along with strip club bouncer Hoyt should ask their local health department or hospital to be vaccinated.

Hoyt also ignores the fact that the CDC itself, in its guidances, publishes a lot more reasons NOT to take the vaccine than to take it. He has repeatedly and continuously failed to acknowledge this. I have given the CDC website link for this two or three times above. Hopefully some of you read it but I don't know that since not one person came back with questions or comments on that CDC guidance. Here it is again:

quote:Originally posted by SteveGrenard
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpo...mallpox-vis.pdf

Now I will stand back and wait to be accused of appealing to authority.
Bizaare. The converse of appealing to authority I guess is to appeal to the strip club bouncer.

I read a cute one yesterday: some days you are the fire hydrant, other days you are the dog.