ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd June 2019, 10:32 AM   #281
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 11,666
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Not necessarily true. There are individuals whom; 1. Already have natural immunity, 2. Refuse to be vaccinated. It would not be unethical to use them as a control group.

A self-selected control group. Not good.
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 10:48 AM   #282
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,055
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Is it factual that if the body is exposed to measles naturally, the antibodies are passed onto offspring? Whereas this does not occur when the antibodies are a result of a vaccine? Yesandyes.

Neither of your links says what you claim it says.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 10:55 AM   #283
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,048
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
A self-selected control group. Not good.
Aside from that, isn't using natural immunity a little like saying you'll test the effectiveness of seat belts by using crash survivors as a control group?
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 12:03 PM   #284
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,652
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
<snip>

Not necessarily true. There are individuals whom; 1. Already have natural immunity, 2. Refuse to be vaccinated. It would not be unethical to use them as a control group.
Irrespective of how poor such a control group would be, how do you find people who have a natural immunity to rabies, say?
JeanTate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 12:04 PM   #285
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,617
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Not necessarily true. There are individuals whom; 1. Already have natural immunity, 2. Refuse to be vaccinated. It would not be unethical to use them as a control group.
I almost died because of idiot anti-vaxxers like you. Do not preach to me about the matter.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 12:37 PM   #286
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,017
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post

Not necessarily true. There are individuals whom; 1. Already have natural immunity, 2. Refuse to be vaccinated. It would not be unethical to use them as a control group.
Wait. What? It is difficult to believe you aren't just pranking us. If you are serious, WTH? Your thought process is insane.
__________________
Julia
wasapi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 01:10 PM   #287
Pope130
Master Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,996
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Irrespective of how poor such a control group would be, how do you find people who have a natural immunity to rabies, say?
That should be simple. Start with a large group, expose them all, the ones who don't die become your control group. There are certain ethical problems with this plan.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 01:44 PM   #288
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,652
Originally Posted by Pope130 View Post
That should be simple. Start with a large group, expose them all, the ones who don't die become your control group. There are certain ethical problems with this plan.
My understanding of IB's and SS's positions is that there would be no ethical problems with any such plans or methods*. And perhaps they find a study which uses this approach to select its control group so compelling that they themselves would willingly join.

Or maybe not ... perhaps I have misunderstood IB's proposal? Or SS's?

* come to think of it, wasn't such an approach used by a certain team of doctors, in Europe, around the 1940s? Minus any "willing" aspect ...
JeanTate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 01:49 PM   #289
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,112
Just get a bunch of twins and only vaccinate one of them, then track until they are 18. Simple.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 01:52 PM   #290
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,209
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Just get a bunch of twins and only vaccinate one of them, then track until they are 18. Simple.
But a vaccine won't be as "safe as can be" if there's the possibility of complications much later in life from vaccines. So we should probably extend the study to age 70.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 02:10 PM   #291
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,652
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Just get a bunch of twins and only vaccinate one of them, then track until they are 18. Simple.
They would have to be identical twins, and as JU said, you'd have to track them until they reached at least their life expectancy at birth (>80), the unvaccinated twin would get no annual "flu shots" (etc), no shots for newly developed vaccines (e.g. for newly discovered tick-borne diseases), and for good measure no immunotherapy cancer treatments (they closely resemble vaccines), ...

What ethics review board could possibly object to that?
JeanTate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 02:48 PM   #292
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,112
In Soviet Russia Mengele's America, the test subjects don't live to be 80.
carlitos is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 02:56 PM   #293
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,652
In other news, the number of confirmed measles cases in the US in 2019 (so far) is 981.
JeanTate is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 03:31 PM   #294
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,394
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Just get a bunch of twins and only vaccinate one of them, then track until they are 18. Simple.

Explain how that will conform to the Belmont Report.
__________________
I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids

"HCN, I hate you!"
( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )...
What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
Chris Haynes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 05:28 PM   #295
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 783
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
The full BMJ article "FDA bars own..." is available by installing the Unpaywall browser extension, going to the article and looking for a green open padlock on the right,
Thanks. I don't know why people are running into a paywall at BMJ. I would never post a link that I knew to be inaccessible.

I had another link to somebody's LinkedIn profile that worked from the Search Return page, but when I tested the link by pasting into my browser, LinkedIn wanted me to join before viewing the page.

I generally test links before posting them.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 06:32 PM   #296
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,118
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
People want choice. For the most part, they're not opposed to vaccines for those who want them.

But they don't want to be forced or coerced to vaccinate.
They don't want religious or philosophical exemptions to disappear.
They don't want medical exemptions to be decided by distant bureaucrats instead of their doctor, as is happening in California.
The problem is that if you give people the choice, many of them will choose not to vaccinate. They will find a religious or ideological reason, or they'll just be lazy. And that's not just bad for them, it's bad for everybody.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 06:32 PM   #297
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,473
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
The measles fatality rate today is 1 in 10,000. Unless you mean something different by "natural infection" or something.

link
The link you provided verified what I said. I'll quote it:
Quote:
Between 1900 and 1963, the mortality rate of measles dropped from 13.3 per 100,000 to 0.2 per 100,000 in the population, due to advancements in living conditions, nutrition, and health care—a 98% decline (Fig. 1).
That decrease in mortality was BEFORE the vaccine was administered. The rate of .2 per 100,000 translates to 2 per 1,000,000. That is the same as 1 per 500,000 which is what I guessed in my original post.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 06:48 PM   #298
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,473
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Neither of your links says what you claim it says.
What I said:
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Is it factual that if the body is exposed to measles naturally, the antibodies are passed onto offspring? Whereas this does not occur when the antibodies are a result of a vaccine?
What the links say:
Originally Posted by https://ecdc.europa.eu
... natural immunity against measles, which is acquired through disease, gives life-long immunity while vaccination does not.
Originally Posted by ncbi.nlm.gov
The study suggests that the vaccine-induced measles antibodies decline with time and may fall under the protective level.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 06:52 PM   #299
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,750
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
What I said:
What the links say:
You're agreeing that mojo is correct in saying that your link doesn't support what you said??
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 07:01 PM   #300
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,473
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
A self-selected control group. Not good.
If you want to compare vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated, you will have to include people from both groups. The claim was that it was unethical to require people to abstain from a vaccination. I said that there are plenty of people who have made the decision to reject the vaccination by their own freewill. No coercions or trickery required. No ethical dilemma.

Scientist conducting the experiment will choose the group of individuals whom abstained from the vaccination. I'm sure they are capable of taking other factors into consideration so that the control group is representative.

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Aside from that, isn't using natural immunity a little like saying you'll test the effectiveness of seat belts by using crash survivors as a control group?
Not even a little bit. Natural immunity for blunt force trauma doesn't exist and nobody is advocating for your proposed analogy. If this was an attempt at a joke, I apologize. It was a real knee slapper

Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Irrespective of how poor such a control group would be, how do you find people who have a natural immunity to rabies, say?
I'm not very motivated to answer your question because I'm talking about measles, however, there is a species of bats that have natural immunity. Understanding the mechanism behind their immunity may prove beneficial for human dominance of all things.

Originally Posted by wasapi View Post
Wait. What? It is difficult to believe you aren't just pranking us. If you are serious, WTH? Your thought process is insane.
It's called critical thinking. You should try it sometime. The more you practice the better you'll get!
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 07:22 PM   #301
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,473
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
You're agreeing that mojo is correct in saying that your link doesn't support what you said??
You get the disease and you develop natural immunity for life. Those antibodies are passed onto offspring for the first year where the process repeats.

If you receive a vaccine, and a second does of the vaccine, your immunity may fall below protective levels and the antibodies are not passed to offspring.

It's called passive immunity. What am I missing??
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 08:06 PM   #302
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The Harvard study is just one little piece of information that relates to vaccine safety. ...
Wrong. The Harvard report about electronic reporting just lists with no citation a 9 year old reporting % to the VAERS system. It may have been correct in 2010. It may not be correct today.

The Harvard report is not related to vaccine safety. It is related to the reporting to the VAERS system. You have not supplied any evidence that < 1% reporting rate affects vaccine safety. Think about this analogy: Do polls have to sample 1% of the population before they are reliable, e.g. 3 million Americans? Hint - How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 08:18 PM   #303
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Whether you mean 'reason' or 'justification', [ed: or right] or anything else, I believe everyone, regardless of their level of intelligence and knowledge, is free to criticize anything or anyone they want. .
Not right, Itchy Boy, This is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section. Science and medicine are areas of knowledge, intelligently applied. A poster here should have the knowledge to present the evidence backing up their criticism. You cannot say just something vague like "a 2010 reporting rate of 1% to the VAERS system means vaccines as not safe as can be". That is your personal unsupported opinion. You need to
  1. Make it clear what "as can be" means.
  2. Provide evidence that a < 1% rate of reporting make vaccine less safe than your criteria.
That is where your knowledge comes in.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 08:24 PM   #304
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 783
This is the entire article from BMJ.
https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3976/rr-11 (Nov 2018)

Wild vs Artificial Exposure to Measles Are Not Equal

There is a fact rarely considered by public health officials: vaccination is not an intervention that eliminates disease exposure for individuals. Vaccination replaces wild exposure with artificial exposure, and they are not equal. We are many decades into mass vaccination campaigns, and it is alarming that instead of the medical and scientific community stepping back to examine the overall impact on public and individual health to see if current strategies should be reevaluated, the focus is on those who question or refuse vaccination.

...snip...

Edited by Darat:  Rule 4 breach removed.


Mod WarningPlease re-read your membership agreement and the explanatory notes for Rule 4, entire articles should not be reproduced here.
Posted By:Darat
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan

Last edited by Darat; 4th June 2019 at 01:57 PM. Reason: added title
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 08:37 PM   #305
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
'Anti-vaxxer' is an inaccurate term meant to be derogatory and divisive, when in reality, we all want vaccines to be as safe as can be.
That is also wrong, Itchy Boy. An anti-vaxer is an accurate term for a person who opposes vaccination regardless of the scientific evidence that they are "as safe as can be".

A vaccine safety awareness advocate is someone who advocates increased safety of vaccines based on the scientific evidence. They already know the high level of safety. They want to improve on that safety. They know real world facts such as law of diminishing returns (pumping more resources into vaccine safety research need not result in safer vaccines) and medical research is basically a zero sum activity (pumping more resources into vaccine safety research diverts them from other researches, e.g. cancer cures). They know not to make unreasonable demands such as the anti-vaxer "one study" demand.

An anti-vaxer holds that vaccines cause autism and denies the scientific evidence. A vaccine safety awareness advocate knows the scientific evidence that vaccines are not linked to autism.

An anti-vaxer advocates that the MMR vaccine not be used because of a myth linking it to adverse effects. A vaccine safety awareness advocate knows that this advice has caused and will cause outbreaks of measles and mumps.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 08:50 PM   #306
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,118
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
This is the entire article from BMJ.
Even without clicking the link I can tell that it isn't. For a start, you haven't included the footnotes. Also, I take this opportunity to remind you that copy-pasting entire articles from other sources is against forum rules (Rule 4 specifically).

ETA: Furthermore, this is an editorial, not a study. An opinion, not scientifically relevant data.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?

Last edited by arthwollipot; 3rd June 2019 at 08:52 PM.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 09:03 PM   #307
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Exclamation Please chaeck your sources to not seem an antivaxer parrot

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
This is the entire article from BMJ.
https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3976/rr-11 (Nov 2018)

Wild vs Artificial Exposure to Measles Are Not Equal.
An editorial stating the obvious fact that measles vaccination are not the same as wild exposure. That the measles vaccine is not 100% effective. That infants are not vaccinated until after they are born and have to rely on maternal antibody protection.
But then we get MMR vaccine myths that we would expect from an anti-vaxer. Such as the "fragmented fetal DNA" myth (“Aborted fetal tissue” and vaccines: Combining pseudoscience and religion to demonize vaccines). A author ignorant about or or lying abut MMR clinical trials - Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine Safety Studies. A myth that vaccines need to be 100% effective for eradication as if herd immunity did not exist. A glyphosate in MMR link to "moms across america" - a group of antivaxers! A link to a 2014 HuffPost Canada article about ongoing law cases..

So who is Bernadette Pajer of Informed Choice WA? Is she a doctor? A vaccine specialist? Someone with a track record of being a vaccine safety awareness advocate?

The evidence is just another ignorant anti-vaxer: Spreading fear and misinformation to pregnant women
Quote:
Antivaxers are lately taking the position of very strongly spreading fear and misinformation about the use of vaccines during pregnancy. One source for this information is Informed Choice Washington (ICW), an organization based near Seattle and run by two women who believe vaccines injured their children. Bernadette Pajer believes her grown son’s dairy allergies were caused by vaccines and Drella Stein believe her grown son’s autism was the result of a vaccine injury.
A bit paranoiac review of a crank "vaccines cause autism" book where she has the stupid antivaxer "Brady Bunch" myth. As if any sane TV sitcom writer would kill off or even hospitalize central characters with measles!

Paranoia in a video described as stopping "vaccine industry’s plan to force vaccinate every man, woman, and child on this planet".

Itchy Boy, in the other thread I gave you the advice to check your sources and so avoid seeming like repeating known antivaxer myths. I repeat that advice here. A link to a BMJ editorial may seem a credible source. You needed to find out who wrote that editorial.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd June 2019 at 09:17 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 09:05 PM   #308
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 783
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post

An anti-vaxer holds that vaccines cause autism and denies the scientific evidence. A vaccine safety awareness advocate knows the scientific evidence that vaccines are not linked to autism.

An anti-vaxer advocates that the MMR vaccine not be used because of a myth linking it to adverse effects. A vaccine safety awareness advocate knows that this advice has caused and will cause outbreaks of measles and mumps.
I don't hold that vaccines cause autism. Only that the science isn't settled.
I don't advocate that MMR not be used. I don't advise anyone not to vaccinate.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 09:06 PM   #309
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
If you want to compare vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated, you will have to include people from both groups. The claim was that it was unethical to require people to abstain from a vaccination. I said that there are plenty of people who have made the decision to reject the vaccination by their own freewill. No coercions or trickery required. No ethical dilemma.

Scientist conducting the experiment will choose the group of individuals whom abstained from the vaccination. I'm sure they are capable of taking other factors into consideration so that the control group is representative.

Not even a little bit. Natural immunity for blunt force trauma doesn't exist and nobody is advocating for your proposed analogy. If this was an attempt at a joke, I apologize. It was a real knee slapper

I'm not very motivated to answer your question because I'm talking about measles, however, there is a species of bats that have natural immunity. Understanding the mechanism behind their immunity may prove beneficial for human dominance of all things.

It's called critical thinking. You should try it sometime. The more you practice the better you'll get!
Got it - now you just keep up your practicing and surely you will eventually figure it out!!! Good luck!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 09:07 PM   #310
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,118
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I don't hold that vaccines cause autism. Only that the science isn't settled.
It is. It is as settled as can be.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 09:10 PM   #311
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 783
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Even without clicking the link I can tell that it isn't. For a start, you haven't included the footnotes. Also, I take this opportunity to remind you that copy-pasting entire articles from other sources is against forum rules (Rule 4 specifically).

ETA: Furthermore, this is an editorial, not a study. An opinion, not scientifically relevant data.
Sorry, and thanks. I didn't know about the rule. People complained the link took them to a paywall so they couldn't read the articles. If it's not against the rules, I'll post the footnotes if you request them.

Is there anything in the article that's not true?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 09:14 PM   #312
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,118
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Sorry, and thanks. I didn't know about the rule.
Do you often sign things without reading them? That's going to get you into trouble.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 09:18 PM   #313
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 783
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
An editorial stating the obvious fact that measles vaccination are not the same as wild exposure. That the measles vaccine is not 100% effective. That infants are not vaccinated until after they are born and have to rely on maternal antibody protection.
But then we get MMR vaccine myths that we would expect from an anti-vaxer. Such as the "fragmented fetal DNA" myth (“Aborted fetal tissue” and vaccines: Combining pseudoscience and religion to demonize vaccines). A author ignorant about or or lying abut MMR clinical trials - Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine Safety Studies. A myth that vaccines need to be 100% effective for eradication as if herd immunity did not exist. A glyphosate in MMR link to "moms across america" - a group of antivaxers! A link to a HuffPost Canada article.

So who is Bernadette Pajer of Informed Choice WA? Is she a doctor? A vaccine specialist? Someone with a track record of being a vaccine safety awareness advocate?

The evidence is just another ignorant anti-vaxer: Spreading fear and misinformation to pregnant women


A bit paranoiac review of a crank "vaccines cause autism" book where she has the stupid antivaxer "Brady Bunch" myth. As if any sane TV sitcom writer would kill off or even hospitalize central characters with measles!

Paranoia in a video described as stopping "vaccine industry’s plan to force vaccinate every man, woman, and child on this planet".

Itchy Boy, in the other thread I gave you the advice to check your sources and so avoid seeming like repeating known antivaxer myths. I repeat that advice here. A link to a BMJ editorial may seem a credible source. You needed to find out who wrote that editorial.
Can you give me an example of something the article states that is not true?
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 09:26 PM   #314
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
It's called passive immunity. What am I missing??
A "might" and a "be . "... the antibodies might not be passed to offspring".
Passive immunity.

The obvious case where antibodies would not be passed to the offspring is if the mother had none. The placenta might be a barrier to antibodies or may actively pass antibodies but someone with more medical knowledge should answer that. I found IgG Placental Transfer in Healthy and Pathological Pregnancies but that may not be relevant.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 09:32 PM   #315
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
....
Nothing to do with what I wrote: That is also wrong, Itchy Boy. An anti-vaxer is an accurate term for a person who opposes vaccination regardless of the scientific evidence that they are "as safe as can be".

A separate issue is the parroting of well known antivaxer myths in this thread as on the other thread, made worse by citing an actual ignorant antivaxer. That ignorance is what makes you look like an antivaxer not what you allege your beliefs are.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd June 2019 at 09:54 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 09:37 PM   #316
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 24,706
Exclamation Cites an editorial with known antivaxer myths by a obvious antivaxer

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Can you give me an example of something the article states that is not true?
I did not say that the article lies. I wrote that it was written by an ignorant antivaxer parroting known antivaxer myths and citing antivaxers. You are consistently making yourself look like one of these antivaxers. The fix is easy - take my advice and research what and who you cite before you write your posts.
28 May 2019 Itchy Boy: You seem to be repeating anti-vaccination myths, lies and paranoia without doing any research first, (other thread).

Read the sources in my But then we get MMR vaccine myths that we would expect from an anti-vaxer. post.
“Aborted fetal tissue” and vaccines: Combining pseudoscience and religion to demonize vaccines
The fetal bit is just stupidity. There are fetal cell lines from aborted in 1962 and 1966 fetus. They are "so far removed from the original abortions that even the Catholic Church has told its members that not only is it morally acceptable to use such vaccines, but vaccinating children against deadly diseases is a great good".
The myth is fear-mongering about DNA fragments causing autism, for this antivaxer food allergies and for other antivaxers whatever they imagine. A list of what needs to happen with 1 hypothesis lead to "In other words, this hypothesis is incredibly implausible on the basis of what we know about molecular biology and human biology".

4 June 2019 Itchy Boy: Cites a BMJ editorial with known antivaxer myths by a obvious antivaxer.

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd June 2019 at 09:53 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 10:13 PM   #317
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 783
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I did not say that the article lies. I wrote that it was written by an ignorant antivaxer parroting known antivaxer myths and citing antivaxers. You are consistently making yourself look like one of these antivaxers. The fix is easy - take my advice and research what and who you cite before you write your posts.
28 May 2019 Itchy Boy: You seem to be repeating anti-vaccination myths, lies and paranoia without doing any research first, (other thread).

Read the sources in my But then we get MMR vaccine myths that we would expect from an anti-vaxer. post.
“Aborted fetal tissue” and vaccines: Combining pseudoscience and religion to demonize vaccines
The fetal bit is just stupidity. There are fetal cell lines from aborted in 1962 and 1966 fetus. They are "so far removed from the original abortions that even the Catholic Church has told its members that not only is it morally acceptable to use such vaccines, but vaccinating children against deadly diseases is a great good".
The myth is fear-mongering about DNA fragments causing autism, for this antivaxer food allergies and for other antivaxers whatever they imagine. A list of what needs to happen with 1 hypothesis lead to "In other words, this hypothesis is incredibly implausible on the basis of what we know about molecular biology and human biology".

4 June 2019 Itchy Boy: Cites a BMJ editorial with known antivaxer myths by a obvious antivaxer.
All that matters here is whether what I post is true or not. If I've posted a specific untruth, kindly point it out so that I may correct it.
__________________
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled. - unattributed

Only the small secrets need to be protected. The large ones are kept secret by public incredulity. - Marshall McLuhan
Itchy Boy is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2019, 11:01 PM   #318
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,565
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
You get the disease and you develop natural immunity for life.
There is something obviously wrong with this: if it was true, humanity would have developed immunity against measles long before the vaccine was introduced.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 12:00 AM   #319
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,010
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
How can safety be properly monitored if only a tiny fraction of reactions are reported?
If that tiny fraction of reactions includes the overwhelming majority of serious reactions - that is reactions, that are more than a nuisance and present no danger beyond temporary discomfort - then it doesn't matter at all with regards to safety.

Pro-plague lobby makes a lot on these claims about how many reactions go underreported. They do not mention the nature of those reactions and focus solely on the number of reactions at all while talking about the most severe, life-threatning reactions that occur.

This is intelectually dishonest. If you have an honest argument to make you can afford to be intelectually honest.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 12:24 AM   #320
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,055
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The problem is that if you give people the choice, many of them will choose not to vaccinate. They will find a religious or ideological reason, or they'll just be lazy.

Or they’ll have been misled by scaremongering about vaccine safety and autism.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.