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 29th May 2019, 08:16 AM   #1
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Are vaccines as safe as can be?

I'll start by saying that

I don't oppose vaccines for anyone who wants them for themselves or their children.

and

I have never and would never advise anyone to not vaccinate.

A more accurate moniker than 'anti-vaxxer' would be 'vaccine safety awareness advocate', but I guess that's too much of a mouthful.

'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.

I will present evidence that the regulatory agencies responsible for vaccine safety are not properly doing their jobs. Cronyism and conflicts of interest abound.

[ed: But before we get into the cronyism and conflicts of interest...]

A study by Harvard estimates that only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Even if they're off by a factor of 10, that would still mean 90% of reactions go unreported.

How can safety be properly monitored if only a tiny fraction of reactions are reported?

Here's 7 minutes of Dr. Stanley Plotkin, renown and fiercely pro-vaccine vaccinologist, attempting damage control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3x0rQT_eSw
__________________
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 Itchy Boy; 29th May 2019 at 08:18 AM.
Itchy Boy 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 29th May 2019, 08:26 AM   #2
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,597
Weasel words, “as safe as can be”.

This is a standard none of us use, uniformly and consistently, in our lives. That includes you, OP.

Would you care to state, as objectively as possible, exactly what those weasel words mean?
JeanTate 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 29th May 2019, 08:47 AM   #3
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,185
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
...we all want vaccines to be as safe as can be.
No, that's not what we all want. A better, reasonable approach would be that a proposed remedy should have an overall better outcome than non-remediation. That's how risk-benefit analysis is done in every other context. Cars are not "as safe as can be," because we accept a certain risk in order to have affordable, convenient transportation. Buildings are not "as safe as can be" because we want affordable, aesthetically pleasing structures. Medicine works the same way. Every medical treatment incurs a risk that must be balanced against the individual and collective expectation of benefit. Risk itself does not drive decision-making.

You don't get to beg the question of where to set the goalposts, but that's exactly what you're doing. Let's fix that first, and then we can move on to your conspiracy theories.
JayUtah 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 29th May 2019, 08:50 AM   #4
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
 
The Greater Fool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posts: 3,819
Odd, the Harvard study [2000]: "The paper, however, focuses on the NVICP, the actual operation of this compensation program, and the program's effects on the compensation and prevention of adverse reactions to mandatory vaccinations."

Can you grasp how the compensation program would only be accessed by a small portion of those with "adverse reactions"? Do you think parents of kids that got a bruise, or rash, or sniffles, would access the compensation program?

Also, perhaps studies in this decade might be more meaningful?
__________________
- "Who is the greater fool? The fool? Or the one arguing with the fool?" [Various; Uknown]
- "The only way to win is not to play." [Tsig quoting 'War Games']
The Greater Fool 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 29th May 2019, 08:56 AM   #5
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,473
I found the information at this website informative:

https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis/

https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/vrs/
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 29th May 2019, 09:10 AM   #6
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,620
This might help.

It's the best part of a decade old, but I think you might have missed it at the time.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 29th May 2019, 09:17 AM   #7
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 11,646
Well informative if you're interested in evasion and fact distortion. Here's a better article about their "mostly benign" measles.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s414...TtRcNXVghDe9TA

Quote:
These data support our immune amnesia hypothesis and offer an explanation for the previously observed long-term effects of measles on host resistance. This study emphasises the importance of maintaining high measles vaccination coverage.
__________________
"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 29th May 2019, 09:20 AM   #8
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,732
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
A study by Harvard estimates that only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Even if they're off by a factor of 10, that would still mean 90% of reactions go unreported.

You need to provide citations because you have a history of quote mining.
__________________
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 29th May 2019, 09:20 AM   #9
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,738
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
A study by Harvard estimates that only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Even if they're off by a factor of 10, that would still mean 90% of reactions go unreported.
This suggests that 99% of reactions are within the range of expected reactions by the general public, and are so minor that the vast majority of people see no need to report them.

I bet 99% of common colds don't get reported, either, and for the same reason: Vaccines and colds are both about as safe as can reasonably be expected.
theprestige 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 29th May 2019, 09:20 AM   #10
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 11,646
The second link claims MMR vaccine isn't properly tested but only considers the pre-licence testing and not the massive cohort and other studies run since the adoption of MMR. That alone tells you all you need to know about their integrity. "Informed consent" my arse.
__________________
"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 29th May 2019, 09:25 AM   #11
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,327
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This suggests that 99% of reactions are within the range of expected reactions by the general public, and are so minor that the vast majority of people see no need to report them.

I bet 99% of common colds don't get reported, either, and for the same reason: Vaccines and colds are both about as safe as can reasonably be expected.
My thoughts as well.

The answer to the OP is, "probably not but they are much safer than the alternative."
ahhell 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 29th May 2019, 09:41 AM   #12
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,640
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I'll start by saying that

I don't oppose vaccines for anyone who wants them for themselves or their children.

and

I have never and would never advise anyone to not vaccinate.

A more accurate moniker than 'anti-vaxxer' would be 'vaccine safety awareness advocate', but I guess that's too much of a mouthful.

'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.

I will present evidence that the regulatory agencies responsible for vaccine safety are not properly doing their jobs. Cronyism and conflicts of interest abound.
Citation lacking
Quote:

[ed: But before we get into the cronyism and conflicts of interest...]

A study by Harvard estimates that only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Even if they're off by a factor of 10, that would still mean 90% of reactions go unreported.
Citation lacking
Quote:
How can safety be properly monitored if only a tiny fraction of reactions are reported?

Here's 7 minutes of Dr. Stanley Plotkin, renown and fiercely pro-vaccine vaccinologist, attempting damage control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3x0rQT_eSw
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 29th May 2019, 10:25 AM   #13
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,389
Oh, boy. He is back and is being boring and repetitive.... just like any other troll.


Though I did think of him when I saw this article: https://abc7.com/pets-animals/man-bi...-ipad/5321222/


Yeah, IB would probably just let nature take its course to avoid that evil rabies vaccine that Plotkin helped develop in the late 1960s.
__________________
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 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 29th May 2019, 11:01 AM   #14
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,597
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
<snip>
A study by Harvard estimates that only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Even if they're off by a factor of 10, that would still mean 90% of reactions go unreported.

How can safety be properly monitored if only a tiny fraction of reactions are reported?
<snip>
Well, duh!

Apparently, a common adverse reaction - to some vaccine shots anyway - is “sore arm from the shot”. I would be astonished to learn that even 1% of such were reported.

But perhaps, IB, you intended to write something different?

ETA: not saying anything new (already the topic of two posts upthread), just providing an objective, concrete example ...

Last edited by JeanTate; 29th May 2019 at 11:40 AM. Reason: ETA
JeanTate 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 29th May 2019, 11:10 AM   #15
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 24,025
What does "as safe as can be" actually even mean, though? We could, after all, make a vaccine that is nearly perfectly safe simply by putting nothing useful in it and spreading it on your feet, but maybe if we consider "safe as they can be" as meaning that vaccines are as safe as it's practicable to make them without reducing their effectiveness, we should just answer "yes" and end it right there.
__________________
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 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 29th May 2019, 11:46 AM   #16
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
What does "as safe as can be" actually even mean, though? We could, after all, make a vaccine that is nearly perfectly safe simply by putting nothing useful in it and spreading it on your feet, but maybe if we consider "safe as they can be" as meaning that vaccines are as safe as it's practicable to make them without reducing their effectiveness, we should just answer "yes" and end it right there.
Maybe you're right. The DHHS, who have the responsibility for vaccine safety, have not filed a single report to Congress as required every 2 years, starting 1989, pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

Surely that's because vaccines were made as safe as humanly possible by 1986, and so there was no point in the DHHS fulfilling their mandate to promote new and safer vaccines and to make or assure improvements in manufacturing, testing, labelling, storage, field surveillance, reaction reporting and other aspects of vaccine safety and monitoring.

But, if vaccines were 'safe as can be' by 1986, why should the DHHS be given a mandate to improve safety and to report their accomplishments to Congress every two years?
__________________
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 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 29th May 2019, 11:47 AM   #17
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,945
Meaningless loaded question from an admitted anti-vaxer.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 29th May 2019, 12:00 PM   #18
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
You need to provide citations because you have a history of quote mining.
I provided a link to Plotkin testifying which proves:
a) the study is genuine
b) the study concluded that an estimated 1% of reactions are reported

If that's not good enough for you, so be it.

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to repost that explanation specific to RedRose's #1 and rub it my face again. Any estimate on when you might produce that for me?
__________________
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 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 29th May 2019, 12:11 PM   #19
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
Odd, the Harvard study [2000]: "The paper, however, focuses on the NVICP, the actual operation of this compensation program, and the program's effects on the compensation and prevention of adverse reactions to mandatory vaccinations."

Can you grasp how the compensation program would only be accessed by a small portion of those with "adverse reactions"? Do you think parents of kids that got a bruise, or rash, or sniffles, would access the compensation program?

Also, perhaps studies in this decade might be more meaningful?
We're not talking about how many access the compensation program. We're talking about how many reported reactions. Whether any individual reaction was due to a vaccine must be determined. A report of a reaction does not mean it was vaccine caused.

The upshot and significance of Harvard's finding of 1% reporting is that we have insufficient data on the incidence vaccine injury.
__________________
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 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 29th May 2019, 12:12 PM   #20
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,597
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I provided a link to Plotkin testifying which proves:
a) the study is genuine
b) the study concluded that an estimated 1% of reactions are reported

If that's not good enough for you, so be it.

<snip>
To repeat what was posted in the other thread in this, the SMM&T board of the ISF, your link “proves” nothing. At a minimum, you need to post a link to a paper (published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal) reporting the “Harvard study” and its results.

If you don’t like the standards commonly used here, well, so be it.

If you can’t at least try to meet these standards, please be honest enough to say so explicitly.
JeanTate 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 29th May 2019, 12:14 PM   #21
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,597
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Maybe you're right. The DHHS, who have the responsibility for vaccine safety, have not filed a single report to Congress as required every 2 years, starting 1989, pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

Surely that's because vaccines were made as safe as humanly possible by 1986, and so there was no point in the DHHS fulfilling their mandate to promote new and safer vaccines and to make or assure improvements in manufacturing, testing, labelling, storage, field surveillance, reaction reporting and other aspects of vaccine safety and monitoring.

But, if vaccines were 'safe as can be' by 1986, why should the DHHS be given a mandate to improve safety and to report their accomplishments to Congress every two years?
This may come as a bit of a shock to you (or not) ... many ISF members do not live in the US.
JeanTate 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 29th May 2019, 12:15 PM   #22
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 5,631
I can't imagine going through the trouble of reporting a sore arm. You (OP) say that side effects go unreported, like it's sinister, as opposed to most simply not being a big enough deal for people to bother reporting. What do you think, Big Pharma goons threaten them into silence? They don't report because their lives are barely impacted. "The arm someone jammed a hypodermic needle in yesterday is sore - what the hell, that's crazy. I better call the AMA!" Said practically no one ever.

I'm tired of the perfection standards demanded of vaccines by their dedicated "skeptics." Nothing is "as safe as it can be," but no one cares except when it's time to howl about vaccines. I'd be surprised if half the people who espouse this junk own carbon monoxide detectors, eat rigidly healthy diets, always wear bike helmets, would never dream of ignoring a problem light that comes on in their cars, etc. That stuff isn't anywhere near as political, so cognitive dissonance reigns supreme. It's irritating.

I (fairly recently) was almost dragged into an argument with a vaccine "skeptic" at a friend's cookout. The dude was SMOKING A CIGARETTE while he ranted about questionable vaccine safety and public health. Blowing the smoke in my ******* face, too, just completely oblivious to the fireworks display of exploding irony meters happening in my bored countenance.
isissxn 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 29th May 2019, 12:25 PM   #23
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,732
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Maybe you're right. The DHHS, who have the responsibility for vaccine safety, have not filed a single report to Congress as required every 2 years, starting 1989, pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
Citation? As far as I can tell this isn't true.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Meaningless loaded question from an admitted anti-vaxer.

And Politifact says it isn't true:

https://www.politifact.com/facebook-...y-it-failed-m/
__________________
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 29th May 2019, 12:25 PM   #24
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,597
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
We're not talking about how many access the compensation program. We're talking about how many reported reactions. Whether any individual reaction was due to a vaccine must be determined. A report of a reaction does not mean it was vaccine caused.

The upshot and significance of Harvard's finding of 1% reporting is that we have insufficient data on the incidence vaccine injury.
(my hilite)

Time to move the goalposts, eh?

Used to be “adverse reactions”; now it’s “vaccine injury”.

Another, to some really annoying, feature of this part of the ISF is an almost pedantic insistence on precision and accuracy ... so far, in this thread, your batting average is, um, not great.

Last edited by JeanTate; 29th May 2019 at 01:33 PM. Reason: Fixed typo (a quote mark in the wrong place)
JeanTate 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 29th May 2019, 12:26 PM   #25
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
No, that's not what we all want. A better, reasonable approach would be that a proposed remedy should have an overall better outcome than non-remediation.
Hence the importance of doing a proper, large study to compare health outcomes of the fully vaccinated to the unvaccinated. The only reason I've heard any expert give is that it would be 'difficult'. Not impossible, just difficult.

The CDC now recommends over 70+ doses of vaccine in 40+ injections by age 18. Do you know of any studies that have looked at the cumulative effect of so many doses?

Look at all the marvellous human accomplishments. Haven't we proven ourselves to be very good at 'difficult'?

Considering the health of the human population is at stake, shouldn't the study be done, despite it being difficult?
__________________
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 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 29th May 2019, 12:34 PM   #26
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,732
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I provided a link to Plotkin testifying which proves:
a) the study is genuine
b) the study concluded that an estimated 1% of reactions are reported
Good God. I'd suggest people watch the video you supplied, at least the last minute, just to understand the level of misrepresentation and outright stupidity you are promoting here.

In the first place, it's seven minutes of an anti-vax lawyer cherry picking (one of your favorite forms of lying) from the report, without any coverage of the other side of the case. Finally the lawyer tries to suggest that the 1% unreported figure means that the reported deaths need to be multiplied by 100! Plotkin then laughs at the guy and properly points out that DEATHS are not likely to be the unreported adverse affects. DEATH tends to get noticed.
__________________
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.

Last edited by RecoveringYuppy; 29th May 2019 at 12:35 PM.
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 29th May 2019, 12:37 PM   #27
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,597
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Hence the importance of doing a proper, large study to compare health outcomes of the fully vaccinated to the unvaccinated. The only reason I've heard any expert give is that it would be 'difficult'. Not impossible, just difficult.
That’s it?

Nothing about cost? That it would couldn’t attain its goals unless all (new) vaccines were suspended for the duration of the study?

And, since you made the claim here, in this board, please list ALL the “experts” you have heard from (and all the peer-reviewed papers, by those experts, that you have read).

Quote:

The CDC now recommends over 70+ doses of vaccine in 40+ injections by age 18. Do you know of any studies that have looked at the cumulative effect of so many doses?
How, may I be so bold to ask, is this relevant? To what you wrote in the OP?

Quote:

Look at all the marvellous human accomplishments. Haven't we proven ourselves to be very good at 'difficult'?

Considering the health of the human population is at stake, shouldn't the study be done, despite it being difficult?
??? In what way is “the health of the human population [...] at stake”?
JeanTate 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 29th May 2019, 12:38 PM   #28
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,187
Vaccines are incredibly safe, exactly because they are used so much; this provides the most accurate data set of side-effects we can get.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza 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 29th May 2019, 12:44 PM   #29
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
(my hilite)

Time to move the goalposts, eh?

Used to be “adverse reactions “; now it’s “vaccine injury”.

Another, to some really annoying, feature of this part of the ISF is an almost pedantic insistence on precision and accuracy ... so far, in this thread, your batting average is, um, not great.
OK, make it 'adverse reactions' or the phrase of your choice.
Whatever phrase you prefer that simply conveys the idea of an unwanted phenomenon that is caused by or thought to be caused by the vaccine.

If I refer to injuries like Guilliam-Barre, then I say 'serious injury'.

But I'll try to be more circumspect in my language for you.

There was no intent to move goalposts.
__________________
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 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 29th May 2019, 12:46 PM   #30
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Good God. I'd suggest people watch the video you supplied, at least the last minute, just to understand the level of misrepresentation and outright stupidity you are promoting here.

In the first place, it's seven minutes of an anti-vax lawyer cherry picking (one of your favorite forms of lying) from the report, without any coverage of the other side of the case. Finally the lawyer tries to suggest that the 1% unreported figure means that the reported deaths need to be multiplied by 100! Plotkin then laughs at the guy and properly points out that DEATHS are not likely to be the unreported adverse affects. DEATH tends to get noticed.
Show me the explanation for #1 or be man enough to admit it doesn't exist.
Then we'll talk.
__________________
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 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 29th May 2019, 12:48 PM   #31
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,732
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Show me the explanation for #1 or be man enough to admit it doesn't exist.
Then we'll talk.
What the hell is #1?
__________________
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 29th May 2019, 12:53 PM   #32
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,027
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
What the hell is #1?

#1.
__________________
"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 29th May 2019, 12:57 PM   #33
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 31,027
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I'll start by saying that

I don't oppose vaccines for anyone who wants them for themselves or their children.

and

I have never and would never advise anyone to not vaccinate.

A more accurate moniker than 'anti-vaxxer' would be 'vaccine safety awareness advocate'...

Having looked at your posting history, I don’t think so.
__________________
"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 29th May 2019, 01:05 PM   #34
JeanTate
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,597
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK, make it 'adverse reactions' or the phrase of your choice.
I’m sorry to have to tell you, but that’s not how it works.

You wrote the OP, not me.

Quote:
Whatever phrase you prefer that simply conveys the idea of an unwanted phenomenon that is caused by or thought to be caused by the vaccine.
Again, it’s up to you, not me.

Quote:

If I refer to injuries like Guilliam-Barre, then I say 'serious injury'.

But I'll try to be more circumspect in my language for you.
Again, it’s the commonly used standard of this ISF board.


Quote:
There was no intent to move goalposts.
Good to read that.

I’ve asked you several other questions, directly pertinent to your OP; may I expect a response from you some time?
JeanTate 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 29th May 2019, 01:06 PM   #35
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,732
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
#1.

So he's telling me to explain the post I just answered??
__________________
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 29th May 2019, 01:25 PM   #36
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
That’s it?

Nothing about cost? That it would couldn’t attain its goals unless all (new) vaccines were suspended for the duration of the study?

And, since you made the claim here, in this board, please list ALL the “experts” you have heard from (and all the peer-reviewed papers, by those experts, that you have read).


How, may I be so bold to ask, is this relevant? To what you wrote in the OP?


??? In what way is “the health of the human population [...] at stake”?
Why would all new vaccines have to be suspended? People taking new vaccines could simply be excluded from the study. I heard Plotkin and a top health official (forgot the name) claim 'difficulty' as the reason. I can't fulfill your request for Unobtainium but if you have an authoritative source that explains why the study would be impossible, I'd appreciate a link.

The 70+ doses or 40+ shots is relevant because that adds up to a lot of toxins injected into a body. The health of the human population is at stake because vaccine uptake is being heavily promoted and pretty soon there will be no more control group available.

The only way to know if the health outcomes of the fully vaccinated are as good or better than the fully unvaccinated is to do that study.
__________________
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 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 29th May 2019, 01:28 PM   #37
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,083
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post

Propaganda delete


Here's 7 minutes of Dr. Stanley Plotkin, renown and fiercely pro-vaccine vaccinologist, attempting damage control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3x0rQT_eSw
One sided deposition videos aren't generally considered to be definitive proof of anything.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong 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 29th May 2019, 01:28 PM   #38
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,945
IB: I'm not saying X isn't safe, I'm just saying we need mores study.
Me: So what level of study will satisfy you?
IB: Some impossible level of study far beyond what could practically ever actually be done.

This on the level of crashing every car on the planet before mandating seatbelts because "they need more study."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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 29th May 2019, 01:33 PM   #39
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 719
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
I’m sorry to have to tell you, but that’s not how it works.

You wrote the OP, not me.

Again, it’s up to you, not me.

Again, it’s the commonly used standard of this ISF board.

Good to read that.

I’ve asked you several other questions, directly pertinent to your OP; may I expect a response from you some time?
I can't answer every post and question. So pick one question and after we've dealt with it as best we can, we can move on to your next question. Fair enough?
__________________
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 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 29th May 2019, 01:35 PM   #40
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,945
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I can't answer every post and question. So pick one question and after we've dealt with it as best we can, we can move on to your next question. Fair enough?
Oh the "Befuddled old man who can't keep up with all these questions." persona.

You literally have no idea how much that won't work. Trust me dude we've played that game with someone who can play it better then you'll ever hope to.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue 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
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 10:09 AM.
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.