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 21st May 2019, 09:29 AM   #161
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,730
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So, you believe vaccines are 100% safe? Nobody has died or developed chronic conditions as a result of a vaccine?

If you admit that there have been deaths from vaccines, as evidenced by payouts from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund, then how can you in good conscience support forced vaccinations?

If you think there have been zero deaths from vaccines, you would be mistaken.

So the question becomes, how many deaths from forced vaccines would be acceptable to you in return for supposed 'herd immunity'.
It's pretty clear that the measles vaccine is much less dangerous than contracting the disease, and that serious adverse reactions are very rare.

Herd immunity will prevent a lot more deaths from measles than the vaccines will cause. Nothing in this world is 100% safe. Choosing the lowest risk option is what rational people do every day.
CORed 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 21st May 2019, 09:36 AM   #162
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,730
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
OK. So you concede that vaccines can kill - no matter how rarely? Sure they can, or death wouldn't be listed in the insert.
Of course, no drug or vaccine has ever been taken off the market because it was killing people, after having been 'proven' safe in all the studies and trials it had to pass before being sold.

Let's just have blind faith in Big Pharma who have no agenda other than to make people well so that they may lose customers and see their profits shrink.

Now, if a vaccine is mandatory for everyone, and we know some will die from it, how many deaths would be acceptable to you? Just give me a number.
The number of deaths caused by not vaccinating minus one.

And the real number is much lower than that, so it's a no-brainer, as far as I'm concenred.

Last edited by CORed; 21st May 2019 at 09:39 AM.
CORed 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 21st May 2019, 10:00 AM   #163
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
This is a great example of why you should not trust what pro-diseasers tell you.

https://vaxopedia.org/2019/02/03/abo...lotkin-videos/

Itchy Boy: these people are lying to you, for profit. Don't just passively accept what they say: check it yourself. You will find, as I have, that every single claim they make is in some way incorrect.
Profit? Pharma makes the profit. I've covered this. The vast majority of anti-vaxxers have no agenda other than to improve safety.

What do you think of Plotkin admitting he would tell parents that vaccines have been PROVEN to not cause autism, when as a scientist, he knows that's a lie? Did you see that part? I'm not discussing autism. I'm showing how Plotkin is as baldly two-faced as it's possible to be.

How about where he admits no double blind placebo study has done to compare health outcomes for the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated. Isn't that the most basic and most important study that could be done?

Until that study is done, we simply don't know how safe vaccines are. To think otherwise is delusional.
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 10:03 AM   #164
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
It's pretty clear that the measles vaccine is much less dangerous than contracting the disease, and that serious adverse reactions are very rare.

Herd immunity will prevent a lot more deaths from measles than the vaccines will cause. Nothing in this world is 100% safe. Choosing the lowest risk option is what rational people do every day.
Yes...choosing the lowest risk option. I want that choice to be mine, not the state's.
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 10:08 AM   #165
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Can you elaborate on the highlighted? Exactly which diseases and toxins do you think vaccines contain?

As for this claim of tyranny and 'forced medical procedures', this is, as has been said, ridiculous hyperbole.
Exactly what right do you think is being violated here, and what do you envisage is the next step towards 'further tyranny'?

As for your hypothetical scenario, what would cause this batch of vaccines to be so deadly, and can you give any examples of this happening in the past?
Most people can't home school so they're 'forced' to send their children to public school or face truancy charges. Many states are taking away religious and philosophical exemptions. And medical exemptions are being made much more difficult to get.

You will see more steps in the coming years to make vaccines mandatory for everyone. That's where the money is.
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 10:11 AM   #166
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,730
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Profit? Pharma makes the profit. I've covered this. The vast majority of anti-vaxxers have no agenda other than to improve safety.

What do you think of Plotkin admitting he would tell parents that vaccines have been PROVEN to not cause autism, when as a scientist, he knows that's a lie? Did you see that part? I'm not discussing autism. I'm showing how Plotkin is as baldly two-faced as it's possible to be.

How about where he admits no double blind placebo study has done to compare health outcomes for the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated. Isn't that the most basic and most important study that could be done?

Until that study is done, we simply don't know how safe vaccines are. To think otherwise is delusional.
If anti-vaxers are trying to improve safety, they couldn't be doing it more wrong.
CORed 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 21st May 2019, 10:12 AM   #167
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
WTF?

It's impossible to have this discussion with people that just make **** up.
I'll try to dig up the stats on that. Meantime, how many adults do you know who've had their booster in the last few years? You do know the effects of the measles vaccine wear off in 7 to 10 years.

I'd like your take on what Plotkin had to say.
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 10:14 AM   #168
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,730
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Yes...choosing the lowest risk option. I want that choice to be mine, not the state's.
Unfortunately, your idiotic choice not to vaccinate, puts people other than you at risk.

If it were up to me, parents whos refuse to vaccinate their children would be prosecuted for child endangerment and their children put in foster care.

Last edited by CORed; 21st May 2019 at 10:15 AM.
CORed 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 21st May 2019, 10:29 AM   #169
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
Unfortunately, your idiotic choice not to vaccinate, puts people other than you at risk.

If it were up to me, parents whos refuse to vaccinate their children would be prosecuted for child endangerment and their children put in foster care.
Why don't you comment on what Plotkin said? Why don't you comment on the fact that no proper study has ever been done to compare health outcomes for the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated?
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 10:57 AM   #170
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,570
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I got a lot of information from watching all 9 hours of Plotkin's deposition under oath. What better source than the world's leading vaccine expert?

ed: We know that Pharma has an obvious incentive to distort data in a way favourable to them.

What incentive do ex-vaxxers have except to protect their children? Sure, there might be a few trying to sell books or whatever, but the vast majority of ex-vaxxers or anti-vaxxers are not. So what do they have to gain by 'distorting the truth'?
First my apologies for the delay in my response but sleeping and work intervened. But that was good because I realized I was expressing more anger in my posts than I prefer. I attribute it to the fact that although I do basic research on cancer in a state university (I am not paid by any industry or business, and I do not develop drugs nor make any money from my discoveries (which I provide for free to any who request them), I do know many people in at different levels in the pharmaceutical industry. They are friends, ex-students, ex-coleagues, and I see them working late into the evenings and on most weekends. Not for personal profit but because they are excited by their work and driven by the desire to help sick people. Yes, hard for many to understand but many of the people in drug/vaccine development do it expressly to help people such as you and me. And on a personal level the drugs/vaccines they developed have kept me alive the past 7 years whereas I would have died if my condition arose 10 years ago.

Even more so, the entire sweep of vaccine development over the past 150 years is one of the most heroic, most awe-inspiring stories of human kind. From Pasteur and Koch to the nameless individuals who today put the vaccines into the little bottles, it is a continuous tale of amazing discoveries, bravery, and dedication to the prevention and cure of disease. Many gave up more profitable careers to do so. Some even died of the disease they sought to battle. And they did it for others. They did it for my children, who successfully grew into adulthood whereas without vaccines one in three kids died chocking to death from diphtheria, or burning up from smallpox, or coughing to death from pertussis, or paralyzed from polio. And I am deeply and eternally grateful to all who in his sweep of history saved my kids.

So accusations by anti-vaxxers that vaccines are just a deception pushed for profit are not only vicious lies but anger me very much. Sure, "Big Pharma" is a business and as such has been and is capable of periodic deceptions, devious strategies, distortions, and gross overcharging to increase their profits (I pay quite a bit for my drugs). I suspect that they are marginally more ethical than banks or car makers, but some manifestations have been quite egregious and I do believe that they need to be rigorously, ceaselessly, aggressively and extensively regulated by the government to control these urges.

Yet at the same time these companies are remarkably filled with incredibly altruistic people and it is a smear to suggest otherwise. Big Pharma is not simply an enemy: it is a complex entity representing both true desires to help sick people combined with true desires to make money. This combination has been quite successful in generating drugs and vaccines that have indeed helped prevent and cure disease; I and many, many others are alive because of them. I do think there are serious flaws and much improvement is required. But to dismiss what they do and the benefits they have indeed produced as useless lies generated by greed insults the many people in them who have committed their lives to helping ours.

Further can you imagine the size and depth of conspiracy required if the anti-vaxxer accusations of the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines were true? Millions of people, from MDs at small private clinics, though those in big medical centers, to all the researchers, basic and applied, working not only in the industry but in colleges and universities, in medical schools, in research institutes, and in regulatory committees, would have to be in on the conspiracy. I would have to be. For 150 years! All quite successfully keeping such a dark secret. And how heartless they must be because vaccination rates of the children of all these conspirators are quite high; they must be willing to sacrifice their very own kids for the good of the conspiracy!

So believe it or not one real motivation of pharmaceutical companies for producing vaccines is altruism. But what then is the motivation of the anti-vaxxers? Well we discovered that greed really did help motivate Andrew Wakefield's false attacks on the MMR vaccine - he was quietly marketing his own version. But more generally the anti-vaxxers are motivated by fear. Anti-vaxxers have been convinced that vaccines might harm their children - and what is a more powerful motivator whether based on falsehoods or truths? And if one is sadly dealing with a seriously ill child, one often seeks something or someone to blame. And blaming a vaccine has proven a popular and simple approach for doing so.

Last edited by Giordano; 21st May 2019 at 11:39 AM.
Giordano 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 21st May 2019, 11:20 AM   #171
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,730
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Why don't you comment on what Plotkin said? Why don't you comment on the fact that no proper study has ever been done to compare health outcomes for the vaccinated vs the unvaccinated?
I don't really care about what you claim Plotkin said, and your claim that no proper study has been done is a lie.
CORed 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 21st May 2019, 11:21 AM   #172
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,570
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
No need to repeat yourself. I understand completely how you feel. Yes, injecting disease and toxins that are known to cause death, no matter how rarely, into people against their will is tyranny. It's not 'just a needle prick'. Tyranny doesn't all happen at once. It's a process and it requires some measure of cooperation by the tyrannized. Getting the public to cheer for forced medical procedures is just a step toward further tyranny.

You haven't addressed the scenario where a deadly batch mistakenly gets out and hundreds of people who were forced to take the vaccine against their will die. If you think that can't happen...good luck!

I'd like to hear anyone's comments on the Plotkin video I linked to in post #137.
Truly dangerous batches of vaccines are extraordinarily rare, particularly in the US, but even these rare aberrations only lead to the conclusion that quality control, already quite good, needs to ramped up still higher, not that vaccines should not be used. The risk of the vaccines are still much lower than that of the disease. Further I do not see how this is relevant to the question of mandatory vs voluntary - a bad batch of vaccine must be avoided in either case.

But here is an analogy you might ponder: lets say a bad batch of vaccines gets released from time to time and endangers some people. Well, a bad batch of cars gets released from time to time with safety flaws that endanger some people - probably many more than the bad vaccines. A bad batch of childrens' tools get released from time to time with safety flaws that endanger some kids... A bad batch of lettuce gets released from time to time... well you get the idea. None of these are arguments against cars or childrens' tools or lettuce, they just highlight the needs for better and better quality and safety controls.

Last edited by Giordano; 21st May 2019 at 11:41 AM.
Giordano 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 21st May 2019, 11:32 AM   #173
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,730
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
First my apologies for the delay in my response but sleeping and work intervened. But that was good because I realized I was expressing more anger in my posts than I prefer. I attribute it to the fact that although I do basic research on cancer in a state university (I am not paid by any industry or business, and I do not develop drugs nor make any money from my discoveries (which I provide for free to any who request them), I do know many people in at different levels in the pharmaceutical industry. They are friends, ex-students, ex-coleagues, and I see them working late into the evenings and on most weekends. Not for personal profit but because they are excited by their work and driven by the desire to help sick people. Yes, hard for many to understand but many of the people in drug/vaccine development do it expressly to help people such as you and me. And on a personal level the drugs/vaccines they developed have kept me alive the past 7 years whereas I would have died if my condition arose 10 years ago.

Even more so, the entire sweep of vaccine development over the past 150 years is one of the most heroic, most awe-inspiring stories of human kind. From Pasteur and Koch to the nameless individuals who today put the vaccines into the little bottles, it is a continuous tale of amazing discoveries, bravery, and dedication to the prevention and cure of disease. Many gave up more profitable careers to do so. Some even died of the disease they sought to battle. And they did it for others. They did it for my children, who successfully grew into adulthood whereas without vaccines one in three kids died chocking to death from diphtheria, or burning up from smallpox, or coughing to death from pertussis, or paralyzed from polio. And I am deeply and eternally grateful to all who in his sweep of history saved my kids.

So accusations by anti-vaxxers that vaccines are just a deception pushed for profit are not only vicious lies but anger me very much. Sure, "Big Pharma" is a business and as such has been and is capable of periodic deceptions, devious strategies, distortions, and gross overcharging to increase their profits (I pay quite a bit for my drugs). I suspect that they are marginally more ethical than banks or car makers, but some manifestations have been quite egregious and I do believe that they need to be rigorously, ceaselessly, aggressively and extensively regulated by the government to control these urges.

Yet at the same time these companies are remarkably filled with incredibly altruistic people and it is a smear to suggest otherwise. Big Pharma is not simply an enemy: it is a complex entity representing both true desires to help sick people combined with true desires to make money. This combination has been quite successful in generating drugs and vaccines that have indeed helped prevent and cure disease; I and many, many others are alive because of them. I do think there are serious flaws and much improvement is required. But to dismiss what they do and the benefits they have indeed produced as useless lies generated by greed insults the many people in them who have committed their lives to helping ours.

Further can you imagine the size and depth of conspiracy required if the anti-vaxxer accusations of the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines were true? Millions of people, from MDs at small private clinics, though those in big medical centers, to all the researchers, basic and applied, working not only in the industry but in colleges and universities, in medical schools, in research institutes, and in regulatory committees, would have to be in on the conspiracy. I would have to be. For 150 years! All quite successfully keeping such a dark secret. And how heartless they must be because vaccination rates of the children of all these conspirators are quite high; they much be willing to sacrifice their very own kids for the good of the conspiracy!

So believe it or not one real motivation of pharmaceutical companies for producing vaccines is altruism. But what then is the motivation of the anti-vaxxers? Well we discovered that greed really did help motivate Andrew Wakefield's false attacks on the MMR vaccine - he was quietly marketing his own version. But more generally the anti-vaxxers are motivated by fear. Anti-vaxxers have been convinced that vaccines might harm their children - and what is a more powerful motivator whether based on falsehoods or truths? And if one is sadly dealing with a seriously ill child, one often seeks something or someone to blame. And blaming a vaccine has proven a popular and simple approach for doing so.
Well said. The anti-vax movement is the clearest example of nonsensical conspiracy theories causing great harm. It combines the stupidity of chemtrails, flat earthism and FEMA camps, with encouraging behavior that causes unnecessary death and suffering. Because of the lies and half-truths spread by anti-vax idiots, diseases that should be bad memories are now making a comeback. Though I think most anti-vaxers, with notable exceptions like Wakefield, are sincere in their misguided beliefs, the results are not much different than if they went into a daycare with an semi-automatic rifle and started shooting children.
CORed 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 21st May 2019, 11:40 AM   #174
Pixel42
SchrŲdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 10,939
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I'll try to dig up the stats on that. Meantime, how many adults do you know who've had their booster in the last few years? You do know the effects of the measles vaccine wear off in 7 to 10 years.
Absolute bilge.

Quote:
For primary immunization, 2 doses are recommended. The second dose of MCV is usually provided in the second year of life or at school entry, but it may be administered as early as 4 weeks after the first dose. The second dose is needed to protect children who did not develop protective immunity after the first dose.

[Ö]

Duration of protection

Although the duration of protection following measles vaccination is more variable than following wild-type virus infection, evidence indicates that a single dose of correctly administered measles vaccine which results in seroconversion will afford lifelong protection for most healthy individuals.3 Even in countries where measles is no longer endemic, antibodies to measles virus persist for decades.3, 36, 37 Studies using IgG avidity measurements to separate primary vaccination failures from secondary vaccination failures suggest that secondary failures may occur at least occasionally due to waning immunity.38, 39, 40 However, declining immunity does not appear to play a major role in measles virus transmission
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 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 21st May 2019, 11:45 AM   #175
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Nobody denies that Pharma makes products that improve lives. Nobody thinks doctors or any health care workers are all in on a conspiracy. Nobody denies most people in the industry only want to do good. Nobody is suggesting banning vaccines.

For the next while, I'd like to centre the discussion on the things you can all hear Plotkin say with his own mouth. I invite all to watch the 8 minute video and comment on what Plotkin says.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj_jozfvjuU
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 11:47 AM   #176
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Nobody denies that Pharma makes products that improve lives. Nobody thinks doctors or any health care workers are all in on a conspiracy. Nobody denies most people in the industry only want to do good. Nobody is suggesting banning vaccines.

For the next while, I'd like to centre the discussion on the things you can all hear Plotkin say with his own mouth. I invite all to watch the 8 minute video and comment on what Plotkin says.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj_jozfvjuU
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 11:48 AM   #177
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
First my apologies for the delay in my response but sleeping and work intervened. But that was good because I realized I was expressing more anger in my posts than I prefer. I attribute it to the fact that although I do basic research on cancer in a state university (I am not paid by any industry or business, and I do not develop drugs nor make any money from my discoveries (which I provide for free to any who request them), I do know many people in at different levels in the pharmaceutical industry. They are friends, ex-students, ex-coleagues, and I see them working late into the evenings and on most weekends. Not for personal profit but because they are excited by their work and driven by the desire to help sick people. Yes, hard for many to understand but many of the people in drug/vaccine development do it expressly to help people such as you and me. And on a personal level the drugs/vaccines they developed have kept me alive the past 7 years whereas I would have died if my condition arose 10 years ago.

Even more so, the entire sweep of vaccine development over the past 150 years is one of the most heroic, most awe-inspiring stories of human kind. From Pasteur and Koch to the nameless individuals who today put the vaccines into the little bottles, it is a continuous tale of amazing discoveries, bravery, and dedication to the prevention and cure of disease. Many gave up more profitable careers to do so. Some even died of the disease they sought to battle. And they did it for others. They did it for my children, who successfully grew into adulthood whereas without vaccines one in three kids died chocking to death from diphtheria, or burning up from smallpox, or coughing to death from pertussis, or paralyzed from polio. And I am deeply and eternally grateful to all who in his sweep of history saved my kids.

So accusations by anti-vaxxers that vaccines are just a deception pushed for profit are not only vicious lies but anger me very much. Sure, "Big Pharma" is a business and as such has been and is capable of periodic deceptions, devious strategies, distortions, and gross overcharging to increase their profits (I pay quite a bit for my drugs). I suspect that they are marginally more ethical than banks or car makers, but some manifestations have been quite egregious and I do believe that they need to be rigorously, ceaselessly, aggressively and extensively regulated by the government to control these urges.

Yet at the same time these companies are remarkably filled with incredibly altruistic people and it is a smear to suggest otherwise. Big Pharma is not simply an enemy: it is a complex entity representing both true desires to help sick people combined with true desires to make money. This combination has been quite successful in generating drugs and vaccines that have indeed helped prevent and cure disease; I and many, many others are alive because of them. I do think there are serious flaws and much improvement is required. But to dismiss what they do and the benefits they have indeed produced as useless lies generated by greed insults the many people in them who have committed their lives to helping ours.

Further can you imagine the size and depth of conspiracy required if the anti-vaxxer accusations of the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines were true? Millions of people, from MDs at small private clinics, though those in big medical centers, to all the researchers, basic and applied, working not only in the industry but in colleges and universities, in medical schools, in research institutes, and in regulatory committees, would have to be in on the conspiracy. I would have to be. For 150 years! All quite successfully keeping such a dark secret. And how heartless they must be because vaccination rates of the children of all these conspirators are quite high; they must be willing to sacrifice their very own kids for the good of the conspiracy!

So believe it or not one real motivation of pharmaceutical companies for producing vaccines is altruism. But what then is the motivation of the anti-vaxxers? Well we discovered that greed really did help motivate Andrew Wakefield's false attacks on the MMR vaccine - he was quietly marketing his own version. But more generally the anti-vaxxers are motivated by fear. Anti-vaxxers have been convinced that vaccines might harm their children - and what is a more powerful motivator whether based on falsehoods or truths? And if one is sadly dealing with a seriously ill child, one often seeks something or someone to blame. And blaming a vaccine has proven a popular and simple approach for doing so.
Sorry I hit the wrong button and repeated this post twice below by accident. My apologies.

Nobody denies that Pharma makes products that improve lives. Nobody thinks doctors or any health care workers are all in on a conspiracy. Nobody denies most people in the industry only want to do good. Nobody is suggesting banning vaccines.

For the next while, I'd like to centre the discussion on the things you can all hear Plotkin say with his own mouth. I invite all to watch the 8 minute video and comment on what Plotkin says.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj_jozfvjuU
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 11:49 AM   #178
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,570
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Nobody denies that Pharma makes products that improve lives. Nobody thinks doctors or any health care workers are all in on a conspiracy. Nobody denies most people in the industry only want to do good. Nobody is suggesting banning vaccines.

For the next while, I'd like to centre the discussion on the things you can all hear Plotkin say with his own mouth. I invite all to watch the 8 minute video and comment on what Plotkin says.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj_jozfvjuU
Gee, in looking over your posts I came to a very different conclusion! Odd, I must have developed severe comprehension problems. Perhaps it is a bad batch of my drug?
Giordano 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 21st May 2019, 11:51 AM   #179
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
I don't really care about what you claim Plotkin said, and your claim that no proper study has been done is a lie.
So, you think Plotkin is perjuring himself when he admits no proper double blind placebo study has ever been done?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj_jozfvjuU
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 11:51 AM   #180
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,972
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I lived through it. Measles, mumps, chicken pox. It was no big deal in North America.
But it was. According to the CDC there were about 400-500 deaths, 1000 cases that developed encephalitis and 48000 hospitalizations per year before the development of the vaccine.

Itís undeniably true that for most people it was a minor inconvenience. But in perspective thatís still a lot of suffering and death along with the public health cost of dealing with the illness. The vaccine eliminated that almost entirely. Why would you want to go back to that?

Quote:
Sure in countries where there wasn't proper sanitation and hygene, those diseases could have more dire consequences because of other underlying conditions. Vitamin A deficiency in the case of measles, for example.



But in otherwise healthy people those diseases posed no major threat. Certainly nothing like the current measles hysteria. Yes, they wrote reflecting the attitude at the time. If those diseases were of great public concern, don't you think that would be public knowledge and nobody would be having measles parties?
People had Measles parties so their kids could get infected at an age where it was relatively safer; itís more dangerous in kids under 5 and adults over 20. The vaccine eliminates the need for such things.



Quote:
Big Pharma spends a lot of advertising dollars and if they want to spread hysteria where none is warranted, they have the motive and financial clout to do so and that's exactly what they have done.
Iíll ignore the CT elements of your post.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 21st May 2019, 12:03 PM   #181
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Gee, in looking over your posts I came to a very different conclusion! Odd, I must have developed severe comprehension problems. Perhaps it is a bad batch of my drug?
If you're confused about something I said, point out an example and I'll try to clarify.

What do you think of Plotkin saying he'd tell parents there's no proof vaccines don't cause autism, while knowing as a scientist, he can't say that?
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 12:09 PM   #182
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,570
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
So, you think Plotkin is perjuring himself when he admits no proper double blind placebo study has ever been done?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj_jozfvjuU
I gave in. And discovered that less than half of even that short 8 minutes clip consists of Plotkin himself speaking, rather than the virulent anti-vax views of his interviewer and the webinar host.

In his brief comments (presumably selected to be as anti-vax as possible) Plotkin notes that double blind experiments are the gold standard but that applying them broadly to a large population is often very difficult to do in practice and as a result often other legitimate studies are employed and that double blinds are used but in a more limited way.

(extending a brif ocomment of his: notably use of only a placebo in these types of studies is considered highly unethical because it would place participants at risk. This is why a new vaccine against a disease is tested together, or not, with established vaccines to other diseases. Exactly the same approach is used for anti-cancer drugs: one doesn't treat one group of patients with a new treatment and the other with no treatment at all. Instead one compares a group treated with the best standard therapy to a group getting the standard therapy plus the new drug.

And despite the belligerence and emotion of the interviewer and the host Plotkin also reports that there is absolutely no evidence that DTap vaccine causes autism.

Simple.
Giordano 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 21st May 2019, 12:10 PM   #183
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
But it was. According to the CDC there were about 400-500 deaths, 1000 cases that developed encephalitis and 48000 hospitalizations per year before the development of the vaccine.

Itís undeniably true that for most people it was a minor inconvenience. But in perspective thatís still a lot of suffering and death along with the public health cost of dealing with the illness. The vaccine eliminated that almost entirely. Why would you want to go back to that?

People had Measles parties so their kids could get infected at an age where it was relatively safer; itís more dangerous in kids under 5 and adults over 20. The vaccine eliminates the need for such things.

Iíll ignore the CT elements of your post.
The double blind, inert placebo study is the 'gold standard' scientific methodology, right? As Plotkin admits, no such study has been done. Do you think the 'gold standard' should not apply to vaccines?
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 12:21 PM   #184
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,570
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
If you're confused about something I said, point out an example and I'll try to clarify.

What do you think of Plotkin saying he'd tell parents there's no proof vaccines don't cause autism, while knowing as a scientist, he can't say that?
But that is not really what he says. He says correctly that the study he was asked to read concluded that there was no proof that DTap causes autism, which is the key conclusion and more than justifies its use in preventing the deadly diseases it prevents. Understanding statistics you realize how much more difficult it to obtain the much larger and diverse data set required to prove a negative, that DTap does not cause autism. In fact I don't know how such a study could even be designed and implemented, given it would require participants from every gender, age, ethnic group, environmental circumstance, etc. and one cannot prove absolute absence; one can only show lack of a detectable effect within the statistical limits of the study. The same is true of almost all studies: I can prove that a given treatment detectably increases the level of expression of one protein in a cancer cell and not detectably increase the expression of another, but I cannot prove that the latter might be increasing slightly but at a level below my detection limit. i.e. I can prove the treatment causes increases in protein 1 but I cannot prove it does not cause increases in protein 2.
Giordano 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 21st May 2019, 12:24 PM   #185
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,570
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The double blind, inert placebo study is the 'gold standard' scientific methodology, right? As Plotkin admits, no such study has been done. Do you think the 'gold standard' should not apply to vaccines?
Yes, for reasons explained in my post (and easily googled if you want more information) I think (I know) that this "gold standard" cannot be applied to most vaccine tests in people (although notably it is typically applied in the animal tests that precede human testing).
Giordano 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 21st May 2019, 12:24 PM   #186
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
I gave in. And discovered that less than half of even that short 8 minutes clip consists of Plotkin himself speaking, rather than the virulent anti-vax views of his interviewer and the webinar host.

In his brief comments (presumably selected to be as anti-vax as possible) Plotkin notes that double blind experiments are the gold standard but that applying them broadly to a large population is often very difficult to do in practice and as a result often other legitimate studies are employed and that double blinds are used but in a more limited way.

(extending a brif ocomment of his: notably use of only a placebo in these types of studies is considered highly unethical because it would place participants at risk. This is why a new vaccine against a disease is tested together, or not, with established vaccines to other diseases. Exactly the same approach is used for anti-cancer drugs: one doesn't treat one group of patients with a new treatment and the other with no treatment at all. Instead one compares a group treated with the best standard therapy to a group getting the standard therapy plus the new drug.

And despite the belligerence and emotion of the interviewer and the host Plotkin also reports that there is absolutely no evidence that DTap vaccine causes autism.

Simple.
We're not concerned with the interviewer, only Plotkin. That clip was for convenience. I'm in the process of notating all 9 hours of the deposition, so that if I make a claim, I can point directly to where Plotkin himself backs the claim.

In a drug study, both groups are sick, so a placebo could be considered unethical in that case.

In a vaccine study, both groups are presumably healthy. How or why is it unethical to give a placebo to a healthy participant?
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 12:54 PM   #187
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
But that is not really what he says. He says correctly that the study he was asked to read concluded that there was no proof that DTap causes autism, which is the key conclusion and more than justifies its use in preventing the deadly diseases it prevents. Understanding statistics you realize how much more difficult it to obtain the much larger and diverse data set required to prove a negative, that DTap does not cause autism. In fact I don't know how such a study could even be designed and implemented, given it would require participants from every gender, age, ethnic group, environmental circumstance, etc. and one cannot prove absolute absence; one can only show lack of a detectable effect within the statistical limits of the study. The same is true of almost all studies: I can prove that a given treatment detectably increases the level of expression of one protein in a cancer cell and not detectably increase the expression of another, but I cannot prove that the latter might be increasing slightly but at a level below my detection limit. i.e. I can prove the treatment causes increases in protein 1 but I cannot prove it does not cause increases in protein 2.
The study concluded that there was insufficient data to make a determination either way. If you missed that part, try again.

If Plotkin was your paediatrician and he told you, "As your paediatrician, I'm telling you there is no proof that vaccines can cause autism. But as a scientist, I must admit there's no proof that vaccines do not cause autism." Would you not raise an eyebrow? [ed: Some pro-vaxxers claim that it HAS been proven that vaccines DO NOT cause autism, but the world's leading expert would not agree.]

I know its difficult if not impossible to prove a negative. But if there was real concern about safety, then there should be a study comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. That's a no-brainer. Regardless if it's 'difficult'. With billions getting vaccinated, shouldn't the effort be made? They have millions of people's health records on file. They could use the existing database to do the study.

One group is fully vaccinated, the other group is unvaccinated. Compare rates of autism, cancer, immunological disorders, neurological disorders, diabetes, allergies, etc.

There's a correlation between the rise in the vaccine schedule and the rise of conditions I just listed. Correlation is not causation, but correlation is a sign that more study is needed to make sure.

If everyone gets vaccinated, there will be no more control group in existence.

As I mentioned before, a pilot study of 650 people was done and the vaccinated had a much higher rate of health problems. It's only a pilot so the results aren't conclusive. But we have no larger similar study to refute or confirm the pilot study findings.

There's no ethical barrier to doing such a study. Their only excuse is it would be 'difficult'. Not impossible, just difficult. A very lame excuse, in my opinion.
__________________
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; 21st May 2019 at 01:11 PM.
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 21st May 2019, 01:10 PM   #188
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,647
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Here's 8 minutes of vaccine science from Dr. Stanley Plotkin - considered the 'godfather' of vaccines. For those who say science has proven vaccines don't cause autism. There is insufficient data to say whether vaccines do or do not cause autism. The science is not settled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj_jozfvjuU
I developed autistic in the womb. Why do you think that I am better off dead than who I am?

And you're the same person who insists it's your right to drive drunk and if I want to stay safe I have to watch out for you and get out of your way.

I did notice you left polio off your list. The 'inconvenient' disease for 'sanitation antivaxers' because it only exploded into a massive danger BECAUSE of increased sanitation no longer exposing babies protected by antibodies in breastmilk.
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey 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 21st May 2019, 01:21 PM   #189
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
I developed autistic in the womb. Why do you think that I am better off dead than who I am?

And you're the same person who insists it's your right to drive drunk and if I want to stay safe I have to watch out for you and get out of your way.

I did notice you left polio off your list. The 'inconvenient' disease for 'sanitation antivaxers' because it only exploded into a massive danger BECAUSE of increased sanitation no longer exposing babies protected by antibodies in breastmilk.
You are attributing to me things I never said or implied. And if you read my posts, my main issue is not with the vaccines themselves. My issue is the drive to eventually make them mandatory for everyone.

ed: If you want to criticize me, fine. But at least stick to things I actually said, not what you imagine I meant. Same for everyone else. (Giordano)
__________________
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; 21st May 2019 at 01:25 PM.
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 21st May 2019, 01:37 PM   #190
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,570
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
We're not concerned with the interviewer, only Plotkin. That clip was for convenience. I'm in the process of notating all 9 hours of the deposition, so that if I make a claim, I can point directly to where Plotkin himself backs the claim.

In a drug study, both groups are sick, so a placebo could be considered unethical in that case.

In a vaccine study, both groups are presumably healthy. How or why is it unethical to give a placebo to a healthy participant?
Part one: frankly I don't think that notating all 9 hours is worth your effort. Ultimately he is only one person with his own particular opinions sitting at one interview being asked questions by a person with an agenda. Anyone is likely to state a truth with less than perfect precision, and to not have time to provide a full and properly nuanced description of all the topics covered. In contrast there are tens of thousands of people (many better informed than Plotkin about specific aspects of vaccines), even more studies, and many very well-written research and review articles based on access to huge reams of data, the input of other knowledgeable individuals, and much more time for putting these topics together in and presenting them precisely and in greater depth. I recommend time spent on these resources would be more productive.

Part two: it is unethical in a vaccine study because people who do not get the existing panel of vaccines are more likely to get sick than those who do not. The ethics are no different from the cancer protocols I described.
Giordano 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 21st May 2019, 01:42 PM   #191
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,570
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The study concluded that there was insufficient data to make a determination either way. If you missed that part, try again.

If Plotkin was your paediatrician and he told you, "As your paediatrician, I'm telling you there is no proof that vaccines can cause autism. But as a scientist, I must admit there's no proof that vaccines do not cause autism." Would you not raise an eyebrow? [ed: Some pro-vaxxers claim that it HAS been proven that vaccines DO NOT cause autism, but the world's leading expert would not agree.]

I know its difficult if not impossible to prove a negative. But if there was real concern about safety, then there should be a study comparing the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. That's a no-brainer. Regardless if it's 'difficult'. With billions getting vaccinated, shouldn't the effort be made? They have millions of people's health records on file. They could use the existing database to do the study.

One group is fully vaccinated, the other group is unvaccinated. Compare rates of autism, cancer, immunological disorders, neurological disorders, diabetes, allergies, etc.

There's a correlation between the rise in the vaccine schedule and the rise of conditions I just listed. Correlation is not causation, but correlation is a sign that more study is needed to make sure.

If everyone gets vaccinated, there will be no more control group in existence.

As I mentioned before, a pilot study of 650 people was done and the vaccinated had a much higher rate of health problems. It's only a pilot so the results aren't conclusive. But we have no larger similar study to refute or confirm the pilot study findings.

There's no ethical barrier to doing such a study. Their only excuse is it would be 'difficult'. Not impossible, just difficult. A very lame excuse, in my opinion.
No, for the reasons I've explained, it is highly unethical to deny a group of people a treatment that is in general use and shown to significantly reduce their risk of acquiring a dangerous disease. And the benefits of the existing vaccine panels are well established, even if you are unwilling to believe it.
Giordano 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 21st May 2019, 02:59 PM   #192
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,017
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Of course not.

But refusing to inject disease and toxins into your child is hardly the equivalent of beating, chaining or sexually abusing them.
The forum is now dumber, thanks to you.

I had chicken pox as a child. Missed two weeks of school.
So did both of my sisters. And they missed two weeks of school.
My mother stayed home with sick kids for almost three weeks.
I had measles as a child. Another two weeks, and again for both my sisters.
Another 3 weeks of home-bound child care for my mom.

And I had mumps, as did my sisters. Another 3 weeks of confinement with sick kids.

9 weeks of lost time for her, risk of life-long complications for her children x 9.
Also, I have had an attack of shingles since. I don't wish that on anybody - except anti-vaxxers who seem to need a bit of real world experience. I truly hope each and every one of these nitwits gets to enjoy an episode of shingles.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob 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 21st May 2019, 03:03 PM   #193
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,017
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Yes...choosing the lowest risk option. I want that choice to be mine, not the state's.
The numbers don't change due to your choices. The lowest risk remains the lowest risk.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob 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 21st May 2019, 03:05 PM   #194
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,017
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
Most people can't home school so they're 'forced' to send their children to public school or face truancy charges. Many states are taking away religious and philosophical exemptions. And medical exemptions are being made much more difficult to get.

You will see more steps in the coming years to make vaccines mandatory for everyone. That's where the money is.
Parents being able to go to work instead of staying home with sick kids is where the money is.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob 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 21st May 2019, 03:35 PM   #195
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,902
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
I'll try to dig up the stats on that. Meantime, how many adults do you know who've had their booster in the last few years? You do know the effects of the measles vaccine wear off in 7 to 10 years.

I'd like your take on what Plotkin had to say.


You are incredibly poorly informed about measles vaccine. Your facts are false, period, full stop.

And you've yet to post a link to the testimony you seem so enamored with. Got a link? Preferably one with a transcript since I'm not going to listen to nine hours of Congressional testimony.

And while you're at it you might want to read up on how epidemiological studies tell us what you mistakenly think has not been done.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 21st May 2019 at 03:40 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 21st May 2019, 03:46 PM   #196
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,902
The latest measles outbreak in King County continues to grow.

Fourth King County measles case confirmed this month
Quote:
At this point in the investigation, the information on the recent cases points to a common exposure from an unidentified person contagious with measles on April 25, 2019 at Sea-Tac International Airport, likely in the morning. Health officials have no reason to believe that there is currently an increased risk of getting measles by visiting the airport.
But in this case the latest person infected was exposed at the airport but also works at the airport at the "Hudson Alki Bakery Store, Sea-Tac International Airport
(pre-security Ticketing Level by B gate exit)" and worked on four days when he would have been contagious before symptoms developed.

So it will be a while before this particular outbreak is under control.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 21st May 2019, 04:04 PM   #197
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,972
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
The double blind, inert placebo study is the 'gold standard' scientific methodology, right? As Plotkin admits, no such study has been done. Do you think the 'gold standard' should not apply to vaccines?
I agree with Giordano’s post regarding this.

But let’s just consider the real world experience:

Measles pre vaccine = Annual Estimates: 3-4 million infections, and in 500000 reported cases, 48000 hospitalizations, 1000 cases of encephalitis and 400-500 deaths.

Post Vaccine = reported cases since 2000 from a low of 37 people to a high of 667 people in 2014 the last death occurred in 2015.

Death due to Vaccine: Between 1997 and 2015 there were 2149 deaths reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). This is for all vaccines given over that time -tens or hundreds of millions of doses -not just MMR. The study authors note that the causes of death in those cases were “consistent with the most common causes of death in the US population.” IOW, the death in the vast majority of those cases were coincidental to the vaccine and not caused by the vaccine.

But even if every one of those deaths were directly caused by a vaccine (which to be clear, they weren’t) that amounts to 119 deaths a year on average.

Now compare that to the potential number of deaths due to all those vaccine-preventable diseases -measles, mumps, polio, diphtheria, whooping cough... It just isn’t even close to comparable.

We no longer live in a world where people have to worry about even the minor annoyance of the average measles case to say nothing of the debilitating toll those other diseases took on humanity. Again I ask, why would you want to go back to that? Because Marcia Brady had measles and she was fine? Really?

Like I said, I don’t understand that argument at all.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 21st May 2019 at 04:09 PM.
xjx388 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 21st May 2019, 04:19 PM   #198
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,391
Originally Posted by Itchy Boy View Post
What the episode of the Brady Bunch shows is that measles was not considered a particularly dangerous disease before the vaccine became available. Other shows dealt with it in much the same light hearted manner. Why?

The only counter argument is that people back then just didn't know how dangerous measles is. That makes no sense. Measles has been around forever. Other diseases were recognized as deadly but somehow, the 'deadliness' of measles was not known. Until a vaccine was available, that is.

Except if you were an epidemiologist or statistician, even in 1914:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...0116-0001a.pdf


By the way, there is a reason that videos are not considered actual evidence: they can be manipulated. It is a common practice by those who have an agenda, hence this fundraiser: https://sciencefriction.tv/
__________________
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 21st May 2019, 04:29 PM   #199
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,902
Because some people in this thread need a review of how we study vaccine safety and effectiveness in addition to clinical trials:

Vaccine epidemiology: A review
Quote:
Abstract
This review article outlines the key concepts in vaccine epidemiology, such as basic reproductive numbers, force of infection, vaccine efficacy and effectiveness, vaccine failure, herd immunity, herd effect, epidemiological shift, disease modeling, and describes the application of this knowledge both at program levels and in the practice by family physicians, epidemiologists, and pediatricians. A case has been made for increased knowledge and understanding of vaccine epidemiology among key stakeholders including policy makers, immunization program managers, public health experts, pediatricians, family physicians, and other experts/individuals involved in immunization service delivery. It has been argued that knowledge of vaccine epidemiology which is likely to benefit the society through contributions to the informed decision-making and improving vaccination coverage in the low and middle income countries (LMICs). The article ends with suggestions for the provision of systematic training and learning platforms in vaccine epidemiology to save millions of preventable deaths and improve health outcomes through life-course.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 21st May 2019, 04:48 PM   #200
Itchy Boy
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: CANADA
Posts: 724
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Part one: frankly I don't think that notating all 9 hours is worth your effort. Ultimately he is only one person with his own particular opinions sitting at one interview being asked questions by a person with an agenda. Anyone is likely to state a truth with less than perfect precision, and to not have time to provide a full and properly nuanced description of all the topics covered. In contrast there are tens of thousands of people (many better informed than Plotkin about specific aspects of vaccines), even more studies, and many very well-written research and review articles based on access to huge reams of data, the input of other knowledgeable individuals, and much more time for putting these topics together in and presenting them precisely and in greater depth. I recommend time spent on these resources would be more productive.

Part two: it is unethical in a vaccine study because people who do not get the existing panel of vaccines are more likely to get sick than those who do not. The ethics are no different from the cancer protocols I described.
OK, if you want to avoid having to consider what the author of the 'bible' of vaccinology has to say under oath, so be it. Not surprising since much of what he says during those 9 hours puts the lie to many pro-vax claims.
We don't want that, do we?

It's unethical to give placebo to a willing, healthy participant? OK. I can't argue against logic that's that tortured.

Stay well.
__________________
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
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 04:54 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.