Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

[KanadaHye]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

Though, because event "A" happened (you got expensive water with a few molecules of something in it), and then event "B" happened (you felt better) - that doesn't mean "A" cured "B", or that the two events are even related. For most untreated illnesses, you get over them in a couple of days .... or you die!

It was probably a concoction of vitamins that are necessary for proper function of the immune system. Malnutrition is a cause of people getting seriously ill over the common cold or a flu. Considering the average modern diet consists of McDonalds, there is no wonder so many people have deficient immune systems.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl..._ylo=&as_vis=0

However, I meant vaccines on the whole. Kanada, if memory serves, doubts them all.

Erm .... a quick glance reveals the dates 2001, 1999, 2005, 2003 ... and so on ... those are the date of the various studies. MMR was licensed in the US in 1971, and developed only a few years prior to that date. In other words, it was introduced with minimal testing and all the subsequent research has been done using millions of children as unwitting test subjects for several decades, alongside an established MMR-production and delivery industry to make sure no off-message results occur.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

However, I meant vaccines on the whole. Kanada, if memory serves, doubts them all.

Your memory fails you, I believe the discussion was on the use of mercury that was introduced as a preservative.

[Siggie]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

What you are repeating here is just an example of the religious-like fanaticism of the medical establishment and its penchant for witch-hunts against anyone who dares speak out against its orthodoxy.

All the past mistakes that the medical establishment has committed, all the false views that it has held, is ignored by themedical establishment as if it had never happened. It is a profession that seems to learn nothing from its mistakes. EVERY advance in medical science has been opposed by the medical profession. If it were up to them, we would all still believe in blood-letting to cure infections. I don't need to go back centuries - as recently as the early 1990s doctors still thought stomach ulcers were a result of diet or, even, "stress" (about as laughable an opinion as blood-letting to cure "bad blood"), and they tried to cure ulcers by risky surgery. But then two doctor working away from the establishment centres decided to do their own research and discovered that almost all stomach ulcers wre caused by a bacterial infection and could be easily cured by antibiotics. That was in 1882, but it still took over a decade for their research to be accepted. In that decade, how many hundreds of thousands of people suffered needlessly, went through unnecessary and painful operations, until the medical establishment accepted the obvious? How many actually died because of it? And how many millions had suffered or died because for generations the medical establishment had held that its laughable orthodoxy about what caused peptic ulcers was correct. And how much money was made by the medical establishment administering its quack "cures" for peptic ulcers?

There's resistance to change everywhere. The more recent trend is towards evidence-based medicine and to the extent that they're "doing science" change is built in.
Medicine is not as advanced as we'd all like to think (E.g. Lobotomies in the 50s). We're still trying to understand how the body works; of course there will be mistakes.
The appropriate response is to push for continued research and an emphasis on evidence. It is not to abandon it altogether for something unsupported and unscientific (e.g. homeophathy).

The combined MMR vaccine hasn't had years of research - it was the vaccines that it replaced which had.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=MMR+vaccine&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

However, I meant vaccines on the whole. Kanada, if memory serves, doubts them all.

Though, because event "A" happened (you got expensive water with a few molecules of something in it), and then event "B" happened (you felt better) - that doesn't mean "A" cured "B", or that the two events are even related. For most untreated illnesses, you get over them in a couple of days .... or you die!

Ah yes, good old "regression to the mean" and the placebo effect This is precisely why we need to conduct experiments (i.e. have control/comparison groups).

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

I know of a homepathic practioner (forgive my misspelling), and he concocted a stange combination of something,
and told me to take it. I did, and wow, I did not get the serious what was it then? flu ? this was eons ago, and
for the times before that he made also something for me. It really kept me from catching the darn thing
that was landing everyone else in the hospital in droves! The other two times it got me over it in 2 or 3 days!

Though, because event "A" happened (you got expensive water with a few molecules of something in it), and then event "B" happened (you felt better) - that doesn't mean "A" cured "B", or that the two events are even related. For most untreated illnesses, you get over them in a couple of days .... or you die!

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

The fear tactics were utilized by the anti-vaxxers. "Snake oil" is not backed by the YEARS of programmatic research of vaccinations.
I linked the thread from the last round of running circles with you... I'm not in the mood for rehashing that stuff.

The combined MMR vaccine hasn't had years of research - it was the vaccines that it replaced which had.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

One dishonest Andrew Wakefield fabricated his data and since then there has been study, after study, after study, after study confirming what we'd already tested and established before Wakefield, that vaccines are safe.

What you are repeating here is just an example of the religious-like fanaticism of the medical establishment and its penchant for witch-hunts against anyone who dares speak out against its orthodoxy.

All the past mistakes that the medical establishment has committed, all the false views that it has held, is ignored by themedical establishment as if it had never happened. It is a profession that seems to learn nothing from its mistakes. EVERY advance in medical science has been opposed by the medical profession. If it were up to them, we would all still believe in blood-letting to cure infections. I don't need to go back centuries - as recently as the early 1990s doctors still thought stomach ulcers were a result of diet or, even, "stress" (about as laughable an opinion as blood-letting to cure "bad blood"), and they tried to cure ulcers by risky surgery. But then two doctor working away from the establishment centres decided to do their own research and discovered that almost all stomach ulcers wre caused by a bacterial infection and could be easily cured by antibiotics. That was in 1882, but it still took over a decade for their research to be accepted. In that decade, how many hundreds of thousands of people suffered needlessly, went through unnecessary and painful operations, until the medical establishment accepted the obvious? How many actually died because of it? And how many millions had suffered or died because for generations the medical establishment had held that its laughable orthodoxy about what caused peptic ulcers was correct. And how much money was made by the medical establishment administering its quack "cures" for peptic ulcers?

[KanadaHye]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

The fear tactics were utilized by the anti-vaxxers. "Snake oil" is not backed by the YEARS of programmatic research of vaccinations.

I wonder how many vials of swine flu vaccine are sitting on shelves paid for with my tax money and given to corporate thieves.

[Siggie]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

The fear tactics were utilized by the anti-vaxxers. "Snake oil" is not backed by the YEARS of programmatic research of vaccinations.
I linked the thread from the last round of running circles with you... I'm not in the mood for rehashing that stuff.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Consequences of Anti-Vax misinformation

Funny how your bullsh!t detector failed you with the homeopath, but when it comes to something with overwhelming evidence for its efficacy and safety, you're suspicious.

There's no mercury in vaccines. I suggest not getting your information from swindlers or health food store magazines. Try looking up the scientific research instead. The interwebs have made it so we can look for ourselves instead of trusting these sorts of secondary sources. One dishonest Andrew Wakefield fabricated his data and since then there has been study, after study, after study, after study confirming what we'd already tested and established before Wakefield, that vaccines are safe.

Here ya go...

http://forum.hyeclub.com/showthread....xx-Movement%29

Are you aware of the term "snake oil". Large organizations today are far more profitable than the con man going door to door selling his grossly exaggerated product. Now that the swine flu and Bin Laden have come and gone, what will be the next fear tactic?