or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Vaccinations Archives › How Do You Decide? › What are the biggest more impressive arguments for Pro vaxers?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What are the biggest more impressive arguments for Pro vaxers? - Page 8

post #141 of 433
i think that is what mamakay posted...i am working my way through it.
post #142 of 433
iamleabee,

Please could you quote back to the post, becuase your quote comes right out of left field out of cntext.... which 2/3rds of what? How? Where...

And were we talking about measles? Where? Is there a URL or ref to that?

In terms of "good data" ... if you call data this
Quote:
large sample size, over many years.
why did you use anecdote as an example of bad data?

Please get your terms right.

Since the Institute of Medicine, in its many books on the assessments of vaccine safety, admits that there are no large sample size studies over many years and says in their books that they were hampered by just such a lack of studies, why do you think that the provaccine people have got such studies with which to back a provaccine stand?

Why are you wanting people here to direct you to studies? Do you know how to do accurate medical research using pubmed, medline, and google yourself?

Quote:
i wrote that i found it discouraging that anti-vax sites are making the arguement that vaccines cause harm and then try to sell you things: buy this video! this book! etc. some people wrote back that the articles i posted are the same because drug companies make money selling vaccines. a--i don't think that's where drug companies make their money (except maybe very new vaccines like the hpv one) and b--this alludes to a big researcher/medical field/drug company/data manufacturing conspiracy to essentially make up millions of data points and poison the vast majority of children in the US for the last 6 decades. this allegation states that drug companies are paying university researchers to publish data in independent scientific journals extolling the virtue of vaccines that are essentially poisonous. maybe so (re: tobacco), but i remain unconvinced at this time.


I am having difficulty unravelling several seemingly unlinked thought-bites in the above words. Can you reword/translate/punctuate/gramaticise the above so that there is a coherent train of thought available please? Also, you have made some unsubstantiated allegations amongst them, so could you please give us some examples with URLs, so that we can understand what you are going on about?

Also, why are you assuming that these comments have anything to do with this board?

That is... if I've understood them correctly, which is a moot point.
post #143 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamleabee View Post
of the most recent measles outbreak in US, 94% of cases were among unvaccinated individuals. 2 episodes of vaccine failure.
Would you please post a link to what you said here. Because there were measles outbreaks and something like 85% of the kids were fully vaccinated.

Quote:
anyone can make any case about their child, or their cousin etc. but what interests me is when people look at hundreds or thousands of cases over many years.
Right. Where?
Where did you look for information like that?

Quote:
my mind is not closed. (mamakay...i am working through that article you posted).
That is very good.

Quote:
why can a mother make an informed decision to vax: she can read the articles published in leading peer reviewed scientific journals presenting data she finds compelling.
Why can a mother make an informed decision to not vax: she can read articles in peer reviewed scientific journals presenting data and finds them compelling.

What are we saying here anyway?

Quote:
i wrote that i found it discouraging that anti-vax sites are making the arguement that vaccines cause harm and then try to sell you things: buy this video! this book!
OK. No one twists your arm to buy anything. But pharmaceutical corporations are twisting arms of our representatives and not only twisting arms, they are buying them off left and right. Laws are being passed that protect the manufacturer AND force people to vaccinate.

Quote:
i don't think that's where drug companies make their money
Then you are very misinformed or don't want to know. More than any fortune 500 companies, vaccine/drug manufacturers are by far the richest conglomerate on this planet.


Quote:
this allegation states that drug companies are paying university researchers
Unfortunately most scientists are employed by pharmaceutical corporations. There are virtually no independent scientists. Everything is pretty much dictated. Universities get huge stipends and money for new buildings from the pharma corporations. Those things are not a conspiracy. They are not even secret. They are fact. Pharma is proud of all the money they give to universities. What the heck?

Quote:
vaccines that are essentially poisonous.
What would you call a concoction of mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, biphenol, antifreeze, antibiotics, monkey DNA, MSG, etc. etc.???

I call it poison. What exactly do you call it?
post #144 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamleabee View Post
i think that is what mamakay posted...i am working my way through it.
Mamakay did not give you the URL to simpsonwood/mercury.

She gave you the URL to FDA/contaminants here:

http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/0910evolv.txt
post #145 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamleabee View Post



i wrote that i found it discouraging that anti-vax sites are making the arguement that vaccines cause harm and then try to sell you things: buy this video! this book! etc. some people wrote back that the articles i posted are the same because drug companies make money selling vaccines. a--i don't think that's where drug companies make their money (except maybe very new vaccines like the hpv one) and b--this alludes to a big researcher/medical field/drug company/data manufacturing conspiracy to essentially make up millions of data points and poison the vast majority of children in the US for the last 6 decades. this allegation states that drug companies are paying university researchers to publish data in independent scientific journals extolling the virtue of vaccines that are essentially poisonous. maybe so (re: tobacco), but i remain unconvinced at this time.
Just so you know, I don't think it's a conspiracy to poison children or anything like that. I do think the manufacturers fudge some of the data in the clinical trials to make their products look slightly more effective than they are a lot of times.
And some of the research is a little off after that because docs are prone to misdiagnose VPDs in vaccinated kids. But most of the vaccines do "work", too, to some extent. Flushots are almost completely ineffective, and the pertussis vaccine seems to be about 50/50, maybe, but most of the rest work fairly well.
The data that's totally wrong, IMO, is the cherry-picked data to make all the diseases look more scary than they are.
It gives the impression that society would just fall apart if the manufacturers were to stop making the vaccines, and it just isn't true.
If you look at places like Germany...yeah, they have measles and mumps etc., but it's just not that big of a deal.

Regarding vaccine risks, we do know for a fact that they've "covered up" viral contaminants. So right off the bat, we know that is how they have been known to operate. (whoever "they" are.)
I do think the diagnostic change is responsible for a lot of the "autism epidemic", too. It has to be.
But at the same time, the MMR and thimerosal research hasn't ever been "debunked", either. And I can totally see people at the CDC wanting it to just "go away", because if every parent of every kid diagnosed with "autism" could sue Merck, the CDC might think it would create a public health disaster when Merck withdrew from the market.
So they probably think protecting manufacturers actually protects public health.
The group who originally got the simpsonwood transcript through the FOIA also got emails that were going around the CDC at that time, and it's bad. Some of those guys totally believed thimerosal actually had caused speech delays and tics. There's just no doubt about that.
And they also asked the IOM to "prove" thimerosal and the MMR were "safe on a population level"...which means "Look at epidemiology, not the biology".
Because the biology would say something that might open the manufacturers up to lawsuites, IMO.
post #146 of 433

Iamleabee???

None of these studies conform to your stated ideal of large numbers over many years.

All have major scientific flaws in both premise, confoundings, and other variables, which have been discussed in many places, by many doctors, many times.

If you have read the IOM books on the topic, why would you "like" these studies below?


Quote:
Originally Posted by iamleabee View Post
here is one study i like:

URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=15364187

short quote from link: "Controls were matched on age, sex, and general practice. FINDINGS: 1294 cases and 4469 controls were included. 1010 cases (78.1%) had MMR vaccination recorded before diagnosis, compared with 3671 controls (82.1%) before the age at which their matched case was diagnosed. After adjustment for age at joining the database, the odds ratio for association between MMR and pervasive developmental disorder was 0.86 (95% CI 0.68-1.09). Findings were similar when restricted to children with a diagnosis of autism, to those vaccinated with MMR before the third birthday, or to the period before media coverage of the hypothesis linking MMR with autism. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that MMR vaccination is not associated with an increased risk of pervasive developmental disorders."
First major flaw. The numbers are too low. When it comes to rare events in order to even pick up a 5% excess you would have to have somewhere between 50 - 100,000 study participants... also... There was no totally unvaccinated group. You don't compare vaccinated with vaccinated, and expect to get something which would show you what would have happened had these children not had any vaccines at all.

In order to understand confoundings, the Cochrane review comments on the quality of the majority of studies might be of some help:

html text:

http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.co...407/frame.html

pdf


http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.co...07/pdf_fs.html

Quote:
article from:
Pediatrics. 2006 Jul;118(1):e139-50.

short quote:"A statistically significant linear increase in pervasive developmental disorder prevalence was noted during the study period. The prevalence of pervasive developmental disorder in thimerosal-free birth cohorts was significantly higher than that in thimerosal-exposed cohorts (82.7 of 10000 vs 59.5 of 10000). Using logistic regression models of the prevalence data, we found no significant effect of thimerosal exposure used either as a continuous or a categorical variable. Thus, thimerosal exposure was unrelated to the increasing trend in pervasive developmental disorder prevalence. These results were robust when additional analyses were performed to address possible limitations because of the ecological nature of the data and to evaluate potential effects of misclassification on exposure or diagnosis"
You aren't HONESTLY telling us, that you think Fombonne's study is worth squat are you?

Why?

Can you not see the errors in this, let alone the fact that the man did not state the most obvious conflict of interest that all here will know? That he was funded by thiomersal manufacturers?

A detailed scientific review of this article has been done elsewhere, so I see no need to rehash it, but if you honestly think accepting what medical journals publish uncritically, is a way to make a decision then fine.

Quote:
a retraction from 10 of the 12 authors of the original mmr-autism article based on 12 children in the UK:
What original MMR-autism article? There was NEVER a 1998 MMR-autism article. I have the original article and it never mentioned MMR-autism.


Quote:
"We wish to make it clear that in [the 1998] paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon [the] findings in the (1998) paper, according to precedent."
from Retraction of an Interpretation by Simon H Murch, Andrew Anthony, David H Casson, Mohsin Malik, Mark Berelowitz, Amar P Dhillon, Michael A Thomson, Alan Valentine, Susan E Davies, John A Walker-Smith (10 of the original 12 authors; John Linnell could not be reached)"
Think about this. The article never mentioned MMR-autism. It pointed out that measles virus had been found in the gut of 12 children and I think from memory called it some form of enterocolitis or something....

The possibility of a link was raised by WHOM primarily? Wakefield asked the question as to why/how the virus was there.

and who made the interpretation? And think about this. Why was this retraction made? By whom, how many years later, and for what purpose? Why did Wakefield lose his job? Have you looked at the peripheral events around this, and then the Lancet debacle not long ago?

I think that the whole deal about this article and subsequent events will come out in the wash with the GMC, when Wakefield takes the stand in a short while, and I really hope the media cover it accurately and fully.

And I'm really looking forward to reading the book written by his wife, who is a doctor and who once worked with the GMC. I just hopes she holds off until after the GMC hearing, which I hear is slotted for 12 weeks, so I don't expect it to be short. But I hope a lot of people will be eating their hats after it.

but somehow doubt it.

Quote:
overall: i think people who chose to immunize their children are not unthinking, and have considered reasons for their decisions, just as those who chose to decline vaxes are not unthinking and have considered reasons for their decisions.
I disagree. Just in the quality of what you have put here, both in your expression and in what you consider to be "good data" and your "proof" so far, I would have to suggest that your reasons are not yet well considered, and neither are your research methods (and results) adequate in terms of providing sufficient framework upon which to make an informed choice.
post #147 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseMomme View Post
Oh ok...iamleabee is making the point that mercola was trying to make money off an anti-vax video, I understand now.
You mean, Mercola was suggesting someone go to another website and buy a video made by someone else, who makes a living off talking about vaccines.

Aka Sherry Tenpenny?

So its okay for all the doctors who are paid to make a living off persuading people to get vaccinated to do that, and to "sell" you vaccines (your taxes are the same as your pocket), but its not okay for people who have made a video to sell it.

My husband and I wrote a book this year about vaccines.

Now, we realise that there are some people who think that anyone who writes something controversial and tries to make money off it are probably scum, but lets do some sums shall we.

We wrote this book, in order to give parents tools to "think" more efficiently about the issue of vaccination.

It cost us $103,000 in order to do all the setting, design, cover, edits printing of 5,000 copies, okay?

Given the amounts required to post the books everywhere, total end costs will be around $250.000, okay?

Now, its all very well for provaccine people like Dr Offit to do these things for a big fat writing commission fee, and then get pharma/publisher funding, and absolutely NOTHING comes out of their pockets. You appear to have no conscience about him, or any other provaccine author making money out of books etc....

Like this guy, Arthur Allen:

http://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-Contro...e=UTF8&s=books

Is it okay to pay money for this book?

Other provaccine books which sell on Amazon... do you object to them as well?

But this $250,000 which we are spending, isn't coming out of phama pockets.

WE decided to take the "altruistic" path and make the book available for free, which means everytime someone asks for the book it costs us $50.00 to get it to the USA.

But the reality is if we are to do another book, the money has to come from somewhere. So could you please tell me where you think that money should come from this time?

Had I decided to sell it through Amazon, would that have been acceptable to you ? Do you expect Sherry Tenpenny to give the DVDs away for nothing?

A few people who have asked for the book have decided that a worker is worthy of recompense, and have donated back money to the Trust we set up. Donations are running at 13% so far. Now, you do the maths. Will that cover the costs?

Whose the mug here. I can tell you in one word.

Me.
post #148 of 433
the 94% referrs to an article i posted on page 4 of this thread, url here:
*found this interesting, the URL to the complete article is:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/5/447

hope that clears up the confusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara View Post
I disagree. Just in the quality of what you have put here, both in your expression and in what you consider to be "good data" and your "proof" so far, I would have to suggest that your reasons are not yet well considered, and neither are your research methods (and results) adequate in terms of providing sufficient framework upon which to make an informed choice.
oh. my. : and that was the edited reply! yikes!
post #149 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamleabee View Post
the 94% referrs to an article i posted on page 4 of this thread, url here:
*found this interesting, the URL to the complete article is:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/5/447
Now, I am confused.
Quote:
14 (41 percent) had laboratory-confirmed measles and 20 (59 percent) were epidemiologically linked to a laboratory-confirmed case.
That is only 34 people!!!! Not your thousands that you said you wanted in order to say the studies were true.
post #150 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamleabee View Post

what do i think is good data? large sample size, over many years. anyone can make any case about their child, or their cousin etc. but what interests me is when people look at hundreds or thousands of cases over many years.
And, yet, the article you linked is only 34 people.
Quote:
from May 2 to July 8, 2005
Which is not even a year!
post #151 of 433
Oh, and the Mumps portion of the MMR is only 50-70% effective now, too. Seems it used to work better, but hasn't for a while.
post #152 of 433
For hundreds of thousands of years we had NO VACCINES! And we flourished!!!
post #153 of 433
As far as people who say they do the research and still decide they don't want to vaccinate...I have to be totally honest here...I never really believe those people when they claim they did the research...I think they are just saying that because they believe so strongly that vaccinations MUST be the right thing to do....but I think each and every person who said they did the in-depth vaccination research and still decided to vaccinate is lying. They just have to be.
post #154 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessicaSAR View Post
I think most families who don't vaccinate are concerned not only with acute reactions but also with chronic problems such as long term alteration to immune function, which will not show up until much later.
Right. I know this is the MAIN reason we don't vaccinate; not because of the risk f an acute reaction. I'm not sure vaxers "get" this.
post #155 of 433
6
post #156 of 433
7
post #157 of 433
iamleabee,

I wasn't to know whether it was your editted reply or not. All I'm pointing out is that your arguments are totally confusing, and what you say "impresses" you and what you put up as proof contradict each other, as the others had the energy to say, and I did not.

If I am going to convey information to people the most efficient way (beyond the fact that I'm a lousy typist) is to say it clearly, to make sure my references back up my statement, and to make sure that one thought flows logically to the next.

If I didn't do that, I would expect people to use me as a trampoline.

That has happened in the past when I've had a senior moment, and lost the plot. We all do on occasions, so that's no sin, and I admit it when I botch up.

But if you are going to tell us, why we don't convince you, and what does convince you, so that we can understand your POV, then you need to convince us that you have a consistent position which you can back up.

I'm only too happy to discuss it when you've sorted it out.
post #158 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamleabee View Post
Furthermore from the article above:
Quote:
During the outbreak period, 66 persons who were suspected to have measles were identified, of whom 32 (48 percent) were determined not to have measles because they either had a negative laboratory test for acute measles infection or were not epidemiologically linked to a patient with laboratory-confirmed measles.
This is absolutely crap diagnosis.

You know what? Measles has symptoms which means that a person with measles walks like measles, talks like measles, and looks like measles, okay?

Now, if you have measles, it will be a blinding revelation of the obvious. A moron with an access to a textbook can look at the person and say "Yup, this is measles" and then draw bloods and look for a rise in IgM and/or IgG titres to make sure.

But when someone "suspected" of having measles is eliminated because they did not have a laboratory-confirmed test, and/or were not linked to a patient who did have a laboratory-confirmed test, I have a mental picture here of totally clueless idiots wandering around looking for measles under the bed, in the cupboard ~ in fact anything, to try to make up a few numbers over a few weeks to add another medical article to their CV.

The "someone" was obviously, patently stupid, if they were unable to diagnose measles on the symptoms presented... and if they were not (which it is clear they couldn't, or they wouldn't have had to "rely" on a lab test), then why all the hype about how dangerous it was.

Cases too mild to be diagnosed on sight alone?

All those with the lab test had the characteristic rash. Then, what was the point of the test? Just to be sure, I guess.

And those who were hospitalised, why were they hospitalised?

The hospital phlobotomist was a smoker, and vaccinated to boot, and the fact that she had both IgG and IgM antibodies means that she had pre-existing immunity. IgG isn't seen in acute situations without pre-existing immunity. She was the only one who had it severely, and was on a ventilator, because here lungs were filled up with black stuff and carbon monoxide, which is always a good way to make sure that something like measles takes hold, so she had only herself to blame.

And the other two got dehydrated. Well, yes, its possible in a country where the value of water appears to have got lost, and many people subsist on pepsi, or Dr peppers.

This is a whole beatup about diddums.

But what it shows me is this.

The biggest side effect of vaccination is that many vaccinated people have no idea how to look after themselves when they get sick, because they've developed a mentality that says that the doctor will do it all, so don't think about simple things like "I need to drink water".

All the basic, nursing, commonsense things that our parents and grandparents had a pretty good idea about have gone west.

Furthermore, and I see this in labour and many other areas of medicine... doctors are forgetting the art of looking at people and diagnosing on the basis of knowledge, observation and symptoms. They like machines, tests, and a little print out, to feel that their heads are worth something.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was brought home to me recently, when a friend of mine's child got mumps. The day he got the first symptoms he was at school, and fell off playground equipment and hit his head.

So when he was taken to hospital, with a fever and these two lumps under the jaw, it was a "head injury" with fever, photophobia etc... The mother arrived, and looked at him and said... "Well, I think he has mumps." and wanted to go home, but they wouldn't let her. The specialist said that it wasn't mumps and he might die, so they did a CAT scan (of all stupid things~ think of the radiation that that gives a kid :Bigeyes) and overnight the temperature rose a bit, and when they wanted to use tylenol, the mother said "Forget it, its only mumps."

Next day the mother again wanted to discharge her son, and they got antsy, so in the end she called the paed, and said "I think you are very negligent leaving my son in here. I wanted to take him home last night, but you wouldn't let me, and I want to take him home now, because he's got mumps, and he shouldn't be here."

Why not? The paed says.

My friend got a flash of inspiration and said "Because he might infect you, and you might get sick and die."

Well, that gottim moving, and fast. They brought in another paed and then an older one who just laughed and said "Of course its mumps, for crying out loud..." and the two young paeds were desperately trying to get this kid outta hospital as FAST as they could, because the killer disease might infect everyone in the hospital.

Didn't much care about whether it might kill the child, but hey.

The mother was talking with the slightly amused older paediatrician who really didn't give much of a toss, and said "Do they all behave like this?" and he just said "Well, yes, its the politically correct method of doing things."

My friend asked the paed In all your years of practice did you ever see a bad case of mumps/ and he said "Yeah. Me. I've had it three times. The last time I had to sleep for a day."

It would be funny if it wasn't sad.

One day, there will be a vaccine against the common cold, and what's the bet that doctors then, will treat anyone with a cold like they have Ebola.
post #159 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by JesseMomme View Post
I'm looking forward to borrowing your book from an mdc mama sometime in the near future, when another mama is done borrowing it. I know this does you a fat lot of a good on the financial end however :
Listen lady. The point is, we want this to be available to anyone no matter their circumstances. That was another reason we decided to do it this way.

If you want it, PM me.
post #160 of 433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara View Post
This is absolutely crap diagnosis.

You know what? Measles has symptoms which means that a person with measles walks like measles, talks like measles, and looks like measles, okay?

Now, if you have measles, it will be a blinding revelation of the obvious. A moron with an access to a textbook can look at the person and say "Yup, this is measles" and then draw bloods and look for a rise in IgM and/or IgG titres to make sure.

But when someone "suspected" of having measles is eliminated because they did not have a laboratory-confirmed test, and/or were not linked to a patient who did have a laboratory-confirmed test, I have a mental picture here of totally clueless idiots wandering around looking for measles under the bed, in the cupboard ~ in fact anything, to try to make up a few numbers over a few weeks to add another medical article to their CV.

The "someone" was obviously, patently stupid, if they were unable to diagnose measles on the symptoms presented... and if they were not (which it is clear they couldn't, or they wouldn't have had to "rely" on a lab test), then why all the hype about how dangerous it was.

Cases too mild to be diagnosed on sight alone?

All those with the lab test had the characteristic rash. Then, what was the point of the test? Just to be sure, I guess.

And those who were hospitalised, why were they hospitalised?

The hospital phlobotomist was a smoker, and vaccinated to boot, and the fact that she had both IgG and IgM antibodies means that she had pre-existing immunity. IgG isn't seen in acute situations without pre-existing immunity. She was the only one who had it severely, and was on a ventilator, because here lungs were filled up with black stuff and carbon monoxide, which is always a good way to make sure that something like measles takes hold, so she had only herself to blame.

And the other two got dehydrated. Well, yes, its possible in a country where the value of water appears to have got lost, and many people subsist on pepsi, or Dr peppers.

.
I just want to reiterate these points because they really struck me as well.

1. They eliminated almost half the "suspected" cases because they couldn't diagnose them or find out who they had been exposed to...????

2. Almost all of the unvaccinated kids got measles and there were absolutely no complications except two people needing IV fluids. The only pneumonia was in an older smoker. This is a mild childhood disease! Thank goodness all the billions we spent on vaccination averted an epidemic.


Sounds like there a was measles party. Perhaps there is a reason all those unvaccinated kids were exposed. I know that if measles were to show up in my state, especially among homeschoolers, there would definitely be gatherings. This study doesn't even mention the possibility that there were continued, purposeful exposures. Do you think epidemiologists really don't know about measles parties??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: How Do You Decide?
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Miscellaneous › Vaccinations Archives › How Do You Decide? › What are the biggest more impressive arguments for Pro vaxers?