Correlation and causation - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 215 Old 09-24-2009, 03:53 PM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Pumkinhead,
More oddities about the ulcer causing bug...there are a good many perfectly healthy people who have the bug present. It doesn't cause ulcers in every host. In fact, it looks as though it actually serves a functional purpose (as do many of the bugs we host) and only in some people does it cause problems, like ulcers.

There was a researcher in Germany, many years ago who was studying cholera. He developed this theory that just ingesting cholera wasn't enough to make someone sick. The person also had to have some sort of additional vulnerability. So he drank some water heavily laced with live cholera. He didn't get sick.

With polio, the biggest problem with the vaccine saved us theory is that polio was conveniently redefined right at the time the vaccine was rolled out. So the authorities were counting one thing before the vaccine and something else after the vaccine. This is totally lousy science, right there.
Deborah, H. pylori is a really interesting microbe. It's able to create a zone of alkalinity around itself so that it can live in the human stomach. It does not actually tolerate acid well.

Your point is a very valid one. There are many factors that figure into gastic ulcers caused by H. pylori. Up until recent years, the most popular treatment (and still is to some degree) for gastric ulcers was to neutralize the stomach pH. Normal acidic stomach pH keeps H. pylori in check as it's not able to sustain rapid growth under acidic conditions. But neutralize the stomach acid and it can.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of a functional purpose of H. pylori. Can you elaborate?

There are different types of H. pylori, to be sure. Their degree of pathogenicity (ability to cause disease) seems to be related to the presence of what's called a Cag pathogenicity island. Cag positive H. pylori seem to cause problems and Cag negative don't seem to. Sort of like MRSA and regular ol' S. aureus.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#122 of 215 Old 09-24-2009, 03:57 PM - Thread Starter
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangewallflower View Post
Right. It's a great question, and the person to ask is an epidemiologist who studies polio. I don't at all take exception to you asking this question OR to you challenging your doctor. But the real answer is going to come from someone who does this work, and that is not going to be a typical GP or pediatrician. It's like expecting the police to come put out a house fire. Police and fire have some relationship with each other, but they don't do each others jobs. Because doctors don't do this work doesn't mean that no one does.
I agree, I would not expect my pedi to have researched the epidemiology of polio him/herself. And an epidemiologist who has studied polio in the USA in the 1950's has the best chance of having the answers, although I would want to carefully understand how they have gone about studying this period of history to feel comfortable with accepting their conclusions.

I do expect my pedi to have a bit more knowledge on the disease than what I have been given. And I would *love* to find a pedi who thinks critically and doesn't just brand me as a wack job for not taking his word.

I still think that my pedi (or my family) is relying on correlation equals causation when they show me a chart or quote numbers to me that shows a dramatic decrease in incidence of polio that they tell me can only be attributed to the vaccine. They don't have to have done the research themselves, but they could have the research to provide to parents who are interested - providing they themselves had asked questions and done their best to understand more and make that information available to interested parents. This is of course assuming the research exists. I haven't found it yet, which doesn't mean it is not there.

I am not denying that the vaccine OPV works. I am saying that the history of polio in the USA is very very complex. And I am more than a little suspicious of the claim made that the Salk vaccine and the Salk vaccine alone single handedly took on the disease polio in the USA in the 1950's. I'll keep reading. I have not made up my mind.

And I will keep hoping that parents ask more questions and demand answers that actually answer their questions - not sidestepping the issues. And that the medical establishment will start to prioritise finding out just which children are at risk for an adverse event from a vaccine. Not every child will respond to a vaccine in a predictable manner and I think it prudent to try and understand just who will *not* respond predictably.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#123 of 215 Old 09-24-2009, 04:01 PM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scattershoot View Post
Around 1997, I'm sitting around my apartment pondering the meaning of life, and I start thinking about viruses. Why, I have no idea. Anyhow, viruses never made any sense to me. Why would something want to invade something else and basically kill itself? Life is not set up to do that. I get on the Internet and start stumbling about. New to the whole thing at the time. I came across virus researcher, Stefan Lanka. Most of his stuff was in German, so I didn't get it, but some of it had been translated. Very interesting to say the least. Here is a researcher saying viruses not only don't cause any deadly diseases, but that viruses don't exist as people are taught. He argues viruses are never found in humans or animals. His later research shows viruses are only found in simple structures, such as algae, and they are beneficial.

Anyone interested can look into Dr. Lanka's research. One other thing he discusses are the pictures the news media constantly show us of deadly viruses. His simple explanation is that those pictures are typically whole cells, or known structures of cells, and that he has never had one instance of inquiry to the news source that could lead him to the publication the picture was from. As far as gene sequencing goes, he argues that they are simply sequencing the genetic makeup of the something other than a virus.

Fast forward a couple of years and I'm sitting in a seminar watching the professor show hundreds of us a slide of an ADHD brain compared to a "normal" brain. The hemispheres are obviously shrunken in the ADHD brain. This is proof that there is an organic cause. I get bored after class and visit the university library. I find all the journals I can that may have information on ADHD brains. I find a few articles and start reading. What I find is similar pictures to the ones shown in seminar, but something else as well. It's usually just one line out of a long, ponderous, stat-filled article. The line states that the ADHD brain subjects had been on stimulant medication. All of them. This little fact just gets glossed over like it is nothing. I knew amphetamines can shrink the brain and that Ritalin was ampetamine-like. How did they know the Ritalin wasn't causing the shrinkage? They didn't.

So I learned that pictures from experts aren't always what we are told they are. I've since learned that people just make stuff up or look so hard to find something they want to see that they fail to see the obvious.

Correlation does not mean causation is the first thing a student learns in the most basic research or stats class. It gets repeated to the point of becoming obnoxious. It is however the backbone of the vaccine science. A special kind of science that utilizes all kinds of fancy footwork to make it's points.

I try to just look at the obvious. A new pesticide such as lead arsenate starts getting used on apples. Children eat the apples. They get really sick. The company who makes the pesticide gets the reports of the illnesses. They have no desire to lose a lot of money. The company has a huge influence on the community where the children are getting sick in a number of ways from legislative influence to straight up financial influence on the community. The company has doctors look into it and make reports. Amazingly, the company's doctors discover that their product is not responsible. If the pesticide is not doing it, then something else must be. Why not blame a microbe which can't be sued and not even actually seen. Good answer. Problem solved.

Polio is a black pit to look into. A deep, dark, nonsensical pit.

There is a culture of virus infected cells growing in my incubator as I type. I can assure you, they are not whole cells or known structures located within cells. I purchased the original virus from a company and the cells from another. I have personally taken pictures of cells before and after virus infection. They look different. They behave differently. I have seen it with my own eyes.

I mean no disrespect, but the goal of every researcher is not to make the data fit the theory. Pharma research has coloured a lot of opinions. Bad science and cover ups are not as abundant as we are led to believe. No one makes money out of theory that simply doesn't hold water.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#124 of 215 Old 09-24-2009, 04:48 PM
 
MyLilPwny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkinhead View Post
Bad science and cover ups are not as abundant as we are led to believe. No one makes money out of theory that simply doesn't hold water.
All it takes is good PR/advertising, control of the media, and control of the medical education system and the result is a population of sheeple that will believe almost anything, as "The Doors of Perception" article by Dr. Tim O'Shea (author of "The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination I$ Not Immunization) details out the history of the Allopathic medical propaganda machine here: http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/doors...Perception.php and the book "Trust Us, We're Experts" explains it too.

Traditional & nutrient-dense foods/Weston A. Price Foundation advocate, Reiki II practitioner, EFT practitioner, past life & life between lives Hypnotherapist practitioner. Home birth with DD 2007 = never vaccinated, breastfed 3 years

MyLilPwny is offline  
#125 of 215 Old 09-24-2009, 04:53 PM
 
orangewallflower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ema-edama, I do hope you can find a ped who respects you and your right to ask questions and make up your own mind about interventions. I am lucky that way, and I can only imagine what it would feel like to rely on a doctor like that.
orangewallflower is offline  
#126 of 215 Old 09-24-2009, 04:58 PM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
All it takes is good PR/advertising, control of the media, and control of the medical education system and the result is a population of sheeple that will believe almost anything, as "The Doors of Perception" article by Dr. Tim O'Shea (author of "The Sanctity of Human Blood: Vaccination I$ Not Immunization) details out the history of the Allopathic medical propaganda machine here: http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/doors...Perception.php and the book "Trust Us, We're Experts" explains it too.

Respectfully, I'm willing to debate you on the merits of the evidence available, but I kind of shut down when people start bringing forth conspiracy theories and media hysteria.

We can discuss the science if you like, but I refuse to get into a discussion where we default to conspiracy and propaganda. And that goes both ways.

Whether the conspiracy/hysteria theories are true is immaterial to me. I've made my way this far in my career based on what can be proven and what cannot. Most conspiracy theory cannot be proven which is why it's called conspiracy.

Clear, unbiased, peer reviewed research has taught us a lot. Postulating, prophecising, and pontificating has not. How can a man who had written a book and is actively involved in the marketing of said book be an unbiased source of information? He has his bottom line as well. Note, I am not saying that this is a bad thing, but if he wasn't in it partially for the money, he wouldn't have written a book for commercial sale. He'd have published his theories in a journal.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#127 of 215 Old 09-24-2009, 07:33 PM
 
MyLilPwny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 820
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkinhead View Post
Clear, unbiased, peer reviewed research has taught us a lot. Postulating, prophecising, and pontificating has not. How can a man who had written a book and is actively involved in the marketing of said book be an unbiased source of information? He has his bottom line as well. Note, I am not saying that this is a bad thing, but if he wasn't in it partially for the money, he wouldn't have written a book for commercial sale. He'd have published his theories in a journal.
How are journals unbiased? Journals have their multi-billion dollar advertisers. The Journal of The American Medical Association advertises McDonalds regularly and for 50 years advertised and promoted the health benefits of cigarette smoking. A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. The "Doors of Perception" details out fraud in peer review, which is documented in the New England Journal of Medicine. I'll quote O'Shea:

Quote:
Even though prestigious venerable medical journals pretend to be so objective and scientific and incorruptible, the reality is that they face the same type of being called to account that all glossy magazines must confront: don't antagonize your advertisers. Those full-page drug ads in the best journals cost millions, Jack. How long will a pharmaceutical company pay for ad space in a magazine that prints some very sound scientific research paper that attacks the safety of the drug in the centerfold? Think about it. The editors may lack moral fibre, but they aren't stupid.

Traditional & nutrient-dense foods/Weston A. Price Foundation advocate, Reiki II practitioner, EFT practitioner, past life & life between lives Hypnotherapist practitioner. Home birth with DD 2007 = never vaccinated, breastfed 3 years

MyLilPwny is offline  
#128 of 215 Old 09-24-2009, 08:17 PM
 
Jugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
There was a researcher in Germany, many years ago who was studying cholera. He developed this theory that just ingesting cholera wasn't enough to make someone sick. The person also had to have some sort of additional vulnerability. So he drank some water heavily laced with live cholera. He didn't get sick.
I remember reading in a travel journal not to take antacids while traveling in cholera-prone areas; apparently the bacteria doesn't survive well in an acidic environment, and upsetting the acid/alkaline balance of the GI tract increases susceptability to cholera infection.


 

 

Jugs is offline  
#129 of 215 Old 09-24-2009, 08:33 PM
 
Jugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
I am not denying that the vaccine OPV works. I am saying that the history of polio in the USA is very very complex. And I am more than a little suspicious of the claim made that the Salk vaccine and the Salk vaccine alone single handedly took on the disease polio in the USA in the 1950's. I'll keep reading. I have not made up my mind.
Have you read "Polio: An American Story"? Fabulous book!


 

 

Jugs is offline  
#130 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 12:54 AM - Thread Starter
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post
Have you read "Polio: An American Story"? Fabulous book!
No, I haven't - I will add it to my already long list of books to read.

I was thinking some more about correlation and causation, polio in the 1950's in the USA, the Salk Vaccine and the graph showing the vaccine single handedly reduced the incidence of polio.

I am quite suspicious of why the evidence linking correlation and causation is so very hard to come by. I know I cannot be the first person to ask this question. Surely if studies had been done that did indeed find evidence, these studies would be more easily available?

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#131 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 03:35 AM
 
orangewallflower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Well, academic journals are very expensive to publish and they aren't commonly out there for free. If you could possibly access a university library, that would be your best bet.
orangewallflower is offline  
#132 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 03:38 AM
 
orangewallflower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
How are journals unbiased? Journals have their multi-billion dollar advertisers. The Journal of The American Medical Association advertises McDonalds regularly and for 50 years advertised and promoted the health benefits of cigarette smoking. A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. The "Doors of Perception" details out fraud in peer review, which is documented in the New England Journal of Medicine. I'll quote O'Shea:
Totally agree that medical journals are in sore need of reform. There was a New York Times article the other day about one of the big journals cracking down on ghost writing.

But try any other relevent discipline: microbiology, epidemiology etc.. and you won't see this conflict of interest.
orangewallflower is offline  
#133 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 04:05 AM - Thread Starter
 
ema-adama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by orangewallflower View Post
Well, academic journals are very expensive to publish and they aren't commonly out there for free. If you could possibly access a university library, that would be your best bet.
Yes, they are. However, you can often find an abstract or a title that at least looks promising.

I think that a study that is so central to providing the link between correlation and causation would be more readily available, if only for the scientific community to put all their cards on the table so to speak.

I have found this article on pubmed and it looks interesting - maybe I can get my SIL to get me the whole article... hmmm.

Eradication of poliomyelitis in the United States. Rev Infect Dis. 1982 Sep-Oct;4(5):940-50. PMID: 7146731 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Although this paper seems to look specifically at the OPV based on the abstract


Epidemiologic aspects of poliomyelitis eradication.
Rev Infect Dis. 1984 May-Jun;6 Suppl 2:S308-12.PMID: 6740065 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Again, the focus is the OPV - but interesting observation is apparent inconsistency between the theory of eradicating polio through mass vaccination and the practice not being quite what was expected.

The epidemiology of poliomyelitis: enigmas surrounding its appearance, epidemicity, and disappearance.Am J Epidemiol. 1979 Dec;110(6):672-92. PMID: 400274 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The inconsistencies are explored again.

This is definitly not a complete list of studies available. These are studies anyone can find on pubmed.

Megan, mama to her little boy (Feb2008) and introducing our little girl (Dec 2010)
ema-adama is offline  
#134 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 04:47 AM
 
Scattershoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
There is a culture of virus infected cells growing in my incubator as I type. I can assure you, they are not whole cells or known structures located within cells.
How can you say exactly what is there? Did you observe the live virus yourself? Utilizing what equipment? How do you know it is not just some genetic material being called a virus? Viruses are just RNA wrapped in a protein coat by definition, so how is it known what the foreign protein is? Also, beyond this, my reply regarding Dr. Lanka specified the supposed relationship between viruses and deadly diseases. I didn’t say viruses did not exist. As a matter of fact, I conceded the possibility based on Lanka’s research in simple organisms.

I think you missed the point. Dr. Lanka, and many others throughout the past 100 years, are asking where is the isolated microbe supposedly causing illness. Don’t show us artifacts from the fixing that occurs during electron microscopy, or some particle that has no reference, and say that is proof of something.

Why do Koch’s Postulates often just get ignored in virus work? How can HIV not be found in the body and be the cause of disease in some cases and then be found in abundant detail according to watered down antibody tests and not cause illness in others? What other mechanisms come into play? The questions go on and on and on and on.

The problem is those within the medical/research community act like they know what they are talking about without reservation when even the slightest inquiry proves the information is a house of cards. How serious are we to take this when we have examples such as the Spanish Flu. This “flu” kills any number of people they want to use that week (10 million, 20 million, 50 million, 100 million) long before they even supposedly discover the flu virus? Healthy young men get shots full of God knows what and die days, or even hours, later and somehow the shots had nothing to do with it, but a supposed microbe they can’t even see gets blamed and that is ok. That is the science?

Quote:
I purchased the original virus from a company and the cells from another. I have personally taken pictures of cells before and after virus infection. They look different. They behave differently. I have seen it with my own eyes.
Again, this doesn’t mean you are dealing with viruses. It just means something was introduced to a cell that caused a response. All kinds of foreign proteins are being introduced in vaccination, but there is no way that proves the body’s response is to an attenuated “virus” since they cannot control all the variables. Varying behavior proves nothing. Maybe it is a virus and maybe not, but this thread is about proving relationships, in particular concerning illness and vaccination. I’ve looked at hundreds of vaccination research articles and they are ALL misleading and full of holes. It gets to the point of being ridiculous that certain claims are made without merit.

Quote:
I mean no disrespect, but the goal of every researcher is not to make the data fit the theory. Pharma research has coloured a lot of opinions. Bad science and cover ups are not as abundant as we are led to believe. No one makes money out of theory that simply doesn't hold water.
History is replete with examples of money being made out of theories that don’t hold water. How many drugs have come and gone based on theories of how they were supposed to work? How long was bloodletting around? The doctors doing that got paid. How many died from mercury and arsenic poisoning administered by doctors. How much is being made off the theory of man-made global warming through regulation, carbon taxes and carbon trading? How many billions have been made from the theory that WND were stockpiled in Iraq? As a matter of fact, it could be argued that money is ONLY made from theories when it comes to just about everything, and in particular, science and pharmaceuticals.

Bad science and coverups are abundant in the pharmaceutical industry. Look no further than Vioxx.

If the vaccinators want to inject know toxins that can maim and kill healthy people into our children, then the onus of proof is on them when it comes to correlation and causation. So far, all I see is distortion, half-truths, greed, the need for control, fear mongering and very questionable science.

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde
Scattershoot is offline  
#135 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 08:27 AM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
So far, all I see is distortion, half-truths, greed, the need for control, fear mongering and very questionable science.
Or people who just want to try and help people. Or families who are just doing what they feel is best for their own situation.

BTW, you might want to check your virus definition.

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#136 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 08:57 AM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
How are journals unbiased? Journals have their multi-billion dollar advertisers. The Journal of The American Medical Association advertises McDonalds regularly and for 50 years advertised and promoted the health benefits of cigarette smoking. A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. The "Doors of Perception" details out fraud in peer review, which is documented in the New England Journal of Medicine. I'll quote O'Shea:

Journals do not perform research. Researchers do. The journals themselves may be funded by advertising dollars, but the research itself is not.

Sure, drug companies provide funding to researchers who perform drug trials. So what? It's sort of hard to convey this to a lay person, but it's a pretty big deal to be able to do experiements with a novel drug. It means free stuff. It means decent funding. It doesn't mean that the pharmaceutical company dictates the way in which the independant research will be performed. Big pharma companies have plenty of their own scientists on staff, but in order to get published, they need independant labs to test their products. This costs money. It can't be done for free.

I used to test antibiotics for resistance. I had a huge panel of antibiotics that I innoculated bacteria into. 2 of those antibiotics were brand spanking new and I recieved funding from their maker to throw them into my already established panel. The funding did not alter the results. In fact, the results were mine and published in a completely different publication detailing antibiotic resistance in Canada as a whole funded by the hospital resistance association. But, I did provide the resistance data to the pharma company.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#137 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 09:51 AM
 
Jugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Journals do not perform research. Researchers do. The journals themselves may be funded by advertising dollars, but the research itself is not.

Sure, drug companies provide funding to researchers who perform drug trials. So what?
Is it not plausible that funding sources influence what is being published? There could be inumerable sound studies that will never be published in the journals if they show the benefactor in a negative light.

"No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power." -Jacob Bronowski


 

 

Jugs is offline  
#138 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 10:58 AM
 
Scattershoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
Or people who just want to try and help people. Or families who are just doing what they feel is best for their own situation.

BTW, you might want to check your virus definition.
I don't doubt that most people involved in vaccine research believe they are helping people, but that still doesn't mean that the field is not filled with distortions, greed, half-truths and half-baked science. They are not mutually exclusive. People with good intentions have created devastation throughout the history of the world. As a matter of fact, it is human nature to rationalize behavior through the concept of good intentions. Those who control the legislature, courts, guns and money at this very moment are doing everything they can to force an untested vaccine on just about everyone on the basis of good intentions.

People can do whatever they want to their own families. The problem is the vaccinators use the concept of correlation means causation to force their product onto those who do not want it.

I'm sticking with my definition of viruses as well since that is what they essentially are, or better yet believed to be.

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde
Scattershoot is offline  
#139 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 11:03 AM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So you are saying that the common definition of virus is a protein wrapped RNA? what is Hep B postulated to be then?

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#140 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 11:10 AM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Another thing I don't understand is how people can argue this line of thinking and ALSO argue that the MMR causes autism via Wakefield's hypothesis concerning measles virus in the guts of autistic children...

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#141 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 11:11 AM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post
Is it not plausible that funding sources influence what is being published? There could be inumerable sound studies that will never be published in the journals if they show the benefactor in a negative light.

"No science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power." -Jacob Bronowski

Yes, it is definitely plausible. That said, it is also plausible that those performing the actual research may be completely unaware of where the funding for their particular project is coming from. My supervisor holds multiple grants for multiple sources. I do a wide variety of research. Most of the time, I don't actually know who is funding what.

So, my point is, just because you see that a pharmaceutical company is one of the funders of research project, it doesn't automatically mean that those data are biased. It could, but it doesn't always. You have to dig deeper to determine that.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#142 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 11:13 AM
 
Scattershoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
So you are saying that the common definition of virus is a protein wrapped RNA? what is Hep B postulated to be then?
Hep B falls into that category of supposed disease causing viruses. That is what Dr. Lanka and others challenge. He doesn't believe there is a virus there at all, or is at least still waiting for the proof. He looks at each picture being presented as proof of said virus and asks, "what is that a picture of?" Is it a byproduct of electron microscope fixing, is it some particle that can be explained otherwise, is it a known cell fragment or even whole cell? I know this seems like a leap to many, but each situation is to be looked at specifically. For those working on what is referred to as Hep B, what is in the culture? We are talking about infinitely small particles. They are not even believed to be living by most standards of life. To take it on step further, what exists within the cell outside the nucleus is little understood to say the least. It is even ignored on many levels. This goes on and on and only leads to more questions. We know a lot less than most people think.

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde
Scattershoot is offline  
#143 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 11:16 AM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am saying that your definition of viruses leaves out a couple classes of viruses; most glaringly obvious would be DNA viruses-- of which Hep B is one.

edit: you may ask, why does this matter? I think it matters because of the straw man created by over simplification.

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#144 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 11:19 AM
 
Scattershoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
Another thing I don't understand is how people can argue this line of thinking and ALSO argue that the MMR causes autism via Wakefield's hypothesis concerning measles virus in the guts of autistic children...
I've personally mentioned many times that I think Wakefield is confusing cause and effect. I believe Dr. Moulden's information is more to the point on the damage vaccines cause. Also, the research on the MV shows PCR coming up with RNA fragments. I don't know that this proves anything. Who knows what is being found and what role it plays.

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde
Scattershoot is offline  
#145 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 11:23 AM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scattershoot View Post
How can you say exactly what is there? Did you observe the live virus yourself? Utilizing what equipment? How do you know it is not just some genetic material being called a virus? Viruses are just RNA wrapped in a protein coat by definition, so how is it known what the foreign protein is? Also, beyond this, my reply regarding Dr. Lanka specified the supposed relationship between viruses and deadly diseases. I didn’t say viruses did not exist. As a matter of fact, I conceded the possibility based on Lanka’s research in simple organisms.
Yes, I have. Using direct and indirect immunoflourescence, immunohistochemistry, in situ hybridization as well as in situ RT-PCR. There is also SEM and virus plaque assays. I have seen the way normal cells look and behave in culture. I have also observed that they behave and appear differently both on a visual and molecular level when infected with virus.

An SEM artifact is easily distinguishable from the intricate structure of most viruses. Yes, they're nucleic acid, most of the time, wrapped in a protein coat, but their structures are intricate and complex.

Quote:
I think you missed the point. Dr. Lanka, and many others throughout the past 100 years, are asking where is the isolated microbe supposedly causing illness. Don’t show us artifacts from the fixing that occurs during electron microscopy, or some particle that has no reference, and say that is proof of something.

Why do Koch’s Postulates often just get ignored in virus work? How can HIV not be found in the body and be the cause of disease in some cases and then be found in abundant detail according to watered down antibody tests and not cause illness in others? What other mechanisms come into play? The questions go on and on and on and on.

The problem is those within the medical/research community act like they know what they are talking about without reservation when even the slightest inquiry proves the information is a house of cards. How serious are we to take this when we have examples such as the Spanish Flu. This “flu” kills any number of people they want to use that week (10 million, 20 million, 50 million, 100 million) long before they even supposedly discover the flu virus? Healthy young men get shots full of God knows what and die days, or even hours, later and somehow the shots had nothing to do with it, but a supposed microbe they can’t even see gets blamed and that is ok. That is the science?



Again, this doesn’t mean you are dealing with viruses. It just means something was introduced to a cell that caused a response. All kinds of foreign proteins are being introduced in vaccination, but there is no way that proves the body’s response is to an attenuated “virus” since they cannot control all the variables. Varying behavior proves nothing. Maybe it is a virus and maybe not, but this thread is about proving relationships, in particular concerning illness and vaccination. I’ve looked at hundreds of vaccination research articles and they are ALL misleading and full of holes. It gets to the point of being ridiculous that certain claims are made without merit.



History is replete with examples of money being made out of theories that don’t hold water. How many drugs have come and gone based on theories of how they were supposed to work? How long was bloodletting around? The doctors doing that got paid. How many died from mercury and arsenic poisoning administered by doctors. How much is being made off the theory of man-made global warming through regulation, carbon taxes and carbon trading? How many billions have been made from the theory that WND were stockpiled in Iraq? As a matter of fact, it could be argued that money is ONLY made from theories when it comes to just about everything, and in particular, science and pharmaceuticals.

Bad science and coverups are abundant in the pharmaceutical industry. Look no further than Vioxx.

If the vaccinators want to inject know toxins that can maim and kill healthy people into our children, then the onus of proof is on them when it comes to correlation and causation. So far, all I see is distortion, half-truths, greed, the need for control, fear mongering and very questionable science.
All I can say is please don't judge the group by the fringe. In our society, good rarely gets air time. It is the scandals and coverups and general shoddiness that gets brought into the public spotlight. It's very frustrating for most scientists to spend day after day doing their work in the most ethical way possible, following the rules diligently, only to have someone wave an all emcompassing hand to brand them and every other scientist/researcher as shoddy, questionable etc. It's the media that does the fear mongering and distortion. Not the little peon scientists in most cases. It's frustrating when the bad guys and the good guys are all placed in the same category. I'm not talking about employees of Vioxx. I'm talking about academic scientists. There's a difference.

Vaccine manufacturers/Big Pharma frustrate me as well. I have little children who won't recieve vaccines due to my own personal reservations about reactive aluminum etc.

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#146 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 11:27 AM
 
carriebft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,947
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Yes, I have. Using direct and indirect immunoflourescence, immunohistochemistry, in situ hybridization as well as in situ RT-PCR. There is also SEM and virus plaque assays. I have seen the way normal cells look and behave in culture. I have also observed that they behave and appear differently both on a visual and molecular level when infected with virus.
fascinating!

"Parents are simply trustees; they do not own the bodies of their children"-Norm Cohen  Martial arts instructor intactlact.gifhomebirth.jpgnak.gif and mom to 4: DD1 (1/05) DS (7/06) DD2 (5/08) DD3 (2/11)
carriebft is offline  
#147 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 11:32 AM
 
pumpkinhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 4,448
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by carriebft View Post
fascinating!
In the interest of full disclosure, I haven't performed all of this work by my ownself, but I have been present for all components of the procedures and have assisted in viewing and analyzing the results. It's freaking cool .

Mama to Thing 1 and Thing 2.
pumpkinhead is offline  
#148 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 12:01 PM
 
Jugs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 476
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkinhead View Post
Yes, it is definitely plausible. That said, it is also plausible that those performing the actual research may be completely unaware of where the funding for their particular project is coming from. My supervisor holds multiple grants for multiple sources. I do a wide variety of research. Most of the time, I don't actually know who is funding what.

So, my point is, just because you see that a pharmaceutical company is one of the funders of research project, it doesn't automatically mean that those data are biased. It could, but it doesn't always. You have to dig deeper to determine that.
Yes, but I was referring to which studies are ultimately published in the journals; it IS a big deal when the journal is funded by the makers of the pharmaceuticals being studied.


 

 

Jugs is offline  
#149 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 12:17 PM
 
Cavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Norfolk, UK
Posts: 451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I used to work with epidemiologists.
Ironically, one of them, a man in his 50s, was suspected of having a polio resurgence -- it having lain dormant in his system for decades since his childhood.

The short answer to resolving OP's query is statistics: stats that specifically test for correlation vs. causation. Sometimes fairly 'fancy' statistics, that may not be easy to get one's head around. Moreover, to be sure, you need to do lots and lots of somewhat similar studies, each one controlling for many confounding factors. Confounding factors can't be controlled for them perfectly. So the analysts resort to confidence intervals: hence they come up with statements like "There is only a 5% chance that this vaccination did not prevent many cases"

There is always some % of doubt, hence why lots of independent studies need to be done to see if the results mostly agree. If they do, most people will be happy to accept this balance of probabilities in deciding what to do for themselves. I would argue that that is a rational thing to do.

Also, following expert advice IS a rational thing to do (on Q of why people just go along with vax and don't question them). I generally go with the advice of my mechanic, the plumber, the guy who fixes the boiler, most of what a doctor said. They spent a long time becoming knowledgeable in those fields, I cannot replicate their knowledge base. I may ask questions to make sure the logic of what they advise makes sense given my paltry relevant wisdom, but otherwise, they are the experts; not me.

Today I'm at home with 4 DC, all of us have a vomitting problem. Seeing the way it spread around the family (or hasn't in every case, lucky DH), it's pretty hard to see the cause as anything but a virus.

~ Yank Transplant to Britain and Zookeeper of 4 DC age 15 and under. ~
Cavy is offline  
#150 of 215 Old 09-25-2009, 12:30 PM
 
Scattershoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Yes, I have. Using direct and indirect immunoflourescence, immunohistochemistry, in situ hybridization as well as in situ RT-PCR. There is also SEM and virus plaque assays. I have seen the way normal cells look and behave in culture. I have also observed that they behave and appear differently both on a visual and molecular level when infected with virus.
I asked about the observation of "live" virus because how can we understand the true nature of anything by looking at it dead. The fixation process also brings in a whole set of other issues, the least of which is what may have been introduced that is not original content. Looking for specific proteins is limiting as well. It does not mean a virus even exists. The PCR doesn't use living organisms and only amplifies the genetic componant observed. None of this really answers my question. How do you know what you are truly looking at? I know this probably sounds absurd, but observing dead, foreign proteins doesn't provide much of an answer.

How do you know what is infecting the cell? Foreign proteins and/or genetic fragments don't really answer the question. Even if it is a virus, does it prove human illness as a result. This is another question I have. Just because something is found in culture how does that prove it caused anything?

A "virus" found in the mouth causes nothing, but in the CSF it is supposedly bad. It's not supposed to be in the blood, but it is. Sometimes not a problem, sometimes a terrible problem. Another isn't found in the CSF, but somehow causes problems in that area and is found in the stool instead. A "virus" is not found at all and is the cause of disease, but is then found in abundance and hasn't caused anything. How in the world can correlation and causation amount to anything in this field?

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde
Scattershoot is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off