Vaccines: more good than harm? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 144 Old 07-18-2013, 07:45 PM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

More doctors than you think DO speak out or do not toe the party line, allowing parents to alter the schedule on a case by case basis, etc. 

 

Doctors widely recommended radiation for tonsillitis in the 1950s. They widely recommended Hormone Replacement Therapy until the WHI trial. Really only LARGE scale Randomized Control Placebo Trials can uncover harms sometimes, even when (as in HRT and Radiation) they are fairly obvious. There are countless more examples throughout history. It is just very complex. They also do not regularly follow up on all vaccine outcomes. Do you get a call 2 days after a vaccine to check for reactions? No, and many parents who have a bad experience with vaccines @ one doctor are inclined just to never go back to that doctor and seek help elsewhere . . . 

 

Bottom line is that no one is accusing doctors of being liars OR fools, that is a debate trick. Doctors however ARE very human. The MD I study with also just went through her medical journals and found that over 30% of ALL of them are Pharm ads. That is worse than Readers Digest/Prevention!

 

I consider all my doctors VERY intelligent. However, I have only ever gone to ONE that knew as much about Vaccine brands and ingredients as I did. I believe they believe what they are taught in Medical School and Medical Textbooks, which has been shown to not include enough information on Vaccines. I finally found a doctor who could tell me what brand of DTaP his office was offering for the first time like 2 weeks ago. After years of asking that question and being met with 'I don't know' or 'whatever the state provides'. I was literally shocked and floored (and thrilled, actually).

dinahx is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 of 144 Old 07-18-2013, 08:42 PM
 
hushpuppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hushpuppy View Post

But if your claims that the harm caused by vaccines is widespread, there are only really two possibilities... a) Doctors know that this is happening or b) doctors don't know that this is happening.

 

In the first case it implies deliberate harm on the part of doctors as they continue to advocate for and administer vaccines despite their knowledge that they cause widespread damage. In the second case it implies doctors do not have the critical thinking skills that people on this forum have and completely missed the harm being caused (in less gentle terms, they're stupid! :)

 

That was how I interpreted prosciencemum's post personally.

Please quote where someone on this thread said harm was widespread.  Thanks.

 

I wasn't referring specifically to any post in this thread. From what I've read in other posts, Taximom is of the opinion that many autoimmune disorders, autism, and other chronic illnesses are at historically high levels due to their links with vaccination. If vaccines were the primary cause of the increase in these conditions, I would consider that widespread harm personally, though she is welcome to correct me if I've misinterpreted her position.

hushpuppy is offline  
#63 of 144 Old 07-18-2013, 09:07 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hushpuppy View Post

But if your claims that the harm caused by vaccines is widespread are true, there are only really two possibilities... a) Doctors know that this is happening or b) doctors don't know that this is happening.

 

In the first case it implies deliberate harm on the part of doctors as they continue to advocate for and administer vaccines despite their knowledge that they cause widespread damage. In the second case it implies doctors do not have the critical thinking skills that people on this forum have and completely missed the harm being caused (in less gentle terms, they're stupid! :)

 

That was how I interpreted prosciencemum's post personally.

In the first place, I did not claim that harm caused by vaccines is widespread.  I said that there is a subgroup that seems predisposed to vaccine reaction, and that this subgroup is much larger than most people think.

 

As for your two possibilities, I agree with Dinah--this is false logic, and yes, you are using it as a debate trick.  Nobody is suggesting that doctors do not have the critical thinking skills that people on this forum have, and nobody is suggesting that they doing deliberate harm.

 

Apparently, you have no understanding of history, where there are many, many cases of decent, kind, intelligent people believing a falsehood--and acting on it, with terrible results.  They may have had the best of intentions, yes, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

To the other good examples posted above, I'll add Ignaz Semmelweis, who was treated very poorly by other doctors who refused to listen to him, let alone believe him.  Are you suggesting that all his colleagues were either deliberately harming new mothers or lacked critical thinking skills??  And what about Frances Oldham Kelsey, who denied FDA approval to the makers of thalidomide, despite intense pressure from the makers?  Are you saying that the makers were either trying to deliberately harm infants, or that they were lacking in critical thinking skills?

applejuice, Marnica and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#64 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 06:32 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,208
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hushpuppy View Post

 

I wasn't referring specifically to any post in this thread.

Then you should edit your previous post.  

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#65 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 06:46 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

@bakunin - just wanted to say thankyou for hanging in there, and keeping this respectful and about the data. Many of us posting and/or lurking here do not hold strong anti-vaccination viewpoints, and it's refreshing to see those statements opposed with reference to hard data and facts. :) I know it's tiring though. Many people will never be convinced (and that's their right) - it's hard to argue the other side though when your sources are constantly dismissed as being biased and part of a "mass conspiracy funded by big-pharma to hide the truth that the medical profession has been deliberately hurting babies for decades".  Either that or everyone working in the medical profession must be stupid to have missed what's going on....

 

It's a pity really. Big pharma really are evil in many ways, and so are the big food companies, and many other parts of the corporate world. All this anger against vaccination could be used so much more effectively on other issues.... but oh well. 

seriously?? being condescending and calling another poster "dear" is not being respectful. I think you and I have very different ideas of what is respectful.

 

as for the second bolded - there is a big difference between being stupid and being misinformed  and even possibly misled. But I do agree it is very hard to argue any side of anything when one's sources are dismissed. Happens all the time when one of us who chooses not to vaccinate their child posts something and it's swiftly attacked as being an invalid source (even when it's not) because the author is a "quack" for no other reason except they may question vaccine safety...or they are labeled a conspiracy theorist (even though there is AMPLE evidence to suggest it is not a conspiracy but rooted in fact). You know what is tiring? Holding a non-mainstream point of view. As tiring as you think it is hanging in here on boards like this, it is FAR MORE TIRING living everyday in real life being told you are crazy, incapable of understanding science, blah blah blah blah blah and so on and so forth. 

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#66 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 07:01 AM
 
hushpuppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hushpuppy View Post

 

I wasn't referring specifically to any post in this thread.

Then you should edit your previous post.  


Why? It did not claim that the ideas were made in this thread.

 

"I said that there is a subgroup that seems predisposed to vaccine reaction, and that this subgroup is much larger than most people think."

 

I would consider a large group of people being harmed the definition of widespread harm.

hushpuppy is offline  
#67 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 07:13 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hushpuppy View Post


Why? It did not claim that the ideas were made in this thread.

 

"I said that there is a subgroup that seems predisposed to vaccine reaction, and that this subgroup is much larger than most people think."

 

I would consider a large group of people being harmed the definition of widespread harm.

that's entirely subjective I suppose. That is why when you post something subjective like that, its always good to add that it's your personal interpretation or opinion so that it doesn't seem like you are speaking like it is fact. JMHO 

applejuice likes this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#68 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 07:55 AM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I will add a few extra comments without focusing too much on details of some of the posts above.

Overall some of the ones who have posted here against vaccines, are implying that their thinking is outside of the box and have presented examples about doctors beliefs in the past about germs and what not. In other words that antivaccine is a group that may lead to novel ideas in science. But make no mistake, resistance to vaccines IS NOT NEW. Ever since the beginning of vaccine programs there has been groups opposing the use of vaccines. So no, being anti vaccine is not new or novel, only the reasons for being anti-vaccine has evolved. Anti-vaccine groups share many of the same traits of groups that oppose or opposed science in other times: the Hadron collier, or stem cell research, or GMOs, or that Earth is not the center of the universe, or that the Earth is not flat.

 

I placed GMOs above as the most interesting example of a current time debate. Most people focus on side effects that no scientific evidence can back. However, the companies that claim GMOs have some benefits (such as cheaper food for consumers) actually HAVE questionable evidence as well. This makes the debate quite silly. Sure, you should be told whether you're consuming GMO food, but it's a matter of choice. Neither side has effectively backed some of their claims with data. THAT'S WHAT BEING OBJECTIVE IS ALL ABOUT!!

 

Returning to anti change groups. Many here will point the finger back at the ones they so call "pro-vax" as being anti change. But even when I presented benefits AND risks (see previous post yesterday), not ONE of the attackers admitted that vaccines have their benefits, NOT ONE. Instead I was either misquoted, or referenced to anecdotal evidence, or presented with faulty reasoning or insulted. When someone FINALLY provided scientific evidence against vaccines, it was based on very low quality journals that don't even make the list of top medicine journals and scientist don't refer to them in their work (because the quality of work is so low). Actually, one of the journals, HAS NO PEER REVIEW, just an editor. Ironically, at least two of the journals I was referred to by one of the antivaccine people come from a publisher that taximom5 was accusing of  having financial conflicts. Actually, taximom5 used the true financial conflict news the wrong way. She used it to accuse the lancet of being influenced by financial conflicts while in fact the news said that a publisher had some financial conflicts (there's a difference).

 

Here are some traits of groups that resist change:

1. they refute any benefit of something different.

2. attack in packs (check all the likes in the posts here of people that think alike. They are liking each others posts)

3. use faulty reasoning: contradictions, no logic, no real criticism

4. they don't ask questions about the other point of view. Instead they lecture (I ask multiple times for scientific evidence. But nobody ever asked me for any, I provided it, they didn't ask for more, simply didn't accept it)

5. mistrust science (Instead of believing what must doctors say, they believe doctors with no solid reputation or valid scientific argument)

6. Base there thinking in conspiracies

 

This post is intended as a request to the anti vaccine people who have posted on this thread. Please step out of your box, admit there's positives and negatives to BOTH SIDES. And the best thing you can do is to STAY informed.

bakunin is offline  
#69 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 07:57 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hushpuppy View Post


Why? It did not claim that the ideas were made in this thread.

"I said that there is a subgroup that seems predisposed to vaccine reaction, and that this subgroup is much larger than most people think."

I would consider a large group of people being harmed the definition of widespread harm.

Hushpuppy, you and prosciencemum seem more interested in playing semantics games than in looking at a problem.

There are many of us saying the same thing here: we and/or our children are having serious, long-term reactions to vaccines, and we have learned that these reactions often go unrecognized and unreported. We have also learned that there are many more people who have had such reactions (documented and reported) than most people realize.

Your responses so far:
1) "conspiracy theorists!"
2) "just because someone reported a reaction doesn't mean it happened. You could report that your nose fell off due to vaccination."
3) "you must think doctors are deliberately harming children."
4) "you must think doctors are lacking in critical thinking skills."
5) "there might be a subgroup, but reactions are so rare..."
6) "if that subgroup is a large group of people, then that's widespread harm, and therefore you're accusing doctors of deliberate harm or of lacking critical thinking skills."


Your implication here is that either there isn't a significant subgroup, or that we are launching wild accusations, neither of which is remotely true, but, hey nice job with changing the focus of the discussion away from that critical subgroup...
applejuice and nia82 like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#70 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 08:01 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,208
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hushpuppy View Post


Why? It did not claim that the ideas were made in this thread.

 

"I said that there is a subgroup that seems predisposed to vaccine reaction, and that this subgroup is much larger than most people think."

 

I would consider a large group of people being harmed the definition of widespread harm.

It is good form to discuss ideas in the current thread.  It is cleaner and comes across as less assumptive.  

 

I don't see the quote as equating to "widespread harm."  

 

If the subgroup is (for example) 1/10 000  and most people think it is 1/100 000, then the subgroup is still larger than most people think, but would not necessarily qualify as "widespread".  

 

Speaking of subgroups, did you know that some believe that up to 4-7% of kids who are diagnosed with autism also have mitochondrial disorder, and that vaccines can be a trigger for autistic regression in those who have mito?

 

http://www.mitoaction.org/about-autism-and-mito 

 

http://www.mitoaction.org/autism/august-2011-teleconference  (on fever, which is a common response to vaccines, being linked to regressions)

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#71 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 08:20 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,470
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

I will add a few extra comments without focusing too much on details of some of the posts above.

Overall some of the ones who have posted here against vaccines, are implying that their thinking is outside of the box and have presented examples about doctors beliefs in the past about germs and what not. In other words that antivaccine is a group that may lead to novel ideas in science. But make no mistake, resistance to vaccines IS NOT NEW. Ever since the beginning of vaccine programs there has been groups opposing the use of vaccines. So no, being anti vaccine is not new or novel, only the reasons for being anti-vaccine has evolved. Anti-vaccine groups share many of the same traits of groups that oppose or opposed science in other times: the Hadron collier, or stem cell research, or GMOs, or that Earth is not the center of the universe, or that the Earth is not flat.

 

I placed GMOs above as the most interesting example of a current time debate. Most people focus on side effects that no scientific evidence can back. However, the companies that claim GMOs have some benefits (such as cheaper food for consumers) actually HAVE questionable evidence as well. This makes the debate quite silly. Sure, you should be told whether you're consuming GMO food, but it's a matter of choice. Neither side has effectively backed some of their claims with data. THAT'S WHAT BEING OBJECTIVE IS ALL ABOUT!!

 

Returning to anti change groups. Many here will point the finger back at the ones they so call "pro-vax" as being anti change. But even when I presented benefits AND risks (see previous post yesterday), not ONE of the attackers admitted that vaccines have their benefits, NOT ONE. Instead I was either misquoted, or referenced to anecdotal evidence, or presented with faulty reasoning or insulted. When someone FINALLY provided scientific evidence against vaccines, it was based on very low quality journals that don't even make the list of top medicine journals and scientist don't refer to them in their work (because the quality of work is so low). Actually, one of the journals, HAS NO PEER REVIEW, just an editor. Ironically, at least two of the journals I was referred to by one of the antivaccine people come from a publisher that taximom5 was accusing of  having financial conflicts. Actually, taximom5 used the true financial conflict news the wrong way. She used it to accuse the lancet of being influenced by financial conflicts while in fact the news said that a publisher had some financial conflicts (there's a difference).

 

Here are some traits of groups that resist change:

1. they refute any benefit of something different.

2. attack in packs (check all the likes in the posts here of people that think alike. They are liking each others posts)

3. use faulty reasoning: contradictions, no logic, no real criticism

4. they don't ask questions about the other point of view. Instead they lecture (I ask multiple times for scientific evidence. But nobody ever asked me for any, I provided it, they didn't ask for more, simply didn't accept it)

5. mistrust science (Instead of believing what must doctors say, they believe doctors with no solid reputation or valid scientific argument)

6. Base there thinking in conspiracies

 

This post is intended as a request to the anti vaccine people who have posted on this thread. Please step out of your box, admit there's positives and negatives to BOTH SIDES. And the best thing you can do is to STAY informed.

Really? where has any person who doesn't vaccinate say there are NO BENEFITS to vaccines at all ever? Perhaps there have been a few on this board, but I did not see anything even remotely close to this in this thread. In fact didn't I just say after my research I felt the risks outweighed the benefits? That would imply that there ARE benefits to outweigh in the first place. Nobody here has disputed that there are positives and negatives to both sides nor have they said it is not a good thing to be informed so I'm not sure why you would say that. 

 

My thinking is not based on conspiracies - but nice try

 

Funny again that list that you post can just as easily describe a rabidly provax person.... and equating liking someone's post to attacking in packs is total BS. It's just a short way to indicate you happen to agree with a certain post that's all. 

 

there is something wrong with all your other points - but my office is 90 degrees since the AC is not working and they are sending us home so Im outta here. peace out

applejuice likes this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#72 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 08:47 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think all the evidence we need against GMOs is that the two major GMO crops are Round Up READY Corn & Soy, so one benefit was supposed to be reducing Herbicide use. Has that materialized? Nope! The use has multiplied exponentially & they can increasingly be applied BY PLANES. Because the two main GMI crops are joint marketing ventures between a seed & a herbicide! All risks of Glyphosphate therefore must also be considered. To neighbors & farm workers too, not just consumers (who are mostly animals, so meat consumers too).

Europe, all of Europe just rejected GMOs. China even labels them. So if you want to compare Vaxes to GMOs, go big, it will be a LOT easier for me. LOL Wanna talk about Bt Cotton & Indian Farmer Suicides next?
applejuice and BeckyBird like this.
dinahx is offline  
#73 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 08:53 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,061
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
So now, new mothering member, you have admitted not only are you not 'objective' on this issue (as OP promised) but that you believe that anyone who is not ProVax like you is a broad scale 'change resister' which is apparently a psych diagnosis?

This thread has been hostile from the git go, as we could sense the judgement & derision, and them we are faulted for not spoon feeding references to someone whose purpose here was to confirm a bias against 'antivax' 'change resisters'. Can we throw 'Luddites' in there too?

Thanks for finally admitting that outcries from the relatives of the Vax Injured for increased safety are not new? Do you know why? Because the injured COUNT and are related to people & that is what continues.

As far as it leading somewhere: Vax protests are why:
OPV is now IPV in the US
Thimerisol is no longer in the childhood schedule.
DTP became DTaP
Rhogham is Thimerisol free.

None of this would have happened w/o consumer activism.
applejuice, BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.
dinahx is offline  
#74 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 09:50 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,208
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

I will add a few extra comments without focusing too much on details of some of the posts above.

Overall some of the ones who have posted here against vaccines, are implying that their thinking is outside of the box and have presented examples about doctors beliefs in the past about germs and what not. In other words that antivaccine is a group that may lead to novel ideas in science. But make no mistake, resistance to vaccines IS NOT NEW. Ever since the beginning of vaccine programs there has been groups opposing the use of vaccines. So no, being anti vaccine is not new or novel, only the reasons for being anti-vaccine has evolved. Anti-vaccine groups share many of the same traits of groups that oppose or opposed science in other times: the Hadron collier, or stem cell research, or GMOs, or that Earth is not the center of the universe, or that the Earth is not flat.

 

I placed GMOs above as the most interesting example of a current time debate. Most people focus on side effects that no scientific evidence can back. However, the companies that claim GMOs have some benefits (such as cheaper food for consumers) actually HAVE questionable evidence as well. This makes the debate quite silly. Sure, you should be told whether you're consuming GMO food, but it's a matter of choice. Neither side has effectively backed some of their claims with data. THAT'S WHAT BEING OBJECTIVE IS ALL ABOUT!!

 

Returning to anti change groups. Many here will point the finger back at the ones they so call "pro-vax" as being anti change. But even when I presented benefits AND risks (see previous post yesterday), not ONE of the attackers admitted that vaccines have their benefits, NOT ONE. Instead I was either misquoted, or referenced to anecdotal evidence, or presented with faulty reasoning or insulted. When someone FINALLY provided scientific evidence against vaccines, it was based on very low quality journals that don't even make the list of top medicine journals and scientist don't refer to them in their work (because the quality of work is so low). Actually, one of the journals, HAS NO PEER REVIEW, just an editor. Ironically, at least two of the journals I was referred to by one of the antivaccine people come from a publisher that taximom5 was accusing of  having financial conflicts. Actually, taximom5 used the true financial conflict news the wrong way. She used it to accuse the lancet of being influenced by financial conflicts while in fact the news said that a publisher had some financial conflicts (there's a difference).

 

Here are some traits of groups that resist change:

1. they refute any benefit of something different.

2. attack in packs (check all the likes in the posts here of people that think alike. They are liking each others posts)

3. use faulty reasoning: contradictions, no logic, no real criticism

4. they don't ask questions about the other point of view. Instead they lecture (I ask multiple times for scientific evidence. But nobody ever asked me for any, I provided it, they didn't ask for more, simply didn't accept it)

5. mistrust science (Instead of believing what must doctors say, they believe doctors with no solid reputation or valid scientific argument)

6. Base there thinking in conspiracies

 

This post is intended as a request to the anti vaccine people who have posted on this thread. Please step out of your box, admit there's positives and negatives to BOTH SIDES. And the best thing you can do is to STAY informed.

ROTFLMAO.gif

 

so much yelling …...

 

A few point forms for you on why people have not submitted "studies."

 

1.  As this thread has gone on, you have showed your hand to be a very pro-vax.  You have also become increasingly ranty.  I am not going to bother looking up studies for someone whose mind is clearly made up.  What is the point?  Moreover, this forum has so many studies linked. Do a bit of a search.  It is not my job to defend my position to you.  

 

2.  Pro-vaxxer and non-vaxxers always poke holes in studies.  Always.  And there are huge holes (conflict of interest and design issues come to mind).  It is a waste of time. 

 

3.  It is not the job of non-vaxxers to convince a pro-vaxxer a vaccine is dangerous.  It is the job of pro-vaxxers, as they are the ones advocating for an intervention,  to convince people that vaccines are safe.  

 

As per your poll, I voted "not sure." That is not enough for me to vaccinate.  

applejuice, BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#75 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 09:58 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,208
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)

Please provide examples from this thread for 1, 3, 5 and 6.  Be specific.  Otherwise it is just blahblah.gif.   As you are saying non-vaxxers are like this as a group, I think multiple examples are in order.  Otherwise, may I suggest you stop jumping to conclusions and painting with large brush strokes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

Here are some traits of groups that resist change:

1. they refute any benefit of something different.

2. attack in packs (check all the likes in the posts here of people that think alike. They are liking each others posts)

3. use faulty reasoning: contradictions, no logic, no real criticism

4. they don't ask questions about the other point of view. Instead they lecture (I ask multiple times for scientific evidence. But nobody ever asked me for any, I provided it, they didn't ask for more, simply didn't accept it)

5. mistrust science (Instead of believing what must doctors say, they believe doctors with no solid reputation or valid scientific argument)

6. Base there thinking in conspiracies

 

This post is intended as a request to the anti vaccine people who have posted on this thread. Please step out of your box, admit there's positives and negatives to BOTH SIDES. And the best thing you can do is to STAY informed.

Taximom5 likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#76 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 10:05 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,208
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

This post is intended as a request to the anti vaccine people who have posted on this thread. Please step out of your box, admit there's positives and negatives to BOTH SIDES. And the best thing you can do is to STAY informed.

Last post for a bit...

 

If you wanted a more give and take discussion on pros and cons, you should have been clearer and constructed your posts a bit better.  I do hope it is doable here, but you would have to be very clear that is what you want and you would have to ante up.  Complaining at this point in the thread that non-vaxxers do not see both sides is odd when all of you have done is argue the pro-vax POV.

applejuice and Taximom5 like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#77 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 06:04 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

 

 

 

As per your poll, I voted "not sure." That is not enough for me to vaccinate.  

It should be pointed out that many MDC members refused to do the poll, since it was clear that it was being administered by a person or group lacking objectivity.  That fact skews the polls results right there...

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#78 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 06:12 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post



As far as it leading somewhere: Vax protests are why:
OPV is now IPV in the US
Thimerisol is no longer in the childhood schedule.
DTP became DTaP
Rhogham is Thimerisol free.

None of this would have happened w/o consumer activism.

My only disagreement with your post is that thimerosal is still in the pediatric vaccine schedule via flu shots, which ARE on the pediatric schedule:  once in utero, twice at 6 months, then 1 per year for the rest of one's life.

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#79 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 06:27 PM
 
hushpuppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hushpuppy View Post


Why? It did not claim that the ideas were made in this thread.

 

"I said that there is a subgroup that seems predisposed to vaccine reaction, and that this subgroup is much larger than most people think."

 

I would consider a large group of people being harmed the definition of widespread harm.

It is good form to discuss ideas in the current thread.  It is cleaner and comes across as less assumptive.  

 

I haven't seen that particular etiquette being mentioned among posters here before but will keep it in mind for the future.

 

 

Quote:

I don't see the quote as equating to "widespread harm."  

 

If the subgroup is (for example) 1/10 000  and most people think it is 1/100 000, then the subgroup is still larger than most people think, but would not necessarily qualify as "widespread".

 

Widespread is a tricky word to quantify. We will have to agree to disagree on this particular issue.

 

 

Quote:

Speaking of subgroups, did you know that some believe that up to 4-7% of kids who are diagnosed with autism also have mitochondrial disorder, and that vaccines can be a trigger for autistic regression in those who have mito?

 

http://www.mitoaction.org/about-autism-and-mito 

 

http://www.mitoaction.org/autism/august-2011-teleconference  (on fever, which is a common response to vaccines, being linked to regressions)

 

Yes, the ongoing research in this area is very interesting. Have you heard of Dravet syndrome, a rare epilepsy disorder?  It is caused by a gene mutation that was only recently discovered and manifests, usually in early infancy, with febrile seizures triggered by stress or fever. Since vaccinations often cause stress or fever as a normal side effect, often they are the trigger for the first seizure. However, children with the mutation and will develop their first seizure at some point whether it's from a natural fever (from their first sniffles) or from their six month jabs. I'm glad that even rare genetic disorders like these are being looked into.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20447868

 

 

Quote:
Hushpuppy, you and prosciencemum seem more interested in playing semantics games than in looking at a problem.

 

If explaining what I meant by my original statement is "playing semantics" when specifically asked about it then I suppose I am guilty as charged.

hushpuppy is offline  
#80 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 06:36 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hushpuppy View Post

 

 

 However, children with the mutation and will develop their first seizure at some point whether it's from a natural fever (from their first sniffles) or from their six month jabs. 

That kind of thinking is a serious breach of ethics.  Saying, "Oh, he would have had a seizure anyway at some point, so we don't' care if we cause one at 6 months" is extremely unethical, because that child might have had his first seizure at age 6 rather than at age 6 months, and would not be as likely to suffer serious brain damage at the older age.

 

GUESSING that someone MIGHT have had an episode triggered at some point is no excuse whatsoever to administer an invasive procedure that is known to cause that reaction.

BeckyBird and kathymuggle like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#81 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 06:56 PM
 
hushpuppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hushpuppy View Post

 

 

 However, children with the mutation and will develop their first seizure at some point whether it's from a natural fever (from their first sniffles) or from their six month jabs. 

That kind of thinking is a serious breach of ethics.  Saying, "Oh, he would have had a seizure anyway at some point, so we don't' care if we cause one at 6 months" is extremely unethical...

 

No one is saying the bolded. The fact is that children with this mutation will develop their first seizure at some point in their first 12 months of life, and the trigger can be something as simple as a warm bath.

 

Many parents do opt out of vaccinations if their child has the mutation.

 

Quote:
because that child might have had his first seizure at age 6 rather than at age 6 months, and would not be as likely to suffer serious brain damage at the older age.

The disorder begins in infancy.

 

This was simply an example that I thought you would appreciate, given that it shows the underlying predispositions you talked about are being studied.

hushpuppy is offline  
#82 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 07:27 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
"The data do not answer the question of whether Dravet syndrome might be avoided or ameliorated by postponement of vaccination in patients with known mutations who have not had seizures. The only way to answer this question is by neonatal screening for SCN1A mutations. Such a screen is feasible and not unjustified in view of the severity and poor prognosis of this syndrome compared with other genetic conditions for which screening is common. The question of whether asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic infants carrying SCN1A mutations similar to those found by McIntosh and colleagues exist could also be answered by such a screen. Two possible ways to try to delay or prevent the syndrome in children identified in such a screen are to postpone vaccination and maybe use prophylactic antiepileptic treatments."
 
declared conflict of interest: "I am testifying as a paid expert witness in the US Court of Federal Claims on behalf of a child with Dravet syndrome who had his first seizure after a DTP vaccine, who is petitioning for compensation according to the US Federal Vaccine Compensation Act."
 

References

1 McIntosh AMMcMahon JDibbens LM, et alEffects of vaccination on onset and outcome of Dravet syndrome: a retrospective studyLancet Neurol 20109592-598Summary | Full Text | PDF(216KB) CrossRef | PubMed
2 Barrera M NietoMensaque R Candau FernandezJiménez M NietoSevere myoclonic epilepsy in infancy (Dravet's syndrome). Its nosological characteristics and therapeutic aspectsRev Neurol 20033764-68PubMed
3 Swann JWBaram TZJensen FEMoshe SLSeizure mechanisms and vulnerability in the developing brainIn: Engel JPedleyTA, eds. Epilepsy: a comprehensive textbookPhiladelphia, PA, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008469-480.
4 Miyama SGoto TInoue YYamakawa KMonozygotic twins with severe myoclonic epilepsy in infancy discordant for clinical featuresPediatr Neurol 200839120-122CrossRef | PubMed
 
applejuice and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#83 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 07:28 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

taximom5 made yet another statement without any evidence (that members didn't participate in the poll).

As much disappointment as this will bring to her, many people did participate in the poll, here and in many parts of the internet. Only after I closed down voting did I express my arguments of benefits of risks (see post about it yesterday). Thank you to all that participated.

 

Question was:

Do you think that generally vaccines cause more good to children than harm?

More good

More harm

Not sure

 

Here's a breakdown on the results:

50.57% of respondents voted more good

29.88% voted more harm

19.54% voted not sure

 

I'll be happy to interpret the results in a bit of detail.

 

It is interesting to find that although the majority voted more good, about half voted either more harm or not sure. As simple as the poll was, some interesting implications are gathered from the answers.

 

kathymuggle,  you stated "It is not my job to defend my position to you.". Well, that's your choice. But don't call yourself objective. Because that's what objective criticism is about. If I offer you scientific evidence, solid scientific evidence that has been published in the best medical journals (see page 3 of this thread for some), how can someone just say "You're wrong" without providing the proper scientific evidence? How do you know I'm wrong? A hunch or anecdotes is not enough.

About the details you requested above about the traits I CAME UP WITH, I'll do so through examples:

About benefits when I referenced CDC data, taximom5 implied that it's an unreliable source (her statement also qualifies under conspiracy theories and not trusting science). She then contradicted herself by referring to 'countless CDC reports that go unnoticed' (check previous posts for the juicy details).

She also wrote about a Dr: "He conveniently leaves out the fact that more babies in the US die from vaccine injuries than from vaccines [diseases I suppose]." This is an INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY, STRONG ACCUSATION, that without doubt MUST BE BACKED BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IF TRUE. I requested the scientific evidence which she completely ignored. taximom5 also provided a hypothetical example about a driver hitting a person. The example was completely incoherent and defied logic. I think these statements cover all the traits (except 2 which is seen from the likes as stated)

 

I've tried to be clear that my arguments are based on looking closely at the benefits and risks of vaccines. No such analysis has been done here by those who have posted against vaccines. Those members simply say that the vaccines risks or side effects are far more worse in general but provide no scientific evidence. For good measure I will include part of my argument 1.5 days ago:

 

"I have not really stated my arguments about vaccines fully. Allow me to give a better summary of them. Notice that I have so far suggested a critical view of vaccination. And that someone who does it correctly, will find that VACCINES ARE NOT PERFECT, THEY DO HAVE SIDE EFFECTS. But for most people side effects are mild. Severe side effects are possible but they occur very rarely (and the evidence does not show any link between autism and vaccines).

 

People with some medical conditions need to avoid some vaccines. Pregnant women need to avoid some vaccines as well.

 

In SHORT (without going into details of benefits and risks), I argue that in light of benefits and risks of vaccines MOST PEOPLE are better off getting vaccinated. Does the conclusion mean, that EVERYONE is better off getting vaccinated? No, just like any medicine one must take precautions.

Does the conclusion mean that most people do not have to worry at all about vaccines? ABSOLUTELY NOT, New vaccines and formulations come all the time. This may potentially change the benefit risk spectrum of the vaccines. One must always be on top of the latest data on each vaccine. Does the conclusion mean, that all current vaccines have more benefits than risks? NOT NECESSARILY. Current debate among experts circles around two vaccines (or versions of them). One of them is Gardasil. Some experts argue that it is too early to know the benefits and risks of this vaccine. Does the conclusion mean that what scientists agree on is always right? No, it doesn't. But often than not, they are.

"

 

That's my stance on vaccines and for it the anti-vax members here hate me :(
 

bakunin is offline  
#84 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 07:46 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)

A bit off-topic, but I am trying to find a study or even case reports on unvaccinated children with Dravet Syndrome, since hushpuppy brought it up.


I can't find anything. The closest I can find is a 2012 study--but a closer look reveals that they are calling "unvaccinated" children who were then vaccinated a day later.  It seems that the studies that consider vaccines' effects on Dravet babies delay later vaccinations, but there don't seem to be any reports of Dravet babies that have never been vaccinated.  If anybody can find such studies, please post them here.

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#85 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 07:55 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

taximom5 made yet another statement without any evidence (that members didn't participate in the poll).

As much disappointment as this will bring to her, many people did participate in the poll, here and in many parts of the internet. Only after I closed down voting did I express my arguments of benefits of risks (see post about it yesterday). Thank you to all that participated.

 

 

EVIDENCE???  Are you serious?  What, you want me to share PMs from the people who decided not to do your unscientific poll because of your obvious pro-vaccine and subjective approach?  What about the lurkers who also might not have wanted to participate in a poll set up by someone so obviously biased?
ROTFLMAO.gif

 

Wow, that's...scientific.  Assume that because "many" people took your poll on MDC, that you were able to capture an accurate cross-section.  Ignore the possibility of self-selection bias.

 

Nice work, bakunin, nice work.

applejuice and dinahx like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#86 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 08:18 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

She also wrote about a Dr: "He conveniently leaves out the fact that more babies in the US die from vaccine injuries than from vaccines [diseases I suppose]." This is an INCREDIBLY, INCREDIBLY, STRONG ACCUSATION, that without doubt MUST BE BACKED BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IF TRUE. I requested the scientific evidence which she completely ignored.

Well, if you'd bothered to read my response on page 2, you might have noticed the scientific evidence:

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

Hepatitis B Vaccine and Michael Belkin's testimony

 

Hepatitis B vaccine side effects are listed here:  http://www.drugs.com/sfx/hepatitis-b-vaccine-side-effects.html  Please note that in 1996, there were 47 deaths from hepatitis B vaccine reported, JUST in the 0-1 age group.

 

"The hepatitis B vaccine was effectively mandated in 1991 for universal immunization of newborn babies by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — an adjunct of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Paradoxically, the CDC’s own Fact Sheet on the hepatitis B disease does not include newborn babies as a risk group for that disease. That Fact Sheet lists the risk groups as injection drug users, homosexual men, sexually active heterosexuals, infant/children of immigrants from disease-endemic areas, low socio-economic level, sexual/household contacts of infected persons, infants born to infected mothers, health care workers and hemodialysis patients NOT NEWBORN BABIES."

 

"In 1996 only 54 cases of the disease were reported to the CDC in the 0-1 age group. There were 3.9 million births that year, so the observed incidence of hepatitis B in the 0-1 age group was just 0.001%. In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 age group, with 47 deaths reported. Total VAERS hepatitis B reports for the 0-1 age group outnumber reported cases of the disease 20 to 1."

 

 

 

47 deaths from hepatitis B vaccine vs. 54 CASES of hepatitis B in the same age group.  1080 total reports of adverse reaction for age 0-1 (in the voluntary reporting system that very few people knew about in 1996) vs. 54 CASES of hepatitis B in the same age range.

 

Interesting that you demand proof that there are more deaths from vaccines than deaths from diseases, but you don't provide any proof of your own. You don't even address the concern that the CDC has some serious conflicts of interest. You just sling insults and accusations of conspiracy theories.  Wow, what a great, scientific argument.

 

Thinking person: "Hey, there's conflict of interest there!"

pro-vaccine poll administrator:  " I don't need to address the real issue-- I just call it "conspiracy theory" and pretend that only crazy people would come up with that!  I hope that nobody notices that I didn't actually address the very real issue of conflict of interest..."

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#87 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 08:40 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,208
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 218 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

 

 

kathymuggle,  you stated "It is not my job to defend my position to you.". Well, that's your choice. But don't call yourself objective. Because that's what objective criticism is about. If I offer you scientific evidence, solid scientific evidence that has been published in the best medical journals (see page 3 of this thread for some), how can someone just say "You're wrong" without providing the proper scientific evidence? How do you know I'm wrong? A hunch or anecdotes is not enough.

 

This thread is weird.  It started as a survey request, morphed into a discussion on objectivity in journalism, and then got into you defending your pro-vax views.   I never wanted to get into a debate with you on scientific studies, that wasn't the parameters set out in the beginning, and I am not going to waste my time.  As I said earlier, I do not have anything to prove to you.  You can interpret not playing as "doesn't have anything" if you want, but you would be wrong.  

 

 

 

That's my stance on vaccines and for it the anti-vax members here hate me :(

This is not an easy board - don't take things personally.    Once in a while I get so ticked off with people I block them, you haven't even come close.  
 

BeckyBird and Taximom5 like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#88 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 08:45 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,342
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Taxi, you're not using the correct numbers to really compare the dangers of the disease and the dangers of the vaccine. What you would need to consider is what percentage of newborns who received a vaccine died from it, and then consider what percentage of newborns died of hep B in an unvaccinated population. Which is not what you are doing. This data comes from babies who are, predominantly, vaccinated, and they had a very low Hep B rate. Maybe that is because the vaccine worked! Or maybe you're right and babies really don't need this vaccine. But there's no way to figure that out from this data set. You would need to look instead at an unvaccinated population to contrast with this vaccinated one--maybe a data set from before 1991, or from another country with similar health & hygiene standards (say the UK) that doesn't vaccinate infants. 

erigeron is offline  
#89 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 08:46 PM - Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Belkin's example is anecdotal evidence taximom5, I told you before. Secondly, that is not evidence of "He conveniently leaves out the fact that more babies in the US die from vaccine injuries than from vaccines [diseases I suppose]." That is ANECDOTAL evidence of one death, not of the incredibly, incredibly wild death count you imply. So no, you haven't properly defended that statement you made. Yes I AM CHALLENGING YOU TO PROVIDE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. But I'm predicting that instead you come up with a conspiracy theory to explain why there's no scientific evidence. Provide a reference for the claim below:

 

"47 deaths from hepatitis B vaccine vs. 54 CASES of hepatitis B in the same age group.  1080 total reports of adverse reaction for age 0-1 (in the voluntary reporting system that very few people knew about in 1996) vs. 54 CASES of hepatitis B in the same age range."

 

Are they part of VAERS? Data from VAERS are gathered to determine statistical significance. Can you provide further evidence? One last thing, why are comparing reported deaths of vaccines with no deaths from diseases that the vaccines themselves controlled. Compare numbers with countries with a different vaccination program. You'll be shocked (SEE LINKS BELOW)

 

 

And again, poll was completed BEFORE I stated my arguments 1.5 days ago. I think it's pretty sad that you rely now on claims of getting messages from people for your arguments. I guess they were asking for your opinion on whether they should participate or not? That does not make any sense taximom5. But it does support my "attack in packs" accusation so keep it coming :)

 

CDC has flaws, but not as big as you state in your conspiracy argument

 

Regarding the evidence you requested, You didn't specify on what. But don't worry, I have lots:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=190649

http://www.unicef.org/immunization/index_why.html

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/rubella/in-short-adult.htm

http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990803a.html

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/fact-sheet-parents.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19388722

http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c696

 

I have more references if you want!!!! A LOT more
 

bakunin is offline  
#90 of 144 Old 07-19-2013, 09:14 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

Belkin's example is anecdotal evidence taximom5, I told you before. Secondly, that is not evidence of "He conveniently leaves out the fact that more babies in the US die from vaccine injuries than from vaccines [diseases I suppose]." That is ANECDOTAL evidence of one death, not of the incredibly, incredibly wild death count you imply. So no, you haven't properly defended that statement you made. Yes I AM CHALLENGING YOU TO PROVIDE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. But I'm predicting that instead you come up with a conspiracy theory to explain why there's no scientific evidence.

 

 

 

Bakunin, you apparently did not bother to read my post.  The post to which you are responding did contain a title of a section that dealt with both Michael Belkin's testimony and also Vaers data on hepatitis B vaccine deaths, as well as data on cases of reported hepatitis b infection.  Nowhere in that post (#88) was Michael Belkin's testimony discussed, nor was his daughter's case discussed.  

What WAS discussed was the 47 deaths in 0-1 year-olds from hepatitis B vaccine in 1996, and the fact that there were only 54 CASES of hepatitis B in the same age group.  

 

Your responses have devolved into wild, accusatory rants that have little to do with the posts you are supposedly responding to, and you're really lashing out with the insults.  This is very disturbing, and I'm actually quite concerned about your state of mind at this point.  Perhaps you should take a break, maybe take a walk, get some fresh air, make sure you get enough sleep.

 

I hope you feel better in the morning.

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
Closed Thread

User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off