So vaccine's have been in the public eye again. Seeing a lot of stuff on face-book related to the New York measles outbreak.
Anyway, just thought I would open the floor to questions on the topic if anyone was interested.
Printable View
So vaccine's have been in the public eye again. Seeing a lot of stuff on face-book related to the New York measles outbreak.
Anyway, just thought I would open the floor to questions on the topic if anyone was interested.
Well, I guess the first question would be, what are your thoughts and opinions on vaccines?
Personally, I think that if a disease is very contagious and an effective vaccine exists for it, then it is for the social good for everyone to try and be vaccinated against it.
My first concern is that because vaccination is a medical procedure, this is inherently a discussion about public good vs personal rights.
So the public good would have to be very compelling to overcome that. Especially in the instance of forced vaccinations.
My second concern is that it isn't very well evidenced that such a thing would actually effect the public good. So while the "idea" may be good, I don't think the facts support it.
What threshold do you think is compelling enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by MindTrap028
What do you think is the best evidence that Vaccines are in the public interest?Quote:
My second concern is that it isn't very well evidenced that such a thing would actually effect the public good. So while the "idea" may be good, I don't think the facts support it.
Why do you not find that evidence compelling?
I think the question is a little vague. The reason is because there are two different considerations and I'm not certain which one you are referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by sig
So I'll explain and answer as best I can. let me know if I miss.
The first threshold would be for personal application. As In, what is the threshold for me to feel the need to vaccinate myself.
The second threshold would be to justify the imposition of the above on another person, specifically against their wishes.
So, for example the flu shot. If I were personally prone to catching the flu(IE at risk), and the vaccine was shown effective(especially in myself), and any negative side effects were at a risk level I felt comfortable accepting, then that would be sufficient threshold.
However, the above would not be sufficient to compel me to force that decision on others.
So the bar would be a lot higher specifically in threat level. The flu simply isn't dangerous enough to warrant imposing a view on others. I'm not settled on what would reach that level, but am skeptical of anything reaching it.
I'm a layman on the topic, so the best "evidence" is the professional opinion on the topic. It seems that most Dr's would testify that it is in the public's best interest. As a general rule,this is pretty sufficient evidence, and it was all the evidence I needed when I was first married and had my first kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
Mostly because my family didn't live "healthy" until we stopped going to the Dr and following their advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
At it's heart its a credibility problem. The professionals say a lot of stuff that is objectively false, and some stuff that is down right scary.
There is one other thing... but I got to go (edit)
O.k. never mind. The other thing is a conflict of interest. In that what is said, and deemed to be the facts, are determined by those that are financially motivated, and also have major credibility issues.
So the objectively false stuff would be things like "Vaccines are safe and effective for everyone".
That is objectively false.
Something that is down right scary is something like "It is safe for a person to receive 1000 vaccines".
It isn't scary because it is "false", it is scary because .. what would that look like? Take your child to the Dr every week to get 10 shots at a time?
That is actual torture man. Which relevantly, the medical community will torture you in the literal sense of the word, for "public good" or in the name of your own good.
*story* I learned this when my friend took their child to the hospital, and they tried to find a vain for an IV for like an hour and half. Think about what that means. They stuck this child over and over for an hour and a half. The anesthesiologist was called, stuck the baby once, and refused to stick it again. Finally the parents were prompted to ask "what will you do if you can't get it?", and they replied "give the child a bottle". Because it was in the name of an "I.V.".
Point is, this is a blind spot for the medical community, and it is scary.
This is the one I'm interested in. I might be mildly curious about your own decision making, but it's the public policy I think is worthy of debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by MindTrap028
OK, that seems very reasonable.Quote:
I'm a layman on the topic, so the best "evidence" is the professional opinion on the topic. It seems that most Dr's would testify that it is in the public's best interest. As a general rule,this is pretty sufficient evidence, and it was all the evidence I needed when I was first married and had my first kid.
I want to point out that these reasons are prone to the Genetic Fallacy. That's a deductive fallacy, and you may not be making a deductive decision, but it should put some caution on using these reasons to make a conclusion.Quote:
Mostly because my family didn't live "healthy" until we stopped going to the Dr and following their advice.
At it's heart its a credibility problem. The professionals say a lot of stuff that is objectively false, and some stuff that is down right scary.
There is one other thing... but I got to go (edit)
O.k. never mind. The other thing is a conflict of interest. In that what is said, and deemed to be the facts, are determined by those that are financially motivated, and also have major credibility issues.
I'd point out that when it comes to financial incentives, everyone has them. The "alternative" medicine world is full of financial incentives to create distrust in science-based medicine to promote their own products. So even if you consider it as a reason to be distrustful, it should probably be applied equally across the range of anyone who makes a living selling health based products or advice.
Do you know of anyone making this specific claim? I think it is something of a strawman. Every state in America has exceptions for medical reasons. If you can show that you have an adverse reaction to them or other valid reason, you don't have to get them. Don't you think this demonstrates that it is not claimed to be safe for everyone?Quote:
So the objectively false stuff would be things like "Vaccines are safe and effective for everyone".
That is objectively false.
Is this something anyone seriously proposes to do?Quote:
Something that is downright scary is something like "It is safe for a person to receive 1000 vaccines".
Is the fact that you find it scary of significance to its accuracy?
Given that no one does this, why is it relevant?Quote:
It isn't scary because it is "false", it is scary because .. what would that look like? Take your child to the Dr every week to get 10 shots at a time?
That is actual torture man.
While I appreciate the response, this has little to do with vaccination. It is simply your fear of medical practices and being poked. When they do a heart bypass they used to cut your chest open, spread it with a spanner, slice open your heart and sew it back together. Horrific in the extreme, but it can save your life. Also, it has little to do with vaccination.Quote:
Which relevantly, the medical community will torture you in the literal sense of the word, for "public good" or in the name of your own good.
*story* I learned this when my friend took their child to the hospital, and they tried to find a vain for an IV for like an hour and half. Think about what that means. They stuck this child over and over for an hour and a half. The anesthesiologist was called, stuck the baby once, and refused to stick it again. Finally the parents were prompted to ask "what will you do if you can't get it?", and they replied "give the child a bottle". Because it was in the name of an "I.V.".
Point is, this is a blind spot for the medical community, and it is scary.
So I want to ask again, what do you think is the best evidence that vaccinations are in the public interest?
Certainly. I think there is a lot of grey area where certain lines are not very clear except maybe on the extremes.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
Thanks.. we thought we were being reasonable :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
This is very true. Just because someone is making money on something, doesn't mean they are dishonest, or what they are saying is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
I think however that we would be foolish to think that people won't lie for a billion dollars though. So it is more about judging human nature and other humans.
In this case human authorites.
I don't think the two sides are equal in comparison. I mean, your point is valid if someone is making tones of money, then what I said should be applied equally.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
What I mean is that the "authorities" on both sides are very different in structure. What you find on the side the medical community is very much a top down sort of information source.
Where as for the vaccine hesitant side... it isn't structured like that at all, and instead you see people losing money, not making it.
If you ask your personal Dr, he will say that vaccines are "safe and effective", without adding any caviot of "except for some people" etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
It is my impression that this is THE MOST common way of stating it.
Quick google...
https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/01/11/vacci...health-expert/
Headline...
"The science is clear: Vaccines are safe, effective, and do not cause autism"
Is it unreasonable to think they are implying "for everyone"? Isn't that the messag being sent on purpose?
To the extent that it is a straw-man, it is a creation of the advertising arm of the medical community. (not that there is a specific advertising arm,but it most certainly is the message being sent).Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
No, it is not evidnece that authorities on the matter are not actually stating the demonstrable untruth. What it is evidence of, is that when it is stated, it is objectivly false.
Wouldn't you agree?
What it demonstraites is a lack of a limiting principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
For example, they are working on some 200 more vaccines, and I don't hear
Well, they give 6 at a time now, and the current answer to a parents concern is for them to leave the room.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
Parents concerned with multiple shots are pushed back upon in simple efforts of rescheduling.
So.. it seems very relevant and a growing problem.
Going back to our own experience, when my wife saw 4 shots that was too much. She was told to leave the room.
So.. I think it is relevant.
I disagree. My example is directly related to vaccinations as they are applied. to ignore the reality of having to be stuck with a needle, and the fact that such an act if done enough can be torture, is to be blind to a relvant aspect and a present concern to parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
A concern that shouldn't be discarded as worthless.
I get stuck twice a week, and it is not fun. I don't have a "fear" of it.. or maybe I'm just brave?
But it isn't fun, and at some point doing that to a person is actual torture.
Your example isn't similar at all. unless you remove anistisia. In which case could you argue to FORCE the procedure on anyone?
I think dismissing this point as simply being afraid of medical practice.. is foolish and if applied to others is dangerous.
I would forward, it is that exact attitude that lead to the example I gave.
But let me bring it back around. This was all a point about credibilty. Specifically they say things that are scary in their application.
I'm confused.. I previously answered this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
What is insufficient about that answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by MT
I would go further and ask.. is that significantly different than the information a Dr uses to give me the advice?
IE are you expecting me to do something more than a typical Dr?
Based on your answers to my questions I have come to think the following....
1. You / your wife are afraid of being poked with needles or afraid of having your children poked with needles.
2. You don't trust medical science all that much.
3. You don't understand medical science all that much.
4. You've done very little reading on the history and function of vaccines.
I have a little sympathy for #2, a tiny bit for #1, but overall I'm not interested enough to ask further questions of your views. I'd suggest you educate yourself on the topic of vaccines, their place in medical history, and the medical business prior to their invention.
Thanks for participing.
I don't think your questions justify the conclusions of 3 and 4.
I think you have mistaken " don't like/ don't want too many" with " afraid of" in regards to #1
You're very welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by MindTrap028
I want to avoid too much direct argument, but let me explain some of why I came to those conclusions.
For #3: I asked twice what you thought was the strongest evidence. Your reply was..
A layman is someone who doesn't have professional knowledge. While we are both laymen in this regard, you further say that the evidence is other peoples opinions. This means that you are not interested in the source material, only in other conclusions. But you at the same time doubt their conclusions, not because they are ignorant, but because you simply don't trust their motives. Presumably, if you had researched the subject, even as a layman, you could explain the evidence available. Since you distrust others interpretation, you could provide that yourself. Since you don't I'm left to presume you are simply ignorant on the subject.Quote:
I'm a layman on the topic, so the best "evidence" is the professional opinion on the topic.
As to fear, let me outline some words you used in your answers on the subject...
torture (twice), down right scary (twice), it is scary (twice), when my wife saw 4 shots that was too much
To me, that kind of rhetoric smacks of appealing to fear, and people tend to appeal to what they themselves feel. I understand you don't cower at getting a shot, but we often fear for our children what we don't fear for ourselves. The overall position seems steeped with fear and distrust, if there is some cold reason in it, I'm not sure where to find it.
If you don't want to seem afraid, don't use that kind of language so much. I know your not really trying to make an argument here, but if you were, I'd stick with language like "unnecessary risks" or "over-medication" or something along these lines rather than "torture" and "down right scary"
On evidence and your assumptions.
I felt that your question was broken. It assumed that there was any good evidence, or that having seen a lot of evidence one would find a lot of evidence that was better than the basic appeal to authority I pointed out.
That has not been what I have found. Every study pointed too as support that I have seen and investigated and had any critical examination of, has been fundeme tally flawed (and I haven't seen them all). So I don't consider them to be the best evidence.
Now in a thread called ask anything, you can make whatever assumptions you like, but your questions didn't lead to that conclusion.
For my part, I am trying to stick to answering the questions, if you don't ask for what I thought was the most compelling evidence against.. then .. I wasn't going to lead the conversation.
--- fear---
Here again I think you just lost context of what I was saying. I said they say scary things and gave an example.
If you think that we decided not to vaccinate because we are afraid of needles... I think you have a very wrong impression and a few questions could illuminate that. However.. if your assume ignorance.. then I grant it makes sense.
---
The very first event that caused us to START questioning drs and vaccines, is their hostility and unwillingness to bend on something as simple as sceduling shots.
Yes my wife did freak out about there being 4 needles about to stick our child. That was partly due to our expectation of one or two. It did make us mad. But what it showed and taught us is a complete disregard for our authority over our kids and our roll as parents. Their answered of " you can leave the room" was the wrong answer.
That however started our investigation.. it was t the end. The more we learned, the more we found the medical community unreasonable and illogical that the pushback was never untellextual but rather authoritative is part of the reason I offer that as the best evidence. It is the only evidence a vast amount of people ever use to make the decision. Only once the source is questioned can you really start to investigate critically.
--- fi ding cold reason--
I just don't think your questions were ones that were going to lead to that end. But your not a reporter and whatever you are curious about.. that is totally legit.
I don't fault you on some of the impression because it is part of the story... It just isn't the whole story.
For examole, Cali has a/had a program where If you wanted to take an exemption you had to take an education class on the topic. The program had thousands of people go through it, listening to all the best the medical field had to offer. How many people you think changed their minds and didn't take the exemption after?
The answer was zero.
So should we just assume they were all emotionally driven? Driven by fear? Certainly they had some of those feelings. But I think more like a person. Who escaped a communist country fears communism. Basically only people who have had something actually occured, hard evidence that Trump's any words you can say. Will you get the kind of grass roots unweavering conviction as we see in the example.
So am I afraid of needles and that has driven our decision? As I said I get stuck twice a week.
Your opinion is yours to have. I just wanted to try and answer any questions I could.
After your explanation, my perception remains unchanged. I think your reasons for your view are based on emotional responses to western medicine rather than reason and knowledge and as a result, they don't hold much further interest to me.
Cool. I still don't think your questions merit that conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
In other news.
Apparently there haven't been any quality control studies done on vaccinations by the gov, as was required by the law which exempt vaccines manufacturers from lawsuits.
https://icandecide.org/wp-content/up...der%20copy.pdf
That doesn't instill me with an educated sense of assurance.
Things that don't instill confidence in me regarding vaccinations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...lfM5SEBseGH2j0
Emboldened for emphasis.Quote:
Originally Posted by LINK
Of course the worst part, is that a needle was involved, and we should all be afraid of anything involving needles. (SMH)
I can understand some apprehension depending on the particular vaccine. However, I think the evidence is pretty clear that get a lot of people living in close proximity and there are going to be health issues. I think we can agree polio (for instance) is a great example of a vaccine "gone right"? The chance of a possible complication was pretty much outweighed by the devastation, prevalence, and chances of contracting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MindTrap028
I did glance at your link which does sound a bit scary off the top, but as I did a broad search I find the guidelines for vaccines pretty heartening.
https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/safety
During a clinical trial, a vaccine is tested on people who volunteer to get vaccinated. Clinical trials start with 20 to 100 volunteers, but eventually include thousands of volunteers. These tests take several years and answer important questions like:
Is the vaccine safe?
What dose (amount) works best?
How does the immune system react to it?
Throughout the process, FDA works closely with the company producing the vaccine to evaluate the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness. All safety concerns must be addressed before FDA licenses a vaccine.
Every batch of vaccines is tested for quality and safety
Remember, not vaccinating also has risks:
https://www.livescience.com/57488-va...y-numbers.html
Over the past two decades, childhood vaccines have saved the lives of 732,000 U.S. children and prevented more than 300 million kids from getting sick, according to a 2014 study from the CDC.
Nearly 90 percent of vaccine side effects are not serious, according to the CDC.
More than 20 rigorous scientific studies have shown that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism, according to the CDC. The original study that claimed to find such a link has been discredited, and was retracted.
A 2011 report from the National Academy of Medicine reviewed more than 1,000 vaccine studies and concluded that serious reactions to vaccines are extremely rare.
Another success story (same source)
"The HPV vaccine was introduced in 2006, and during the next four years, the rate of HPV infections among teen girls decreased by 56 percent,"
I'm not big on needles myself but a shot for tetanus could easily save your life, or the one for shingles could save you from a pain that can be compared only being burned. Sure if you are one of the VERY few that suffer a severe side affect, you might think differently
but, if it was the polio vaccine (for instance) that caused you issues, but that same person could have got polio instead, hardly a superior choice...
@Belthazor.. .sorry I don't think I saw a specific question, so I make a more general response.
I agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
I do not agree with this, at least I don't take it as a given.Quote:
Originally Posted by BELTHZOR
1) Identification - For example, why should we think that polio was addressed by the vaccine, when they mis-diagnosed people all the time? The big example being FDR, who didn't have polio but something else? I'm not certain that some of the declines we saw was simply due to diagnosing things differently. There were other paralyzing syndromes on the rise and fall.
2) Polio was already in decline. *Note about graphs and perspective.. We must be aware of it. If we "zoom in" too much, we can get a false impression*
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...Dy9DdqLLmQ.png
First Image here, shows death rates from 1910 to 1960. The major spike in deaths is in 1915.
https://vaccines.procon.org/files/1-...1937-2013b.PNG
This image shows cases "zoomed in" to 1937-1975. The spike is in 1951, with a significant downward fall before the vaccines come in in 1955 (trials of 2milwere in 1954).
I would draw attention to a spike well after the vaccine was distributed. Which raises the question of efficacy.
https://amhistory.si.edu/polio/timeline/index.htm
This is a link to a general timeline of events regarding polio.
3) There is a general lack of knowledge as to what was causing not only polio but many of the paralyzing syndromes of the time. With the rise of sanitation, and the end of known neurological problem causers (such as DDT) I don't see the confidence in attributing the declines of polio with the vaccines.
I don't know about that. For a time the only instances of polio in the U.S. were caused by the polio vaccine.Quote:
Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
so this is where my credibility objection really lives. Why should I believe a company that does the testing? The FDA licenses them, but it is the company that does the testing, and honestly the deeper you dig into the relationship between the companies and the CDC and FDA.. it gets really icky fast. I think there was a news story just recently of the head of one of those organizations going to work for the pharma company they were over seeing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
Then there is the issue with some of those companies killing people and covering it up. ... Why should we trust such a company? We generally see the tobacco companies as having been corrupt in their "research".. right?
So, I'm skeptical of this, becauseQuote:
Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
1) Vaccine makers were going to go bankrupt with all the lawsuits they were losing due to vaccine injuries. So the vaccine adverse reaction ..( something or other,) was created. First to protect the vaccine producers from going out of business, and second to stream line the payment process and make it easier.
If it threatens being put out of business.. it doesn't really sound as rosy and rare as they claim.
2) The reporting rate for adverse reactions is only 1%. So the numbers they site are not complete, and don't take into account the 99% that is not reported or counted. (and they don't want to know.. so they aren't exactly looking very hard).
I'm not familiar enough with the HPV. It is new, and came after our general decision.Quote:
Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
Polio is kinda a boogy man. I mean, it wasn't fun, but most people recovered from it. Over a 10 year span, only like 2,300 people were put in an iron lung. I know I say "only" and that isn't to belittle the number, but the way it is presented.. it sounds like EVERYONE who caught it had the very worst side effects possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
as to needles. My objection on that level was limited to the lack of an upper limit. There is no guiding principle or limiting principle to the logic you employ. Sure, 1 shot is worth saving from the worst case scenario. But...look at the example you use. Almost no one gets tetanus, and i don't think anyone dies from it anymore. If you were to quantify your risk ratio.. you would probably find it to be much lower than other things that there are no vaccinations for, but that you don't give a second thought too. If you were faced with 300 vaccines over a 2 year span (which if they approved all the ones in the works right now, plus all the ones we already have, that is the neighborhood we are talking), would you maybe think about picking the ones you got?
Imagine if every disease had a vaccine you could take.. would you sign up for all of them blindly? How many would that even be?
My point is that the logic you are employing is intuitively true.. little prick > worst side effects. But it inherently ignores an accumulative effect.
One of the troubling things is the out right hostility currently faced when parents want to separate just a few shots, what is going to happen when it is no longer just a few.. but many, many?
I mean our threshold was around 4. Now kids can get 6 shots at a visit. This is not a "don't get the vaccines" point at all. This is a "what is the big deal about spreading them out? why is this industry pushing so hard so as to not give an inch.. it seems hostile, arrogant and needless".
I mean I'm grateful for it, because it caused us to start asking questions.
Why exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by MindTrap028
A meta-study from 2008 to 2011 - 4 years time, reports that 120 patients who got vaccinations reported moderate to severe manifestations within 54 days of getting said vaccination and among those 43 went to the hospital.
In the US there are about 340 million vaccines given each year. And you are concerned about the 120 people reporting problems following getting a vaccine over 4 years time.
---------- Post added at 03:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 AM ----------
There is a big problem with this argument. Pollio is an infectious disease that comes in waves like many other infectious diseases. It rises and falls periodically, spiking in incidence and then declining as it gets contained. This is the pattern for nearly all of them. Just because the current infection spike is on the decline, does not mean the disease overall is on the decline.Quote:
Originally Posted by MindTrap028
If you look at the history prior to vaccination, it has a spike pattern of repeated outbreaks. Yet after the introduction and widespread use of vaccination, it flatlines perpetually. That is not the natural course of an infectious disease. That is the product of modern medicine through vaccination.
Because it is enough for the paper to say that adjuvents are implicated. I don't think they would have said that if your point were true.Quote:
Originally Posted by sig
If that were the parameters, you would have a point. I don't see where you get those parameters from.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
Especially considering there are far more "negative events" reported each year than 120. (I think it is more on the order of thousands to tens of thousands).
So I'm not inclined to think your point holds water.
No, that would be silly, and false as argued.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
I think however this line is uncharitable.
This is not a problem or a valid objection because it is over simplified.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
they do not rise and fall as they get "contained" they rise and fall based on many things.
Like, exposure. If you stop drinking from a poisoned well, then you stop seeing the effects of it.
- Question, was the ultimate cause of polio elemenated?
Or, if you refined, or start to correctly identify a problem, then it's record may decrease.
- Question, was the medical definition of polio changed in the period in question?
-- Quick answer.. Yes see below link.
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2015/...ses-disappear/
Quick summary points..
- As a matter of history, the CDC changed the definition of polio as it was diagnosed, and what constituted an "outbreak".
- Currently 1million cases each year in the U.S. would have been classified as Polio pre vaccination. (*note* now if that is true, the argument of using polio eradication really dissolves)
(my point)
This doesn't mean that polio vaccines don't work. It just means that giving it credit for a decline is probably over stated.
Now, if you want to simply find data that fits a narrative.. that is one thing. But if you want to point to "evidence" that supports a conclusion, then the polio eradication argument needs a to be a little more robust than just an assumption based on correlation in general numbers. I think I have pointed to relevant factors that undercut the argument.
It is however the pattern that we saw with a vast amount of infectious diseases after introduction of sanitation. Or when the ultimate cause was eliminated.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
A major counter data point, is the spike after vaccinations.
Question, do you know how polio is spread?
Question, do you know how many strains of polio there are vs how many are vaccinated against?
Those seem to be relevant questions, but are not addressed by the argument from polio eradication.
I got them from the abstract you posted. What did you think it meant? It saying they did a review of other studies from that period and this is how many such reactions they noted from those studies. And yes, there are more reactions, they noted that these are the serious reactions, not just any reactions.Quote:
Originally Posted by MindTrap028
Human efforts do impact viruses. Efforts to contain them can reduce their incidence. The history of Pollio shows rises and reductions in infection periodically. The 1950s saw a sharp spike upwards but it was on the decline in 1955. It has risen and fallen many times prior to that. But after the vaccine was introduced, this stopped happening in the US. Rates fell to historic lows and stayed there.Quote:
This is not a problem or a valid objection because it is over simplified.
they do not rise and fall as they get "contained" they rise and fall based on many things.
Like, exposure. If you stop drinking from a poisoned well, then you stop seeing the effects of it.
No, that is not how vaccines work.Quote:
- Question, was the ultimate cause of polio elemenated?
Yes, but it doesn't disappear. Polio still exists, people in countries where vaccination is not routine still get it, places where there is widespread vaccination don't. The fact that diagnosis was tightened somewhat to avoid false positives doesn't change that.Quote:
Or, if you refined, or start to correctly identify a problem, then it records may decrease.
You can read a full rebuttal to the article you posted here: https://vaxopedia.org/2018/07/25/the...was-diagnosed/
Yes, but it is not of significance to the fact that Polio was a very serious problem and has largely been eradicated in the US thanks to vaccinations. The change didn't eliminate the disease, it simply reduced the number of false positive identifications by having a more rigorous testing method.Quote:
- Question, was the medical definition of polio changed in the period in question?
Are you bonkers man? Vaccination creates antibodies in the immune system of those vaccinated. The causal mechanism is well understood. That coupled with the clear change in the incidence of the disease to absolute zero after widespread inoculation in multiple countries over a long period of time is not just data cherry-picked to fit a narrative. You have been duped hard by these quacks.Quote:
Now, if you want to simply find data that fits a narrative.. that is one thing. But if you want to point to "evidence" that supports a conclusion, then the polio eradication argument needs a to be a little more robust than just an assumption based on correlation in general numbers. I think I have pointed to relevant factors that undercut the argument.
I do. It is most commonly spread by....Quote:
Question, do you know how polio is spread?
Fecal contamination
Person to person contact
Food born contamination
It's rather a trick question. There are three variants used in the vaccine, but the immune system becomes activated against nearly all the wild variants. So we vaccinate against all of them but we use three strains to create that immunity.Quote:
Question, do you know how many strains of polio there are vs how many are vaccinated against?
I deleted a very long post to limit it to just this.Quote:
Originally Posted by SIG
You have pre-concived notions that are blinding you to the very MILD point that I made.
Your blindness is keeping you for grasping what is being said,and making you too quick to jump to extremes.
It is also causing you to respond with an attitude that is not welcome.
I am not bonkers, you are just mistaken in your perceptions of what is going on. Don't expect further reply, unless you can engage in a rational conversation instead of one where you react emotionally.
and for Christ sake.. put down that needle, your scaring the children.