Vaccination

[Twa Cairpets]

A few months ago, there was a thread relating to the scare story surrounding the girl who died shortly after having the HPV vaccine. You may recall there was a massive over-reaction about how this vaccine and vaccinations in general were clearly dangerous, with the old canard of "it causes autism, you know" was brought into it too.

Never mind the fact that the death, tragic though it was, was subsequently (and generally unreportedly) proven to be unlinked to the vaccine, there were a number of posters defending the right not to vaccinate as a personal liberty.

Well, here's why it shouldnt be. California currently has an epidemic of whooping cough, with the highest figures of infection since the mid-fifties and 9 deaths, all of infants. Why have infants died? Because they are too young to have the vaccination, and rely on "herd immunity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity) - i.e. the fact that there is such a high level of vaccination that the disease finds major difficulty spreading.

With vaccination rates dropping dramatically due to scare stories like the HPV one and the still quoted (but utterly discredited) Wakefield/MMR report, the herd immunity has dropped to the level that in California at least, infants are dying utterly needlessly as the disease can travel.

If you're an "anti-vaxxer", like the appalling Jenny McCarthy (http://www.red-alerts.com/intel/anti-vaxxers-cause-whooping-cough-epidemic-in-california/) or in the UK the equally unspeakable Fiona Philips (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/30/mmr-doc-s-just-guilty-of-caring-115875-22005783/), have a look at this link and tell me that you're still happy peddling your dangerous and wanton stupidity (http://www.keenobservers.com/4171/9th-baby-succumbs-to-the-california-whooping-cough-outbreak/) (Warning - the picture of the seriously ill baby in the link isn't pleasant).

[Hibs Class]

Agree completely and would add this individual to the list of those who have caused untold misery and damage.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/doctor-who-linked-mmr--jab-to-autism--is-struck-off-1981943.html

[(((Fergus)))]

What about people who don't want to be vaccinated? Should we set up a special colony for them, e.g., Wales, or should they be expelled from the country?

[Twa Cairpets]

What about people who don't want to be vaccinated? Should we set up a special colony for them, e.g., Wales, or should they be expelled from the country?

Yes, it wont be long till they die out from a potent mix of preventable disease and ignorance

[speedy_gonzales]

What about people who don't want to be vaccinated? Should we set up a special colony for them, e.g., Wales, or should they be expelled from the country?
Do you mean those that want to opt out of society?
Whether we like it or not, 'we' have gone down a road of medical reliance when it comes to disease, infection etc. The proven and reliable route against such infection is mass innoculation, those few that opt out, either through ignorance, scepticism or even through personal choice can actually weaken the herd disproportionately though their choice. Now I think everyone should be entitled to that choice, especially when it's a parents, but that choice should and must be based on sound advice and factual information. Not wishy washy medical papers that have been sponsored by companies with hidden agendas or the opinion of 'B' list celebrities!

[Betty Boop]

Do you mean those that want to opt out of society?
Whether we like it or not, 'we' have gone down a road of medical reliance when it comes to disease, infection etc. The proven and reliable route against such infection is mass innoculation, those few that opt out, either through ignorance, scepticism or even through personal choice can actually weaken the herd disproportionately though their choice. Now I think everyone should be entitled to that choice, especially when it's a parents, but that choice should and must be based on sound advice and factual information. Not wishy washy medical papers that have been sponsored by companies with hidden agendas or the opinion of 'B' list celebrities!

Did Tony Blair ever get round to revealing whether Leo, had been vaccinated or not?

[speedy_gonzales]

Did Tony Blair ever get round to revealing whether Leo, had been vaccinated or not?

Pretty certain he didn't, if he had it would have been proudly proclaimed on a certain edition of 'Question Time' by Margaret Beckett, instead of her making an absolute erse of herself saying everyone should encourage young and new mums to go for the MMR, oh, the Prime Ministers son, well that's, urm, er, a private matter!
Regarding the MMR, my daughter is now 7, I think it was around the time she was born that there was links between MMR and autism. We(+Mrs Speedy) opted for the MMR after a little bit of research but we know that there was a fair percentage of parents that decided to go the individual immunisation route or not at all. No suprise then that in the last few years there has been more outbreaks of measles than there had been in the past 15 years. Not too sure where we stand with mumps.
Regarding the measles though, I think we have forgotten how serious an infection this can be. Like the whooping cough in california, it was an infection that was almost consigned to the history books in the western world but due to mass imigration, inconsistent health policies and a non 100% uptake of available vaccines, these infections are coming back and biting hard!

[Beefster]

What about people who don't want to be vaccinated? Should we set up a special colony for them, e.g., Wales, or should they be expelled from the country?

Most vaccinations happen to babies or children. I tried asking my toddler his opinion on vaccinations but he just asked what time 'Little Einsteins' was on so Mrs B and I made the decision for him.

[IWasThere2016]

All mine done - never thought for a second that non-vaccination would be the smarter of the two choices.

[RyeSloan]

Pretty certain he didn't, if he had it would have been proudly proclaimed on a certain edition of 'Question Time' by Margaret Beckett, instead of her making an absolute erse of herself saying everyone should encourage young and new mums to go for the MMR, oh, the Prime Ministers son, well that's, urm, er, a private matter!
Regarding the MMR, my daughter is now 7, I think it was around the time she was born that there was links between MMR and autism. We(+Mrs Speedy) opted for the MMR after a little bit of research but we know that there was a fair percentage of parents that decided to go the individual immunisation route or not at all. No suprise then that in the last few years there has been more outbreaks of measles than there had been in the past 15 years. Not too sure where we stand with mumps.
Regarding the measles though, I think we have forgotten how serious an infection this can be. Like the whooping cough in california, it was an infection that was almost consigned to the history books in the western world but due to mass imigration, inconsistent health policies and a non 100% uptake of available vaccines, these infections are coming back and biting hard!

You are bang on...GP's are having to be re-trained to spot measles because it had effectively been stopped.

The crazy notion that non vaccination is safer and the total mis-information put out by the people that support this notion has and is causing great pain and suffering (mainly to young children) that was entirely preventable, they should be ashamed of themselves.

[Twa Cairpets]

You are bang on...GP's are having to be re-trained to spot measles because it had effectively been stopped.

The crazy notion that non vaccination is safer and the total mis-information put out by the people that support this notion has and is causing great pain and suffering (mainly to young children) that was entirely preventable, they should be ashamed of themselves.

The thing that gets me - and apologies to Fergus if I've made assumptions based on his post - is that people who decide "they dont want vaccinated" are utterly, utterly selfish in their view.

There are certain things where the good of the many outweigh the "rights" of the few, and where an objection is based on lack of knowledge at best or base stupidity at worst, that right should be overruled.

Religious objections (http://www.alltencommandments.com/all/new/vaccinations.php) are so spurious as to be laughable (and thankfully on the very margins of faith), and the scientific objections non-existent.

It is deeply worrying that the impact of B-list celebs, as Speedy_Gonzales says, is such that people choose to expose there kids and others to horrible disease (although i disagree that parents should have a choice to vaccinate or not - to my mind its as neglectful not vaccinate as it is to leave a child wallowing in its own faeces).

[Twa Cairpets]

Here's another one, reported today. (http://www.news24.com/Africa/Zimbabwe/Measles-kills-70-children-in-Zim-20100923)

70 deaths from measles in a community belonging to an apostolic sect who shun western medicine and vaccinations.

[Bishop Hibee]

I never had any qualms about getting my 3 kids vaccinated. You put your children at risk if you don't as there is no scientific evidence that vaccines like the MMR kill.

Mind you I had mumps on my 4th birthday. No party and had soup through a straw for tea :boo hoo: Maybe put me in the pro-vaccine camp :greengrin

[HibsMax]

Yes, it wont be long till they die out from a potent mix of preventable disease and ignorance
I don't know, I am happily vaccinated but there seems to be something inherently wrong about forcing a person into medical treatment that they don't want, for whatever reason. It's a tricky one because we don't want infected people integrating with society and spreading disease. Tough one.

[paullotion]

Well, here's why it shouldnt be. California currently has an epidemic of whooping cough, with the highest figures of infection since the mid-fifties and 9 deaths, all of infants. Why have infants died? Because they are too young to have the vaccination, and rely on "herd immunity" - i.e. the fact that there is such a high level of vaccination that the disease finds major difficulty spreading.

With vaccination rates dropping dramatically due to scare stories like the HPV one and the still quoted (but utterly discredited) Wakefield/MMR report, the herd immunity has dropped to the level that in California at least, infants are dying utterly needlessly as the disease can travel.

This is taken from CA Health Dept. document:

"California is experiencing a peak year for pertussis, its worst since 2005. The immunity provided by pertussis disease or vaccine is not lifelong. Children last immunized against pertussis at kindergarten entry are again susceptible by adolescence. In addition, immunization rates for the Tdap booster vaccine, first licensed in 2005, are low in teens and adults. Therefore, a large proportion of Californians remain susceptible to pertussis, resulting in peak disease years that occur every 2-5 years as the number of susceptible people in the population increases."
http://www.rchsd.org/cmsprodcons1/groups/public/documents/content/c011281.pdf

No mention of the unvaccinated being the cause of this outbreak, rather the low-uptake of the Tdap booster among teens and adults. As for the 4,017 reprted cases of whooping cough, these should be taken with a pich of salt, since notifcations are notoriously unreliable.


No suprise then that in the last few years there has been more outbreaks of measles than there had been in the past 15 years

I am not surprised since the vaccine does not offer lifetime immunity, teens and adults who never had measles as a child(and vaccinated), are now getting measles.
Measles is a mild disease and over 95% of children will recover within 10 days, these children will also have naturally immunity for life, girls who had measles in childhood would pass on their immunity to their child- this is not the case when you vaccinate everyone regardless.

.

[Twa Cairpets]

This is taken from CA Health Dept. document:

"California is experiencing a peak year for pertussis, its worst since 2005. The immunity provided by pertussis disease or vaccine is not lifelong. Children last immunized against pertussis at kindergarten entry are again susceptible by adolescence. In addition, immunization rates for the Tdap booster vaccine, first licensed in 2005, are low in teens and adults. Therefore, a large proportion of Californians remain susceptible to pertussis, resulting in peak disease years that occur every 2-5 years as the number of susceptible people in the population increases."
http://www.rchsd.org/cmsprodcons1/groups/public/documents/content/c011281.pdf

No mention of the unvaccinated being the cause of this outbreak, rather the low-uptake of the Tdap booster among teens and adults. As for the 4,017 reprted cases of whooping cough, these should be taken with a pich of salt, since notifcations are notoriously unreliable.

I wondered if you'd stick your head above the parapet on this topic. If you read the document, and avoid your selective quote mining, what is the recommended action - the one they highlight in particular? Yes, thats right "Implementation of a free Tdap program for hospitals with postpartum Tdap immunization policies". i.e. getting as many people to take the booster vaccine as possible to extend immunity.

So the low take up of the booster vaccine is the reason for the increased outbreak. and this has resulted in children dying (since the paper you link to was published in June, the situation has deteriorated (as per initial link) and the outbreak is now the worst in 55 years).



I am not surprised since the vaccine does not offer lifetime immunity, teens and adults who never had measles as a child(and vaccinated), are now getting measles.
Measles is a mild disease and over 95% of children will recover within 10 days, these children will also have naturally immunity for life, girls who had measles in childhood would pass on their immunity to their child- this is not the case when you vaccinate everyone regardless..

No. It's really, really not. and you are - once again - factually wrong and spouting dangerous misinformation. I quote fully from the NHS website (http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/939.aspx?CategoryID=54&SubCategoryID=135) regarding immunity passed from mother to baby. The emphasis is mine.

During the last three months of pregnancy, antibodies from the mother are passed to the unborn baby through the placenta.

This type of immunity is called passive immunity, because the baby has been given antibodies rather than making them itself. Antibodies are the cells in the immune system which help protect the body against bacteria and viruses.

The amount and type of antibodies passed to the baby depends on the mother's immunity. For example, if the mother has had chickenpox, she will have developed immunity against the disease, and some of the chickenpox antibodies will be passed to the baby. However, if the mother has never had chickenpox, the baby will not be protected.

Immunity in newborn babies is only temporary and starts to decrease after the first few weeks, or months. Breast milk also contains antibodies, which means that babies who are breastfed have passive immunity for longer. The thick, yellowish milk (colostrum) that is produced for the first few days after birth is particularly rich in antibodies.

Premature babies are at higher risk of developing an illness because their immune systems are not as strong, and they have not had as many antibodies passed to them.

As newborn immunity is only temporary, it is important to begin childhood immunisations when your baby is two months old. This applies to babies who are either premature or full-term.

The first immunisation, given when your baby is two months old, includes whooping cough and Hib (haemophilus influenza type b) because immunity to these diseases decreases the fastest. Passive immunity to measles, mumps and rubella usually lasts for about a year, which is why the MMR jab is given just after your baby's first birthday.

[paullotion]

"I wondered if you'd stick your head above the parapet on this topic. If you read the document, and avoid your selective quote mining, what is the recommended action - the one they highlight in particular? Yes, thats right "Implementation of a free Tdap program for hospitals with postpartum Tdap immunization policies". i.e. getting as many people to take the booster vaccine as possible to extend immunity.

So the low take up of the booster vaccine is the reason for the increased outbreak. and this has resulted in children dying (since the paper you link to was published in June, the situation has deteriorated (as per initial link) and the outbreak is now the worst in 55 years).

And no mention of the un-vaccinated being the cause of this outbreak, as you implied in your first post.




During the last three months of pregnancy, antibodies from the mother are passed to the unborn baby through the placenta.

This type of immunity is called passive immunity, because the baby has been given antibodies rather than making them itself. Antibodies are the cells in the immune system which help protect the body against bacteria and viruses.

The amount and type of antibodies passed to the baby depends on the mother's immunity. For example, if the mother has had chickenpox, she will have developed immunity against the disease, and some of the chickenpox antibodies will be passed to the baby. However, if the mother has never had chickenpox, the baby will not be protected.

Immunity in newborn babies is only temporary and starts to decrease after the first few weeks, or months. Breast milk also contains antibodies, which means that babies who are breastfed have passive immunity for longer. The thick, yellowish milk (colostrum) that is produced for the first few days after birth is particularly rich in antibodies.

Premature babies are at higher risk of developing an illness because their immune systems are not as strong, and they have not had as many antibodies passed to them.
I thought i had include the part about mothers passing on their natural immunity to their babies in their early years, just re-read that post and i did not include it in my post, i do not disagree with above- except that naturally immunity passed on by the mother to the child can last from anywhere from 12 months to 15 months, babies under 1 year are at greatest risk. Which is where the natrually immunity comes into play.

[Twa Cairpets]

And no mention of the un-vaccinated being the cause of this outbreak, as you implied in your first post.

Your posts are amongst the most insidious of anyone on this board. Attempting to justify your untenable position on vaccination by mangled interpretation of information is, frankly, despicable. Have you looked further on at your linked-to article? The graph of cases of pertussis over the last 35 years? The fact it has increased from virtually zero to where we are now is directly and irrefutably due to reduction in uptake of vaccination (and booster).

Less vaccination = more illness and death. No amount of selective interpretation changes that fact


I thought i had include the part about mothers passing on their natural immunity to their babies in their early years, just re-read that post and i did not include it in my post, i do not disagree with above- except that naturally immunity passed on by the mother to the child can last from anywhere from 12 months to 15 months, babies under 1 year are at greatest risk. Which is where the natrually immunity comes into play.

Yeh, I'm sure it was just an error of omission.

By the way, passive immunity to whooping cough "may last only a few weeks". Source - UNICEF (http://www.unicef.org/immunization/index_how.html)

UNICEF also have this to say (same link):

The more children in a community that are vaccinated, the less likely it is that any children, even those who have not been immunized, will get sick because there are fewer hosts for the infectious agents. This is referred to as “herd” immunity and it is particularly vital with extremely contagious diseases such as measles, where immunization of 90 to 95 per cent of infants is needed to protect a community from measles. However, this is not true for all diseases, such as tetanus, therefore an individual’s vaccination status is important, not just group immunity.

But maybe you view UNICEF as having some hidden agenda when they want to immunise people.

if you want to understand a little bit more about the seriousness of measles, try this excerpt from "The Review of Infectious Diseases" (http://www.jstor.org/pss/4453059), in case the death of 70 non-vaccinated children in Zimbabwe (http://www.news24.com/Africa/Zimbabwe/Measles-kills-70-children-in-Zim-20100923) wasnt seriousn enough for you.

[paullotion]

Your posts are amongst the most insidious of anyone on this board.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion. That` s all it is.


Attempting to justify your untenable position on vaccination by mangled interpretation of information is, frankly, despicable. Have you looked further on at your linked-to article? The graph of cases of pertussis over the last 35 years? The fact it has increased from virtually zero to where we are now is directly and irrefutably due to reduction in uptake of vaccination (and booster).

Your first post was putting the blame squarely on those that had chosen not to be vaccinated(or anti-vaxxer as you put it), it had nothing to do with those that had not had the booster- which is clearly not the case. And yes i did look at the graph.


Less vaccination = more illness and death. No amount of selective interpretation changes that fact

Not entirely true.


"We have bad science and bad medicine translated into law to ensure that vaccine manufacturers make big profits, that career bureaucrats at the Public Health Service meet the mass vaccination goals promised to politicians funding their budgets, and pediatricians have a steady flow of patients…As the drug companies have often stated in meetings I have attended, if a vaccine they produce is not mandated to be used on a mass basis, they do not recoup their R&D costs and do not make the profit they want. In the medical literature official studies of vaccine risk are published purportedly proving there is no cause and effect. What the reader does not know is that often the studies have been designed and conducted by physicians who sit on vaccine policy-making committees at the Centers for Disease Control…some of whom receive money from vaccine manufacturers for their universities and for testifying as expert witnesses in vaccine-injury cases. And others are federal employees with an eye on career advancement within HHS and a future job with a vaccine manufacturer after retirement from public service. Many of these same physicians sit on the peer review boards of the major medical journals such as Pediatrics and JAMA, where they refuse space for studies or letters from the few brave physicians who dare to challenge their assertions that there is no cause and effect"http://www.healingwell.com/library/health/thompson2.asp

Prof.George Dick, a senior UK doctor and immunisation expert wrote in 1974, "I am not entirely convinced that the community benefit of whooping-cough vaccination outweighs the damage which it may be doing".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-professor-george-dick-1251230.html

In the 1970s, the immunisation rates in France, West Germany and UK(for whooping cough) were between 10% and 95 %, the death rate remained the same in all three, suggesting the vaccine offered no protection.
In Sweden between 1981-1983, they did not vaccinate any child against whooping cough, in that time there were only three deaths reported, and two of them were severely disabled children.

[Twa Cairpets]

TwoCarpets
Less vaccination = more illness and death. No amount of selective interpretation changes that fact

Not entirely true.

http://www.healingwell.com/library/health/thompson2.asp

Yes, entirely true. Personally, I prefer to take the evidence of the governing health bodies of virtually every nation on the planet, the advice of global agencies such as UNICEF and the WHO rather than an internet article which has entirely unreferenced anecdotes as its "evidence".

And I love this bit.



What the reader does not know is that often the studies have been designed and conducted by physicians …some of whom receive money from vaccine manufacturers for their universities and for testifying as expert witnesses in vaccine-injury cases.

I take it you don't do irony, or have any particular knowledge of, say, some of Andrew Wakefields (ex MD) motivations behind his discredited study?

[IWasThere2016]

I never had any qualms about getting my 3 kids vaccinated. You put your children at risk if you don't as there is no scientific evidence that vaccines like the MMR kill.

Mind you I had mumps on my 4th birthday. No party and had soup through a straw for tea :boo hoo: Maybe put me in the pro-vaccine camp :greengrin

It was rife then .. as I'm 43 this week and I'd mumps aged 4 too.

Did you give me mumps? :grr:

[Beefster]

Is there anything homeopathic that I can give my kids rather than have them vaccinated?

Or ear candles perhaps? I heard they were awesome for curing cancer and stuff.

[Twa Cairpets]

Is there anything homeopathic that I can give my kids rather than have them vaccinated?

Or ear candles perhaps? I heard they were awesome for curing cancer and stuff.

Ear Candles. (http://www.ear-candles.org.uk/)

Gotta love 'em. Right up there in the bonkers club with Reiki, Iridology, and EFT but with the added potential of burning your head (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8849790)

[lyonhibs]

Ear Candles. (http://www.ear-candles.org.uk/)

Gotta love 'em. Right up there in the bonkers club with Reiki, Iridology, and EFT but with the added potential of burning your head (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8849790)

Pretty please tell me that 1st link is some sort of excellent satirical site??

"No one knows the true first origins of Ear Candles, although it is known that to achieve similar results Native Americans used corn husks, Indians used papyrus reeds, and in Italy, they used cheesecloth. These stories have been passed on down to us for generations. Diaries translated from native Africans indicate that it was widely used in Africa and the Mesoamerican cultures of the Maya and Aztec are also known for using ear coning for therapeutic and ritual purposes"

No one with a shred of moral credibility would try to use that splurge as a justification to get folk to part with their cash for a product. Surely.

Would they????? :shocked::faint:

[lapsedhibee]

Is there anything homeopathic that I can give my kids rather than have them vaccinated?

:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Pretty please tell me that 1st link is some sort of excellent satirical site??

"No one knows the true first origins of Ear Candles, although it is known that to achieve similar results Native Americans used corn husks, Indians used papyrus reeds, and in Italy, they used cheesecloth. These stories have been passed on down to us for generations. Diaries translated from native Africans indicate that it was widely used in Africa and the Mesoamerican cultures of the Maya and Aztec are also known for using ear coning for therapeutic and ritual purposes"

No one with a shred of moral credibility would try to use that splurge as a justification to get folk to part with their cash for a product. Surely.

Would they????? :shocked::faint:

Oh yes. Even a picture of what looks awfy like a little boy smoking a fag out of his ear is a true representation of what happens.

[lyonhibs]

Oh yes. Even a picture of what looks awfy like a little boy smoking a fag out of his ear is a true representation of what happens.

Said wee laddie could do with a vaccination against "having the creepiest, most demonic smile EVER"

What I love is any scientifically unfounded "alternative" health proposition always has a line about "oooohhhh this ancient arts, practiced by the Mayans/Aztecs/Ancient Egyptians............"

Firstly, all these civilizations are- you guessed it - DEAD. Now, I accept that there is a myriad of cultural, political and socio-economic reasons for the disappearance of civilizations which extend beyond their shabby and hocus-pocus healthcare treatments, but does it not occur to these people that generations and generations of inability to master diseases that we now- through, ironically scientific advances including vaccination - regard as entirely commonplace or are nearly extinct, MAY have played a part in the downfall of these civilizations, to whom these "ear candle" (and the like) nutters direct us for "justification" of their idiotic practices

Secondly, ancient Egyptians used to drill holes in folks skulls to release the "evil spirits" they believed caused migranes. They also used to pull their dead's intestines out through their left (?) nostril as part of the mummification process. Just because "ancient civilization X" did such-and-such is NOT, by any stretch of anyone (else's) imagination, a credible reference point in the 21st century.

Not directed at you, TC (obviously), but just a general rant :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

Secondly, ancient Egyptians used to drill holes in folks skulls to release the "evil spirits" they believed caused migranes.

Do peeps in white coats not still do this, where it's required to relieve intracranial pressure? It ain't necessarily wrong just because the practice wasn't accompanied by modern theory! :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

Do peeps in white coats not still do this, where it's required to relieve intracranial pressure? It ain't necessarily wrong just because the practice wasn't accompanied by modern theory! :wink:

I had a quick google of trepanning to see if it is used, and the answer would appear to be no, it isnt used, although there is an organisation called the International Trepanation Advocacy Group (http://www.trepan.com/) who are campaigning to have it as part of normal medical practice. It seems to be predominantly seeking to provide patients who want elective trepanation procedures with the opportunity to have their heads opened up with a drill. Don't see the appeal myself.

On the latter point you are correct. The longevity of a particular procedure or treatment should not profer any credibility in either direction as to its efficacy. The only judgement that should be made on any treatment is whether it works and whether any associated risks are outweighed by the benefit.

I think the evidence is fairly strong that skull holes is on the whole a bad thing :greengrin

[lyonhibs]

Do peeps in white coats not still do this, where it's required to relieve intracranial pressure? It ain't necessarily wrong just because the practice wasn't accompanied by modern theory! :wink:

This is absolutely true, though the difference insofar as this debate goes is that practices that have stood the test of time don't get cited in terms of "It must have its uses, we've been doing it for hundreds of years", but more on the basis that it works, and has quantifiable and accredited health benefits.

The total lack of the latter for the sorts of hocus pocus medicine to which "Ear Candles" etc most definitely belong means that the "it's been going on since ye olden days" validation is a major crutch for supporters of these methods, and it's an entirely laughable one - IMO.

[Sergio sledge]

I had a quick google of trepanning to see if it is used, and the answer would appear to be no, it isnt used, although there is an organisation called the International Trepanation Advocacy Group (http://www.trepan.com/) who are campaigning to have it as part of normal medical practice. It seems to be predominantly seeking to provide patients who want elective trepanation procedures with the opportunity to have their heads opened up with a drill. Don't see the appeal myself.

On the latter point you are correct. The longevity of a particular procedure or treatment should not profer any credibility in either direction as to its efficacy. The only judgement that should be made on any treatment is whether it works and whether any associated risks are outweighed by the benefit.

I think the evidence is fairly strong that skull holes is on the whole a bad thing :greengrin

Just to nit pick slightly, craniotomy and decompressive craniectomy are used. Perhaps not in cases of migranes and only with proper medical reasons but they are still performed. In fact, if you type "craniotomy" into Youtube you'll see a rather lovely video of someone drilling a hole in someone else's skull....

From the ever reliable Wikipedia:

"Craniotomies are holes drilled in the skull to remove intracranial hematomas or relieve pressure from parts of the brain."

So his first point was also correct..:wink:

My friend had a craniotomy a few months back. In fact the main symptom she had was ongoing severe headaches, so perhaps those ancient Egyptians were onto something afterall.....

Your middle paragraph is spot on however.

[Bishop Hibee]

It was rife then .. as I'm 43 this week and I'd mumps aged 4 too.

Did you give me mumps? :grr:

No and any claims that I gave anyone any infection are a lie :greengrin

[Woody1985]

Interestingly, when all these hocus pocus beliefs were around religion was created!

[Bishop Hibee]

Interestingly, when all these hocus pocus beliefs were around religion was created!

You're like a broken record. The vast majority of religious people today would, like the vast majority of atheists today, have nothing to do with such beliefs.

[Woody1985]

I know. :greengrin

But do you not think there's a pattern in human behaviour that they believed that ear candles etc would work based on something completely unfounded? Personally I think that these things developed through lack of any true knowledge and became true because someone else said so.

[Twa Cairpets]

I know. :greengrin

But do you not think there's a pattern in human behaviour that they believed that ear candles etc would work based on something completely unfounded? Personally I think that these things developed through lack of any true knowledge and became true because someone else said so.

On the medical side there is a cross over where blind faith in the face of evidence to the contrary advocates (or more often denies) a particular treatment - I'm thinking of blood transfusion with Jehovahs witnesses or trusting in the power of intercessory prayer rather than a medical intervention. Instances of illness or death as a result of these do occur, but thankfully I think are rare.

I don't think it's fair to conflate belief in pseudoscientific woo-woo such as ear candling (which is mostly harmless credulity), or the anti-vax campaigners (deeply dangerous and fundamentally evil) with religious belief.

There will be a subset of theists, agnostics and atheists who will fall for the rubbish espoused by snake-oil peddlers and the disinformation spread by the motivated misinformed.

[(((Fergus)))]

Yes, it wont be long till they die out from a potent mix of preventable disease and ignorance

So, colony or expulsion? If we're talking about 90% rejection of vaccination, that's about 6 million people or so? I dare say you'd get the numbers down through force but there would still be a sizeable number of refugees.


Most vaccinations happen to babies or children. I tried asking my toddler his opinion on vaccinations but he just asked what time 'Little Einsteins' was on so Mrs B and I made the decision for him.

Most babies and children have parents who are responsible for their wellbeing and make many choices every day in this respect.


Do you mean those that want to opt out of society?
Whether we like it or not, 'we' have gone down a road of medical reliance when it comes to disease, infection etc. The proven and reliable route against such infection is mass innoculation, those few that opt out, either through ignorance, scepticism or even through personal choice can actually weaken the herd disproportionately though their choice. Now I think everyone should be entitled to that choice, especially when it's a parents, but that choice should and must be based on sound advice and factual information. Not wishy washy medical papers that have been sponsored by companies with hidden agendas or the opinion of 'B' list celebrities!

No. Thankfully we don't live under a particularly totalitarian regime and therefore "we" haven't gone down any one road in particular.

[Twa Cairpets]

So, colony or expulsion? If we're talking about 90% rejection of vaccination, that's about 6 million people or so? I dare say you'd get the numbers down through force but there would still be a sizeable number of refugees.

If you want a serious answer, then what should happen is that education as to what a vaccine is and how and why it works should be provided, followed by the need to provide a damn good medical reason not to be vaccinated.

Pros - Your child is protected against illness, diasability or death, and will not be a carrier of the disease that will cause the illness, disability or death of any other unvaccinated person, in particular children and babies.
Cons - Erm. None.

There are very few occasions where the rights of the individual to choose on the basis of ignorance are less than the rights of the many not to die. This is one.

Why? Evidence. It would be impossible to estimate precisely the number of people who have lived longer and/or more productive, healthy lives as a result of vaccination against measles, pertussis, mumps, typhoid, rubella, flu, polio, tuberculosis and countless others, but it would be fair to conservatively suggest it is tens of millions. Compare this to how many people have died or had serious long term issues as a direct result of being vaccinated, and it becomes the no-brainerest of no-brainers.

I do not believe that one does not have the right to directly endanger the life of others through stupidity. Do you. to me, it is every bit as selfish as driving when drunk.


No. Thankfully we don't live under a particularly totalitarian regime and therefore "we" haven't gone down any one road in particular.

And there you go escalating a perfectly rational response from Speedy_g to a defence against becoming a totalitarian regime! We do live in a society, and we have chosen as that society to conform to certain ways of being and behaving. Individuals of course have the right to dissent or protest or disagree, but as speedy says, in cases such as this, it must be based on evidence.

One's right to opt out is surely limited by the impact your rights have on other people - I offer again the analogy of drink driving. Some people may disagree with it, but our society has decided to make it illegal as the threat to other people outweighs the right of the individual to act like an arse.

[paullotion]

Yes, entirely true. Personally, I prefer to take the evidence of the governing health bodies of virtually every nation on the planet, the advice of global agencies such as UNICEF and the WHO rather than an internet article which has entirely unreferenced anecdotes as its "evidence".

I think we are going to disagree on this issue. The fact that the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory body are too cosy(as noted in the second PDF file) should sound alarm bells for everyone.
Each year in the UK, 10,000 people are killed by ADR, that is more than Cervical Cancer(about 920 per yr) or taking illegal drugs(about 1,600 per yr)- another 40,000 per year are made sick by having a ADR.
Vioxx in the US alone killed between 100,000 and 300,000 depending on which figures you read. In the US, the third largest killer is ADR(about a 100,000 per year).
http://genesgreenbook.com/resources/obamsawin/ImmunizationGraphs-RO2009.pdf
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf



I take it you don't do irony, or have any particular knowledge of, say, some of Andrew Wakefields (ex MD) motivations behind his discredited study?

In my opinion, {Dr}Andrew Wakefield was treated harshly, most of the parents still support him, and his treatment seemed to be working for some of them.
You can watch this video on the court case from the parents point of view- some of the images are really distressing.
http://www.viddler.com/explore/ziggy/videos/1/

[Twa Cairpets]

I think we are going to disagree on this issue. The fact that the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory body are too cosy(as noted in the second PDF file) should sound alarm bells for everyone.
Each year in the UK, 10,000 people are killed by ADR, that is more than Cervical Cancer(about 920 per yr) or taking illegal drugs(about 1,600 per yr)- another 40,000 per year are made sick by having a ADR.
Vioxx in the US alone killed between 100,000 and 300,000 depending on which figures you read. In the US, the third largest killer is ADR(about a 100,000 per year).
http://genesgreenbook.com/resources/obamsawin/ImmunizationGraphs-RO2009.pdf
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf
You remember the start of the thread, where it talks about vaccination?
what precisely does Vioxx have to do with vaccination? How many ADR's are caused as a result of vaccines? - that would be much more interesting. And relevant.
Your other link with the pretty graphs? A triumph of presentation over content. Is there anywhere where this was published or reiewed? Here's an extract from
science.education.nih.gov (http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih1/diseases/activities/activity5_measles-database.htm) which also has a graph if you care to look. Tells a different story though.

Measles—Incidence (Historic)
During this century, there has been a dramatic decrease in measles epidemics. Prior to the development of the measles vaccine, 5.7 million people died each year from measles. (Some historians have suggested that measles might have contributed to the decline of the Roman Empire.)

In 1920, the United States had 469,924 measles cases and 7,575 deaths due to measles. From 1958 to 1962, the United States had an average of 503,282 cases and 432 deaths each year. (Measles reporting began in 1912; prior to this time, no statistics are available.) In large cities, epidemics often occurred every two to five years.

When the measles vaccine came on the market in 1963, measles began a steady decline worldwide. By 1995, measles deaths had fallen 95 percent worldwide and 99 percent in Latin America. In the United States, the incidence of measles hit an all-time low in 1998, with 89 cases and no deaths reported.

There have been several epidemics in the United States since 1963: from 1970 to 1972, 1976 to 1978, and 1989 to 1991. The epidemic of 1989-1991 claimed 120 deaths out of a total of 55,000 cases reported. Over half of the deaths occurred in young children.



In my opinion, {Dr}Andrew Wakefield was treated harshly, most of the parents still support him, and his treatment seemed to be working for some of them.
You can watch this video on the court case from the parents point of view- some of the images are really distressing.
http://www.viddler.com/explore/ziggy/videos/1/

Kinda tells me all I need to know. If you can look at the evidence presented from both sides - and I mean evidence not appeals to emotion as per the video - and still come out with the opinion that the now struck-off Wakefield, his study (never replicated by any other scientist in the world), and his conclusions have any validity whatsoever then truly I despair

[Twa Cairpets]

http://genesgreenbook.com/resources/obamsawin/ImmunizationGraphs-RO2009.pdf

Out of curiosity, I had a further look at the source website for this "source" - Genes Green Book. (http://genesgreenbook.com/)

Now, at the risk of setting myself up for accusations of an ad hominem attack, it's fair to say that the rest of the website does not demonstrate the most rigorous levels of scientific vigour in reaching its conclusions on any subject. I am less minded to accept as scientifically robust the arguments of a young earth creationist/intelligent design advocate, who promotes almost every popular pseudoscientific theory as fact, and sees conspiracy around every corner (yes, he's a 9/11 "truther" too).

[Twa Cairpets]

I think we are going to disagree on this issue. The fact that the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory body are too cosy(as noted in the second PDF file) should sound alarm bells for everyone.
Each year in the UK, 10,000 people are killed by ADR, that is more than Cervical Cancer(about 920 per yr) or taking illegal drugs(about 1,600 per yr)- another 40,000 per year are made sick by having a ADR.
Vioxx in the US alone killed between 100,000 and 300,000 depending on which figures you read. In the US, the third largest killer is ADR(about a 100,000 per year).

Undoubtedly explainable by you as a massive cover-up, but here's some actual data, from credible sources.
Causes of death in USA report (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05acc.pdf) (Page 28, table 9)
Or for a summary of the data, go here (http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html)

Unsurprisingly, completely showing the figures you have quoted as being, shall we say, dubious. Or a better word would be wrong. So yes, you're dang tootin' we disgaree.

[Betty Boop]

All in the name of medical research. Horrific ! Sorry for the thread hijack.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/02/health/research/02infect.html

[paullotion]

You remember the start of the thread, where it talks about vaccination?
what precisely does Vioxx have to do with vaccination? How many ADR's are caused as a result of vaccines? - that would be much more interesting. And relevant.
Your other link with the pretty graphs? A triumph of presentation over content. Is there anywhere where this was published or reiewed? Here's an extract from
science.education.nih.gov which also has a graph if you care to look. Tells a different story though.

The point i was making that the pharmaceutical industry(who also make vaccines) and the regulatory body are too cosy as stated in the pdf file, none of the recommendations have been implemented. As for the graph, it starts from 1961, Measles was in decline way before the vaccine was introduced.



In 1920, the United States had 469,924 measles cases and 7,575 deaths due to measles. From 1958 to 1962, the United States had an average of 503,282 cases and 432 deaths each year

As you can see from the CDC figures, in 1920 there were 7.575 deaths due to Measles. From 1958 to 1962 the figure drops to 432 deaths, the dramatic fall all occurred before the vaccine- i would guess that would be a 98% decline in the death rate, before the measles vaccine.




Kinda tells me all I need to know. If you can look at the evidence presented from both sides - and I mean evidence not appeals to emotion as per the video - and still come out with the opinion that the now struck-off Wakefield, his study (never replicated by any other scientist in the world), and his conclusions have any validity whatsoever then truly I despair

Still have not seen any evidence against {Dr} Wakefield that would result in him being struck off. He never said that MMR was linked to Autism, only that further research was needed.


Out of curiosity, I had a further look at the source website for this "source" - Genes Green Book.

Now, at the risk of setting myself up for accusations of an ad hominem attack, it's fair to say that the rest of the website does not demonstrate the most rigorous levels of scientific vigour in reaching its conclusions on any subject. I am less minded to accept as scientifically robust the arguments of a young earth creationist/intelligent design advocate, who promotes almost every popular pseudoscientific theory as fact, and sees conspiracy around every corner (yes, he's a 9/11 "truther" too).


The graph has links to the original source, you can look them up yourself.

[Twa Cairpets]

So, cutting through all your poor attempts to muddy the waters by bringing in unrelated and woefully inaccurate "evidence", all your obvious misunderstanding (be it wilful or through incapability) of the science, and all your paranoia over Wakefield and "Big Pharma", it coes down to really one or two questions, doesn't it?

1) Do you believe that vaccination programmes for measles, mumps, tuberculosis, rubella, pertussis, small pox, polio, influenza and all the rest don't work?
2) Do you believe that your "right" not to be vaccinated is greater than the "right" of other people (and their children in particular) not to be infected by you as a result of the reduction in herd immunity?

[Hibs Class]

Still have not seen any evidence against {Dr} Wakefield that would result in him being struck off. He never said that MMR was linked to Autism, only that further research was needed.



I would suggest reading the attached before making any further defence of Wakefield.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf

[paullotion]

The world of paullotion

So, cutting through all your poor attempts to muddy the waters by bringing in unrelated and woefully inaccurate "evidence", all your obvious misunderstanding (be it wilful or through incapability) of the science, and all your paranoia over Wakefield and "Big Pharma", it coes down to really one or two questions, doesn't it?

According to you the evidence is inaccurate, everyone is free to make up their own mind.



1) Do you believe that vaccination programmes for measles, mumps, tuberculosis, rubella, pertussis, small pox, polio, influenza and all the rest don't work?

Since these disease`s were in decline prior to vaccination, i would say that vaccines should only be used when needed, for example with children who have a suppressed immune system- for the vast majority of children, they will recover.



2) Do you believe that your "right" not to be vaccinated is greater than the "right" of other people (and their children in particular) not to be infected by you as a result of the reduction in herd immunity?

It is every person right to choose whether they wish to be vaccinated or not, as for the herd immunity, we have seen outbreaks of disease`s in areas where there has been a 95% vaccination rate. Natural immunity would be far better, as it is life long.




I would suggest reading the attached before making any further defence of Wakefield.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_...f_32595267.pdf (http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf)

I have read the result of the GMC hearing, it do not think the punishment fitted the charge. You can watch this video of {Dr} Wakefield regarding the charges against him, filmed before the verdict.
http://goldenhawkprojects.blogspot.com/2010/04/dr-andrew-wakefield-in-his-own-words.html


Grieving families reacted with horror yesterday as a doctor who gave lethal cocktails of drugs to 12 elderly patients 'to keep them quiet' was allowed to carry on working.

Relatives of the dead pensioners walked out in disgust as GP Jane Barton escaped being struck off the medical register despite being found guilty of serious professional misconduct by a General Medical Council panel.

But in an unprecedented move, the chief executive of the GMC stepped in to challenge the verdict of the independently-appointed panel.

At one stage police examined 92 deaths, although no criminal charges were brought, and an inquest last year into ten of the 12 deaths concluded that five pensioners died after being given excessive doses of morphine.

But Dr Barton remained free to practise, subject to restrictions on prescribing certain drugs, and has been working at the Forton Medical Centre in Gosport. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247000/Dr-Jane-Barton-escapes-struck-prescribing-potentially-hazardous-levels-drugs.html

This doctor DOES NOT get removed, yet {Dr}Wakefield does, so it seems to be ok to kill your patients, but not help them, bizarre.

[Twa Cairpets]

According to you the evidence is inaccurate, everyone is free to make up their own mind.

And here we have one of the very many cruxes of the matter. You have a complete lack of understanding as to what evidence is. What I'm typing in this paragraph is opinion, albeit opinion strongly backed by evidence as per all the links throughout this thread. Your "evidence" is based on logical fallacy after logical fallacy, quote mined extracts of data gleaned from websites that are themselves opinion. Opinion is fine as long as its not presented as proof, which is what you do time after time.

In terms of making up your mind, yes, everyone can make up their own mind. But in the same way as people can make up there own mind about whether the holocaust really happened there is only one correct answer.



Since these disease`s were in decline prior to vaccination, i would say that vaccines should only be used when needed, for example with children who have a suppressed immune system- for the vast majority of children, they will recover.

You hold onto this decline as a proof that vaccination isnt effective. I'm sure that improvements in living conditions played a part in the reduction of transferable disease (fewer people living in cramped conditions obviously reduces the opportunity for a disease to jump from host to victim and on again), but the virtual (or actual in the case of small pox) elimination of these diseases can only be explained by vaccination.


It is every person right to choose whether they wish to be vaccinated or not, as for the herd immunity, we have seen outbreaks of disease`s in areas where there has been a 95% vaccination rate. Natural immunity would be far better, as it is life long.

Ok, Im being very calm. Natural immunity would be better, but as nature (or God, if that is your philosophcal bent) doesnt work that way, you're as well wishing for the magic fairies of healthcare to come down and blast us with naturopathic pixie dust to keep us all well.

You have chosen, for whatever reason, to choose to to be ant-vaccination. You have chosen to ignore the evidence of the worlds healthcare authorities,and the evidence of millions of people not dying of preventable diseases, nor dying of vaccination induced complications.

If you ever have the misfortune to fall ill with any of the dieases we've discussed, or if you have kids (who you presumably will not vaccinate), I hope you will make a point of ensuring you apologise to anyone you may come in contact with who could fall ill as a direct result of your "right" to be monstrously and selfishly stupid.

Finally, I'm sure 2468 can reply for him/herself but if the final straw you're clinging to for Wakefield is that there is a worse Doctor out there then I should worn you that the barrel that you constanly scraping is really on its last legs. Oh, and no matter how often you put brackets around his former title, he is not a Doctor anymore.

[Hibs Class]

The extracts below from the GMC ruling were the ones that stood out for me. They appear to paint a comprehensively damning inditement of Wakefield. Striking off seems entirely reasonable, especially as he chose to offer up no evidence or mitigation as to why that should not be the case.

"The Panel is profoundly concerned that Dr Wakefield repeatedly breached fundamental principles of research medicine. It concluded that his actions in this area alone were sufficient to amount to serious professional misconduct."

"The reporting in that paper of a temporal link between gastrointestinal disease, developmental regression and the MMR vaccination had major public health implications and Dr Wakefield admitted that he knew it would attract intense public and media interest. The potential implications were therefore clear to him, as demonstrated in his correspondence with the Chief Medical Officer of Health and reports which had already appeared in the medical press. In the circumstances, Dr Wakefield had a clear and compelling duty to ensure that the factual information contained in the paper was true and accurate and he failed in this duty."

"In the paper, Dr Wakefield failed to state that this was the case and the Panel concluded that this was dishonest, in that his failure was intentional and that it was irresponsible."

[paullotion]

And here we have one of the very many cruxes of the matter. You have a complete lack of understanding as to what evidence is. What I'm typing in this paragraph is opinion, albeit opinion strongly backed by evidence as per all the links throughout this thread. Your "evidence" is based on logical fallacy after logical fallacy, quote mined extracts of data gleaned from websites that are themselves opinion. Opinion is fine as long as its not presented as proof, which is what you do time after time.

The problem with modern medicine is the the blind faith in it`s so called effectiveness, even though patients for the most part are not getting better. This is because there is no profit in healing. Modern medicine never treats the underlying cause, it only treats the symptoms.
Vaccines/drugs only target a protein/cell or pathway, thus it is extremely narrow in it`s approach- the body is much more complicated than that.
For example the body cannot make vitamin c, but can make vitamin d, the body can produce cholesterol, but cannot produce essential fatty acids such as omega 6 and omega 3. These are just a few examples of many.

Thankfully people are getting educated and starting to questions the benefits of vaccine/drugs, no doubt due to the fact they have seen love ones suffer. Now you can present as many articles promoting vaccines as you wish, as i have ready posted, the pharmaceutical industry influences many areas of modern medicine, for their benefit.



In terms of making up your mind, yes, everyone can make up their own mind. But in the same way as people can make up there own mind about whether the holocaust really happened there is only one correct answer.

Indeed they can, for the holocaust there is only one answer- for anything else there maybe more than one.



You hold onto this decline as a proof that vaccination isnt effective. I'm sure that improvements in living conditions played a part in the reduction of transferable disease (fewer people living in cramped conditions obviously reduces the opportunity for a disease to jump from host to victim and on again), but the virtual (or actual in the case of small pox) elimination of these diseases can only be explained by vaccination.

I suggest you do more research on the smallpox vaccine.

After Edward Jenner brought the smallpox to the world, the medical profession lobbied parliament which resulted in the vaccination act of 1853 making it an offence not to vaccinated your child, the punishment was 20 shillings- about £50 today. Even then there distrust of vaccines and in 1885, 100,000 turned out to an anti-vaccine demonstration.
The government setup a Royal Commission that sat for seven years, it concluded, in 1816, that the smallpox vaccine was effective. A new vaccination act was passed in 1898, allowing exemption for the `conscientious objector`.

In Middlesbrough there was an outbreak of smallpox, even though 98% of the population was vaccinated, 1.411 people caught smallpox,86% had been vaccinated. From 1948-1957 there were 26 deaths from smallpox and 34 deaths caused by the vaccine.
When compulsory vaccination stopped in 1948, the amount of infants being vaccinated dropped from 37% to 18%. During the 1950-1960s, 21 died as a result of the samllpox vaccine and one death from smallpox.
The government abandoned the smallpox vaccine in 1971, when it was acknowledged to be greater threat than the disease.
Smallpox disappeared in countries where they had little or no vaccination, such as Australia and NZ.

A little more info.
http://proliberty.com/observer/20000607.htm



Ok, Im being very calm. Natural immunity would be better, but as nature (or God, if that is your philosophcal bent) doesnt work that way, you're as well wishing for the magic fairies of healthcare to come down and blast us with naturopathic pixie dust to keep us all well.

You have chosen, for whatever reason, to choose to to be ant-vaccination. You have chosen to ignore the evidence of the worlds healthcare authorities,and the evidence of millions of people not dying of preventable diseases, nor dying of vaccination induced complications.

If you ever have the misfortune to fall ill with any of the dieases we've discussed, or if you have kids (who you presumably will not vaccinate), I hope you will make a point of ensuring you apologise to anyone you may come in contact with who could fall ill as a direct result of your "right" to be monstrously and selfishly stupid.

As i have said many times vaccines can play a part in protecting from disease, but only those who are most susceptible. Every year it seems we get some scare or another, i believe this year its the re-emergence of swine-flue, as if bacteria/germs from swine-flu or flu in generally only appear in the winter months, you can get flu at any time.

[Twa Cairpets]

The problem with modern medicine is the the blind faith in it`s so called effectiveness, even though patients for the most part are not getting better. This is because there is no profit in healing. Modern medicine never treats the underlying cause, it only treats the symptoms..

<Facepalm smiley>
I refer the honourable member to the answer give a moment ago.
Here's a helpful link that you may want to look at. Definition of the word Evidence (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence)


Vaccines/drugs only target a protein/cell or pathway, thus it is extremely narrow in it`s approach- the body is much more complicated than that.
For example the body cannot make vitamin c, but can make vitamin d, the body can produce cholesterol, but cannot produce essential fatty acids such as omega 6 and omega 3. These are just a few examples of many

This is spectactularly irrelevant. The body is complicated. Thats your argument? Seriously, what does the ability to make vitamin c have to do with vaccines?



Thankfully people are getting educated and starting to questions the benefits of vaccine/drugs, no doubt due to the fact they have seen love ones suffer. Now you can present as many articles promoting vaccines as you wish, as i have ready posted, the pharmaceutical industry influences many areas of modern medicine, for their benefit.

While I am absolutely sure that there are examples of where the pharmaceutical industry has acted in an unethical manner, that is yet another logical fallacy being put up by you. "Big pharma is bad, therefore all medicine is bad". But that really, really isnt the argument. The only potential argument is that the negatives of a vaccination campaign outweigh the positives - i.e. base any decision or policy on the science. The articles you say are "promoting" vaccination are actually explaining why it works.



I suggest you do more research on the smallpox vaccine...

...The government abandoned the smallpox vaccine in 1971, when it was acknowledged to be greater threat than the disease.

A little more info.
http://proliberty.com/observer/20000607.htm

When there no longer exists a requirement to vaccinate, then there is no need to vaccinate. The WHO declared smallpox eradicated in 1980. What you miss here is that surely if your argument that its all a money making exercise by the pharmaceutical industry, then wouldnt they have found a reason to keep vaccinating millions of people a year. Surely in your view it is every bit as pointless as measles vaccines?

And once again, your source is entirely devoid of sources, and comes from the Idaho Observer, a defunct right wing Newspaper with a self-proclaimed agenda.

[quote=paullotion]As i have said many times vaccines can play a part in protecting from disease, but only those who are most susceptible. Every year it seems we get some scare or another, i believe this year its the re-emergence of swine-flue, as if bacteria/germs from swine-flu or flu in generally only appear in the winter months, you can get flu at any time.
You really dont understand this subject do you.

[lyonhibs]

I've only been dipping in and out of this debate, but I could have sworn I just read the sentence as follows:

"The problem with modern medicine in this blind faith in its so-called effectiveness"

:confused: :shocked::faint:

[paullotion]

This is spectactularly irrelevant. The body is complicated. Thats your argument? Seriously, what does the ability to make vitamin c have to do with vaccines?

My point is drugs/vaccines are narrow, and that is the body is much more complicated than just targeting a cell/protein, pathway or even a gene, a gene needs a trigger to be switched off/of.

For example look at Vioxx, Vioxx was a NSAID(nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory) drug which promised none of the other side affects associated with these types of drugs- namely gastrointestinal damage which can put up to 12,000 people into hospital and cause up to 2,500 deaths annually.
The problem with these drugs(prior to Vioxx) was they worked by inhibiting an enzyme- cylooxygenase or COX-2 for short. The trouble was they also blocked another version of the enzyme called COX-1, which is needed to produce protective mucus in the gut.
Vioxx like all other drugs that only target a cell/protein, pathway, had a major problem, it boosted the body to make blood clots and thus raising the risk of heart problems.
Omega-3 does exactly the same as Vioxx did, except it would not increase the risk of heart problems or death.


While I am absolutely sure that there are examples of where the pharmaceutical industry has acted in an unethical manner, that is yet another logical fallacy being put up by you. "Big pharma is bad, therefore all medicine is bad". But that really, really isnt the argument. The only potential argument is that the negatives of a vaccination campaign outweigh the positives - i.e. base any decision or policy on the science. The articles you say are "promoting" vaccination are actually explaining why it works.

There are many examples of the pharmaceutical industry being unethical at best, fraud at worst.

In February 2001 the FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee met to discuss the concerns about the potential cardiovascular risks associated with Vioxx.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp048286

It would seem Merck did everything they could to withhold data on the effects of Vioxx. It would also seem that there bed-buddies the FDA did not regulate as they should have.

In the UK Vioxx was licensed by the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) in 1999, during the next four years there were reports which appeared in scientific literature suggesting there could be a problem, as you can imagine, MHRA did nothing.

In 2005 a parliamentary committee for health began hearings on the relationships between pharmaceutical companies and the NHS and the way it was regulated by the MHRA. the committee`s report, The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, published in April 2005. It concluded, "that the way drugs are monitored after they are launched was `inadequate`, that medical institutions were `indifferent` to what happened to patients, and that the MHRA knew very little about the overall impact of drug related illness in the community".

It also stated, "that doctors should take some responsibility for the problems with Vioxx because they were too ready to believe drug company PR".
The committee called for a whole range of changes, among them that the MHRA should be on the lookout for ADR`s, there should be a public enquiry whenever a drug is withdrawn, there should be research into adverse health effects of medicalisation and that non-drug treatment should be investigated properly. The previous government took no action on these recommendations.

In 2006, a report into the FDA by the US government`s General Accounting Office made similar criticism of the US agency. It said that the FDA,"did not have clear polices for addressing drug safety issues and that it sometimes excluded its best safety experts from important meetings". It went on to say that, " the agency(FDA) entire system for reviewing the safety of drugs already on the market was too limited and broadly flawed".

Take the example of Propulsid, the NY Times produced a good article on the issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/business/10drug.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

According to Richard Horton (editor of The Lancet), the relationship between the medical journals and the drug industry is, "somewhere between symbiotic and parasitic".
In giving evidence to the Parliamentary health committee, he(Horton) said that drug companies, "regularly try to exert pressure on a journal to run a research paper". When a favourable research paper is printed, it is usually reprinted and bought in bulk by the company involved, which of course gives them leverage.
http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7481/9.1.extract

Also giving evidence at the hearing was Dr. Peter Wilmshurst, a consultant cardiologist at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital- told the committee that he had been offered bribes by a pharmaceutical company not to publish unfavourable results. He also claims that he knew of three professors of cardiology who were told their results were aberrant and were persuaded by the pharmaceutical company who had sponsored the study not to publish. He said, "I suspect this as is common now as it ever was".
He also told the committed that opinion leaders can be paid in the region of £5,000 for an hour`s talk about a drug they have no experience of using, and their influence can have a big impact on practice.


You cannot separate their advertising and marketing from the science anymore," said Dr. Arnold S. Relman, professor emeritus at Harvard Medical School and a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. "Ad agencies are not in the business of doing science."

Dr. Thomas Bodenheimer, a professor at the University of California at San Francisco, cited numerous cases in which, he said, drug companies manipulated results of clinical trials by controlling a study's design or choosing to make public only positive data.

The problems can only grow worse, he said, with ad agencies involved.

"It introduces another bias into the whole clinical drug trial picture," Dr. Bodenheimer said, "so that the American public and the physicians in the United States are not going to know, really, the true facts about the drugs." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/22/business/22DRUG.html



When there no longer exists a requirement to vaccinate, then there is no need to vaccinate. The WHO declared smallpox eradicated in 1980. What you miss here is that surely if your argument that its all a money making exercise by the pharmaceutical industry, then wouldnt they have found a reason to keep vaccinating millions of people a year. Surely in your view it is every bit as pointless as measles vaccines?

My point was that the smallpox vaccine did not eradicate smallpox, merely that naturally immunity was the factor- since the vaccine was ineffective.


You really dont understand this subject do you.

Right back at ya!

[Twa Cairpets]

My point is drugs/vaccines are narrow, and that is the body is much more complicated than just targeting a cell/protein, pathway or even a gene, a gene needs a trigger to be switched off/of.

For example look at Vioxx, Vioxx was a NSAID(nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory) drug which promised none of the other side affects associated with these types of drugs- namely gastrointestinal damage which can put up to 12,000 people into hospital and cause up to 2,500 deaths annually.
The problem with these drugs(prior to Vioxx) was they worked by inhibiting an enzyme- cylooxygenase or COX-2 for short. The trouble was they also blocked another version of the enzyme called COX-1, which is needed to produce protective mucus in the gut.
Vioxx like all other drugs that only target a cell/protein, pathway, had a major problem, it boosted the body to make blood clots and thus raising the risk of heart problems.
Omega-3 does exactly the same as Vioxx did, except it would not increase the risk of heart problems or death.



There are many examples of the pharmaceutical industry being unethical at best, fraud at worst.

In February 2001 the FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee met to discuss the concerns about the potential cardiovascular risks associated with Vioxx.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp048286

It would seem Merck did everything they could to withhold data on the effects of Vioxx. It would also seem that there bed-buddies the FDA did not regulate as they should have.

In the UK Vioxx was licensed by the MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) in 1999, during the next four years there were reports which appeared in scientific literature suggesting there could be a problem, as you can imagine, MHRA did nothing.

In 2005 a parliamentary committee for health began hearings on the relationships between pharmaceutical companies and the NHS and the way it was regulated by the MHRA. the committee`s report, The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, published in April 2005. It concluded, "that the way drugs are monitored after they are launched was `inadequate`, that medical institutions were `indifferent` to what happened to patients, and that the MHRA knew very little about the overall impact of drug related illness in the community".

It also stated, "that doctors should take some responsibility for the problems with Vioxx because they were too ready to believe drug company PR".
The committee called for a whole range of changes, among them that the MHRA should be on the lookout for ADR`s, there should be a public enquiry whenever a drug is withdrawn, there should be research into adverse health effects of medicalisation and that non-drug treatment should be investigated properly. The previous government took no action on these recommendations.

In 2006, a report into the FDA by the US government`s General Accounting Office made similar criticism of the US agency. It said that the FDA,"did not have clear polices for addressing drug safety issues and that it sometimes excluded its best safety experts from important meetings". It went on to say that, " the agency(FDA) entire system for reviewing the safety of drugs already on the market was too limited and broadly flawed".

Take the example of Propulsid, the NY Times produced a good article on the issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/business/10drug.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

According to Richard Horton (editor of The Lancet), the relationship between the medical journals and the drug industry is, "somewhere between symbiotic and parasitic".
In giving evidence to the Parliamentary health committee, he(Horton) said that drug companies, "regularly try to exert pressure on a journal to run a research paper". When a favourable research paper is printed, it is usually reprinted and bought in bulk by the company involved, which of course gives them leverage.
http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7481/9.1.extract

Also giving evidence at the hearing was Dr. Peter Wilmshurst, a consultant cardiologist at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital- told the committee that he had been offered bribes by a pharmaceutical company not to publish unfavourable results. He also claims that he knew of three professors of cardiology who were told their results were aberrant and were persuaded by the pharmaceutical company who had sponsored the study not to publish. He said, "I suspect this as is common now as it ever was".
He also told the committed that opinion leaders can be paid in the region of £5,000 for an hour`s talk about a drug they have no experience of using, and their influence can have a big impact on practice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/22/business/22DRUG.html

My point was that the smallpox vaccine did not eradicate smallpox, merely that naturally immunity was the factor- since the vaccine was ineffective.

Right back at ya!

It would have been easier just directing me to the source for the majority (http://www.cbr.cam.ac.uk/pdf/Roslyng_Paper.pdf)of your post. I do tend to follow them up, and its saves you quote mining to avoid the authors request not to lift without permission.

It also saves you looking like a pratt by directly contradicting yourself from earlier in the thread:
...For example look at Vioxx, Vioxx was a NSAID(nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory) drug which promised none of the other side affects associated with these types of drugs- namely gastrointestinal damage which can put up to 12,000 people into hospital and cause up to 2,500 deaths annually.
Vioxx in the US alone killed between 100,000 and 300,000 depending on which figures you read. In the US, the third largest killer is ADR(about a 100,000 per year). Gonnae make your mind up about which piece of info you want to base your argument on?


Just for the avoidance of doubt, I am not, nor never have, said that the pharma industry is infallible. You seem to take the evidence of the existence of unethical behaviour as the basis of a distrust of all medicine. What a ludicrous stance to take. Do you not trust butchers because some dont have good hygiene and kill people with e-coli? Do you refuse to patronise pubs because some dont clean their pipes properly.

What does happen is that ultimately the science and evidence comes through in the end, because it is empirical and peer reviewed.


My point was that the smallpox vaccine did not eradicate smallpox, merely that naturally immunity was the factor- since the vaccine was ineffective.
The small pox vaccine was ineffective? Really. so it just died out all on its own, and it was purely co-incidental that it followed mass vaccination. I truly despair.

[barcahibs]

Does anyone else find that this thread makes you wonder about democracy... :greengrin

[paullotion]

It would have been easier just directing me to the source for the majority of your post. I do tend to follow them up, and its saves you quote mining to avoid the authors request not to lift without permission.

I did post the source, see post 39, as for the US committee- you can find that online.



It also saves you looking like a pratt by directly contradicting yourself from earlier in the thread:

.For example look at Vioxx, Vioxx was a NSAID(nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory) drug which promised none of the other side affects associated with these types of drugs- namely gastrointestinal damage which can put up to 12,000 people into hospital and cause up to 2,500 deaths annually.

Vioxx in the US alone killed between 100,000 and 300,000 depending on which figures you read. In the US, the third largest killer is ADR(about a 100,000 per year).

I suggest you re-read the posts, Vioxx did not cause gastrointestinal damage, those were the drugs that preceded Vioxx. Vioxx caused the body to increase blood clots, two different drugs, two different figures. Also the 12,000 and 2,500 figures were for the UK.


Just for the avoidance of doubt, I am not, nor never have, said that the pharma industry is infallible. You seem to take the evidence of the existence of unethical behaviour as the basis of a distrust of all medicine. What a ludicrous stance to take. Do you not trust butchers because some dont have good hygiene and kill people with e-coli? Do you refuse to patronise pubs because some dont clean their pipes properly.

I have never said that all medicine is bad, drugs/vaccine`s have there place- they should be a part of healthcare. If things go wrong there should be an enquiry, and if it is found that they covered up data that would have put their drug/vaccine in an unfavourable light, and patients died because they withheld that data- they should face charges.



What does happen is that ultimately the science and evidence comes through in the end, because it is empirical and peer reviewed.

If science is allowed to do what it is supposed to do, regardless of the implications, then i would agree with you.


The small pox vaccine was ineffective? Really. so it just died out all on its own, and it was purely co-incidental that it followed mass vaccination. I truly despair.

Correct, much like the Bubonic plague, the Black death and many others that killed millions and then just dies out, long before vaccines came into being.

[HibeeB]

Does anyone else find that this thread makes you wonder about democracy... :greengrin

Democracy is flawed.

Sometimes bad people bend democracy for their own ends.

Democracy is bad.

[Twa Cairpets]

...Correct, much like the Bubonic plague, the Black death and many others that killed millions and then just dies out, long before vaccines came into being.

And, I suspect, here endeth the thread.

If you do not believe that vaccination works the way that virtually every healthcare professional, scientist, developer and organisation has studied, re-examined and proven beyond doubt for decades, then there is little point discussing anything else around it. the fundamental basis from which you base all your arguments is so fundamentally wrong, that its pointless debating it. It's like trying to discuss planetary physics with a flat-earther.

I re-iterate my view that your opinion is one that is truly dangerous, and morally repugnant. If you persuade one person not to vaccinate their children, you personally bear the full responsibility if they fall ill. If you have or ever have kids, and they fall ill or worse for a disease they could have been protected from through a vaccine that you decided against administering, the responsibility is fully, completely and exclusively yours. I hope for your sake it doesnt happen, because if it was me, I couldnt stand the guilt.

[Twa Cairpets]

I haven't seen the poster paullotion around for a while, but just had a look through this thread and wondered what his opinion is of the death from measles in Wales and the hundreds of children who have been seriously ill as a result of the type of utter guff that was spouted by him back in 2010?

[RyeSloan]

I haven't seen the poster paullotion around for a while, but just had a look through this thread and wondered what his opinion is of the death from measles in Wales and the hundreds of children who have been seriously ill as a result of the type of utter guff that was spouted by him back in 2010?

Indeed and you wonder just what Mr Wakefield is thinking as well.....

[IndieHibby]

My first reading of this thread. I'm torn between despair and laughter. But mainly despair.

There were benefits to the pre-1960's social attitude of deference to authority/listen to your elders/know your place etc etc - it kept brain-dead people like paullotion from causing any harm.

Even then, in the absence of the Internet, you would have limited damage caused by their self-important mischief.

Now, however, people source much of their info from the Internet and people with these 'sub-culture'/anti-authority personality traits are truly dangerous.

I see it more and more - "I'm going to reject the advice of trained professionals/basic common sense because someone I met in the pub said they had a ***insert freak experience which contradicts received wisdom***"

So, as I am entitled to my opinion, and I am free to express it, here goes:

Paullotion - you are not informed enough (or are just plain lazy) to contradict the weight of medical evidence supporting vaccinations (or anything else, for that matter). If you have a decent bone in your body you will NEVER offer your 'advice'/opinion to anyone who may be at risk of believing you and making a poor decision based on it.

Please limit yourself to debating with people who clearly know more about it than you do.

Otherwise, you might actually end up vicariously responsible for someone's death.

That matters more than your ego.

[tcm1875]

My first reading of this thread. I'm torn between despair and laughter. But mainly despair.

There were benefits to the pre-1960's social attitude of deference to authority/listen to your elders/know your place etc etc - it kept brain-dead people like paullotion from causing any harm.

Even then, in the absence of the Internet, you would have limited damage caused by their self-important mischief.

Now, however, people source much of their info from the Internet and people with these 'sub-culture'/anti-authority personality traits are truly dangerous.

I see it more and more - "I'm going to reject the advice of trained professionals/basic common sense because someone I met in the pub said they had a ***insert freak experience which contradicts received wisdom***"

So, as I am entitled to my opinion, and I am free to express it, here goes:

Paullotion - you are not informed enough (or are just plain lazy) to contradict the weight of medical evidence supporting vaccinations (or anything else, for that matter). If you have a decent bone in your body you will NEVER offer your 'advice'/opinion to anyone who may be at risk of believing you and making a poor decision based on it.

Please limit yourself to debating with people who clearly know more about it than you do.

Otherwise, you might actually end up vicariously responsible for someone's death.

That matters more than your ego.



Explain please?

[tcm1875]

I would suggest reading the attached before making any further defence of Wakefield.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf


I suggest you read the following.......

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wakefield_confirmations.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/wakefields-science-proven-valid-again-in-new-study-that-replicates-findings.html

[Twa Cairpets]

I suggest you read the following.......

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wakefield_confirmations.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/wakefields-science-proven-valid-again-in-new-study-that-replicates-findings.html

I suggest in return that you actually read the the links you cut-and-paste to if you are going to use them to support your stance.

If you're going to use traded references as a means of argument, it comes down to what organisation you think is more trustworthy in their research and ability to objectively analyse information. We have on one side the GMC, on the other, the collective intellectual might of the Daily Mail, "The Whale" website and "Age of Autism".

[Hibs Class]

I suggest you read the following.......

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wakefield_confirmations.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/wakefields-science-proven-valid-again-in-new-study-that-replicates-findings.html

Taking the study referenced in your middle link, one of the researchers noted that the research indicated the presence of the measles virus in the intestines of children, but explicitly stated that nothing had been done to demonstrate that the virus caused autism or that there was any link with the vaccination. This scientist seemed frustrated that the Wakefield myth was being wrongly perpetuated using this research.

http://www.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2006/Wake_Forest_Researcher_Warns_Against_Making_Connec tion_Between_Presence_of_Measles_Virus_and_Autism. htm

I completely agree that anyone with an agenda to pursue can find supporting evidence for their argument somewhere on the internet. However, it is irrefutable that Wakefield was robustly and obectively investigated and his research methods and conclusions discredited. Unfortunately, his irresponsibility and the resulting publicity contributed to a period where parents opted out of the vaccination and the current South Wales outbreak was an inevitability.

[lord bunberry]

Taking the study referenced in your middle link, one of the researchers noted that the research indicated the presence of the measles virus in the intestines of children, but explicitly stated that nothing had been done to demonstrate that the virus caused autism or that there was any link with the vaccination. This scientist seemed frustrated that the Wakefield myth was being wrongly perpetuated using this research.

http://www.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2006/Wake_Forest_Researcher_Warns_Against_Making_Connec tion_Between_Presence_of_Measles_Virus_and_Autism. htm

I completely agree that anyone with an agenda to pursue can find supporting evidence for their argument somewhere on the internet. However, it is irrefutable that Wakefield was robustly and obectively investigated and his research methods and conclusions discredited. Unfortunately, his irresponsibility and the resulting publicity contributed to a period where parents opted out of the vaccination and the current South Wales outbreak was an inevitability.

His irresponsibility has also lead to the death of children in other parts of the uk, he is lucky to have escaped a prison sentence imo

[Beefster]

I suggest you read the following.......

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/wakefield_confirmations.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/wakefields-science-proven-valid-again-in-new-study-that-replicates-findings.html

'The Whale', 'The Daily Mail' and 'The Age of Autism'? I'm tempted just to post 14 lines of "hahahahaha" and "fruit loops" but I'll refrain.

Edit: Oooh, look - proof that homeopathy works. Take that Ben Goldacre.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-184501/Proof-homeopathy-works.html

[Twa Cairpets]

'The Whale', 'The Daily Mail' and 'The Age of Autism'? I'm tempted just to post 14 lines of "hahahahaha" and "fruit loops" but I'll refrain.

Edit: Oooh, look - proof that homeopathy works. Take that Ben Goldacre.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-184501/Proof-homeopathy-works.html

When I was a student many moons ago, my interest in skeptical thinking and scientific reporting was first piqued through writing my dissertation on the scientific controversy surrounding the discovery of "polywater" in ultra fine capillary tubes. This was reportedly a polymeric form of water that spawned a concern that it could "seed" all water on the planet and kill us all.

It turned out that it was down to micro impurities in the silica, but the controversy surrounding it was fantastic.

If this happened today, my bet would be it would be "Mutant Water Threat to Mankind, claim Scientist" in the Daily Mail before disappearing in a flood of actual evidence.

[tcm1875]

I suggest in return that you actually read the the links you cut-and-paste to if you are going to use them to support your stance.

If you're going to use traded references as a means of argument, it comes down to what organisation you think is more trustworthy in their research and ability to objectively analyse information. We have on one side the GMC, on the other, the collective intellectual might of the Daily Mail, "The Whale" website and "Age of Autism".

I tend to look at both sides of the story and come to my own conclusion taking into account personal experience.

The GMC were never going to come to any other verdict.

[tcm1875]

His irresponsibility has also lead to the death of children in other parts of the uk, he is lucky to have escaped a prison sentence imo

Care to post proof of how many unvaccinated kids have died due to his irresponsibility. I would be interested to read this.

[tcm1875]

Taking the study referenced in your middle link, one of the researchers noted that the research indicated the presence of the measles virus in the intestines of children, but explicitly stated that nothing had been done to demonstrate that the virus caused autism or that there was any link with the vaccination. This scientist seemed frustrated that the Wakefield myth was being wrongly perpetuated using this research.

http://www.wakehealth.edu/News-Releases/2006/Wake_Forest_Researcher_Warns_Against_Making_Connec tion_Between_Presence_of_Measles_Virus_and_Autism. htm

I completely agree that anyone with an agenda to pursue can find supporting evidence for their argument somewhere on the internet. However, it is irrefutable that Wakefield was robustly and obectively investigated and his research methods and conclusions discredited. Unfortunately, his irresponsibility and the resulting publicity contributed to a period where parents opted out of the vaccination and the current South Wales outbreak was an inevitability.

Very interesting article, delighted by the part below.... Hope more focus is on healing the bowel... . Still believe it shows similar results.

Walker said that relieving the bowel discomfort has been shown to improve other conditions associated with autism, such as cognition and the ability to learn. “There’s case after case where kids improved cognitively, behaviorally and biomedically when you treat the bowel disease. There is a great improvement from better nutrition alone. You see improvements in their overall condition.”

[Beefster]

Very interesting article, delighted by the part below.... Hope more focus is on healing the bowel... . Still believe it shows similar results.

Walker said that relieving the bowel discomfort has been shown to improve other conditions associated with autism, such as cognition and the ability to learn. “There’s case after case where kids improved cognitively, behaviorally and biomedically when you treat the bowel disease. There is a great improvement from better nutrition alone. You see improvements in their overall condition.”

That is pretty much the same with all bowel conditions. Kids with Crohn's Disease/Ulcerative Colitis/Coeliac Disease etc whose disease is under control, whether it's through medication, surgery or dietary changes, generally do better than kids where the disease isn't under control. They get better nutrition and they aren't in constant pain so are in a better place entirely.

[DaveF]

That is pretty much the same with all bowel conditions. Kids with Crohn's Disease/Ulcerative Colitis/Coeliac Disease etc whose disease is under control, whether it's through medication, surgery or dietary changes, generally do better than kids where the disease isn't under control. They get better nutrition and they aren't in constant pain so are in a better place entirely.

Havng 2 kids with Coeliac I agree totally. We had a hard time with our oldest when he was young but just thought he was a monumental whinger :greengrin until he was diagnosed. Subsequent kids were tested early on and diagnosis of our daughter allowed for better management of the condition.

[Twa Cairpets]

I tend to look at both sides of the story and come to my own conclusion taking into account personal experience.

The GMC were never going to come to any other verdict.

Whereas your links were entirely disinterested? Gies a break.

It comes down to evidence. You can see evidence as being on thing, but when the evidence - not belief, not anecdote, not "personal experience" - of the relevant experts in the field come down virtually unanimously against Wakefield, you're being blind to the truth.

Also, your links are dubious to say the least. Three of the supposed "replications" of Wakefields theory are co-authored by - can you guess? Yes that right, Wakefield!

Like paullotion before you, i find your stance downright dangerous and utterly repugnant. Any person you ever speak to about this who decided on the back of your "evidence" not to vaccinate directly increases the opportunity for people to fall ill. If they do, it is - directly and indisputably - down to you. Maybe you want to pop down to Swansea and see how the people down there view their Daily Mail hysteria driven decisions now?

[tcm1875]

Whereas your links were entirely disinterested? Gies a break.

It comes down to evidence. You can see evidence as being on thing, but when the evidence - not belief, not anecdote, not "personal experience" - of the relevant experts in the field come down virtually unanimously against Wakefield, you're being blind to the truth.

Also, your links are dubious to say the least. Three of the supposed "replications" of Wakefields theory are co-authored by - can you guess? Yes that right, Wakefield!

Like paullotion before you, i find your stance downright dangerous and utterly repugnant. Any person you ever speak to about this who decided on the back of your "evidence" not to vaccinate directly increases the opportunity for people to fall ill. If they do, it is - directly and indisputably - down to you. Maybe you want to pop down to Swansea and see how the people down there view their Daily Mail hysteria driven decisions now?

And who is responsible for any child injured by vaccine damage? Will you take responsibility?

[Twa Cairpets]

And who is responsible for any child injured by vaccine damage? Will you take responsibility?

It is a matter of odds. I stress I'm making numbers up here for illustration, I don't have the figures to hand.

Vaccine A prevents 1 child in 10,000 dying from the disease.
Vaccine A prevents 1 child in 50 contracting the disease, with repercussions ranging form nothing to serious illness.
Vaccine A causes 1 child in 1,000,000 to have a serious adverse reaction ranging from long term illness to death.

So yes, armed with similar stats for measles or for any vaccine, I would feel morally ok in my position.

If you offer me a choice for my kids, I go with the best option every time, especially when there is a wider benefit to others in society through the effect of herd immunity and possible future eradication a la smallpox avoiding the need to immunise at all.

I had measles a a child. I recall it being seriously not fun.

[tcm1875]

It is a matter of odds. I stress I'm making numbers up here for illustration, I don't have the figures to hand.

Vaccine A prevents 1 child in 10,000 dying from the disease.
Vaccine A prevents 1 child in 50 contracting the disease, with repercussions ranging form nothing to serious illness.
Vaccine A causes 1 child in 1,000,000 to have a serious adverse reaction ranging from long term illness to death.

So yes, armed with similar stats for measles or for any vaccine, I would feel morally ok in my position.

If you offer me a choice for my kids, I go with the best option every time, especially when there is a wider benefit to others in society through the effect of herd immunity and possible future eradication a la smallpox avoiding the need to immunise at all.

I had measles a a child. I recall it being seriously not fun.



I apologise if I'm wrong here. From your figures. Are you saying you are morally ok with the 1 in 1,000,000 being your child?

As far as I know autism is 1 in 50 at the moment, again correct me if I'm wrong. If vaccines do cause autism as an Italian court admitted happened in a case recently. Is 1 in 50 acceptable odds? If not what would be acceptable odds to you?

Were you immunised against measles?

Regarding Swansea outbreak. Has there been any confirmed deaths from measles? Were they vaccinated or un vaccinated?

Just for the record from your previous post, I would never encourage anyone to vaccinate or not vaccinate.

[Twa Cairpets]

I apologise if I'm wrong here. From your figures. Are you saying you are morally ok with the 1 in 1,000,000 being your child?

As far as I know autism is 1 in 50 at the moment, again correct me if I'm wrong. If vaccines do cause autism as an Italian court admitted happened in a case recently. Is 1 in 50 acceptable odds? If not what would be acceptable odds to you?

Were you immunised against measles?

Regarding Swansea outbreak. Has there been any confirmed deaths from measles? Were they vaccinated or un vaccinated?

Just for the record from your previous post, I would never encourage anyone to vaccinate or not vaccinate.

Yes. Of course.
Its like saying: "Here are two doors. Behind door #1, one in ten thousand will die, behind door #2, one in a million will die. Which door would you like to send your child through". Erm. No brainer.

As for the rest of your post I haven't time to research just now, but I will.
As for my vaccination, no idea. But I did get measles, mumps and German measles. I recall how ill I felt with the last of these in particular.

[lord bunberry]

Care to post proof of how many unvaccinated kids have died due to his irresponsibility. I would be interested to read this.

A quick search on the internet showed there was a 13 year old boy in 2006 and another child in 2008 who died from measles both were unvaccinated
But my post was more in relation to a documentary i watched about whooping cough where young babies had died from the illness. The babies had caught the disease from older unvaccinated children who's parents had been scared to get their kids vaccinated after the scare caused by Wakefield

[Hibs Class]

I apologise if I'm wrong here. From your figures. Are you saying you are morally ok with the 1 in 1,000,000 being your child?

As far as I know autism is 1 in 50 at the moment, again correct me if I'm wrong. If vaccines do cause autism as an Italian court admitted happened in a case recently. Is 1 in 50 acceptable odds? If not what would be acceptable odds to you?

Were you immunised against measles?

Regarding Swansea outbreak. Has there been any confirmed deaths from measles? Were they vaccinated or un vaccinated?

Just for the record from your previous post, I would never encourage anyone to vaccinate or not vaccinate.

What does the bit in bold mean. I'm reading it that for every 50 MMR vaccinations given one child will develop autism, but I cannot imagine that is the point you are making?

[RyeSloan]

I apologise if I'm wrong here. From your figures. Are you saying you are morally ok with the 1 in 1,000,000 being your child?

As far as I know autism is 1 in 50 at the moment, again correct me if I'm wrong. If vaccines do cause autism as an Italian court admitted happened in a case recently. Is 1 in 50 acceptable odds? If not what would be acceptable odds to you?

Were you immunised against measles?

Regarding Swansea outbreak. Has there been any confirmed deaths from measles? Were they vaccinated or un vaccinated?

Just for the record from your previous post, I would never encourage anyone to vaccinate or not vaccinate.

I'm not aware of courts 'admiting' anything...surely they study the cases presented and come to conclusions. Also I'm not sure Italian courts are a bastion of medical knowledge.

Even if this Italian court case did confirm that in this instance a vaccine administered to the child had caused autism that hardly translates into 1 in 50 odds.

In any case you seem to be confusing the matter....you posted links to support Wakefields position. Let me ask you two straight questions:

Are you saying you support Wakefields position?

Are you suggesting the current vaccination programme in the UK is the main driver for the current levels of Autism?

[tcm1875]

What does the bit in bold mean. I'm reading it that for every 50 MMR vaccinations given one child will develop autism, but I cannot imagine that is the point you are making?

1 in 50 kids have a form of autism....... This is the last figure I seen. May be incorrect.

[Beefster]

1 in 50 kids have a form of autism....... This is the last figure I seen. May be incorrect.

But that's no relevance to the debate about MMR and autism unless you're arguing that the MMR vaccine is the sole cause of autism?

[tcm1875]

But that's no relevance to the debate about MMR and autism unless you're arguing that the MMR vaccine is the sole cause of autism?

It was in relation to a conversation I was having with another poster.......

[Beefster]

It was in relation to a conversation I was having with another poster.......

Yes, in which you asked if 1 in 50 was acceptable odds thereby implying that the MMR vaccine is the reason that 1 in 50 children are diagnosed as having autism (as Hibs Class already pointed out).

[tcm1875]

Yes, in which you asked if 1 in 50 was acceptable odds thereby implying that the MMR vaccine is the reason that 1 in 50 children are diagnosed as having autism (as Hibs Class already pointed out).

I see what you mean.......
I was asking if that was acceptable odds if proven that vaccines cause autism.

[Hibs Class]

I see what you mean.......
I was asking if that was acceptable odds if proven that vaccines cause autism.
I don't think they would be acceptable odds, but it's a non-question as the vaccine doesn't cause autism. Sure, there are plenty of folk who claim it does, and that takes us right back to Wakefield because that is the lie that he spread, although he never suggested it was the sole cause. The whole point is that there would not have been any debate about MMR causing autism had he not spread his mis-information, and this thread would have never existed.

[Twa Cairpets]

I see what you mean.......
I was asking if that was acceptable odds if proven that vaccines cause autism.

Well there's a loaded question.

If it was proven to be the case, then no, it wouldn't be acceptable because the risks outweigh the benefit. However, and it is a very big however, the proof that this is the case is non-existent so the question is moot.

From what I have found from a brief root around, the actual figure for disorders across the spectrum from mild Apsergers Syndrome to extreme Autism is about 1.3-1.7%. Most sources seem to indicate that the rise in cases is due to improved and more accurate diagnosis rather than an actual increase in incidence.

There are no studies of any credibility that I can find that link autism to vaccinations. I discount Wakefield or Wakefield related articles as credible. I havent read the evidenc efor a couple of years, but am entirely confident that his findings were entirely bogus, contrived and scientifically invalid.

There are endless studies from organisations across the globe that suggest vaccination is a life saver millions of times over (unless of course you think UNICEF and the WHO are shills for big pharma).

[tcm1875]

Well there's a loaded question.

If it was proven to be the case, then no, it wouldn't be acceptable because the risks outweigh the benefit. However, and it is a very big however, the proof that this is the case is non-existent so the question is moot.

From what I have found from a brief root around, the actual figure for disorders across the spectrum from mild Apsergers Syndrome to extreme Autism is about 1.3-1.7%. Most sources seem to indicate that the rise in cases is due to improved and more accurate diagnosis rather than an actual increase in incidence.

There are no studies of any credibility that I can find that link autism to vaccinations. I discount Wakefield or Wakefield related articles as credible. I havent read the evidenc efor a couple of years, but am entirely confident that his findings were entirely bogus, contrived and scientifically invalid.

There are endless studies from organisations across the globe that suggest vaccination is a life saver millions of times over (unless of course you think UNICEF and the WHO are shills for big pharma).

I was trying to understand what you thought were acceptable odds....... For me 1 in 1,000,000 is not acceptable odds if the 1 is my child. I'll take my chances with measles every time.
You had measles and your still here.
There's plenty info on governments paying out millions to vaccine damaged children.

These parents know to well the damage vaccines caused to their children.

http://followingvaccinations.com/

Injecting known neuro toxins directly into the body/blood does not prevent illness.......

[Twa Cairpets]

I was trying to understand what you thought were acceptable odds....... For me 1 in 1,000,000 is not acceptable odds if the 1 is my child. I'll take my chances with measles every time.
You had measles and your still here.
There's plenty info on governments paying out millions to vaccine damaged children.

These parents know to well the damage vaccines caused to their children.

http://followingvaccinations.com/

Injecting known neuro toxins directly into the body/blood does not prevent illness.......

You don't understand risk. If there is a choice between two options - as in to vaccinate or not vaccinate - and one has a greater risk than the other, then you go with the lower risk. Your comment about my measles is so stupid as to hardly warrant mention, but there you go.

Your link: Correlation is not causation. The internet opinions of upset, desperate but medically uninformed parents are, from an evidential point of view, worthless.

Are you now saying vaccines don't work?

[Beefster]

I was trying to understand what you thought were acceptable odds....... For me 1 in 1,000,000 is not acceptable odds if the 1 is my child. I'll take my chances with measles every time.
You had measles and your still here.

If the risk of MMR causing damage were 1 in 100,000, never mind 1 in 1,000,000, it would be substantially safer than the risk of complications or death from measles. Your child would be at more risk without the vaccine.

I've been in a bad car crash and I'm still here. I recommend that folk take all possible action to avoid car crashes though.

As TC says, it's coming across that you don't really understand risk and/or probability.

[tcm1875]

If the risk of MMR causing damage were 1 in 100,000, never mind 1 in 1,000,000, it would be substantially safer than the risk of complications or death from measles. Your child would be at more risk without the vaccine.

I've been in a bad car crash and I'm still here. I recommend that folk take all possible action to avoid car crashes though.

As TC says, it's coming across that you don't really understand risk and/or probability.


Yes i do understand risk, you seem to be saying that i should accept the same risk that you are willing to accept.

For me personally there is a greater risk from vaccines, a risk i'm not willing to accept. I don't believe that injecting known neuro toxins directly into the body and bypassing the bodies natural defense system prevents disease. If you are aware that it does and can provide the evidence then i would be interested to read it.

The amount of very serious side effects being experienced and the payouts from various governments to vaccine damaged children is proof that vaccines are not safe. (to me anyway, feel free to shoot me down though). £3.5million in the uk since 1997. You and other posters seem to be ok with this as long as its within a certain criteria. When its your child it makes all the difference in the world.

Measles is not the disease it used to be and, like your earlier comments on bowel disease, severe complications can be avoided with the correct supportive care. I personally educate myself on this supportive care and would encourage others to do the same, whether immunised or not.......

Have there been any confirmed severe complications from the Swansea outbreak? It would be interesting to know how many who have measles have already been immunised. I'm sure i read a report that an outbreak of mumps in America over 70% had already been adequately immunised. Rough maths reveals thats over double the rate of the un-vaccinated. Hmmmm.......

[Twa Cairpets]

Yes i do understand risk, you seem to be saying that i should accept the same risk that you are willing to accept.

For me personally there is a greater risk from vaccines, a risk i'm not willing to accept. I don't believe that injecting known neuro toxins directly into the body and bypassing the bodies natural defense system prevents disease. If you are aware that it does and can provide the evidence then i would be interested to read it.

The amount of very serious side effects being experienced and the payouts from various governments to vaccine damaged children is proof that vaccines are not safe. (to me anyway, feel free to shoot me down though). £3.5million in the uk since 1997. You and other posters seem to be ok with this as long as its within a certain criteria. When its your child it makes all the difference in the world.

Measles is not the disease it used to be and, like your earlier comments on bowel disease, severe complications can be avoided with the correct supportive care. I personally educate myself on this supportive care and would encourage others to do the same, whether immunised or not.......

Have there been any confirmed severe complications from the Swansea outbreak? It would be interesting to know how many who have measles have already been immunised. I'm sure i read a report that an outbreak of mumps in America over 70% had already been adequately immunised. Rough maths reveals thats over double the rate of the un-vaccinated. Hmmmm.......

CDC info on protection after vaccination: http://www.cdc.gov/mumps/outbreaks/outbreak-patient-qa.html.

What "herd immunity" means. http://www.vaccinestoday.eu/vaccines/what-is-herd-immunity/

"Measles is not the disease it used to be". You're not big on irony, are you? Maybe you don't consider 18 deaths per hour globally as being a bit on the benign side, but that's what the WHO say. Almost all of these in countries without a vaccination programme. To quote yourself "hmmmm"

I would very strongly recommend you read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. You are entitled to your opinions, but your opinions are based on poor understanding and heresay, not - as far as I can see - any actual evidence.

3.5million on govt payouts -ill take your word for it, but at a payout of 120k per case according to thenclim website on .gov, that's 2 incidents per year. Not exactly an epidemic of claims.

I re-iterate. Your views aren't just passively daft, they are actively dangerous.

[lyonhibs]

Yes i do understand risk, you seem to be saying that i should accept the same risk that you are willing to accept.

For me personally there is a greater risk from vaccines, a risk i'm not willing to accept. I don't believe that injecting known neuro toxins directly into the body and bypassing the bodies natural defense system prevents disease. If you are aware that it does and can provide the evidence then i would be interested to read it.

The amount of very serious side effects being experienced and the payouts from various governments to vaccine damaged children is proof that vaccines are not safe. (to me anyway, feel free to shoot me down though). £3.5million in the uk since 1997. You and other posters seem to be ok with this as long as its within a certain criteria. When its your child it makes all the difference in the world.

Measles is not the disease it used to be and, like your earlier comments on bowel disease, severe complications can be avoided with the correct supportive care. I personally educate myself on this supportive care and would encourage others to do the same, whether immunised or not.......

Have there been any confirmed severe complications from the Swansea outbreak? It would be interesting to know how many who have measles have already been immunised. I'm sure i read a report that an outbreak of mumps in America over 70% had already been adequately immunised. Rough maths reveals thats over double the rate of the un-vaccinated. Hmmmm.......

What in the name of God do you mean "Measles isn't the disease it used to be" FFS. It's not like a clapped out racehorse that used to be Red Rum.

It's a deadly, daily killer in countries across the world that almost all - as TC says - don't have a immunisation programme. Since Victorian times, the UK has - more or less - eradicated/controlled a list of really rather nasty diseases through medical advances and widespread childhood immunisation programmes. That you - for your own reasons - have decided to opt out of these (were you given your jabs as a bairn out of interest?) for your children (I assume you have kids) is one thing, but it does not avoid the global fact that the health of this nation is vastly improved vs. 100 years ago, down to a variety of factor one of which is indubitably advances in the development and distribution of innoculations.

[tcm1875]

What in the name of God do you mean "Measles isn't the disease it used to be" FFS. It's not like a clapped out racehorse that used to be Red Rum.

It's a deadly, daily killer in countries across the world that almost all - as TC says - don't have a immunisation programme. Since Victorian times, the UK has - more or less - eradicated/controlled a list of really rather nasty diseases through medical advances and widespread childhood immunisation programmes. That you - for your own reasons - have decided to opt out of these (were you given your jabs as a bairn out of interest?) for your children (I assume you have kids) is one thing, but it does not avoid the global fact that the health of this nation is vastly improved vs. 100 years ago, down to a variety of factor one of which is indubitably advances in the development and distribution of innoculations.

From the British Medical Journal
Measles EpidemicANNOTATIONS
Measles epidemic [page 354]
Br Med J 1959;1:351.2 (Published 07 February 1959) (http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/175844/field_highwire_article_pdf/0.pdf)
In the first three weeks of this year about 41,000 cases of measles were recorded in England and Wales. This is well above the corresponding figures of the last two years – namely, about 9,000 in 1958 and 28,000 in 1957 – though it is below the highest levels reached in the last nine years. To give some idea of the main features of the disease as it appears today and of how it is best treated, we invited some general practitioners to write short reports on the cases they have seen in their practices recently.These appear at p.380 (extracts from this page follow this article). It is interesting to note, first, that the distribution of the disease is rather patchy at present. It has not yet reached the areas where two of these doctors practise (in South Scotland and Cornwall), and other areas are known to be free of the disease so far. On the other hand, in Kent it is reported to have arrived in time to put the children to bed over Christmas. These writers agree that measles is nowadays normally a mild infection, and they rarely have occasion to give prophylactic gamma globulin.As to the treatment of the disease and its complications, the emphasis naturally varies from one practice to another. Amount of bed-rest, when to administer a sulphonamide or antibiotic, the use of analgesics and linctuses – all these may still be debatable problems in the treatment of what is said to be the commonest disease in the world. But there is probably much in the opinion which one of the writers expresses: “It is the frequent visiting by the interested clinician and not the therapy which produces the good results.”
_*_*_*_*_*_*VITAL STATISTICS

MEASLES
REPORTS FROM GENERAL PRACTITIONERS

Br Med J 1959;1:380 (Published 07 February 1959) (http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/177218/field_highwire_article_pdf/0.pdf)
EXTRACTS [pages 380-381]

We are much indebted to the general practitioners whose names appear below for the following notes on the present outbreak of measles.Dr G. I. WATSON (Peaslake, Surrey) writes:Measles was introduced just before Christmas by a child from Petworth …….Treatment of Attack. – No drugs are given for either the fever or the cough; if pressed, I dispense mist. salin. B.N.F. as a placebo. Glutethimide 125 mg. may be given in the afternoon if the child is restless when the rash develops; 250 mg. in single or divided doses at bedtime ensures a good night’s sleep in spite of coughing. I encourage a warm humid atmosphere in the room by various methods: some electric fires and most electric toasters allow an open pan of water to rest on top; an electric kettle blows off too much steam to be kept on for more than short periods. Parents, conscious of the need to darken the room and to forbid reading, may carry this to an unnecessary extreme, starting even before the rash appears. To save a mother some demands, the wireless is a boon to children in darkened rooms. They are allowed up when the rash fades from the abdomen-usually the fourth or fifth day-and may go outside on the next fine day. Apart from fruit to eat, solid food is avoided on the day the rash is appearing; fruit drinks or soups are all they appear to want.Complications. – So far few complications have arisen. Four cases of otitis media occurred in the first 25 children, but only one had pain. No case of pneumonia has occurred, but one child had grossly abnormal signs in the chest for a few days after the fever subsided, uninfluenced by oral penicillin. One girl had a tear-duct infection and another an undue blepharitis. Of three adult males with the disease, two have been more severely affected than any of the children.Dr. R. E. HOPE SIMPSON (Cirencester, Glos) writes:We make no attempt to prevent the spread of measles, and would only use gamma globulin to mitigate the severity of the disease in the case of the exposure of a susceptible adult or child who is already severely debilitated. Bed rest, for seven davs for moderate and severe cases and of five to six days in mild cases, seems to cut down the incidence of such complications as secondary bacterial otitis media and bronchopneumonia. We have not been impressed by the prophylactic or therapeutic use of antibiotics and sulphonamides in the first week of the disease. As soon as the patient is out of bed we allow him out of doors almost regardless of the weather. Otitis Media and Bronchopneumonia.-These conditions often appear so early, sometimes even before the rash, that in such cases one can only conclude that the responsible agent is the virus itself. Despite their initial alarming severity, they tend to resolve spontaneously, and treatment apart from first principles seems useless. When, on the other hand, otitis media or bronchopneumonia comes on after the subsidence of the initial symptoms of measles, it is probably due to a secondary bacterial invader, and we find antibiotics or sulphonamides useful…..MILD AILMENTDr. JOHN FRY (Beckenham, Kent) writes:The expected biennial epidemic of measles appeared in this region in early December, 1958, just in time to put many youngsters to bed over Christmas. To date there have been close on 150 cases in the practice, and the numbers are now steadily decreasing. Like previous epidemics, the primary cases have been chiefly in the 5- and 6-year-olds, with secondary cases in their younger siblings. No special features havebeen noted in this relatively mild epidemic. It has been mild because complications have occurred in only four children. One little girl aged 2 suffered from a lobular pneumonia, and three others developed acute otitis media following their measles. In the majority of children the whole episode has been well and truly over in a week, from the prodromal phase to the disappearance of the rash, and many mothers have remarked ”how much good the attack has done their children,” as they seem so much better after the measles.A family doctor’s approach to the management of measles is essentially a personal and individual matter, based on the personal experiences of the doctor and the individual character and background of the child and the family. In this practice measles is considered as a relatively mild and inevitable childhood ailment that is best encountered any time from 3 to 7 years of age. Over the past 10 years there have been few serious complications at any age, and all children have made complete recoveries. As a result of this reasoning no special attempts have been made at prevention even in young infants in whom the disease has not been found to be especially serious.

[IndieHibby]

Explain please? If you convince someone, based on your warped understanding of the world, not to have a vaccination (and I think, but am not sure, you have implied you have failed to get your own children vaccinated?) do you not see how you could bear some indirect responsibility for the spread of the disease? Do you realise what a disease like measles can do to immuno-suppressed patients?
RE: post 95 - Are you trolling?

[IndieHibby]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/4/25/1366898611612/Measles_annual_Web.png

[tcm1875]

If you convince someone, based on your warped understanding of the world, not to have a vaccination (and I think, but am not sure, you have implied you have failed to get your own children vaccinated?) do you not see how you could bear some indirect responsibility for the spread of the disease? Do you realise what a disease like measles can do to immuno-suppressed patients?
RE: post 95 - Are you trolling?

So do you accept responsibility for the brain damaged children that vaccines are causing? If you don't, who does?

[tcm1875]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/4/25/1366898611612/Measles_annual_Web.png

There's plenty of information and graphs that show measles was already in decline before vaccines were introduced. Mainly due to better living conditions, cleaner water and better nutrition. Go and educate yourself.


Can you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

[Twa Cairpets]

There's plenty of information and graphs that show measles was already in decline before vaccines were introduced. Mainly due to better living conditions, cleaner water and better nutrition. Go and educate yourself.


Can you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

This is how vaccines are regulated and tested in the US http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/developmentapprovalprocess/biologicslicenseapplicationsblaprocess/ucm133096.htm

I take you believe vaccines don't work then, and its all some type of fraud?

[IndieHibby]

So do you accept responsibility for the brain damaged children that vaccines are causing? If you don't, who does? Why would I? I didn't convince anyone to take a vaccine. The evidence speaks for itself. You, however, may have prevented your children having a vaccine? And therefore also put herd immunity at risk. It's fairly simple.

[IndieHibby]

There's plenty of information and graphs that show measles was already in decline before vaccines were introduced. Mainly due to better living conditions, cleaner water and better nutrition. Go and educate yourself.

Stay classy, tcm. FYI, I have Science degree work in education. I won't take lectures from the likes of you on vaccine theory. You failed to answer my question - are you trolling?

[lyonhibs]

From the British Medical Journal
Measles EpidemicANNOTATIONS
Measles epidemic [page 354]
Br Med J 1959;1:351.2 (Published 07 February 1959) (http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/175844/field_highwire_article_pdf/0.pdf)
In the first three weeks of this year about 41,000 cases of measles were recorded in England and Wales. This is well above the corresponding figures of the last two years – namely, about 9,000 in 1958 and 28,000 in 1957 – though it is below the highest levels reached in the last nine years. To give some idea of the main features of the disease as it appears today and of how it is best treated, we invited some general practitioners to write short reports on the cases they have seen in their practices recently.These appear at p.380 (extracts from this page follow this article). It is interesting to note, first, that the distribution of the disease is rather patchy at present. It has not yet reached the areas where two of these doctors practise (in South Scotland and Cornwall), and other areas are known to be free of the disease so far. On the other hand, in Kent it is reported to have arrived in time to put the children to bed over Christmas. These writers agree that measles is nowadays normally a mild infection, and they rarely have occasion to give prophylactic gamma globulin.As to the treatment of the disease and its complications, the emphasis naturally varies from one practice to another. Amount of bed-rest, when to administer a sulphonamide or antibiotic, the use of analgesics and linctuses – all these may still be debatable problems in the treatment of what is said to be the commonest disease in the world. But there is probably much in the opinion which one of the writers expresses: “It is the frequent visiting by the interested clinician and not the therapy which produces the good results.”
_*_*_*_*_*_*
VITAL STATISTICS

MEASLES
REPORTS FROM GENERAL PRACTITIONERS

Br Med J 1959;1:380 (Published 07 February 1959) (http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/177218/field_highwire_article_pdf/0.pdf)
EXTRACTS [pages 380-381]

We are much indebted to the general practitioners whose names appear below for the following notes on the present outbreak of measles.Dr G. I. WATSON (Peaslake, Surrey) writes:Measles was introduced just before Christmas by a child from Petworth …….Treatment of Attack. – No drugs are given for either the fever or the cough; if pressed, I dispense mist. salin. B.N.F. as a placebo. Glutethimide 125 mg. may be given in the afternoon if the child is restless when the rash develops; 250 mg. in single or divided doses at bedtime ensures a good night’s sleep in spite of coughing. I encourage a warm humid atmosphere in the room by various methods: some electric fires and most electric toasters allow an open pan of water to rest on top; an electric kettle blows off too much steam to be kept on for more than short periods. Parents, conscious of the need to darken the room and to forbid reading, may carry this to an unnecessary extreme, starting even before the rash appears. To save a mother some demands, the wireless is a boon to children in darkened rooms. They are allowed up when the rash fades from the abdomen-usually the fourth or fifth day-and may go outside on the next fine day. Apart from fruit to eat, solid food is avoided on the day the rash is appearing; fruit drinks or soups are all they appear to want.Complications. – So far few complications have arisen. Four cases of otitis media occurred in the first 25 children, but only one had pain. No case of pneumonia has occurred, but one child had grossly abnormal signs in the chest for a few days after the fever subsided, uninfluenced by oral penicillin. One girl had a tear-duct infection and another an undue blepharitis. Of three adult males with the disease, two have been more severely affected than any of the children.Dr. R. E. HOPE SIMPSON (Cirencester, Glos) writes:We make no attempt to prevent the spread of measles, and would only use gamma globulin to mitigate the severity of the disease in the case of the exposure of a susceptible adult or child who is already severely debilitated. Bed rest, for seven davs for moderate and severe cases and of five to six days in mild cases, seems to cut down the incidence of such complications as secondary bacterial otitis media and bronchopneumonia. We have not been impressed by the prophylactic or therapeutic use of antibiotics and sulphonamides in the first week of the disease. As soon as the patient is out of bed we allow him out of doors almost regardless of the weather. Otitis Media and Bronchopneumonia.-These conditions often appear so early, sometimes even before the rash, that in such cases one can only conclude that the responsible agent is the virus itself. Despite their initial alarming severity, they tend to resolve spontaneously, and treatment apart from first principles seems useless. When, on the other hand, otitis media or bronchopneumonia comes on after the subsidence of the initial symptoms of measles, it is probably due to a secondary bacterial invader, and we find antibiotics or sulphonamides useful…..MILD AILMENTDr. JOHN FRY (Beckenham, Kent) writes:The expected biennial epidemic of measles appeared in this region in early December, 1958, just in time to put many youngsters to bed over Christmas. To date there have been close on 150 cases in the practice, and the numbers are now steadily decreasing. Like previous epidemics, the primary cases have been chiefly in the 5- and 6-year-olds, with secondary cases in their younger siblings. No special features havebeen noted in this relatively mild epidemic. It has been mild because complications have occurred in only four children. One little girl aged 2 suffered from a lobular pneumonia, and three others developed acute otitis media following their measles. In the majority of children the whole episode has been well and truly over in a week, from the prodromal phase to the disappearance of the rash, and many mothers have remarked ”how much good the attack has done their children,” as they seem so much better after the measles.A family doctor’s approach to the management of measles is essentially a personal and individual matter, based on the personal experiences of the doctor and the individual character and background of the child and the family. In this practice measles is considered as a relatively mild and inevitable childhood ailment that is best encountered any time from 3 to 7 years of age. Over the past 10 years there have been few serious complications at any age, and all children have made complete recoveries. As a result of this reasoning no special attempts have been made at prevention even in young infants in whom the disease has not been found to be especially serious.

What? I assume the above is related to evidence from the UK. Are we to view the worldwide infant deaths that measles cause as "mild and inevitable"?

[tcm1875]

This is how vaccines are regulated and tested in the US http://www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/developmentapprovalprocess/biologicslicenseapplicationsblaprocess/ucm133096.htm

I take you believe vaccines don't work then, and its all some type of fraud?


I never asked how they were regulated and tested.

This Ben Goldacre......?

http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_dru gs_they_prescribe.html

[IndieHibby]

:troll:

[Twa Cairpets]

I never asked how they were regulated and tested.

This Ben Goldacre......?

http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_dru gs_they_prescribe.html





Yes, that Ben Goldacre. The one who in your link explains that individuals and researchers can carry out trials and publish findings that are dubious because of publication bias, commercial pressures and basic fraud. I take it you haven't actually read the background to the Wakefield study?

The link you provide says nothing about vaccines, nothing about clinical effectiveness of vaccines, nothing about why your point of view has the teeniest, tiniest validity. You're trying to conflate evidence of undoubted deficiencies in the way medical research is published with doubt therefore being cast on ALL evidence backing the undoubted proven efficacy of vaccination. Looks to me like you've run out of any kind of valid argument and are clutching at any straw you care to find.

I'm delighted we agree that Goldacre is an acceptable source of information. I now suggest you go and read "Bad Science" by him, or at least the chapter concerning the MMR hoax and then come back on and apologise for your misunderstanding.

[RyeSloan]

Seems like the WHO is at the forefront of the global fraud that is vaccination programmes:

"Overwhelming evidence demonstrates the benefit of providing universal access to measles and rubella-containing vaccines. Globally, an estimated 548 000 children died of measles in 2000. By 2011, the global push to improve vaccine coverage resulted in a 71% reduction in deaths"

[Beefster]

I never asked how they were regulated and tested.

This Ben Goldacre......?

http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_dru gs_they_prescribe.html





Just out of curiosity, what's your views on homeopathy?

[tcm1875]

Just out of curiosity, what's your views on homeopathy?

I've only really used it for teething and it seemed work. Many parents swear by the powders if they are considered homeopathic. Other than that I would say its still based on treating symptoms.
Arnica cream is great for bruising also.......

[Twa Cairpets]

Just out of curiosity, what's your views on homeopathy?
:stirrer:

[tcm1875]

Yes, that Ben Goldacre. The one who in your link explains that individuals and researchers can carry out trials and publish findings that are dubious because of publication bias, commercial pressures and basic fraud. I take it you haven't actually read the background to the Wakefield study?

The link you provide says nothing about vaccines, nothing about clinical effectiveness of vaccines, nothing about why your point of view has the teeniest, tiniest validity. You're trying to conflate evidence of undoubted deficiencies in the way medical research is published with doubt therefore being cast on ALL evidence backing the undoubted proven efficacy of vaccination. Looks to me like you've run out of any kind of valid argument and are clutching at any straw you care to find.

I'm delighted we agree that Goldacre is an acceptable source of information. I now suggest you go and read "Bad Science" by him, or at least the chapter concerning the MMR hoax and then come back on and apologise for your misunderstanding.


It quite clearly does show that negative data about the flu vaccine was not published. If its not being published for the flu vaccine and many other drugs, isn't possible that its not being published for any vaccine. Why is it not published?

Ok, would you please provide me this undoubted proven efficacy with the studies. I am more than happy to apologise if you provide them.

1. Provide a study that proves injecting known neuro toxins directly into the blood stream and bypassing the bodies natural immune system not only prevents disease but is also beneficial to human health.

2. Provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

Again, I would also be interested in the rate of vaccinated or un-vaccinated kids that caught measles in Swansea and, if any serious complications arose, if these children had already been vaccinated or not.

All information is acceptable to me and i read it all. So keep posting it and i will read it, if it changes my mind then i will be more than happy to say i was wrong. However, nothing that has been posted so far has changed my mind that vaccines are for the good of anyone. I will gladly read his book and add it to my library.

And to the other poster, once again, i have never and never will convince anyone to vaccinate or not vaccinate. That is their own personal decision.

[IndieHibby]

injecting known neuro toxins directly into the blood stream and bypassing the bodies natural immune system not only prevents disease but is also beneficial to human health. You really don't understand vaccination, do you?


And to the other poster, once again, i have never and never will convince anyone to vaccinate or not vaccinate. That is their own personal decision.


Thanks for clearing that up. To be fair, I did ask whether you had said that (twice, I think) and made sure this was clear in my post.

To imply that I said otherwise is a little unfair.

[IndieHibby]

2. Provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18448211

There you go. Took me all of 30 seconds. Not sure why you find it so difficult :confused:

[Twa Cairpets]

It quite clearly does show that negative data about the flu vaccine was not published. If its not being published for the flu vaccine and many other drugs, isn't possible that its not being published for any vaccine. Why is it not published?

I think you'll find that Tamiflu is not a vaccine. It is an anti-viral drug, and even their own website which I've just looked a says categorically that it is not a substitute for vaccination. so my original point stands, you're trying to conflate poor medical practice which obviously exists with evidence that vaccination doesn't work. Also worth pointing out that with Tamiflu, it is the Cochrane Society as well as bodies like the BMJ that are spearheading the questions based on genuine and fully disclosed evidence, not quack websites and people with an agenda. To the best of my knowledge not a single credible medical body in the world questions the efficacy of vaccines. But hey, you probably know better.


Ok, would you please provide me this undoubted proven efficacy with the studies. I am more than happy to apologise if you provide them.

1. Provide a study that proves injecting known neuro toxins directly into the blood stream and bypassing the bodies natural immune system not only prevents disease but is also beneficial to human health.

2. Provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

Again, I would also be interested in the rate of vaccinated or un-vaccinated kids that caught measles in Swansea and, if any serious complications arose, if these children had already been vaccinated or not.

All information is acceptable to me and i read it all. So keep posting it and i will read it, if it changes my mind then i will be more than happy to say i was wrong. However, nothing that has been posted so far has changed my mind that vaccines are for the good of anyone. I will gladly read his book and add it to my library.

And to the other poster, once again, i have never and never will convince anyone to vaccinate or not vaccinate. That is their own personal decision.



No idea about Swansea, I don't know if the data has been published as yet as for one thing the outbreak is still ongoing, and for a second mid-long term complications cannot, but definition, be identified yet.

Indie gave you your controlled data above.
Just read Goldacre, loads of references there for you to follow.

[IndieHibby]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[tcm1875]

I think you'll find that Tamiflu is not a vaccine. It is an anti-viral drug, and even their own website which I've just looked a says categorically that it is not a substitute for vaccination. so my original point stands, you're trying to conflate poor medical practice which obviously exists with evidence that vaccination doesn't work. Also worth pointing out that with Tamiflu, it is the Cochrane Society as well as bodies like the BMJ that are spearheading the questions based on genuine and fully disclosed evidence, not quack websites and people with an agenda. To the best of my knowledge not a single credible medical body in the world questions the efficacy of vaccines. But hey, you probably know better.



No idea about Swansea, I don't know if the data has been published as yet as for one thing the outbreak is still ongoing, and for a second mid-long term complications cannot, but definition, be identified yet.

Indie gave you your controlled data above.
Just read Goldacre, loads of references there for you to follow.



Fair enough re Tamiflu, apologies my mistake.......

[tcm1875]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18448211

There you go. Took me all of 30 seconds. Not sure why you find it so difficult :confused:

Lol, well done.... Still doesn't do anything to convince me though. Comparing a oral vaccine given to adults, possibly extremely fit ones to injecting babies with known neuro toxins doesn't really cut it for me.......

[Beefster]

I've only really used it for teething and it seemed work. Many parents swear by the powders if they are considered homeopathic. Other than that I would say its still based on treating symptoms.
Arnica cream is great for bruising also.......

I must disagree. It's based on anecdote and quack science. If water has a memory, you're all drinking and bathing in my faeces, urine and knob cheese.

[Twa Cairpets]

I must disagree. It's based on anecdote and quack science. If water has a memory, you're all drinking and bathing in my faeces, urine and knob cheese.

That must be the single most boak inducing post ever in the history of .net.
Homeopathic Beefster turd, even at 30C dilution, is an appalling thought. Just as we'll I agree with you that it's bollocks.

[Twa Cairpets]

Lol, well done.... Still doesn't do anything to convince me though. Comparing a oral vaccine given to adults, possibly extremely fit ones to injecting babies with known neuro toxins doesn't really cut it for me.......

So a test that you asked for that shows vaccines work doesn't convince you?

And what does "possibly extremely fit ones" mean? What does that have to do with it. Do fit people not catch measles?

As for your emotive neuro-toxin line, which you've used a number of times, it just shows you don't understand the science. Here's a link to the NHS, (that body well known, presumably, for its active and systematic poisoning of babies by hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses, all of them clearly in the clutches of Big Pharma) that explains simply how vaccines work. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/How-vaccines-work.aspx

For your concept of them to be wrong, you must either (a) believe the NHS have been wrong for decades about the efficacy of vaccines, or (b) have been actively lying for some nefarious reason.

You keep,saying you'll read evidence. It's clear you have not done so to date, other than anti-vax pseudoscience, or you simply don't understand what you're reading.

[IndieHibby]

tcm - your arrogance is breathtaking.

[RyeSloan]

So a test that you asked for that shows vaccines work doesn't convince you?

And what does "possibly extremely fit ones" mean? What does that have to do with it. Do fit people not catch measles?

As for your emotive neuro-toxin line, which you've used a number of times, it just shows you don't understand the science. Here's a link to the NHS, (that body well known, presumably, for its active and systematic poisoning of babies by hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses, all of them clearly in the clutches of Big Pharma) that explains simply how vaccines work. http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/How-vaccines-work.aspx

For your concept of them to be wrong, you must either (a) believe the NHS have been wrong for decades about the efficacy of vaccines, or (b) have been actively lying for some nefarious reason.

You keep,saying you'll read evidence. It's clear you have not done so to date, other than anti-vax pseudoscience, or you simply don't understand what you're reading.

I assume the neurotoxins being mentioned are the preservatives contained within the vaccine dose. Mercury for example was used quite widely I think pre 2000.

I'm a million miles awy from being an expert in this field but there is surely some discussion to be had on the potential effects of the nurotoxins contained within vaccines (which was I think was the link Wakefield was trying to make)....my total layman approach is that the doses of these toxins must be very small (and the body will probably rid itself of most of them naturally) and any connection to future health issues will be negligible compared to the benefit from the vaccine but maybe not negligible enough to be totally ignored or written off.

[IndieHibby]

In simplistic terms, the immune system has the ability to differentiate between cells belonging to 'self' and those that are 'foreign'. When one particular group of white blood cells (lymphocytes) detect the presence of a foreign body (virus, bacteria, protozoa, fungus) they produce chemicals (antibodies) which attach to the foreign cell and allow other cells (e.g. Killer T-cells, macrophages) to identify and destroy these cells.

Vaccines contain the antigens (in various forms and by a variety of methods) of these cells which causes a mild immune response - similar in nature, but minimal in severity.

As the immune system has the ability to 'remember' how to produce these antibodies once it had been exposed for the first time, this results in a patient with the ability to fight any future infection before it develops to dangerous levels.

When tcm uses the term 'neuro-toxins' I can only presume he is referring to the chemicals described above which the immune system uses to identify foreign cells. How he manages to make this sound dangerous and sinister is beyond me, but he manages it.

As always, we fear that which we do not understand. Education is freedom from from fear ( and disease ).

[Twa Cairpets]

I assume the neurotoxins being mentioned are the preservatives contained within the vaccine dose. Mercury for example was used quite widely I think pre 2000.

I'm a million miles awy from being an expert in this field but there is surely some discussion to be had on the potential effects of the nurotoxins contained within vaccines (which was I think was the link Wakefield was trying to make)....my total layman approach is that the doses of these toxins must be very small (and the body will probably rid itself of most of them naturally) and any connection to future health issues will be negligible compared to the benefit from the vaccine but maybe not negligible enough to be totally ignored or written off.

This is an excellent article on the question of toxins.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/toxic-myths-about-vaccines/

[RyeSloan]

This is an excellent article on the question of toxins.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/toxic-myths-about-vaccines/

Thanks...a very informative link.