Customize

The antivaxers have gone full retard

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by The Internet, Dec 7, 2015.

  1. Puglife Member

    Yes ofc, it's just reports... that is why they have a special court for vaccine adverse reactions, because it's just reports.

    http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2013/10/19/revelations-by-shawn-siegel/
    "The industry describes serious vaccine reactions as rare, but a continuing look at the VAERS statistics proves not only that vaccines aren’t safe, but that serious, sometimes catastrophic injuries aren’t rare at all – they are peppered in and among the most often reported reactions. The following is a list of serious vaccine injuries that appear among the top 5%, listed in the order of frequency of reporting – convulsion, for instance, is reported 13,281 times, viral infection 4,708 times, autism 2,307, and so on."

    This video shows footage of expert and parent testimony during a vaccine hearing in MA:


    I could be posting here all kinds of facts and testimonies, but I know many will just deny everything lol.
    I don't need to try better, you need to do it yourself.
  2. anon8109 Member

    I'd post all sorts of studies and statistics showing that vaccines save lives and prevent illness, but I know you'll just ignore it Puglife.

    I don't need to try better, you need to look it up for yourself.
  3. Maybe there are. Okay, so yes there are.
    As a child of the eighties I saw many studies. Chocolate is bad, butter is cancer and oatmeal helps ppl.
    Microwaves are awesome, yada yada.
    So studies....
    Who are they funded by and what is the fax?
    Some good some bad.
    The government telling me I have to do something or fill out a form- yeah no.
    My data they want. Yours too.
  4. The Internet Member

    An adverse event is coincidental, meaning the bad thing happens within a certain window of time after a kid gets a shot. Coincidence is not evidence of a causal relationship. For that you need studies that weed out coincidence --e.g., a comparison group that doesn't get the shot.

    Imagine if the comparison group had 3,000 people reporting autism. Then that would make 2,307 look like vaccines help prevent autism.

    In the US over 2 billion shots have been given since they set up VAERS. So that means autism is a 1 in a million chance. A kid is in far more danger of serious injury during the car ride to the doctor's office.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. The Internet Member

    I'm checking out the prevalence of seizures in kids generally, to see if 13,000 reports of seizures per 2 billion shots seems like a lot. I found this:

    VAERS was set up in 1990, or 26 years ago. 26 x 150,000 = 3,900,000 kids diagnosed with new onset seizures. Against that background 13,000 seizures per 2 billion shots does not seem like a huge number. Of course to really figure out the relative risk would take some tricky statistical work. But this crude comparison is reassuring.

    Everyday you expose yourself to foreign antigens --everytime you brush your teeth, take a poo, or cut your skin. Against that background a handful of foreign antigens from vaccines is a drop in the bucket. So it is no wonder vaccines are so safe.
    • Like Like x 2
  6. The Internet Member

    Oh I guess I need to hit the argument: if a court is paying out money to people injured by vaccines then those vaccines must be dangerous.

    For one, courts pay out even when causation is not clear. Because with medical problems it is pretty hard to nail down causation with an n=1.

    Secondly, about 2,000 people have been compensated since they set up the vaccine court. 2,000 serious injuries out of 2 billion shots means a million to one chance of serious injury per shot.

    If vaccines did no good that risk --even though tiny-- would be a reason to avoid the shots. But vaccines do a fuckton of good.
    If we lost everything we know about medicine except for one intervention, that intervention we would all want to keep would be vaccination.

    Around the same time that Scientology went after the IRS by rounding up a personal army of people to sue the IRS into submission, a bunch of lawyers started filing class action suits against the drug companies making vaccines. Those manufacturers were going to stop making vaccines to avoid such an expensive hit. So the US government stepped in to help. There is a surcharge on each vaccine to pay into a fund enough to break even with the awards to injured parties.

    I am not so sure the vaccine court is a great idea. There is an industry of law firms, investigators, and marketing teams out there chasing after compensation. That keeps the black PR against vaccines a constant in our culture. But I suppose we'd still have to deal with that if people were suing the pharma companies directly. You can still sue them, btw, but you have to meet a higher standard of evidence in a civil court as compared to the vaccine court. That is my understanding. Somebody can correct me if I am wrong.
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Puglife Member

    I appreciate the time you took to write all that down.
    You seem to think that vaccines are this sacred entity that are separate from the rest of pharma drugs, and/or cannot be harmful like many of the pharma drugs have been found to be. Being sure of what you are putting in your body and having the choice to vaccinate or not, is a right we should all have and protect.

    Yes there is fear mongering from both sides, but should we be totally against it or totally pro vaccines? I don't think so.
    When there is evidence supporting both sides, we are left with our own common sense. Wouldn't you agree?

    I understand this might not convince you, but with the history of pharma corruption and government ties/lies, it should be enough to make you a skeptic at least.

    About the vaccine courts, the only thing we can be sure of is that people who get compensation for injuries are forbidden of talking about their cases, even after the court decision is made.

    Is there evidence to prove that statement? (Peer-reviewed and unbiased)
  8. The Internet Member

    There are thousands of vaccine studies by scientists all over the world. Every country has its own
    public health program for studying and monitoring vaccines. Occasionally there are problems but they are detected quickly thanks to the people who keep an eye on reports of adverse events as they happen.

    The evidence of vaccine benefit is as overwhelming as the evidence for evolution or the evidence for global warming. There is no debate within the scientific literature over specific concerns like autism as a reaction to vaccines. Serious reactions in the US, like I said, are a million to one. And probably less than that as we cannot rule out coincidence in most adverse reactions.

    I don't know if it is true that vaccine court people can't talk about their cases. The mother of the Cedillo (sp?) kid was busy in the comments at Tribeca. I think she's in Wakefield's movie. Oh wait, maybe the Cedillos did not get compensated.

    I really don't know if corruption in drug development companies is worse than other industries. Most new drugs that look promising in pre-clinical studies do not pan out in clinical trials. You would think if pharma scientists could get away with cooking the books they would have better luck.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. The Internet Member

    I want to spend a moment more on the "both sides" point.

    In science there is time for debate up until all the evidence relevant to some question has been evaluated. If the evidence strongly favors one side, that becomes the correct answer and the "other side" is simply wrong. Maybe a noob comes into the room thinking the debate is still in progress. Too bad for him he gets a failing grade. A scientific debate does not restart just because noobs. You need new evidence, sometimes a lot of new evidence, to provoke a retrial of the facts.

    Sometimes the evidence we have isn't enough to favor one side over another. In that situation we say we do not know the answer and reasonable people can have their opinions.

    People who do not understand science will cherry pick a long list of studies, or they will quote people with advanced degrees, to "prove" that there is reasonable opposition to the "accepted view." But cherry picking is not okay. In science you have to weigh all the evidence at the same time. That means you run a query on the scientific literature using appropriate search terms. Then you define inclusion and exclusion criteria. Then you sift through your query results until you have a stack of everything that counts. Then you carefully read each publication, using sensible methods for weighing the quality of the evidence and summarizing the lot of it. Could take several years. Then you write up your summary in a systematic review article, which is peer reviewed before publication and then criticized by everyone after publication. If your review survives all that, it becomes accepted as the "scientific consensus" on some matter.

    The scientific consensus is always the right answer. It is possible that new evidence might provoke a revision of the current consensus. That update simply becomes the new consensus, the new right answer.

    Notice that there is no voting in a scientific consensus. A lot of evidence comes from dead people who can't raise their hands.
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Puglife Member

    There is no consensus in science, any unbias scientist will tell you this.
    Climate change is really a bad example to explain "consensus".. Al Gore? That is a whole different shitstorm lol

    That is a lot of writing without references. You said vaccines are proven to be effective (in other words).
    Could you please provide the evidence for that statement?
    You mentioned that they detect problems quickly. Does this sound trustworthy:

    "Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
    Tripedia vaccine has not been evaluated for its carcinogenic or mutagenic potentials or impairment of fertility."
    - From the same FDA document posted before:http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/UCM101580.pdf
  11. The Internet Member

    The scientific consensus is not the same as a political consensus. In science the evidence does the talking whereas in politics people talk.

    The evidence is in the published peer reviewed literature. Add all the evidence up relevant to some question: that is the scientific consensus.

    Science says life evolved. Science says anthropogenic global warming is real. Science says the earth orbits around the sun. These are correct positions given the evidence we have. It would take a fuck ton of evidence to the contrary to overturn these positions.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. The Internet Member

    The fact we do not have lots of this going on is evidence that the polio vaccine is a good thing.
    image.png

    Also, vaccines are drugs. The FDA requires two studies with placebo controls demonstrating clinical safety and benefit prior to approval of any new drug. Then there is monitoring of adverse events and effectiveness indefinitely.

    I did provide a link to a WHO article on measles which still kills lots of kids around the world although not so many in the US, thanks to vaccines.
  13. Puglife Member

    What about 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against Global Warming?
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    Anyway, back to the topic.. ask any scientist if "consensus" is a word they use.
    I am pretty sure you will only hear it from media reports.
  14. The Internet Member

  15. The Internet Member

    "Scientific consensus" is used all the time.
    Also,
    http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...en-a-bad-reputation-and-it-doesnt-deserve-it/
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
  16. The Internet Member

    As I suspected, the people who cobbled together that list were not careful to make sure the papers say what they think they say.
    This is why cherry picking is so fail. It is too easy to selectively cite science in a misleading way, while it is time consuming to investigate all those citations. It is much better to summarize the totality of evidence that we have. The best people to do that are the scientists actively publishing evidence in their field of study. But for a lot of stuff you don't even need that. You can go to science textbooks for an answer.

    Last I checked there were three different surveys of the scientific literature on climate change. The first was by Oreskes who found this many papers against AGW: 0. The next was buy a guy I don't remember who found about 24. Most of those were a joke. And the last, the biggest one, was by Powell who found 5 papers.
    • Like Like x 2
  17. DeathHamster Member

  18. anon8109 Member

    One thing all of the above have in common is minimal counter-intuitiveness.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_minimal_counterintuitiveness_effect

    Psychologists have found that concepts that violate just one common sense notion are especially appalling and easy to remember.

    Most conspiracy-theories are also minimally counter-intuitive, generally denying some well-established or widely accepted fact, and keeping all else the same.
  19. Puglife Member

  20. anon8109 Member

    Failure to English.

    i bet the vaccine has also not been evaluated for increasing your luck in poker, enhancing your eyebrows, or diminishing your capacity for drinking grape juice.
  21. The Internet Member

    Vaccines are not going to cause cancer or make you sterile. They are foreign proteins that provoke your immune system to make antibodies against those proteins. Your immune system does this all the time naturally.

    Stuff that causes cancer generally disrupts the chemical bonds in DNA. Radiation can do that. Certain nasty chemicals can do that --a lot of carcinogens are made by different fungi and plants actually, proving that Nature hates us. But a few proteins from the surface of a virus are not going to do that.
    • Like Like x 1
  22. Puglife Member

    Are you doing it again? Writing without sources? :p
    Cmon..
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  23. Kittens for not replying to the guests itt.
    Carry on while tunnelpandavison.
    Juuuust sayy fgt
  24. The Internet Member

    I gave you the WHO aka World Health Organization article on measles. Also the fact we do not have to deal with polio in the US thanks to vaccines. I think both these bits of evidence are not controversial and they make it clear that the measles and the polio vaccines totally rock.
  25. DeathHamster Member

    While these conspiracy theories might superficially be minimally counter-intuitive, they all have a massive buy-in cost of vast and separate conspiracy to maintain each and every one of these.
  26. anon8109 Member

    Agreed, but that comes later. First you have to firmly and unshakably believe in the heart of the conspiracy. All the rest of it is necessary to make its rotten core come out to be true.
  27. Puglife Member

    Sorry I thought it would be clear that I was answering your last statements about cancer:
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  28. The Internet Member

    People have not been getting cancer from vaccines so far, so that is reassuring.

    Here is a list of things that cause cancer in humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinogen. Notice that none of those things are proteins. Thus although it is not impossible, it would not be typical for the viral antigens in a vaccine to interact with your DNA in some way to cause cancer.

    Just to put the cancer worry in some context: the most potent cancer causing agent we know about is aflatoxin. It is made by a mold called Aspergillus which is everywhere. It lives in the soil and feeds on crops we like to eat.

    The US government expects people selling food to make sure that the amount of aflatoxin included is less than 20 ppb (parts per billion). You probably need a fancy lab to check such a teeny amount of aflatoxin on, say, a tomato. So it is good somebody checks every now and again.

    I've been told that organic farmers do not treat their crops with fungicides so it is likely that you eat more aflatoxin when you go organic. Thus I would guess you are more at risk of cancer from organic produce than from vaccines.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aflatoxin
  29. The Internet Member

    Hehehe I just thought of a sneaky way you could make an antivaxxer's head asplode: go into some forum acting like the usual conspiracy lover. Then mention that you knew someone working for BigPharma who said that the drug companies have been using anti-vax groups to spread vaccine fears since the 1990s. Back then there was talk of wiping out a number of vaccine preventable diseases, like polio and measles. At first BigPharma was like, yay! But then they were like, hey wait, nobody will buy our vaccines if that happens!

    So BigPharma funds antivaxxers to spread vaccine fears along the fringes of society to prevent measles, polio, etc., from being totally eradicated.

    After you make this point, start calling everyone a pharma shill.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Puglife Member

    So wikipedia is a source and organic food is dangerous? Seriously... I don't know how to reply to that.
  31. The Internet Member

    Wikipedia is a good source for many topics, particularly for the general points I'm mentioning. I'm not saying anything controversial, as far as I know. If there is some part of what I said that you disagree with, tell me about it and I can try to explain or find a good source.

    Aflatoxin is hella dangerous if you eat it. This is why a lot of farmers use fungicides at some point during harvesting and storage of crops. Organic farmers do not do that, or so I have been told. Theoretically there is a greater risk of aflatoxin exposure. But I personally do not really worry about it. I'm hoping someone is paying attention and making sure the aflatoxin level is low in organic food.
  32. The Internet Member

    • Like Like x 1
  33. White Tara Global Moderator

    Thank you The Internet for your endless patience and thoroughness. :)
  34. Puglife Member

    No my friend, wikipedia is not a good source, ppl have found many mistakes in many pages in wikipedia.
    How can you be so sure of that?
    I found one page in 5 seconds saying otherwise and it has good sources, one of them being "The Lancet", a highly respected medical journal:
    "60 Lab Studies Now Confirm Cancer Link to a Vaccine You Probably Had as a Child" - http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2...ink-to-a-vaccine-you-probably-had-as-a-child/
  35. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    Hi Brainstorm. Stats?
    • Like Like x 1
  36. Random guy Member


    I'm afraid you've missed some basic science education. There are plenty of consenus cases. Some examples:

    - The Earth circle the Sun, not the other way around
    - Living organisms consist of the same stuff as the rest of the world
    - Bacteria cause deseases
    - The Earth is billions of years really old
    - Energy, matter and space are fundamentally linked (E=MC^2)
    - The Atlantic sea is widening
    - Crocodiles as the birds closest now-living relatives of birds
  37. The Internet Member

    "Vaccine council" sounds like an antivax outfit.

    Antivaxers and global warming denialists do the same thing: they cherry pick articles that seem to back their position while ignoring the totality of evidence out there. That is why it is fail to throw a list of articles at someone. What you need is a summary of *all* the evidence, which you can get from a few places. A systematic review is one place. And there are various organizations and government agencies that are tasked with publishing the scientific consensus on some matter, like the World Health Organization or the CDC. Even if those organizations are corrupt somehow, they have to represent the science accurately cuz that is their job. If they do not do that the scientific community will call them out.

    But I can take a look at the Lancet reference if you want. If it does not say vaccines cause cancer then I would like you to think about how you have been hoaxed.

    I agree that Wikipedia has mistakes. Anything run by humans is bound to fuck up now and again. But it has been found to be about as reliable as an encyclopedia in a broad range of topics. Hot topics can be a mess due to edit wars. It's good we do not have to rely upon Wikipedia alone. I like it as a good starting place. If something seems fishy I can look at the references.

    Notice that the esteemed Lancet started the popular surge in vaccine fears when it published Wakefield's fraudulent paper. So even good sources occasionally screw up. That is why we need to know a lot more than what is in a paper or a few papers to sort fact from fiction.
  38. Anti vaxers are tied in with Scientology believes
    • Like Like x 1
  39. White Tara Global Moderator

    As is the tendency to always attack and never defend. :)
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins