Medical care and science are not matters of opinion.
Efficacy and safety of vaccines are are, not being scientifically proven, matter of belief and as such subject to discussion and various opinions, which should be free to be discussed in any country that calls itself 'democratic' and 'free'.
Look in some of my other posts in this thread to see that indeed there is room for debate.
Safety is indeed tested for extensively, and the lack of blinding almost certainly increases short term nocebo effects.
Wow, this is a clever obfuscation of the fact that their is no double blind placebo controlled study regarding the safety of the vaccines.
There are two sides on this matter: Efficacy and safety.
The problems parents have is not with the efficacy, it is with the safety.
Vaccines cannot be 100% safe, and that's why the Vaccine Injury 'Court' has already granted more than 4 billion dollars in damages, some indeed for 'autism caused by the vaccination'. You can look that up.
It is quite possible that smallpox vaccines work and there is indeed a biologically plausible explanation for that. That is not the problem.
There are broadly two mechanisms at hand: Better hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions on the one hand, and vaccinations on the other hand.
The question for me is: How many cases of smallpox are prevented by the smallpox vaccine that would have occurred in spite of the decline caused by better overall conditions?
Further: how safe is the vaccine exactly, and how serious is smallpox as a disease.
We do know that vaccines cannot be 100% safe, so you have to accept that there are some detrimental side effects.
Now a balanced decision would have to compare the seriousness of for instance smallpox with the seriousness of the side effects of vaccination, and the number of cases that the vaccine would actually prevent.
A honest discussion about the overall public health effects would indeed also have to touch on the risks for the few immuno-suppressed people that are walking around on this globe and indeed could encounter a non-vaccinated person, or even a recently measles vaccinated person that unknowingly is shedding the measles virus around--especially with the newest nasal vaccines...
And the fact that you are convinced that I'm punching you in the face is not really proof of the same.
I've heard of 'macro view' in economics and of 'macro epidemiology' with respect to vaccinations, but never of 'macro-view epidemiology'.
But ok, I think I know what you mean. (Comparative use of influenza vaccine between different countries or regions, states or provinces within countries. Pubmed 16039762)
As I already stated earlier, measles and other infectious diseases were already showing an enormously declining trend before the various vaccination schedules were started, so 'massive drops' don't prove anything. It is quite well accepted that improved hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions had already contributed to a serious decline in the infectious diseases.
Andrew Wakefield has been proven not to be a fraud in the juridical case that his co-author, prof. John Walker-Smith, thanks to his legal insurance coverage, was able to initiate against the British medical council (GMC) that axed both of them down, but was subsequently axed down by the judge as being highly unprofessional and also wrong for that matter in revoking his license, and had to re-instate the same. Sorry to break you main stream 'knowledge' party.
Separating vaccines is up to the parents who can find out quite early in the process whether their child is indeed prone to those side effects and can decide to use the cocktails from then on. I would suggest to find this out with a 6 months delayed separate measles vaccination per Wakefield's advise (whom you--yes I know--consider to be a fraud).
Seeing a decline after some action in a graph of a phenomenon that already was showing a declining trend is not really hard proof of being caused by that action.
And your comment about 'ethics' was understood but also confirms that proof has not been established, i.e. that I was right.
The 'ethical argument' shows there is more belief in, than proof of the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Nothing thick about that.
It goes like this: "We believe vaccines are working but we have no proof of that. To obtain real scientific proof according to the golden standard we would have to administer no vaccines to some part of the population and because we believe vaccines work, we also believe that this would cause them getting the infectious disease the vaccines are meant to prevent, and therefore we find it unethical to carry out such study."
Ok, I can find myself in that argument. But then they continue: "And everybody who does not believe that vaccines are 100% safe and effective should shut up, be fired when they as a professional vent their belief, and are by the way a bunch of irresponsible dangerously stupid thickheaded fucking dipwits and nutjobs, or in short: anti-vaxxers."
And that last part is what I do have a problem with.
This is indeed about them sharing their opinion on social media, not practising it in their professional treatments, so your contribution is a bit redundant indeed.
...autism in the rates the anti-vaxxers are suggesting is preferable to the diseases the vaccines help prevent...
Not so fast. If I, in a developed country with good health care, had a child to be vaccinated with the MMR, I would realise that getting the measles is not by far as bad as making him autistic by trying to prevent him from getting the measles. I would never be able to forgive myself if such thing happened.
In the USA nowadays 1 in 25 children becomes autistic and I'm sure that even if everybody got the measles, only 1 in 1,000 or so would be severely damaged by it. The other 999 would recover just fine.
Which in fact, if that was true, would be fucking stupid.
No, it wouldn't. In Japan the authorities have postponed the MMR by one year after the controversy broke out, and the new cases of autism immediately went down spectacularly. Later the government idiots resumed the original schedule and up it went again.
It can well be that the number of cases of temporary inconvenience goes up if one gets the MMR at a later date, if it gives a so much lower chance to get autistic, then I'd prefer the higher inconvenience.
For the rest you call a lot of things bullshit in screaming and shouting capitals, but fail to supply any reference to any randomly placebo controlled double blind study in an epidemiologically relevant part of the population published in a peer reviewed journal, so I just as well call out bullshit on your claims.
As long as such a study has not been published my doubts regarding vaccination are justified and any claims to the contrary are unproven.
...if they want to share it with others they need to do so without the authority of a medical professional...
In the witch hunt piece I didn't read any such disclaimer.
They are not 'giving advice', they are giving their opinion on social media and will have to be punished if that goes against the established vaccination mantra.
The freedom of opinion and speech is even so much deteriorated in Australia that even an MIT professor has been blocked from venting her science based opinion on the matter because it doesn't chime with the establishment mantra, I've read.
I know people 'downunder' in Australia don't have a proper constitution, but still my personal opinion is that venting your opinion on social media should not lead to falling prey to a witch hunt making you loose your job and maybe even freedom in the process.
Wikileaks can so totally not be trusted in controversial cases.
But they do have some interesting articles about Dr. Ignatio Semmelweiss and Dr. Barry Marshall who also were treated absolutely disgustingly wrong by the medical establishment. I would have expected some more humility from the medical 'artists' in treating dissenting opinions...
I would have up-voted you with my karma if that wouldn't erase my 80+ comments I already made in this thread.:)
However, you are spot on!
I didn't know that those 'stupid fuckwits' indeed jailed and disbarred Dr. Marshall...
Professional liability comes into play when the professional is actually practising its profession, not when they are just blattering on social media. Nobody is paying them, nor are they actually treating anyone during those activities.
So for me it's a matter of freedom of opinion.
Can you be any more desperate that the only reply you can come up with is some stupid abusive comment, instead of giving one, just one reference to a randomly placebo controlled double blind study of sufficient epidemiological size that proves the point that you seem to believe so much in, i.e. that vaccines are 100% safe and effective?
I thought so...
Like it or not, and you are probably going to contradict this vehemently without properly researching it, but the opinion that vaccines are 100% safe and effective is the believe that these people are opiniating against.
Calm down man, this is about nurses talking on social media, not malpracticing in the clinic where they work. There is no proof that vaccination is 100% effective and 100% safe, so there is room for a dissenting opinion, the expression of which should be free.
So I'm sure you already found some of those studies? Please put their references here if you'd be so inclined. Just the pubmed numbers would suffice, thank you.
Slashdot Mirror
"The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism."
Gerbering, head of the CDC at that time, not surprisingly, now has a high position at Merck.
Medical care and science are not matters of opinion.
Efficacy and safety of vaccines are are, not being scientifically proven, matter of belief and as such subject to discussion and various opinions, which should be free to be discussed in any country that calls itself 'democratic' and 'free'.
Look in some of my other posts in this thread to see that indeed there is room for debate.
With 'adverse reaction' you mean encephalopathy, or even autism?
Even GSK in an internal report stated that INFANRIX caused autism.
'herd immunity', another one of those none-science-based concepts. Never proven, but made into a holy cow.
Unfortunately, in America You have the right to remain stupid
This seems to be a universal human right, as you so eloquently show. :)
Your 'seam' makes you seem to be the idiot here. :)
Safety is indeed tested for extensively, and the lack of blinding almost certainly increases short term nocebo effects.
Wow, this is a clever obfuscation of the fact that their is no double blind placebo controlled study regarding the safety of the vaccines.
There are two sides on this matter: Efficacy and safety.
The problems parents have is not with the efficacy, it is with the safety.
Vaccines cannot be 100% safe, and that's why the Vaccine Injury 'Court' has already granted more than 4 billion dollars in damages, some indeed for 'autism caused by the vaccination'. You can look that up.
It is quite possible that smallpox vaccines work and there is indeed a biologically plausible explanation for that. That is not the problem.
There are broadly two mechanisms at hand: Better hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions on the one hand, and vaccinations on the other hand.
The question for me is: How many cases of smallpox are prevented by the smallpox vaccine that would have occurred in spite of the decline caused by better overall conditions?
Further: how safe is the vaccine exactly, and how serious is smallpox as a disease.
We do know that vaccines cannot be 100% safe, so you have to accept that there are some detrimental side effects.
Now a balanced decision would have to compare the seriousness of for instance smallpox with the seriousness of the side effects of vaccination, and the number of cases that
the vaccine
would actually prevent.
A honest discussion about the overall public health effects would indeed also have to touch on the risks for the few immuno-suppressed people that are walking around on this globe and indeed could encounter a non-vaccinated person, or even a recently measles vaccinated person that unknowingly is shedding the measles virus around--especially with the newest nasal vaccines...
And the fact that you are convinced that I'm punching you in the face is not really proof of the same.
Sorry, I have neither studied, nor do I have an opinion, on ADHD.
It is also highly off-topic, thank you.
I've heard of 'macro view' in economics and of 'macro epidemiology' with respect to vaccinations, but never of 'macro-view epidemiology'.
But ok, I think I know what you mean. (Comparative use of influenza vaccine between different countries or regions, states or provinces within countries. Pubmed 16039762)
As I already stated earlier, measles and other infectious diseases were already showing an enormously declining trend before the various vaccination schedules were started, so 'massive drops' don't prove anything. It is quite well accepted that improved hygienic, nutritional and medical conditions had already contributed to a serious decline in the infectious diseases.
Andrew Wakefield has been proven not to be a fraud in the juridical case that his co-author, prof. John Walker-Smith, thanks to his legal insurance coverage, was able to initiate against the British medical council (GMC) that axed both of them down, but was subsequently axed down by the judge as being highly unprofessional and also wrong for that matter in revoking his license, and had to re-instate the same. Sorry to break you main stream 'knowledge' party.
Separating vaccines is up to the parents who can find out quite early in the process whether their child is indeed prone to those side effects and can decide to use the cocktails from then on. I would suggest to find this out with a 6 months delayed separate measles vaccination per Wakefield's advise (whom you--yes I know--consider to be a fraud).
Seeing a decline after some action in a graph of a phenomenon that already was showing a declining trend is not really hard proof of being caused by that action.
And your comment about 'ethics' was understood but also confirms that proof has not been established, i.e. that I was right.
The 'ethical argument' shows there is more belief in, than proof of the efficacy and safety of vaccines. Nothing thick about that.
It goes like this: "We believe vaccines are working but we have no proof of that. To obtain real scientific proof according to the golden standard we would have to administer no vaccines to some part of the population and because we believe vaccines work, we also
believe
that this would cause them getting the infectious disease the vaccines are meant to prevent, and therefore we find it unethical to carry out such study."
Ok, I can find myself in that argument. But then they continue: "And everybody who does not believe that vaccines are 100% safe and effective should shut up, be fired when they as a professional vent their belief, and are by the way a bunch of irresponsible dangerously stupid thickheaded fucking dipwits and nutjobs, or in short: anti-vaxxers."
And that last part is what I do have a problem with.
Discouraged = desencorajado,
:)
dismissal = despedimento,
fired = despedido (do trabalho sim).
De nada amigo.
This is indeed about them sharing their opinion on social media, not practising it in their professional treatments, so your contribution is a bit redundant indeed.
...autism in the rates the anti-vaxxers are suggesting is preferable to the diseases the vaccines help prevent...
Not so fast. If I, in a developed country with good health care, had a child to be vaccinated with the MMR, I would realise that getting the measles is not by far as bad as making him autistic by trying to prevent him from getting the measles. I would never be able to forgive myself if such thing happened.
In the USA nowadays 1 in 25 children becomes autistic and I'm sure that even if everybody got the measles, only 1 in 1,000 or so would be severely damaged by it. The other 999 would recover just fine.
Which in fact, if that was true, would be fucking stupid.
No, it wouldn't. In Japan the authorities have postponed the MMR by one year after the controversy broke out, and the new cases of autism immediately went down spectacularly. Later the government idiots resumed the original schedule and up it went again.
It can well be that the number of cases of temporary inconvenience goes up if one gets the MMR at a later date, if it gives a so much lower chance to get autistic, then I'd prefer the higher inconvenience.
For the rest you call a lot of things bullshit in screaming and shouting capitals, but fail to supply any reference to any randomly placebo controlled double blind study in an epidemiologically relevant part of the population published in a peer reviewed journal, so I just as well call out bullshit on your claims.
As long as such a study has not been published my doubts regarding vaccination are justified and any claims to the contrary are unproven.
...if they want to share it with others they need to do so without the authority of a medical professional...
In the witch hunt piece I didn't read any such disclaimer.
They are not 'giving advice', they are giving their opinion on social media and will have to be punished if that goes against the established vaccination mantra.
The freedom of opinion and speech is even so much deteriorated in Australia that even an MIT professor has been blocked from venting her science based opinion on the matter because it doesn't chime with the establishment mantra, I've read.
I know people 'downunder' in Australia don't have a proper constitution, but still my personal opinion is that venting your opinion on social media should not lead to falling prey to a witch hunt making you loose your job and maybe even freedom in the process.
Wikileaks can so totally not be trusted in controversial cases.
But they do have some interesting articles about Dr. Ignatio Semmelweiss and Dr. Barry Marshall who also were treated absolutely disgustingly wrong by the medical establishment. I would have expected some more humility from the medical 'artists' in treating dissenting opinions...
I would have up-voted you with my karma if that wouldn't erase my 80+ comments I already made in this thread. :)
However, you are spot on!
I didn't know that those 'stupid fuckwits' indeed jailed and disbarred Dr. Marshall...
Professional liability comes into play when the professional is actually practising its profession, not when they are just blattering on social media. Nobody is paying them, nor are they actually treating anyone during those activities.
So for me it's a matter of freedom of opinion.
In your ignorance you could call them dangerous, but not fascistoid. ;-)
Can you be any more desperate that the only reply you can come up with is some stupid abusive comment, instead of giving one, just one reference to a randomly placebo controlled double blind study of sufficient epidemiological size that proves the point that you seem to believe so much in, i.e. that vaccines are 100% safe and effective?
I thought so...
Like it or not, and you are probably going to contradict this vehemently without properly researching it, but the opinion that vaccines are 100% safe and effective is the believe that these people are opiniating against.
Clearly this is only your opinion, which you are free to express, although your wording is a tad abusive.
Calm down man, this is about nurses talking on social media, not malpracticing in the clinic where they work. There is no proof that vaccination is 100% effective and 100% safe, so there is room for a dissenting opinion, the expression of which should be free.
I'm too lazy to reply to that bullshit.
So I'm sure you already found some of those studies? Please put their references here if you'd be so inclined. Just the pubmed numbers would suffice, thank you.