|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#12
July 26th 06, 05:07 PM
posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med,sci.med.immunology,sci.med.nursing
|
|||
|
|||
Vaccines HAVE to go, there can be no compromise on this issue.
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message ... Once again, there have been dozens of these; in fact there is over 1600 published medical papers on this very subject. Here's a few more recent ones: Oh really, they are not 100% unvaccinated kids, "unvaccinated" is with the particular vaccine in question As far as vaccinators are concerned that is unvaccinated! 
|
|
#13
July 26th 06, 05:09 PM
posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med,sci.med.immunology,sci.med.nursing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vaccines HAVE to go, there can be no compromise on this issue.
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message ... Please provide ONE LINK showing the existence of an epidemic caused by a vaccine-preventable disease in a properly vaccinated population. You can't, because there has never been one. In fact, epidemics disappear in properly vaccinated populations, and only reappear when vaccination levels drop below a critical threshold: " When England was most vaccinated, it not only had the greatest amount of smallpox, but most of its smallpox cases in those days occurred amongst the vaccinated. The statistics of the Highgate Smallpox Hospital show that in 1871, 91.5 per cent. of their cases had been vaccinated, and in 1881, out of a total of 491 cases, 470, or nearly 96 per cent., had been vaccinated. The Lancet for 23 February 1884, gives the facts about an outbreak in Sunderland, where there were just 100 cases, and 96 of them had been vaccinated. On 27 August 1881, that journal published an account of an outbreak at Bromley, where 43 cases occurred, every one of them vaccinated. Mr. Alexander Wheeler submitted figures to the Royal Commission on Vaccination (p. 204 of the Commission's Third Report) which show that from 1870-86 the Metropolitan Asylums Board treated 53,579 smallpox cases, of which 41,061 were admittedly vaccinated, and 2,858 were put in the class they called doubtfully vaccinated. Sheffield, an insanitary town, had a bad smallpox epidemic in 1887-88. Of 7,066 cases classed as vaccinated or unvaccinated, 5,891 or 83.4 per cent were put in the vaccinated class. Of 647 cases at Warrington, in 1892-93, 601, or 89.2 per cent, had been vaccinated; of 2,945 cases at Birmingham in 1892-93, 2,616, or 88.8 per cent, had been vaccinated; and of 828 cases at Willenhall in 1894, 739, or 89.3 per cent, had been vaccinated. The last big outbreak of genuine smallpox was in London in 1901-2, when, out of almost 10,000 cases, some 7,000 had been vaccinated."---- Lilly Loat [Book 1951] The Truth About Vaccination and Immunization
|
|
#14
July 26th 06, 06:28 PM
posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med,sci.med.immunology,sci.med.nursing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vaccines HAVE to go, there can be no compromise on this issue.
john wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message ... Once again, there have been dozens of these; in fact there is over 1600 published medical papers on this very subject. Here's a few more recent ones: Oh really, they are not 100% unvaccinated kids, "unvaccinated" is with the particular vaccine in question As far as vaccinators are concerned that is unvaccinated! Didn't read the papers, did you? There are several in the links that I provided which compared people who never received vaccines to those who did. Not that we're surprised, you tend to ignore inconvenient things. Bryan
|
|
#15
July 26th 06, 10:01 PM
posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med,sci.med.immunology,sci.med.nursing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vaccines HAVE to go, there can be no compromise on this issue.
Bryan Heit wrote:
wrote: Jeff wrote; 1. Vaccines save lives. 2. Vaccines strengthen the defence system. 3. Drug companies ensure that vaccines are safe. 4. Vaccines are based upon "real" science. 5. Very few children suffer vaccine reactions. 6. Doctors take care of adverse reactions. I repeat ad infinitum; 1. That vaccines save lives is disputed by statistics available. And I suppose you can provide links to said evidence? Or are you like John; you say these things exist but cannot prove it as they are figments of your imagination? Here's a bunch of stats which show they save lives: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocSu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocSu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m In over 320 articles I pulled up using a search for "vaccine + mortality" I saw none which argued against vaccine effectiveness. Brian, do not fall into the "mortality trap" of the anti-vaccination loons. The key thing is that vaccines have substantially reduced the incidence of many diseases and, in some situations, made the infections milder. These factors, in addition to the lowering of the already low death rates, have also reduced the incidence of severe disability. The loons would have you focus on the death rates and not the incidence rates. Do not play their idiotic game. The diseases vaccines "saved us" from were already on the wane when the vaccines were introduced. True, but vaccines dropped the rates much, much further and faster then the pre-existing decline. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m When an epidemic strikes it is always advisable to go to the root of the problem (usually hygiene, nutrition, individual immuno deficiency) than waste time on vaccinations that create a false sense of security and exacerbate the next epidemic by reducing the immunity of the population. Please provide ONE LINK showing the existence of an epidemic caused by a vaccine-preventable disease in a properly vaccinated population. You can't, because there has never been one. In fact, epidemics disappear in properly vaccinated populations, and only reappear when vaccination levels drop below a critical threshold: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um 2. Vaccines do not strengthen the defence system, they weaken it. Of course, you are unable to support your contention with any outside links. That's because it is all bull****. Every measure of immune activity goes up when you are vaccinated. T-cells and B-cells become active, you get inflammation at the site of injection, and your body forms a "memory" response. In fact, the only major difference between a vaccination vs. infection with the actual pathogen is the sickness of the patient. Otherwise, the immune response is essentially the same. You get reposes against the same epitomes, similar Th1/Th2 balance, and so forth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um This is why babies start suffering from fevers, colds, diarrhoea, dysentery, irritable behaviour after the vaccines are delivered. What about the millions of babies who don't receive vaccines and die from these same symptoms? How do you explain their health effects? For that matter, how do you explain that the incidence of these symptoms has gone down as childhood vaccinations have been improved? After all, by your rational, more vaccines should = more children with these symptoms. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocSu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocSu m You cannot make a person more healthy than he is by introducing in him the dangerous vaccine contents. And what are these "highly dangerous" vaccine components? For that matter, do you even know how a vaccine works? Here's a hint, it doesn't "make you healthy". Rather, it teaches your body to identify and kill an infectious disease. You're not making people healthy; you're teaching their bodies how to keep them healthy. 3. Drug companies ensure their survival and profits. The FDA has only today sought to clear itself of the allegations of misdemeanour against it. And, of course, you've failed to substantiate any of these claims. Typical conspiracy stuff; you cannot come up with valid reasons to avoid vaccines, so lets make some random, unproven accusations against the "evil" drug companies. Probably did that right after you took your aspirin... Some of its officials have argued that it is "normal" to do research with funds from the drug industry. It is; public ally available funding isn't always enough. Likewise, drug companies will often pay academic labs to do contract work for them. Same as in pretty much every other industry out there. That said, the lions share of funding still comes from public sources; in my lab public funding accounts for all but 1-2% of the money we receive. Donation from the public outnumber that by nearly ten-fold. Then why the huge uproar about the fundings of Dr Wakefields research? There isn't much of a controversy anymore. It's pretty obvious that Wakefields results are wrong: 1) His experiments have been directly disproven by other researchers in at least 15 separate studies. 2) 10 of the 13 Co-authors on Wakefields paper have retracted the study, meaning that the large majority of the scientists involved in that study no longer support it's claims. To quote the published retraction of the Wakefield paper: "We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However the possibility of such a link was raised, and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent." 3) After being thourghaly thrashed by the scientific community and his own co-authors, Wakefield invented a new disease - "novel bowel syndrome". He continues to tout this syndrome, even though it has never been officially recognized, and appears to be nothing more then another name for a long-known bowel disorder identified in some developmental disorders of children; a disorder identified long before universal vaccination existed. 4) Wakefield is under investigation for scientific misconduct, and in the UK the General Medical Council is trying to bring charges against him. 5) Prior to preforming the study, Wakefield had been hired by attorneys attempting to sue vaccine manufacturers. Normal people would call that a "conflict of interest". Science with pre-determined conclusions is not science. 6) Bad science. Wakefield only looked at autistic children, and didn't look at healthy children as controls. As such his results are meaningless, as we have nothing to compare them to. The next time they will say that it is "normal" to fudge reports and allow dangerous drugs and vaccines into the market. Wakefield is the one who fudged the reports, not those making the vaccines. 4. Vaccines do not conform to any science. Bull****. Vaccinations are a logical extension of our knowledge of the immune system. As some one who studies the immune system for a living I can say this without exemption. In fact, vaccines have been a valuable tool in understanding how our immune system works. After all, we had vaccines long before we even knew the immune system existed. And the responses driven by vaccines were critical in unraveling how the complex immune system functions. Of course, you are once again unable to substantiate your wild claims. 5. Very few children suffer vaccine reactions? Has the entire data in all the countries where vaccines are administered ever been compiled? Most developed nations keep records of vaccination reactions, through adverse events databases. And yes, these results have been compiled on more then one occasion. A few examples: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocSu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um Of course, there are the "big boys", the people who do nothing with their time aside from collect the very stats you seem to think don't exist: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um The word "vaccine reaction" is not even uttered in public in Third World countries. And you know this how? Have you ever even been to a third world nation? In fact, vaccine safety is talked about a lot in the third world clinics, particuarily in terms of making sure the parents follow a safe vaccine schedule. Children in these countries suffer "polio like diseases", meningitis, encephalitis, auto immune disorders, shocks and seizures due to "fear of the vaccine process", irritability, bowel pains, etc. after getting the shots. The deaths are often put down as "deaths due to malnourishment". There are never any vaccine reactions or deaths. And your proof of this is? Nothing, as per usual. Just figments of your imagination, as per usual. 6. Vaccine reactions are rarely acknowledged by doctors Bull****. If this were the case then why: 1) Is the standard (at least here in Canada) to inform patients of symptoms to expect after vaccination (fever, etc), and what to do if they occur? 2) Why is it that you're required to stay in the doctors office for a while after vaccination, to monitor for anaphylaxis? 3) Why does nearly every developed nation maintain adverse reaction databases, reporting to which is often mandatory for doctors? until they are threatened with legal actions or are reported to the police. Then they blame the vaccine storage process, the particular batch being faulty, wrong administration etc. Your evidence of this is? Nothing, as per usual. I am personally yet to come across any doctor in India who admits in public that vaccines can cause disease and death. Considering that there is over 50 reports on vaccine safety in India, I'd say you're full of crap. If Indian doctors are publishing these facts for the world to see, then I somehow doubt that they are hiding things in-house. Four years ago, in the year 2002, an Indian doctor had gone to the press with the information. He has since been "suitably chastised". And your evidence of this is . . . nothing. As per usual you're treating the figments of your imagination as reality. The vaccine supporters have blood on their hands. Much, much less then those who oppose vaccination. Based on WHO stats, for the most recent year available (2004), over 2.1 MILLION people died of diseases which are preventable by vaccination: http://www.gavialliance.org/General_...ble_deaths.php In contrast, the most pessimistic (optimistic by your standards) estimates of vaccine-caused mortality is estimated to be ~1000/year: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...1c445&ref=full So you'd rather have 2.1 million die, to prevent the 1000-ish deaths which *may* be associated with vaccination? Bryan
|
|
#16
July 27th 06, 01:37 AM
posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med,sci.med.immunology,sci.med.nursing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vaccines HAVE to go, there can be no compromise on this issue.
john wrote: "Bryan Heit" wrote in message ... Once again, there have been dozens of these; in fact there is over 1600 published medical papers on this very subject. Here's a few more recent ones: Oh really, they are not 100% unvaccinated kids, "unvaccinated" is with the particular vaccine in question As far as vaccinators are concerned that is unvaccinated!
|
|
#17
July 27th 06, 06:40 AM
posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med,sci.med.immunology,sci.med.nursing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vaccines HAVE to go, there can be no compromise on this issue.
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message ... wrote: BULL to all your arguments. First ask the vaccine industry to conduct all the tests we are asking them to. Again ad infinitum, 1. Long term tests involving children of all constituent types, of all countries, of all races. As per vaccine researchers such tests are needed but would be expensive. Has been done. Since the 1960's - the WHO monitors these things, and the data is regularily analyzed and the results published in medical journals. Apparently you don't read those, as otherwise you'd know about this work. BTW, why do you think races are important? Scientifically speaking, they don't exist, and never has there been any particular immune response, genetic disease, etc, attributable to a single race. 2. Tests comparing vaccinated children with a non vaccinated population. Once again, there have been dozens of these; in fact there is over 1600 published medical papers on this very subject. Here's a few more recent ones: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um 3. Tests with each vaccine component and also with all of them together. Been done. You cannot add something to an medication without it first being approved for human use. Once the compound is approved, then the combinations of compounds (i.e. the vaccine) must also go through the same safety testing. 4. Tests for the effects of multiple vaccinations. Also been done; over 140 studies have looked at this. We all know how all thimerosal tests on mice have brought out the nerve damaging effects. I bet it will be the same and more if the above tests are conducted in a free and fair manner. Nope. In fact, the mercury-autism link has been thourghaly disproven - at least 12 times now. Not to mention it's been removed form most vaccines... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um Got anything better than organized medicne? 1: Pediatrics. 2006 Jul;118(1):e139-50. So what we can conclude from your post is that your opposition to vaccination is not based on actual evidence, but rather is based on your ignorance of this evidence! Bryan
|
|
#18
July 27th 06, 06:43 AM
posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med,sci.med.immunology,sci.med.nursing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vaccines HAVE to go, there can be no compromise on this issue.
"Mark Probert" wrote in message ... Bryan Heit wrote: wrote: Jeff wrote; 1. Vaccines save lives. 2. Vaccines strengthen the defence system. 3. Drug companies ensure that vaccines are safe. 4. Vaccines are based upon "real" science. 5. Very few children suffer vaccine reactions. 6. Doctors take care of adverse reactions. I repeat ad infinitum; 1. That vaccines save lives is disputed by statistics available. And I suppose you can provide links to said evidence? Or are you like John; you say these things exist but cannot prove it as they are figments of your imagination? Here's a bunch of stats which show they save lives: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocSu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocSu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m In over 320 articles I pulled up using a search for "vaccine + mortality" I saw none which argued against vaccine effectiveness. Brian, do not fall into the "mortality trap" of the anti-vaccination loons. The key thing is that vaccines have substantially reduced the incidence of many diseases and, in some situations, made the infections milder. These factors, in addition to the lowering of the already low death rates, have also reduced the incidence of severe disability. The loons would have you focus on the death rates and not the incidence rates. Do not play their idiotic game. LOL!!! Like you are not a idiot... Cannot get his name right.............................. The diseases vaccines "saved us" from were already on the wane when the vaccines were introduced. True, but vaccines dropped the rates much, much further and faster then the pre-existing decline. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docsu m When an epidemic strikes it is always advisable to go to the root of the problem (usually hygiene, nutrition, individual immuno deficiency) than waste time on vaccinations that create a false sense of security and exacerbate the next epidemic by reducing the immunity of the population. Please provide ONE LINK showing the existence of an epidemic caused by a vaccine-preventable disease in a properly vaccinated population. You can't, because there has never been one. In fact, epidemics disappear in properly vaccinated populations, and only reappear when vaccination levels drop below a critical threshold: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um 2. Vaccines do not strengthen the defence system, they weaken it. Of course, you are unable to support your contention with any outside links. That's because it is all bull****. Every measure of immune activity goes up when you are vaccinated. T-cells and B-cells become active, you get inflammation at the site of injection, and your body forms a "memory" response. In fact, the only major difference between a vaccination vs. infection with the actual pathogen is the sickness of the patient. Otherwise, the immune response is essentially the same. You get reposes against the same epitomes, similar Th1/Th2 balance, and so forth. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um This is why babies start suffering from fevers, colds, diarrhoea, dysentery, irritable behaviour after the vaccines are delivered. What about the millions of babies who don't receive vaccines and die from these same symptoms? How do you explain their health effects? For that matter, how do you explain that the incidence of these symptoms has gone down as childhood vaccinations have been improved? After all, by your rational, more vaccines should = more children with these symptoms. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocSu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocSu m You cannot make a person more healthy than he is by introducing in him the dangerous vaccine contents. And what are these "highly dangerous" vaccine components? For that matter, do you even know how a vaccine works? Here's a hint, it doesn't "make you healthy". Rather, it teaches your body to identify and kill an infectious disease. You're not making people healthy; you're teaching their bodies how to keep them healthy. 3. Drug companies ensure their survival and profits. The FDA has only today sought to clear itself of the allegations of misdemeanour against it. And, of course, you've failed to substantiate any of these claims. Typical conspiracy stuff; you cannot come up with valid reasons to avoid vaccines, so lets make some random, unproven accusations against the "evil" drug companies. Probably did that right after you took your aspirin... Some of its officials have argued that it is "normal" to do research with funds from the drug industry. It is; public ally available funding isn't always enough. Likewise, drug companies will often pay academic labs to do contract work for them. Same as in pretty much every other industry out there. That said, the lions share of funding still comes from public sources; in my lab public funding accounts for all but 1-2% of the money we receive. Donation from the public outnumber that by nearly ten-fold. Then why the huge uproar about the fundings of Dr Wakefields research? There isn't much of a controversy anymore. It's pretty obvious that Wakefields results are wrong: 1) His experiments have been directly disproven by other researchers in at least 15 separate studies. 2) 10 of the 13 Co-authors on Wakefields paper have retracted the study, meaning that the large majority of the scientists involved in that study no longer support it's claims. To quote the published retraction of the Wakefield paper: "We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However the possibility of such a link was raised, and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent." 3) After being thourghaly thrashed by the scientific community and his own co-authors, Wakefield invented a new disease - "novel bowel syndrome". He continues to tout this syndrome, even though it has never been officially recognized, and appears to be nothing more then another name for a long-known bowel disorder identified in some developmental disorders of children; a disorder identified long before universal vaccination existed. 4) Wakefield is under investigation for scientific misconduct, and in the UK the General Medical Council is trying to bring charges against him. 5) Prior to preforming the study, Wakefield had been hired by attorneys attempting to sue vaccine manufacturers. Normal people would call that a "conflict of interest". Science with pre-determined conclusions is not science. 6) Bad science. Wakefield only looked at autistic children, and didn't look at healthy children as controls. As such his results are meaningless, as we have nothing to compare them to. The next time they will say that it is "normal" to fudge reports and allow dangerous drugs and vaccines into the market. Wakefield is the one who fudged the reports, not those making the vaccines. 4. Vaccines do not conform to any science. Bull****. Vaccinations are a logical extension of our knowledge of the immune system. As some one who studies the immune system for a living I can say this without exemption. In fact, vaccines have been a valuable tool in understanding how our immune system works. After all, we had vaccines long before we even knew the immune system existed. And the responses driven by vaccines were critical in unraveling how the complex immune system functions. Of course, you are once again unable to substantiate your wild claims. 5. Very few children suffer vaccine reactions? Has the entire data in all the countries where vaccines are administered ever been compiled? Most developed nations keep records of vaccination reactions, through adverse events databases. And yes, these results have been compiled on more then one occasion. A few examples: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocSu m http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um Of course, there are the "big boys", the people who do nothing with their time aside from collect the very stats you seem to think don't exist: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um The word "vaccine reaction" is not even uttered in public in Third World countries. And you know this how? Have you ever even been to a third world nation? In fact, vaccine safety is talked about a lot in the third world clinics, particuarily in terms of making sure the parents follow a safe vaccine schedule. Children in these countries suffer "polio like diseases", meningitis, encephalitis, auto immune disorders, shocks and seizures due to "fear of the vaccine process", irritability, bowel pains, etc. after getting the shots. The deaths are often put down as "deaths due to malnourishment". There are never any vaccine reactions or deaths. And your proof of this is? Nothing, as per usual. Just figments of your imagination, as per usual. 6. Vaccine reactions are rarely acknowledged by doctors Bull****. If this were the case then why: 1) Is the standard (at least here in Canada) to inform patients of symptoms to expect after vaccination (fever, etc), and what to do if they occur? 2) Why is it that you're required to stay in the doctors office for a while after vaccination, to monitor for anaphylaxis? 3) Why does nearly every developed nation maintain adverse reaction databases, reporting to which is often mandatory for doctors? until they are threatened with legal actions or are reported to the police. Then they blame the vaccine storage process, the particular batch being faulty, wrong administration etc. Your evidence of this is? Nothing, as per usual. I am personally yet to come across any doctor in India who admits in public that vaccines can cause disease and death. Considering that there is over 50 reports on vaccine safety in India, I'd say you're full of crap. If Indian doctors are publishing these facts for the world to see, then I somehow doubt that they are hiding things in-house. Four years ago, in the year 2002, an Indian doctor had gone to the press with the information. He has since been "suitably chastised". And your evidence of this is . . . nothing. As per usual you're treating the figments of your imagination as reality. The vaccine supporters have blood on their hands. Much, much less then those who oppose vaccination. Based on WHO stats, for the most recent year available (2004), over 2.1 MILLION people died of diseases which are preventable by vaccination: http://www.gavialliance.org/General_...ble_deaths.php In contrast, the most pessimistic (optimistic by your standards) estimates of vaccine-caused mortality is estimated to be ~1000/year: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_docs um http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...1c445&ref=full So you'd rather have 2.1 million die, to prevent the 1000-ish deaths which *may* be associated with vaccination? Bryan
|
|
#19
July 27th 06, 10:17 AM
posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med,sci.med.immunology,sci.med.nursing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vaccines HAVE to go, there can be no compromise on this issue.
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message ... Didn't read the papers, did you? There are several in the links that I provided which compared people who never received vaccines to those who did. Not that we're surprised, you tend to ignore inconvenient things. Bryan I did read some and they never specified 100% unvaccinated kids, so if can actually prove from the text they are then do so unvaccinated in their world doesn't mean 100% unvaccinated, it only means unvaccinated with the particular vaccine they are studying but I thought you could figure that out yourself so if you have the studies that say this then post them or e mail them to me, as you said you would
|
|
#20
July 27th 06, 10:28 AM
posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med,sci.med.immunology,sci.med.nursing
|
|||
|
|||
|
Vaccines HAVE to go, there can be no compromise on this issue.
john wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote in message ... Didn't read the papers, did you? There are several in the links that I provided which compared people who never received vaccines to those who did. Not that we're surprised, you tend to ignore inconvenient things. Bryan I did read some and they never specified 100% unvaccinated kids, so if can actually prove from the text they are then do so unvaccinated in their world doesn't mean 100% unvaccinated, it only means unvaccinated with the particular vaccine they are studying but I thought you could figure that out yourself so if you have the studies that say this then post them or e mail them to me, as you said you would Why? Would you change your mind when you get evidence contrary to your opinion?
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| misc.kids FAQ on Firearms Safety & Children | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | May 21st 06 05:23 AM |
| misc.kids FAQ on Firearms Safety & Children | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | April 20th 06 05:34 AM |
| misc.kids FAQ on Firearms Safety & Children | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | May 30th 05 05:29 AM |
| | | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Linear Mode
