The Cellar - Vaccination & epidemic

Page 9 of 63

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Vaccination & epidemic (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20308)

Tiki	05-20-2009 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumberjim (Post 567079)

funny....i know i said i'd ignore you....but i just happened upon this thread and that deal is now off.

it was posted some 13 hours before the OP....where you use 'strong verbiage' not personal insults. see....i was offended by the tone of the 1st post in this thread because i knew we'd argued about this in the past, and felt like it might be directed at me and my family. now i see that it was, indeed.....even though you've claimed to be speaking in general since i've pointed it out.

fucking lying reality bending hypocrite jerkoff. i cant wait until you get back on your meds.

Paranoid much?

Not only was my OP not directed at you and your family, but it wasn't even originally composed for this board... I posted it at CoG first, and then realizing that almost everybody there is underage and has no interest in the topic, I reposted it here.

You can keep on with your hysterical high-school-girl namecalling and persecution complex, but I suggest you reconsider your delusional belief that anyone spends that much time thinking about you.

Undertoad

05-20-2009 12:20 PM

Here's what the study referenced says

Quote:

CONCLUSIONS: No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes.

To understand why they came to that conclusion, I expect one would need coursework in statistics. Nevertheless, that was the conclusion of the researchers, and you are merely cherry-picking their work to try to come to a different conclusion, which I think you shouldn't do.

DanaC

05-20-2009 12:20 PM

Frankly, the onus should be on medical science to prove that it is safe. At the moment the onus seems to be on people having to prove that it isn't.

DanaC

05-20-2009 12:22 PM

UT Ithink the key words there are consistent and significant. They also suggested areas of concern where results were slightly different.

It is very difficult to prove a consistent cause of eczema and asthma. There are a variety of 'triggers' that set off a flare. As yet they've been unable to find a consistent cause. There are a number of possibilities. But immuno conditions are a bitch to figure out. It's entirely possible conditions like autism are just as tricky. If we're relying on consistent results, then I doubt they will ever be confident enough to point to anything as a cause.

Undertoad

05-20-2009 12:45 PM

You guys are working really hard to interpret the science differently than the science interprets itself. You shouldn't do that.

I should add, I love you guys. If I am wrong I hope you still love me.

I pushed you cause
I loved you guys
I didn't realize
You weren't having fun
I dragged you up the stairs
And I told you to fly
You were flapping your arms
You started to cry
You were too high
Too high
-- Ben Folds Five, My Philosophy

TheMercenary

05-20-2009 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 567221)

Here's what UT's article says

Here's what the study referenced says

What I get from those sitations is that there is no proof that these are not normal variations seen in populations where there could be other causes not studied by the original research. They see the variations but that does not mean there is a truely causative relationship.

TheMercenary

05-20-2009 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 567229)

Frankly, the onus should be on medical science to prove that it is safe. At the moment the onus seems to be on people having to prove that it isn't.

It has always been like that because people want solutions to their problems and people who have disease are willing to accept risk-benefit ratios that are directed to a greater extent to easing or curing disease, not thinking to much about the very small group that is affected by rare unintended effects. The medical commuinty thinks the same way. Can we fix problem x with solution y and are 99% of the people relieved.

jinx	05-20-2009 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 567241)

You guys are working really hard to interpret the science differently than the science interprets itself. You shouldn't do that.

I disagree but thanks for your perspective. That study was offered under the context of dismissing an autism connection. It clearly doesn't dismiss anything when it calls for more accurate research.

Quote:

In the United Kingdom, researchers evaluated the vaccination records of 100,572 children born during 1988–1997, using the General Practice Research Database, 104 of whom were affected with autism [27]. No relationship between thimerosal exposure and autism diagnosis was observed.

And we can tell that by studying just one of several vaccines an infant receives at once? That's what the reference says...

Quote:

CONCLUSIONS: With the possible exception of tics, there was no evidence that thimerosal exposure via DTP/DT vaccines causes neurodevelopmental disorders.

jinx	05-20-2009 01:06 PM

It should also be noted that Paul Offit (author of article) holds the patent on 2 vaccines; one currently on the schedule, and one that was taken off due to babies dying from intusception.

TheMercenary

05-20-2009 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 567253)

It should also be noted that Paul Offit (author of article) holds the patent on 2 vaccines; one currently on the schedule, and one that was taken off due to babies dying from intusception.

That is quite interesting. Thanks for that bit.

Undertoad

05-20-2009 01:09 PM

That covers the overview and (partially) one of the studies, what of the other 19?

TheMercenary

05-20-2009 01:11 PM

Here is a list of other studies done by various authors:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/doc...ne_studies.pdf

Tiki	05-20-2009 01:12 PM

Just FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit

and about the withdrawn vaccine, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotavirus_vaccine:

Quote:

Clinical trials in the United States, Finland, and Venezuela had found it to be 80 to 100% effective at preventing severe diarrhea caused by rotavirus A, and researchers had detected no statistically significant serious adverse effects. The manufacturer of the vaccine, however, withdrew it from the market in 1999, after it was discovered that the vaccine may have contributed to an increased risk for intussusception, or bowel obstruction, in one of every 12,000 vaccinated infants.

I don't normally cite Wikipedia but, in this case, it seemed the source least likely to reflect bias.

TheMercenary

05-20-2009 01:12 PM

I do have the ability to pull original articles in their complete format if you need me to.

TheMercenary

05-20-2009 01:14 PM

1 in 12,000 is a pretty high incidence in medicine. And most likely due to the severity of intussusception for the infants that get it, not worth the risk-benefit ratio.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27 AM.

Page 9 of 63

« First

Last »

Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page