Vaccination & epidemic

[lumberjim]

alarmist hippie chicks?

[Undertoad]

Clod, glad you agree that jinx shouldn't argue using hypotheticals.

Who funds medical studies? I don't know, there are a lot of them, in many nations around the world. Are you talking about the ones that made AIDS no longer a death sentence? The ones that improved cancer survival rates by 20% over the last few decades? The groundbreaking genetics work or the amazing psychiatric findings in the last ten years?

Jinx, CNN/Money is the shittiest financial periodical, and perhaps the shittiest overall periodical I have ever come across. I know it seems a total cop-out, but I have no interest in pawing through one of their turds in order to find the wisdom nuggets in it. Just tell me what they said.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Clod, glad you agree that jinx shouldn't argue using hypotheticals.

You're letting your anger make you petty, man. Everything I've said so far supports coming up with hypotheticals and then being allowed to test them.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Who funds medical studies? I don't know, there are a lot of them, in many nations around the world. Are you talking about the ones that made AIDS no longer a death sentence? The ones that improved cancer survival rates by 20% over the last few decades? The groundbreaking genetics work or the amazing psychiatric findings in the last ten years?

Really? You want to go back to the whole "the medical field is a sainted profession that can do no wrong" stance? Obviously some scientists can, have, and will continue to do some great things. It helps when there's money in a cure, as all those medical problems above require treatment and medicines to be corrected. There's no money in it if the cure is to stop doing something.

Of course, as you're so fond of pointing out, the truth always does come out eventually, especially if the problem is a growing one. What is your opinion of the recent study that I linked earlier in the thread, demonstrating that the Hepatitis B vaccination given at birth categorically caused developmental delays in newborn monkeys?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

You're letting your anger make you petty, man. Everything I've said so far supports coming up with hypotheticals and then being allowed to test them.

But you don't support arguing with them without testing them. That was my point and you have made it.

Really? You want to go back to the whole "the medical field is a sainted profession that can do no wrong" stance?

I have not made such a statement, and haven't made it now.

Obviously some scientists can, have, and will continue to do some great things. It helps when there's money in a cure, as all those medical problems above require treatment and medicines to be corrected. There's no money in it if the cure is to stop doing something.

You will have to add that asterisk to your conspiracy theory. Tell you what, why don't you just tell us your entire theory at once so that you don't have to pull it out of me somehow. Anyone with money does what now?

Of course, as you're so fond of pointing out, the truth always does come out eventually, especially if the problem is a growing one. What is your opinion of the recent study that I linked earlier in the thread, demonstrating that the Hepatitis B vaccination given at birth categorically caused developmental delays in newborn monkeys?

It's a small sample and not double-blind, but it's an interesting counterpart to the human studies. But moot for our purposes since thimerosal is not given to human newborns.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But you don't support arguing with them without testing them. That was my point and you have made it.

No, I don't support concluding with them without testing. But if the tests are being refused, then yes, you can argue the possibility of their existence as evidence that testing should be done.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It's a small sample and not double-blind, but it's an interesting counterpart to the human studies. But moot for our purposes since thimerosal is not given to human newborns.

First, it was double-blind, in that the researchers classifying the monkeys' developmental progress did not know which ones had been vaccinated, and the monkeys had no idea what was going on.

Second, it was not a "counterpart" to the human studies because there have been no human safety studies with the Hepatitis B vaccination, nor most of the other vaccinations on the infant schedule, nor any combination of them together. There was one study that linked a particular brand of Hepatitis B vaccine to an increased risk of a non-autistic neurological disorder, but that would put the monkey study on the same side as the human studies, not a counterpart.

Third, I didn't realize that our purposes at this moment were still on thimerosal. I'm not sure based on your comment if you do realize that the Hepatitis B vaccine gave developmental delays to monkeys without containing thimerosal, but if so forgive me for unfairly changing the subject. But you may expect that I'll inadvertently do it again in the future, because my purposes are not limited in scope that way. I said it pages ago, and I'll say it again: It's not just the MMR, and it's not just autism. It's also not just mercury, and not just dystonia.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You will have to add that asterisk to your conspiracy theory. Tell you what, why don't you just tell us your entire theory at once so that you don't have to pull it out of me somehow. Anyone with money does what now?

You're the one who keeps calling it a conspiracy theory. I think that, just like some climate scientists, vaccine researchers are avoiding or outright fudging their data because they fundamentally believe they are right, and they feel it is a higher moral goal to convince the public they are right, even if it goes against the data.

People with money fund studies. By and large, this is pharmaceutical companies and equipment manufacturers. There are a lesser amount of public institutions that also fund studies, but they are usually hospitals and research facilities themselves that depend on the larger money from the pharmaceutical companies. And there are a handful of government agencies who are supposed to balance out the inherent bias that's going to be found in which studies get chosen by corporations. Usually they do a decent job of it, but they haven't been in this case. I suspect it's both because of the "means to an end" mentality I mentioned before, in addition to the fact that they are financially on the hook for billions of dollars if the hypothesis turns out to be true.

Almost all autism research that focuses on environmental sources has been privately funded by very small donors--and almost always there is a child with autism in the family. If I'm ever a 'person with money' in the largesse sense of the word, you can bet I'll be funding studies left and right. But until then, I rely on public funding to do good science. Instead, they're paying people to sit in a room dissecting the auditory properties of newborns' crying.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Jinx, CNN/Money is the shittiest financial periodical, and perhaps the shittiest overall periodical I have ever come across. I know it seems a total cop-out, but I have no interest in pawing through one of their turds in order to find the wisdom nuggets in it. Just tell me what they said.

Um, no.
I went looking for that 12 year old article in response to you saying

Any amount of money in it now can't inform the conspiracy theory of five years ago.

and also in response to you telling me a few month ago that you were interested in the vaccine controversy... that you had been meaning to look into it for a while actually.

If you don't want to read the article that's fine. I don't really want to read any more of your posts that are all about how intelligent and logical you are. I want to talk about vaccines.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

First, it was double-blind, in that the researchers classifying the monkeys' developmental progress did not know which ones had been vaccinated, and the monkeys had no idea what was going on.

Your link didn't mention anything blind about it. (ETA: found it in the abstract, fine)

Second, it was not a "counterpart" to the human studies because there have been no human safety studies with the Hepatitis B vaccination

http://www.nfid.org/library/hepb_safety.shtml

Originally Posted by national foundation for infectious diseases

Hepatitis B vaccines have been shown to be very safe when given to infants, children or adults (CDC, 1991 a; Greenberg, 1993). More than 20 million persons have received hepatitis B vaccine in the United States and more than 500 million persons have received the vaccine worldwide. The most common side effects from hepatitis B vaccination are pain at the injection site and mild to moderate fever (Szmuness, 1980; Francis, 1982; Zajac, 1986; Stevens, 1985; Andre, 1989; Greenberg, 1993). Studies show that these side effects are reported no more frequently among those vaccinated than among persons not receiving vaccine (Szmuness, 1980; Francis, 1982). Among children receiving both hepatitis B vaccine and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine, these mild side effects have been observed no more frequently than among children receiving DTP vaccine alone (CDC, 1991 a; Greenberg, 1993).

There's seven of them in this page alone.

Third, I didn't realize that our purposes at this moment were still on thimerosal. I'm not sure based on your comment if you do realize that the Hepatitis B vaccine gave developmental delays to monkeys without containing thimerosal, but if so forgive me for unfairly changing the subject.

You'll have to point to that study as I am unaware of it.

But you may expect that I'll inadvertently do it again in the future, because my purposes are not limited in scope that way. I said it pages ago, and I'll say it again: It's not just the MMR, and it's not just autism. It's also not just mercury, and not just dystonia.

"Look! J'accuse! This monkey study shows a problem with Hep B and thimerosal!"

"But numerous other studies show both are safe."

"What? I don't care - it's really about all the vaccines and all the additives!"

*sigh* then I suppose you won't bring up any more single-substance studies.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by jinx

I want to talk about vaccines with people who agree with me.

FTFY.

[jinx]

You know that's not true, you're just being bratty.

[Undertoad]

Can you just please point to those posts where I said how intelligent and logical I am. So I can apologize appropriately.

(Posts in which I point out illogic don't count.)

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

http://www.nfid.org/library/hepb_safety.shtml

The Hepatitis B vaccine was much later in the schedule until 1991, when it was moved to the day of birth. So throw out every study except (Greenburg, 1993,) because they weren't testing babies getting injected on the day they're born. The Greenburg study doesn't seem to be available online, but I'd be interested to see how long they followed the babies' progress, since autistic symptoms are not usually diagnosed until two years later. Just looking for symptoms for 3-4 weeks after the shot won't reveal long-term immunological damage.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

You'll have to point to that study as I am unaware of it.

Maybe I don't understand what you're asking for here... It's the same study I was talking about earlier in the post. They compared unvaccinated monkeys, monkeys giving just a plain Hepatitis B vaccine, and monkeys given a Hepatitis B vaccine containing thimerosal. The plain-vaccine monkeys showed delays, the thimerosal-vaccine monkeys showed greater delays.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

"Look! J'accuse! This monkey study shows a problem with Hep B and thimerosal!"

"But numerous other studies show both are safe."

"What? I don't care - it's really about all the vaccines and all the additives!"

*sigh* then I suppose you won't bring up any more single-substance studies.

Once again, numerous studies do not show that the current adminstration methods of the Hepatitis B vaccine are safe. And numerous studies show quite the opposite of thimerosal; that it can be very unsafe, especially in younger babies and fetuses. Each individual part has its own risks, and there is a cumulative risk when you start stacking them one on top of the other. If you eat one bag of Doritos, your risk of stomach upset and atherosclerosis is there, but relatively low. If you eat a bag of Doritos every day, your risk of stomach upset and atherosclerosis is much higher. If you feed a baby a bag of Doritos every day, the effects will be much more stark than they are in an adult. I'm not sure why you seem to have a hard time understanding this.

[Undertoad]

Maybe I don't understand what you're asking for here... It's the same study I was talking about earlier in the post.

Maybe we're looking at different studies. Re-link to the one you're talking about.

I'm not sure why you seem to have a hard time understanding this.

I understand it perfectly.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Maybe we're looking at different studies. Re-link to the one you're talking about.

Ah, my mistake. The one that was linked earlier in the thread was just Hepatitis B including thimerosal. The other one doesn't seem to have been published yet; I read about it in an email alert from the research facility. They're doing the entire vaccination schedule, American (no thimerosal) and developing country (with thimerosal) versions, and they're getting completed and published one at a time.

[Undertoad]

Each individual part has its own risks, and there is a cumulative risk when you start stacking them one on top of the other.

Another day, more reading! This review article summarizes a number of studies. Here is the section on "too many vaccines".

The notion that children might be receiving too many vaccines too soon and that these vaccines either overwhelm an immature immune system or generate a pathologic, autism‐inducing autoimmune response is flawed for several reasons:

1.Vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system. Although the infant immune system is relatively naive, it is immediately capable of generating a vast array of protective responses; even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously [30]. Consistent with this theoretical exercise, combinations of vaccines induce immune responses comparable to those given individually [31]. Also, although the number of recommended childhood vaccines has increased during the past 30 years, with advances in protein chemistry and recombinant DNA technology, the immunologic load has actually decreased. The 14 vaccines given today contain <200 bacterial and viral proteins or polysaccharides, compared with >3000 of these immunological components in the 7 vaccines administered in 1980 [30]. Further, vaccines represent a minute fraction of what a child’s immune system routinely navigates; the average child is infected with 4–6 viruses per year [32]. The immune response elicited from the vast antigen exposure of unattenuated viral replication supersedes that of even multiple, simultaneous vaccines.

2.Multiple vaccinations do not weaken the immune system. Vaccinated and unvaccinated children do not differ in their susceptibility to infections not prevented by vaccines [33–35]. In other words, vaccination does not suppress the immune system in a clinically relevant manner. However, infections with some vaccine‐preventable diseases predispose children to severe, invasive infections with other pathogens [36, 37]. Therefore, the available data suggest that vaccines do not weaken the immune system.

3.Autism is not an immune‐mediated disease. Unlike autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis, there is no evidence of immune activation or inflammatory lesions in the CNS of people with autism [38]. In fact, current data suggest that genetic variation in neuronal circuitry that affects synaptic development might in part account for autistic behavior [39]. Thus, speculation that an exaggerated or inappropriate immune response to vaccination precipitates autism is at variance with current scientific data that address the pathogenesis of autism.

4.No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines.