I Didn’t Vaccinate My Kids and the One Who Lived Turned out Fine

[barmar]

But this is not what the paper says. It provides a graphic stating that the numbers of polio cases goes up strongly after vaccination is introduced. I am not inclined to believe a non-peer-reviewed paper that starts off with a huge lie, even if it tries to back away from it later on by claiming that it did not really mean what it stated.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think they're trying to make a distinction between the statistics reported by the medical establishment (which were based on the revised definitions, and showed polio decreasing) and the statistics the authors determined (which are comparing apples with apples, so showed an increase).

 

But I'm also skeptical. The claims they make about the dangers from the vaccine are in thalidomide levels, so it's hard to imagine the FDA not taking notice.

[onoway]

Found this article today and this is something that the courts have acknowleged. So the choice to ignore someone that is citing research from published peer reviewed studies can be bypassed if you so choose, but the evidence is mounting. http://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/01/biologist-proves-measles-isnt-a-virus-wins-supreme-court-case-against-doctor.html

 

As well , nobody seems to have addressed the question: why should parents accept having less accountability from a manufacturer putting out a coffeemaker than for injections of toxic substances into their child's body?

[hrothgar]

Found this article today and this is something that the courts have acknowleged. So the choice to ignore someone that is citing research from published peer reviewed studies can be bypassed if you so choose, but the evidence is mounting. http://www.naturalblaze.com/2017/01/biologist-proves-measles-isnt-a-virus-wins-supreme-court-case-against-doctor.html

 

Onoway, you are clearly too stupid to be offering opinions on scientific matters. (Hell, I question your ability to read a simple newspaper article)

 

The German case that you are citing hinges on standards of proof and what constitutes an enforceable claim. It is not making a statement about the validity of the germ theory.

 

Here's the relevant quote: Im Verfahren in Stuttgart kam es zu einer Wende im Prozess: Der „Impfgegner muss nicht zahlen.“[7] Der Grund dieser Entscheidung vom 16. Februar 2016 liegt im besonderen Wesen einer Auslobung: Der Auslober (Herr Lanka) habe sich eine einzige Arbeit mit dem Beweis gewünscht, der Kläger habe hingegen mehrere Publikationen geliefert, die nur in der Summe den Nachweis erbringen können. Daher wurde der Berufung im Wesentlichen stattgegeben.

 

(Also, the BHG is not the German Supreme court. It does not rule on constitutionality.)

[hrothgar]

deleting a dup

[hrothgar]

As well , nobody seems to have addressed the question: why should parents accept having less accountability from a manufacturer putting out a coffeemaker than for injections of toxic substances into their child's body?

 

Here you go...

 

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

[Winstonm]

Along the same line as claims stopping production, rampant market-based capitalism has caused medical research to move away from antibiotic formulations into chronic treatment drugs due to the low profitability of the former and the high profitability of the latter. A lack of new antibiotics has left the world susceptible to new resistant strains of bacteria.

 

Somewhere, there needs to be found a middle ground between corporate profit interests and public good, and I tend to lean more heavily toward protecting public good than protecting the rights of corporations to meet the shareholder demands for quarterly profit increases.

 

This explains the bacterial resistance problem.

[barmar]

As well , nobody seems to have addressed the question: why should parents accept having less accountability from a manufacturer putting out a coffeemaker than for injections of toxic substances into their child's body?

What do you mean by this? Drugs have to be approved by the FDA, and the process is extremely difficult. There's no comparable requirement for coffeemakers.

[strings11]

I see a lot of hearty chortles here about the idiocy of being cautious about vaccinations.

 

Gee, I guess everyone here "knows" that the "fools" who don't believe those (in "AUTHORITY") who claim that "it cannot be proved" that vaccinations can be harmful to the brain development of children in the age range when vaccinations are normally administered - are clearly mentally deficient. Must be they don't play bridge.

 

After all, the companies who might be liable if it were determined that thimerosal or other Mercury containing preservatives were found to affect infant brain development in a way that might engender things like autism; would certainly not attempt to manipulate public perception of such hazards.

 

The semi-official text used is often roughly:

Today, except for some flu vaccines in multi-dose vials, no recommended childhood vaccines contain thimerosal as a preservative.

(Nice to know that this is true (?) "today", but perhaps one can understand a parent who's scientific data is not current being somewhat concerned.)

 

In all other recommended childhood vaccines, no thimerosal is present, OR ( :) ) the amount of thimerosal is close to zero.

(How close to zero is close to zero? Scientifically speaking of course...)

 

No reputable scientific studies have found an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism.

(Kind of, sort of, makes you wonder what the disreputable studies say. And who conducts the DISreputable studies anyway?)

 

 

So, in short: Before you start castigating everyone who thinks they should be concerned about something that You Know they should not worry about, perhaps you should ask them what their concerns might be? Maybe rather than mirth, you might get the disquieting feeling that there is a reason for you avoid the presumption that those who think differently about a given topic, are not the morons that you would have them be.

[hrothgar]

 

So, in short: Before you start castigating everyone who thinks they should be concerned about something that You Know they should not worry about, perhaps you should ask them what their concerns might be? Maybe rather than mirth, you might get the disquieting feeling that there is a reason for you avoid the presumption that those who think differently about a given topic, are not the morons that you would have them be.

 

I don't particularly care what their concerns might be.

I care about the quality of their analysis.

 

(and "Oh, actors have motives" does not constitute analysis)

[Zelandakh]

No reputable scientific studies have found an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism.

 

So, in short: Before you start castigating everyone who thinks they should be concerned about something that You Know they should not worry about, perhaps you should ask them what their concerns might be?

Do you think it is correct to give equal weight to the peer-reviewed material from scientists that have carefully gathered evidence and analysed it exhaustively to show that the risks are minimal and the benefits substantial against the opinions of random friends/strangers with the opinion that the risks are of an unacceptable level?

[barmar]

No reputable scientific studies have found an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism.

(Kind of, sort of, makes you wonder what the disreputable studies say. And who conducts the DISreputable studies anyway?)

Andrew Wakefield. In 1998 he published a research paper showing the link between MMR vaccines and autism. Investigations later found that this study was fraudulent, he had financial conflicts of interest, and he'd abused some of the children involved in the study. His co-authors withdrew their support for the conclusions, and the journal retracted the paper, declared that it was "utterly false" and that they'd been deceived when it was published.

 

This scam paper essentially started the whole anti-vaccination movement.

[Winstonm]

Andrew Wakefield. In 1998 he published a research paper showing the link between MMR vaccines and autism. Investigations later found that this study was fraudulent, he had financial conflicts of interest, and he'd abused some of the children involved in the study. His co-authors withdrew their support for the conclusions, and the journal retracted the paper, declared that it was "utterly false" and that they'd been deceived when it was published.

 

This scam paper essentially started the whole anti-vaccination movement.

 

Wakefield's study was totally fabricated. It is worth the same as a used piece of toilet paper and should have been treated as that. That it is even still mentioned and referenced shows the power of disinformation and propaganda.

[barmar]

Wakefield's study was totally fabricated. It is worth the same as a used piece of toilet paper and should have been treated as that. That it is even still mentioned and referenced shows the power of disinformation and propaganda.

The problem may be that the official investigation into it didn't come out until more than a dozen years after the original publication. During that time the anti-vac movement grew strong, and it was too late for facts to kill it.

 

Not to mention that official facts are not going to sway people who believe in conspiracies. In fact, they just support their beliefs -- the investigation was obviously part of the conspiracy.

[mike777]

I tend to ignore claims of conflict of interests when it comes to studies. It is just a fact of life in science studies today.

 

So many studies are just hard to replicate due to time and money which is a problem. I seem to remember somewhere only about one third of research in economics and finance were able to be replicated.

 

As stated before I tend to put my trust in studies or research where the answer is the opposite of what was expected by those involved.

[Winstonm]

I tend to ignore claims of conflict of interests when it comes to studies. It is just a fact of life in science studies today.

 

So many studies are just hard to replicate due to time and money which is a problem. I seem to remember somewhere only about one third of research in economics and finance were able to be replicated.

 

As stated before I tend to put my trust in studies or research where the answer is the opposite of what was expected by those involved.

 

Fraud is not research.

[barmar]

I tend to ignore claims of conflict of interests when it comes to studies. It is just a fact of life in science studies today.

If conflict of interest were the only issue, that's OK. But he really did commit fraud.

So many studies are just hard to replicate due to time and money which is a problem. I seem to remember somewhere only about one third of research in economics and finance were able to be replicated.

This is a common problem in the so-called "soft" sciences like economics and psychology. It's hard to perform controlled experiments -- you can't see what would have happened in the economy if Dodd-Frank hadn't been instituted.

[Trinidad]

My son asked me today why some people didn't have their kids vaccinated. He is a cub scout leader and one of his cubs has rubella.

 

I told him that vaccinations work to stop the disease and, at the same time carry (very small) risks for the individual vaccinee (nice word, huh). When the disease is practically eliminated (as with rubella in the Netherlands), the very small risk for the individual from the vaccination may be larger than the risk for serious harm from getting rubella. I said that, in my estimate, we hadn't reached that point yet, but that there is such a point and that it is not far away.

 

I told him at the same time, that this is a matter of society over individual: Suppose every individual makes the calculation like the parents of this cub scout. They determine that the risk for side effects is higher than the risk for harm from rubella and that, therefore, they don't have their kids vaccinated. In no time, the risk for harm from rubella will be much higher for the entire population. This is a case where "my interest first" harms the entire population and I compared it to evading taxes or disregard for traffic rules (though there is no law mandating vaccination).

 

Rik

[olegru]

If conflict of interest were the only issue, that's OK. But he really did commit fraud.

 

This is a common problem in the so-called "soft" sciences like economics and psychology. It's hard to perform controlled experiments -- you can't see what would have happened in the economy if Dodd-Frank hadn't been instituted.

Here is a letter from famous psychologist Daniel Kahneman about the issue with very well known but not replicatable researches in the social psychology

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/suppinfoFile/Kahneman%20Letter.pdf

I believe it was caused by that http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/03/10/failed-replication-bargh-psychology-study-doyen/#.WJanAfkrIdV story, but it is only the tip of the iceberg.

[kenberg]

Here is a letter from famous psychologist Daniel Kahneman about the issue with very well known but not replicatable researches in the social psychology

http://www.nature.co...an%20Letter.pdf

I believe it was caused by that http://blogs.discove...n/#.WJanAfkrIdV story, but it is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

Very interesting. I found the Kahneman letter to be very restrained, very even-handed, and thus very practical.

 

My oldest child was born in 1961 when I was 22. I recognized that I knew very little and I was ready to learn from wherever I could. I quickly found that some skepticism was very useful. Science is great. Expert advice can be very useful. Still, the best advice may be to not believe everything you are told, even if the speaker has an array of credentials after his name. We have to put it all together as best we can.

[barmar]

We have to put it all together as best we can.

That's the rub. If you're not an expert, you're going to be stuck just trying to figure out who to believe. You don't want to be like Buriden's ass, starving because it can't decide. The best most of us can do is assume that the mainstream concensus was reached through reasonable means, and go along with it.

 

People will sometimes point out that there were times in history when the mainstream viewpoint was incredibly wrong -- thousands of years ago most people (including the intelligentsia) thought Earth was flat and the center of the universe, and scientists mostly believed that the universe was filled with "luminiferous ether" until Einstein's relativity theories replaced them a century ago. Yeah, this happens, but what are you going to do, assume that we don't know anything? The scientific method mostly converges on the truth, and those incorrect viewpoints were generally assumptions that predated the technology to test them. As technology improves, so does our ability to confirm and deny assumptions.

[Jacki]

I stumbled on this while trying to find an answer to one of our players who was trying to find a place to post an obit. Curious coincidence. But my addition to the thread follows:

 

As a busy mother of four I never found it expedient to get a flu shot. Although all four of my kids had all the doctor prescribed inoculations required - schools at the time needed evidence that all required shots were given.

 

So, kids now grown and I thought one day during the fall of the year after I moved to Dallas, I should be a responsible person and get a flu shot. I did that - the first time ever.

 

A few days after that I came down with a curious headache. Not a migraine, just an irritant that wouldn't go away. After two weeks of this blasted headache that wouldn't go away, I picked up the phone to call my PCP to get it checked. Trouble is, it was a land line that needed to be put back in the cradle and I kept dropping it, using my right hand. Finally got it back in the cradle using the other hand and then noticed my right hand was numb. Then my arm. OMG I'm having a stroke!!!

 

So called 911 and told the operator, HELP, I'm having a stroke. So to cut to the chase, the ambulance took me to the ER where they determined it wasn't a stroke but didn't have a clue what was wrong as by this time my whole right side was parallelized. WTF?

 

Finally after a week of immobility the diagnosis was Gullian Barre syndrome as a result of a FLU SHOT!! There's more (including a clot because of immobility), but it all worked out and I am as healthy as ever but yikes that was a scary experience.

 

Bottom lime is, if I had to do it all over again, I doubt I would immunize my kids again and certainly pass on any pneumonia, flu or other adult preventative measures that so enrich the pharmaceutical companies. Aspirin, Tylenol (in moderation) fine, but otherwise, no thanks.

 

Jacki :)

[mike777]

jacki...aspirin etc do enrich companies...it is difficult to not enrich companies

 

if you wish to pass on adult preventive measures that may enrich companies....fair enough...but tough to do

 

 

I am happy very happy to hear you are doing well.

[barmar]

Bottom lime is, if I had to do it all over again, I doubt I would immunize my kids again and certainly pass on any pneumonia, flu or other adult preventative measures that so enrich the pharmaceutical companies. Aspirin, Tylenol (in moderation) fine, but otherwise, no thanks.

I'm really sorry this happened to you, but you have to understand that this is an exceptional situation. Nothing is perfect, and vaccines do have potential side effects. But the chance of severe side effects is generally much lower than the chance of getting the diseases they're protecting against.

 

"Once bitten, twice shy" is the normal emotional reaction, but it's not always the best policy.

[barmar]

BTW, I don't get flu shots, either, but not because I'm scared of them. I just don't think I need it. I'm rarely around kids, who are the biggest transmitters of germs. I live alone, and don't socialize much, except for playing bridge. I rarely even get colds, and most of the ones I've gotten have been on the way home from national bridge tournaments -- I expect that lots of germs are spread through the cards, as well as on the airplanes.

[Cyberyeti]

I stumbled on this while trying to find an answer to one of our players who was trying to find a place to post an obit. Curious coincidence. But my addition to the thread follows:

 

As a busy mother of four I never found it expedient to get a flu shot. Although all four of my kids had all the doctor prescribed inoculations required - schools at the time needed evidence that all required shots were given.

 

So, kids now grown and I thought one day during the fall of the year after I moved to Dallas, I should be a responsible person and get a flu shot. I did that - the first time ever.

 

A few days after that I came down with a curious headache. Not a migraine, just an irritant that wouldn't go away. After two weeks of this blasted headache that wouldn't go away, I picked up the phone to call my PCP to get it checked. Trouble is, it was a land line that needed to be put back in the cradle and I kept dropping it, using my right hand. Finally got it back in the cradle using the other hand and then noticed my right hand was numb. Then my arm. OMG I'm having a stroke!!!

 

So called 911 and told the operator, HELP, I'm having a stroke. So to cut to the chase, the ambulance took me to the ER where they determined it wasn't a stroke but didn't have a clue what was wrong as by this time my whole right side was parallelized. WTF?

 

Finally after a week of immobility the diagnosis was Gullian Barre syndrome as a result of a FLU SHOT!! There's more (including a clot because of immobility), but it all worked out and I am as healthy as ever but yikes that was a scary experience.

 

Bottom lime is, if I had to do it all over again, I doubt I would immunize my kids again and certainly pass on any pneumonia, flu or other adult preventative measures that so enrich the pharmaceutical companies. Aspirin, Tylenol (in moderation) fine, but otherwise, no thanks.

 

Jacki :)

 

This is a well known but very rare complication of the flu jab.

 

I also don't take a flu jab despite being eligible for a free one here in the UK, but I have had all the others. I assess the risk, and the chance of me getting flu I feel is quite low, hence I don't feel that a) taking a dose of vaccine away from somebody at higher risk and b) risking the side effects are worth it.

 

BTW obits go in the RIP thread in this forum