Parental rights and vaccines - Page 51 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14994601
You really don't even have to respond to the jackasses, you can just let them put on a parade of plunk fucking stupid and they discredit themselves.


Dr. Frank DeStefano, the CDC Director of Immunization Safety
#14994604
I should record myself reading my own posts from here, and then load them onto YouTube, and then cite them as evidence.

Apparently, that is considered evidence by some.
#14994612
2011 IOM report:

"Both epidemiologic and mechanistic research suggest that most individuals who experience an adverse reaction to vaccines have a preexisting susceptibility. These predispositions can exist for a number of reasons—genetic variants(in human or microbiome DNA), environmental exposures, behaviors, intervening illness, or developmental stage, to name just a few—all of which can interact...Some of these adverse reactions are specific to the particular vaccine, while others may not be. Some of these predispositions may be detectable prior to the administration of vaccine...much work remains to be done to elucidate and to develop strategies to document the immunologic mechanisms that lead to adverse effects in individual patients."

https://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/5#82


In its 2013 report the IOM found that:

"evidence assessing outcomes in sub populations of children who may be potentially susceptible to adverse reactions to vaccines(such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainty about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures and outcomes."

https://www.nap.edu/read/13563/chapter/9#130

NIH Director Dr Bernadine Healy
#14994616
Dr. Peter Aaby is renowned for studying and promoting vaccines in Africa with over 300 published studies. In 2017, he published a study finding children vaccinated with DTP were 10 times more likely to die in the first 6 months of life than the unvaccinated. Dr. Aaby’s study therefore concluded that: “All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.” More disturbing is that children vaccinated with DTP were dying from causes never associated with this vaccine, such as respiratory infections, diarrhea, and malaria. This indicated that while DTP reduced the incidence of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, it increased susceptibility to other infections.



Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection?

Abstract

Whole-cell diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) were introduced to children in Guinea-Bissau in 1981. We previously reported that DTP in the target age group from 3 to 5 months of age was associated with higher overall mortality. DTP and OPV were also given to older children and in this study we tested the effect on mortality in children aged 6–35 months.

Conclusion

Although having better nutritional status and being protected against three infections, 6–35 months old DTP-vaccinated children tended to have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children. All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality.
Keywords: bias in vaccine studies, diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis vaccine, heterologous effects, measles vaccine, non-specific effects of vaccines, oral polio vaccine

Key Observations

• DTP and oral polio vaccine (OPV) were first introduced to children aged 6–35 months in June 1981 in an urban area in Guinea-Bissau. Children who were DTP-vaccinated at the first weighing session after the introduction of DTP had significantly better weight-for-age z-scores than those not vaccinated.
• Although better survival was expected, the DTP-vaccinated children had twofold higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children.
• In a meta-analysis of the three studies of the introduction of DTP in urban and rural Guinea-Bissau, DTP-vaccinated children had twofold higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5868131/




Christine Benn works with Peter Aaby, she is a medical doctor, head of the Bandim Health Project, centre leader for the Research Center for Vitamins and Vaccines, and a professor in Global Health at University of Southern Denmark.


Peter Aaby (Danish, born 1944 in Lund, Sweden) is trained as an anthropologist but also holds a doctoral degree in medicine.[1] In 1978, Peter Aaby established the Bandim Health Project, a Health and Demographic Surveillance System site in Guinea-Bissau in West Africa, which he has run ever since.[2] In 2000, Peter Aaby was awarded the Novo Nordisk Prize, the most important Danish award within health research.

Aaby is credited for the discovery of non-specific effects of vaccines – i.e. effects of vaccines, which go beyond the specific protective effects against the targeted diseases.[3] The theory of non-specific effects of vaccines was established in 1991 and later documented in several trials on measles vaccine, BCG, oral polio vaccine, DTP vaccine and smallpox vaccine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Aaby

#14994619
What you are proving by posting this shit you are is that you lack the education and training to understand what
you are reading. Simple as that.

Keep posting though. It will do until you can find some evidence that vaccinations don't work or that the risk benefit assessment is incorrect. You won't find it. Anti vaxxers are profoundly stupid people.
#14994629
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: protecting the private good?

After revelations that the CDC is receiving some funding from industry, Jeanne Lenzer investigates how it might have affected the organisation’s decisions

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) includes the following disclaimer with its recommendations: “CDC, our planners, and our content experts wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products . . . CDC does not accept commercial support.”1

The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law.

Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.

Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, told The BMJ, “The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. Financial dealings with biopharmaceutical companies threaten that reputation.”2

Industry funding of the CDC has taken many doctors, even some who worked for CDC, by surprise. Philip Lederer, an infectious diseases fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and a former CDC epidemic intelligence service officer, told The BMJ he was “saddened” to learn of industry funding.

The CDC’s director, Tom Frieden, did not respond to a question about the disclaimer. He told The BMJ by email, “Public-private partnerships allow CDC to do more, faster. The agency’s core values of accountability, respect, and integrity guide the way CDC spends the funds entrusted to it.

8http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362
#14994633
Drlee wrote:Sort of. Certainly the anti-vaxxers would be at greater risk but not only them. Two points.

Immune compromised people who cannot take vaccines, and who are at tremendous risk should they contract some of these diseases, have to rely on herd immunity for their protection. Anti-vaxxers are a direct threat to these innocent people. Needlessly by the way.

The second point is that anti-vaxxers are talking about the immunization of their children, not so much themselves. In most cases they have had these childhood vaccines. So these innocent children are potential victims of their own parents' abject stupidity.

One could also mention that vaccines are not 100% effective but they are very very close so I will leave that out.

Just for the record, I would make flu vaccine mandatory in my perfect world. I get it every year as does everyone I can influence.


That's a great response.

I now know the grounds upon which I can argue for universal vaccination -- and those are important because it is vital that we confront anti-vaxxers with not just definitive science but a legitimate case that it infringes on the rights of others to to not follow the proven scientific understanding.
#14994638

A group of parents are saying the Federal government has paid off multi-million dollar settlements for dozens of families whose kids suffered brain damage after receiving vaccines. As you know the Federal government has denied any connection between autism and vaccines, does this seem like a cover up? One parent speaks out on the autism settlement.



Cognitive dissonance is the psychology term for that queasy feeling we get when things just don’t line up. Here are the facts: Porter is a healthy infant one moment and has brain damage the next. The CDC says vaccines are always safe, but the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program awards Porter’s family millions of dollars to pay for his pertussis injury. The CDC sends a press release saying vaccines never cause autism. That afternoon, government funds pay for Porter’s autism therapy. He goes three times a week.
#14994665
I will confine myself to just this piece of idocy: The CDC says vaccines are always safe.....


How do you respond to something that is absolutely wrong? Just deny it? So for those reading this who are not so blinded by irrational fear that they resort to outright falsehoods, the CDC does NOT say that vaccines are always safe.

It is hard to debate with someone who simply ignores the science. I see now he has become fixated on the CDC. They are the next bogeyman.

It would just be pathetic if it were not for so many special snowflakes buying this shit.
#14994669
I will confine myself to just this piece of idocy: The CDC says vaccines are always safe.....


How do you respond to something that is absolutely wrong? Just deny it? So for those reading this who are not so blinded by irrational fear that they resort to outright falsehoods, the CDC does NOT say that vaccines are always safe.

Here are many pages on the CDC documenting side effects including some very serious ones, for vaccines:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/index.html

It is hard to debate with someone who simply ignores the science. I see now he has become fixated on the CDC. They are the next bogeyman.

It would just be pathetic if it were not for so many special snowflakes buying this shit.

But lets talk safety.

Maybe Sivad will get his teeth into this one: Look at the source:

Did acetaminophen provoke the autism epidemic?
Good P1.
Author information
Abstract

Schultz et al (2008) raised the question whether regression into autism is triggered, not by the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, but by acetaminophen (Tylenol) given for its fever and pain. Considerable evidence supports this contention, most notably the exponential rise in the incidence of autism since 1980, when acetaminophen began to replace aspirin for infants and young children. The impetus for this shift - a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warning that aspirin was associated with Reye's syndrome - has since been compellingly debunked. If aspirin is not to be feared as a cause of Reyes syndrome, and acetaminophen is to be feared as a cause of autism, can the autism epidemic be reversed by replacing acetaminophen with aspirin or other remedies?


Hmmmmm :hmm:
#14994693
Sivad wrote:2011 IOM report:

"Both epidemiologic and mechanistic research suggest that most individuals who experience an adverse reaction to vaccines have a preexisting susceptibility. These predispositions can exist for a number of reasons—genetic variants(in human or microbiome DNA), environmental exposures, behaviors, intervening illness, or developmental stage, to name just a few—all of which can interact...Some of these adverse reactions are specific to the particular vaccine, while others may not be. Some of these predispositions may be detectable prior to the administration of vaccine...much work remains to be done to elucidate and to develop strategies to document the immunologic mechanisms that lead to adverse effects in individual patients."

https://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/5#82


This does not show that vaccines are any more unsafe than any other medical treatments.

In its 2013 report the IOM found that:

"evidence assessing outcomes in sub populations of children who may be potentially susceptible to adverse reactions to vaccines(such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainty about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures and outcomes."

https://www.nap.edu/read/13563/chapter/9#130


This is about problems with data collection and are not indicative of risk from vaccines.

In fact, the rarity od these evnets (which isnwhy it is hard to collect data) suggest that vaccines are safe for almost everyone.

NIH Director Dr Bernadine Healy



This looks like it is old and outdated. Is there an actual argument in the video?

Sivad wrote:Dr. Peter Aaby is renowned for studying and promoting vaccines in Africa with over 300 published studies. In 2017, he published a study finding children vaccinated with DTP were 10 times more likely to die in the first 6 months of life than the unvaccinated. Dr. Aaby’s study therefore concluded that: “All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.” More disturbing is that children vaccinated with DTP were dying from causes never associated with this vaccine, such as respiratory infections, diarrhea, and malaria. This indicated that while DTP reduced the incidence of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis, it increased susceptibility to other infections.

Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection?

Abstract

Whole-cell diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis (DTP) and oral polio vaccine (OPV) were introduced to children in Guinea-Bissau in 1981. We previously reported that DTP in the target age group from 3 to 5 months of age was associated with higher overall mortality. DTP and OPV were also given to older children and in this study we tested the effect on mortality in children aged 6–35 months.

Conclusion

Although having better nutritional status and being protected against three infections, 6–35 months old DTP-vaccinated children tended to have higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children. All studies of the introduction of DTP have found increased overall mortality.
Keywords: bias in vaccine studies, diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis vaccine, heterologous effects, measles vaccine, non-specific effects of vaccines, oral polio vaccine

Key Observations

• DTP and oral polio vaccine (OPV) were first introduced to children aged 6–35 months in June 1981 in an urban area in Guinea-Bissau. Children who were DTP-vaccinated at the first weighing session after the introduction of DTP had significantly better weight-for-age z-scores than those not vaccinated.
• Although better survival was expected, the DTP-vaccinated children had twofold higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children.
• In a meta-analysis of the three studies of the introduction of DTP in urban and rural Guinea-Bissau, DTP-vaccinated children had twofold higher mortality than DTP-unvaccinated children.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5868131/


This is actually interesting.

It would be good to see if these results could be replicated elsewhere.

At this point, there are too many confounding variables to make any causation claims.



Christine Benn works with Peter Aaby, she is a medical doctor, head of the Bandim Health Project, centre leader for the Research Center for Vitamins and Vaccines, and a professor in Global Health at University of Southern Denmark.


Peter Aaby (Danish, born 1944 in Lund, Sweden) is trained as an anthropologist but also holds a doctoral degree in medicine.[1] In 1978, Peter Aaby established the Bandim Health Project, a Health and Demographic Surveillance System site in Guinea-Bissau in West Africa, which he has run ever since.[2] In 2000, Peter Aaby was awarded the Novo Nordisk Prize, the most important Danish award within health research.

Aaby is credited for the discovery of non-specific effects of vaccines – i.e. effects of vaccines, which go beyond the specific protective effects against the targeted diseases.[3] The theory of non-specific effects of vaccines was established in 1991 and later documented in several trials on measles vaccine, BCG, oral polio vaccine, DTP vaccine and smallpox vaccine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Aaby




You like the little bios, eh?

Anyway, do those videos have any arguments?

Sivad wrote:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: protecting the private good?

After revelations that the CDC is receiving some funding from industry, Jeanne Lenzer investigates how it might have affected the organisation’s decisions

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) includes the following disclaimer with its recommendations: “CDC, our planners, and our content experts wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products . . . CDC does not accept commercial support.”1

The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law.

Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.

Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, told The BMJ, “The CDC has enormous credibility among physicians, in no small part because the agency is generally thought to be free of industry bias. Financial dealings with biopharmaceutical companies threaten that reputation.”2

Industry funding of the CDC has taken many doctors, even some who worked for CDC, by surprise. Philip Lederer, an infectious diseases fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, and a former CDC epidemic intelligence service officer, told The BMJ he was “saddened” to learn of industry funding.

The CDC’s director, Tom Frieden, did not respond to a question about the disclaimer. He told The BMJ by email, “Public-private partnerships allow CDC to do more, faster. The agency’s core values of accountability, respect, and integrity guide the way CDC spends the funds entrusted to it.

8http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362


This does not seem to be about vaccines at all.

Sivad wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXp4hM3eQuI
A group of parents are saying the Federal government has paid off multi-million dollar settlements for dozens of families whose kids suffered brain damage after receiving vaccines. As you know the Federal government has denied any connection between autism and vaccines, does this seem like a cover up? One parent speaks out on the autism settlement.


Does the parent provide any arguments?


Cognitive dissonance is the psychology term for that queasy feeling we get when things just don’t line up. Here are the facts: Porter is a healthy infant one moment and has brain damage the next. The CDC says vaccines are always safe, but the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program awards Porter’s family millions of dollars to pay for his pertussis injury. The CDC sends a press release saying vaccines never cause autism. That afternoon, government funds pay for Porter’s autism therapy. He goes three times a week.


Does this video have any arguments about vaccines?
#14994757
The US buys tons of vaccines from industry too. What is the problem? We buy aircraft from Boeing too.

Want money out of government Sivad? Start a thread about that.
#14994986
Anti-vaxxers are dangerously unintelligent people.
#14994992
Sivad wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv3NTO7oBzA
A pleading letter from one mother to another about 'vaccine misinformation'


If this video contains an argument, what is it?

Is there supoort for the argument? What supoort is there?
#14995141
CDC’s advisory committee is mostly comprised of academics. The The New England Journal of Medicine published an article in its May 18, 2000 issue(Vol. 342, No. 20) titled "Is Academic Medicine for Sale?". The article states:

The ties between clinical researchers and industry include not only grant support, but also a host of other financial arrangements. Researchers serve as consultants to companies whose products they are studying, join advisory boards and speakers' bureaus, enter into patent and royalty arrangements, agree to be the listed authors of articles ghostwritten by interested companies, promote drugs and devices at company-sponsored symposiums, and allow themselves to be plied with expensive gifts and trips to luxurious settings. Many also have equity interest in the companies.

[...]

Academic medical institutions are themselves growing increasingly beholden to industry. How can they justify rigorous conflict-of-interest policies for individual researchers when their own ties are so extensive? Some academic institutions have entered into partnerships with drug companies to set up research centers and teaching programs in which students and faculty members essentially carry out industry research. Both sides see great benefit in this arrangement. For financially struggling medical centers, it means cash. For the companies that make the drugs and devices, it means access to research talent, as well as affiliation with a prestigious "brand." The time-honored custom of drug companies' gaining entry into teaching hospitals by bestowing small gifts on house officers has reached new levels of munificence. Trainees now receive free meals and other substantial favors from drug companies virtually daily, and they are often invited to opulent dinners and other quasi-social events to hear lectures on various medical topics. All of this is done with the acquiescence of the teaching hospitals.

[...]


As summarized by Bodenheimer, (5) there is now considerable evidence that researchers with ties to drug companies are indeed more likely to report results that are favorable to the products of those companies than researchers without such ties. That does not conclusively prove that researchers are influenced by their financial ties to industry. Conceivably, drug companies seek out researchers who happen to be getting positive results. But I believe bias is the most likely explanation, and in either case, it is clear that the more enthusiastic researchers are, the more assured they can be of industry funding. Many researchers profess that they are outraged by the very notion that their financial ties to industry could affect their work. They insist that, as scientists, they can remain objective, no matter what the blandishments. In short, they cannot be bought. What is at issue is not whether researchers can be "bought," in the sense of a quid pro quo[fuck that nonsense, it's totally at issue]. It is that close and remunerative collaboration with a company naturally creates goodwill on the part of researchers and the hope that the largesse will continue. This attitude can subtly influence scientific judgment in ways that may be difficult to discern. Can we really believe that clinical researchers are more immune to self-interest than other people?

http://plaza.ufl.edu/rmelk/BestofBME/Pu ... orsale.pdf


Plotkin has made tens of millions of dollars off vaccines and he has served on numerous boards and advisory panels at the CDC, the FDA, and many other government agencies and regulatory bodies while being a paid consultant for industry:


The public health establishment is corrupt to the core.
#14995150
Maybe in your country.

But if it is, you should be lucky that it still follows more or less the same path as the rest of us when it comes to vaccines, despite the corruption.
#14995153
Corrupt to the Core: Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower
Image

Dr. Shiv Chopra’s name has become synonymous with food safety. To protect the integrity of our food, he has waged many battles against a succession of Canadian Prime Ministers and federal ministries of health. He refused to approve various harmful drugs to be used in meat and milk production. He defied governmental gag orders, spoke publicly to the media, and testified at many Senate and parliamentary committees. Time and again the courts supported Dr. Chopra and ruled against government attempts to silence him. Also, time and again the government allowed dangerous drugs, agricultural practices, and carcinogenic pesticides to enter the food supply. Here is the full account of how government corruption endangers the food supply and how Dr. Chopra and his colleagues continue to speak the truth.
#14995155
Michele Brill-Edwards is a Canadian whistle-blower. She is a lecturer and emergency physician in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Ottawa. Brill-Edwards is best known for heading Health Canada drug approvals between 1987 and 1992 and quitting in 1996 after blowing the whistle on the agency’s suppression of prescription drug risks. She won a 1992 federal court case against her employer.[1] She completed medical school at the University of Toronto in 1974 and her pediatrics residency, with a fellowship in clinical pharmacology, in 1986 at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. She was a member of the Division of Emergency Medicine at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) from 1980 to 1992 and returned to the division in 2002.[2]

Brill-Edwards was honoured with a whistle-blowers national award in 2005. This was reported as: "Michele Brill-Edwards, who took a Health Canada director to court in the 1990s for overruling scientific decisions on drug safety. She was demoted and resigned, and continues to speak out on drug issues."[3] As a representative for the Alliance for Public Accountability, Brill-Edwards intervened in the media in Canada's tainted-blood scandal involving the Red Cross.[4]
  • 1
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

Moving the goalposts won't change the facts on th[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]