Parental rights and vaccines - Page 4 - 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.
#14872290
ness31 wrote:Ok, so to sum up (I’ve now drank a sufficient amount of wine to be able to cope with this thread).

I’m ignorant, and the very notion of charging people for their children’s vaccinations to garner a renewed appreciation for immunisation in the first world is a terrible and dangerous idea.
The current policy of state coercion is correct and necessary and must be forcibly applied at any cost.

Have I summed it up sufficiently PoFo?

Yes, that is a pretty good summing-up; I wouldn't say "at any cost". But since vaccines save lives and prevent pain, and a lot of expenditure, it's worth spending money on them. Your idea that people should be charged for something so that they appreciate it was pseudo-psychological garbage.
#14872325
I do know the claims, I just haven't looked into the support for those claims. If all you know are the claims then you don't know much about it either.


I am going to try the appeal from authority that you will simply deny anyway. I have seen the data on many vaccines. I am capable of competently analyzing these data. To back up my own analysis I would happily cite the NIH, CDC, WHO, and FDA all of which have published their own analysis. If you have some notion that these organizations are in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry then you are sadly mistaken. In fact the industry spends a great deal of time and money convincing the FDA and CDC that what they have is carefully researched and accurately evaluated.

Now I hear you say that you disagree with my characterization of the FDA as objective. You seem to think they are in the pocket of the pharma industry. So do you also think that about the Canadian government? Do you believe that the UK NHS would purchase (from its own budget as it is a single payer system) vaccines that do not work? Do you believe this of the World Health Organization? Of the public health authorities of just about every nation in the world? Do you believe that the CDC and FDA could pass off bad science under the scrutiny of just about every college and university in the country? The US government mandates that insurance companies cover, at a minimum, the following:


Hepatitis A
Hepatitis B
Herpes Zoster
Human Papillomavirus
Influenza
Measles, Mumps, Rubella
Meningococcal
Pneumococcal
Tetanus, Diphtheria, Pertussis
Varicella

Do you think that the insurance companies would not fight tooth and nail if there was so much as a shred of evidence to get them off of the hook for paying for these?



If you do believe this you are sadly mistaken and your suspicion passes from the ridiculous to the sublimely stupid.

Not referring to you.

I am really tired of libertards and stupid hayseeds. I really have had enough of them. They are either profoundly unintelligent people or they are so utterly suggestible that they would fall for any conspiracy theory out there. Anti-vaxers are among the most ignorant of the bunch. They are faced with overwhelming evidence.

When I was a child 15,000+ children every year were killed or permanently maimed by polio. Since 1979 there have been no cases of polio originating in the US. In 2013 (the last data I have) Pakistan had 306 cases. And it should come as no surprise that they have an inconsistent vaccination program hitting about 70% if I recall. Bot overall this horrible killer (which crippled an American President among others) is on the run. Smallpox, which, in the 20th century killed between 300-500 million people, about 10 million of them in the year of my birth, by 1979 had been completely irradiated.

Measles is one of the most contagious diseases known. If 100 people are exposed 90 will develop the disease. Yet it is not endemic in the US anymore. (For the laymen this means it does not circulate on its own.) One confirmed death from measles in 2008 when I last looked at it. Now we have some ignoramuses questioning the effectiveness of the vaccine. They stupidly blame "big pharma" for....well....they don't know what they are just suspicious.

I am so tired of these asshats. Maybe they think they are being edgy. Maybe they like to troll people who do not buy their libertarian horseshit. If that is the case then they are worse than stupid. They are forwarding an argument that may cause doubt in the minds of people who are not smart enough to know they are trolling. And these folks might take them seriously and kill their child or the child of another.
#14872327
Drlee wrote:I am really tired of libertards and stupid hayseeds. I really have had enough of them. They are either profoundly unintelligent people or they are so utterly suggestible that they would fall for any conspiracy theory out there. Anti-vaxers are among the most ignorant of the bunch. They are faced with overwhelming evidence.


Calling, @Missus V. Spolia., You are wanted in thread. MVS., you are wanted in thread. The gauntlet has been dropped, I repeat, The gauntlet has been dropped.

Image
#14872330
There are lots and and lots of studies on vaccination, but how reliable are the studies?

Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children.

As MMR vaccine is universally recommended, recent studies are constrained by the lack of a non-exposed control group. This is a methodologically [sic] difficulty which is likely to be encountered in all comparative studies of established childhood vaccines. We were unable to include a majority of the retrieved studies because a comparable, clearly-defined control group or risk period was not available. The exclusion may be a limitation of our review or may reflect a more fundamental methodological dilemma: how to carry out meaningful studies in the absence of a representative population not exposed to a vaccine that is universally used in public health programmes. Whichever view is chosen, we believe that meaningful inferences from individual studies lacking a non-exposed control group are difficult to make.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22336803



Safety of Vaccines Used for Routine Immunization of US Children: A Systematic Review

Our findings are based on only the most rigorous study designs to assess potential statistical associations; however, these designs have limitations that must be considered. Controlled trials often have insufficient sample size to identify rare AEs and do not have extended follow-up to identify long-term sequelae. In addition, trials may purposely exclude subjects who could be more susceptible to AEs. For this reason, any comprehensive review of vaccine safety must include postlicensure studies, but these also have limitations. Large epidemiologic studies sometimes include any available formulation of vaccines against a particular disease and may not stratify results by dosage or formulation. For example, the relationship between the “seasonal influenza vaccine” and an AE could be studied over several years of data without considering the changes in formulation over the seasons or differentiating between live or inactive vaccine. In addition, people who avoid vaccinations (whether purposely or not) may differ from those who receive vaccinations in terms of race, gender, age, socioeconomic status, and preexisting medical conditions, and these differences may be associated with health outcomes. Observational studies may attempt to control for such potential confounders by using matched cohorts or multivariate regression analysis; still, some factors such as environmental exposures may be unmeasured or challenging to adequately control for.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/134/2/325


In 2005, Cochrane published a review of published studies on the safety and efficacy of MMR vaccine. Their search revealed more than 5,000 papers on the subject, though only 139 of them “possibly satisfied” the reviewers’ inclusion criteria. In the end, they reported on and summarized about 31 studies, only a few of which pertained to autism spectrum disorders (ASD).

Main results - MMR was “likely to be associated” with febrile convulsions within two weeks of vaccination, but “unlikely to be associated” with Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, mumps or autism.

General Limitations: the authors concluded that:

■ There was a moderate-to-high probability of bias in all but one of the cohort studies.

■ The internal validity of some studies was problematic, and the presence of selection, performance, attrition, detection and reporting biases influenced the reviewers’ confidence in these findings. The most common type of bias was selection bias.

■ There was only limited evidence of MMR’s safety compared to single component vaccines from studies with a low risk of bias. The few studies least likely to be affected by systematic error pointed to a likely association with increased febrile convulsions in the first two weeks post-vaccination.

■ The cohort studies’ conclusions “that MMR is ‘safe,’ ‘equally safe,’ ‘well-tolerated,’ or has ‘low-reactogenicity,’ need to be interpreted with caution given the potential for confounding.

■ In the cohort studies, the validity of the conclusions was affected by selective reporting in the comparative analysis, with just over half the responses from participants in some cases.

■ There was a lack of clarity in reporting and systematic bias which made it “impossible” to compare the various studies through quantitative synthesis of data.

■ There were general difficulties in ascertaining adequate numbers of unexposed children due to the high uptake of vaccines and the extent of vaccination programs. This is a methodological problem likely to be encountered in all comparative studies of established childhood vaccines.

■ There was a “lack of adequate description of exposures (vaccine content and schedules)” in all cohort studies.

■ The failure of any study to provide descriptions of all outcomes was a recurring problem.

■ Some reports offered inadequate explanations for missing data, accepting as ‘adequate’ explanations such as ‘nonresponse to questionnaire’ and ‘medical records unavailable’.

■ The external validity of the studies was low. Descriptions of the study populations, response rates, vaccine content and exposure - all important indicators of generalizability - “were poorly and inconsistently reported.”

■ There were inadequate and inconsistent descriptions of reported outcomes, limited observation periods (maximum 42 days) and selective reporting of results. All of these problems contributed to the reviewers’ decision not to attempt pooling data by study design

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/05/vacc ... ll-us.html



Institute of Medicine, “Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism.” May, 2004

In February 2004, the IOM’s Immunization Safety Committee held a hearing on the possible association between MMR, thimerosal and autism. The committee reviewed all published and unpublished epidemiological studies on causality as well as potential biologic mechanisms to explain a possible vaccine-autism causal association. Its findings were released in a May, 2004 report. The committee’s conclusions hold wide sway over many scientists, physicians and much of the media to this day.

Main Results: The committee concluded that the body of epidemiological evidence “favor” rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism,” further stating that studies examining the association between MMR and autism consistently showed evidence of no association between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Limitations:

■ Because the “vast majority” of ASD cases cannot be accurately sub-classified, if there is a subset of individuals with autism syndrome triggered by exposure to vaccines, our ability to find it is very limited in the absence of a biological marker.

■ Although there is no convincing evidence to date that a clearly defined subgroup with susceptibility to MMR-induced autism has been identified, genomics and proteomics could reveal in the future whether or not any genetic susceptibility to vaccine-induced autism exists.

■ A lack of unexposed children is another limitation. The committee noted that they had previously called for studies to enroll children whose families opted against the MMR vaccine, but so far, this type of study has been difficult to do with sufficiently large numbers.

■ The committee also noted that its 2001 report did not exclude the possibility that MMR “could contribute to autism in a small number of children because the epidemiological studies lacked sufficient precision to assess rare occurrences.”

■ They also noted that it was possible that epidemiological studies would not detect a relationship between autism and MMR vaccination in a subset of the population with a genetic predisposition to autism.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/05/vacc ... ll-us.html
#14872339
I hope she is an epidemiologist. If not she is likely outgunned.


@silvad:

"ageofautism.com"

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You did not read, pr understand what you are reading on your citations.

Try again.
#14872340
Drlee wrote:I would happily cite the NIH, CDC, WHO, and FDA all of which have published their own analysis. If you have some notion that these organizations are in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry then you are sadly mistaken. In fact the industry spends a great deal of time and money convincing the FDA and CDC that what they have is carefully researched and accurately evaluated.


I think money and careerism are factors here but with the vaccine issue the motives are a bit more complicated. The thing about vaccines is even if they are a lot more dangerous than we're being told they'd still be necessary, but if most people didn't believe vaccines were safe they'd stop taking them and that would lead to a far bigger disaster than whatever harm is caused by mass vaccination. So if vaccines weren't safe you'd still have to convince people they were for the greater good. That little dilemma right there should make everyone stop and think because it pretty much guarantees that even if vaccines weren't that safe, officialdom certainly wouldn't tell you that and would definitely try to convince you that they are very very safe and people who doubt that are cranks. Think about it.
#14872344
Drlee wrote:@silvad:

"ageofautism.com"

:lol: :lol: :lol:


All the content is from Cochrane and IOM, so what's so funny?

You did not read, pr understand what you are reading on your citations.

Try again.


You're not getting it, you're focusing on the findings and missing the concerns and cautions about methodological limitations.
#14872363
Pants-of-dog wrote:All studies have limitations. The onus is on the anti-vaccine crowd to show how these limitations are enough to warrant risking the health of children.


All the perverse incentives and conflicts of interest on top of a limited and flawed science should cast a long shadow of doubt over the whole business. I'm mostly just interested in the mass bullshit and delusion, I don't really care what the reality is because whatever it is I'll never know it. I find it more than a little amusing how so many people think they have the truth when they can't even muster a scintilla of honesty. How do you get to truth without honesty?
#14872370
I am not playing kindergarten games with amateurs on this subject. Simple as that.
#14872371
B0ycey wrote:Use your own style of debating skills to counteract the issue VS if you disagree with it. Or does MVS wear the trousers?


That is an interestingly sexist remark for a lefty. :lol: Besides, this is one of her favorite topics and I will fully admit she is more well read on the topic than I am. Likewise, I would not be so bold to run your mouth, are you sure you want a thorough ass whopping again like I gave you on Contraception thread? Be careful what you wish for.

Drlee wrote:I hope she is an epidemiologist. If not she is likely outgunned.


Wow, such arrogance....and an implicit appeal to authority fallacy BTW. This will be utterly delectable.

Besides, she is actually a proctologist, so she is perfectly qualified to find your head.

Drlee wrote:I am not playing kindergarten games with amateurs on this subject. Simple as that.


Image
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 18 Dec 2017 23:24, edited 1 time in total.
#14872375
Meanwhile, in the 17th century....

Town crier: Hear ye, hear ye! From this day hence, the right honourable yeomen of the towne Counsill have put forth that no manne, womanne, chillde or beaste shall approach the plague pit!

17th-century Victoribus Spolia, for it is he (much the same as modern VS but with a better wig and moustache): Gadzooks! But mine childings do love to prance and frollick 'pon the field neareth the pit o' pox! By t'what rite doth this LEVIATHAN forbideth that which GODDE hath ordained, to wit, the rite o' a pater to rule and direct his household? I shall heare none of it, sirs!

Three weeks later: cricket chirping the only sound, all are dead from the plague.

Right, that's this thread dealt with all the seriousness it warranted.
Last edited by Kirillov on 18 Dec 2017 23:16, edited 1 time in total.
#14872377
Kirillov wrote:Meanwhile, in the 17th century....

Town crier: Hear ye, hear ye! From this day hence, the right honourable yeomen of the towne Counsill have put forth that no manne, womanne, chillde or beaste shall approach the plague pit!

17th-century Victoribus Spolia (much the same as modern VS but with a better wig and moustache): Gadzooks! But mine childings do love to prance and frollick 'pon the field neareth the pit o' pox! By t'what rite doth this LEVIATHAN forbideth that which GODDE hath ordained, to wit, the rite o' a pater to rule and direct his household? I shall heare none of it, sirs!

Three weeks later: cricket chirping the only sound, all are dead from the plague.

Right, that's this thread dealt with all the seriousness it warranted.



I take offense to this. My modern whigs are just fine sir.
#14872379
Kirillov wrote:I am glad to hear it, please pass on my regards to Charles James Fox.


Him?! Never!
#14872385
Kirillov wrote:
Right, that's this thread dealt with all the seriousness it warranted.


Are you a pretend epidemiologist too?
#14872438
IF she was a physician you would not be acting as ignorantly as you are.

Are you a pretend epidemiologist too?


I'm through messing with the children. Go ahead and continue to show your ignorance to the rest of the folks here. I have dealt with morons enough in my lifetime to worry about one more.
#14872481
@Drlee,

Oh my, I hope I can state my position before you keel over from your lengthy time on this disease ridden earth. Living through all these ages of epidemics coming and going, I would think this would bring you a greater awareness of the great accomplishments of the times. A graph displaying disease death rate over the last 100 years is quite telling. No matter the disease or country (1st world of course) the rate of decline is identical. Astonishing! Even diseases such as scurvy, typhoid fever, and scarlet fever all declined at the same luxurious curvy slant down to nonexistence. My word, to what can we attribute such a feat? A vaccine? Of course not, a vaccine was never developed for scurvy, typhoid fever, or scarlet fever. Additionally, the downward slant begun many years before many of the current vaccines were developed or universally used. (see charts at end of post)

So if it wasn't due to vaccines, then what else during these time periods could have produced this sudden boost in the health of the populace? Perhaps better food, clean drinking water, better sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions. I mean before 1850 doctors didn't even wash their hands or equipment between patients. Simple things that we take for granted such as coughing in your sleeve, blowing your nose in a tissue, and washing your hands thoroughly with soap and clean water go a long way. Nutrition has an even bigger part to play in the function of our immune systems. Social health and welfare reforms in the 1940's began to provide free milk, among other nourishment, to help children fight disease.

So where do vaccines fit into this? Right into big pharma's pocket. The rate of disease plummeted to nothing and yet more and more doses of vaccines are being implemented younger and younger. In the 1940's children received 2 shots. In the 1980's children received 8 shots. Currently? 50! Now unless I missed the rise of a horrible deadly epidemic during my childhood in the 90's there is no warrant for such an increase, beginning a few hours after birth. Nothing like "welcome to the world little one, now let me inject some aluminium, Polysorbate 80, formaldehyde, and various other components directly into your blood stream." And when the child suddenly develops seizures, "whoops, oh well have fun in the vaers court system for the next 5 years. You have a 1 in 4 chance of actually getting compensated from the taxpayers."

Most parents want what is best for their child, and right now the default position is to vaccinate. The T.V. tells you to, your doctors tell you to, and all the angry pro-vaxxers tell you to, so to say it is the sheep or uninformed people who don't vaccinate is truly false. Sheeple follow the crowd, the majority, and the anti-vaxxer road is hard and dangerous. You don't take this path unless you have done research and are passionate about it. Sadly most anti-vaxxers become passionate because of the damage that was done to or the loss of a loved one due to vaccines and this is becoming a more common reality, thus the rise in the anti-vax community.

The U.S. spends by far the most on health care, is by far the sickest country, implements the most vaccines, and
The United States has a higher infant mortality rate than any of the other 27 wealthy countries,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/29/our-infant-mortality-rate-is-a-national-embarrassment/?utm_term=.388f376deefa
We are also the only country (besides Australia I believe) to allow pharmaceutical companies to directly advertise to the populace. Whether it's vaccines, cholesterol pills, or viagra it seems every other commercial or billboard is medical related. Young minds are being bombarded nonstop with, "take a pill for this" and "a shot for that", without being told the potential consequences (at least not at normal speed).

My concern lies in those who put a lot of faith in the numbers and data from an extremely corrupt system and together with these companies demand that all people regardless of their beliefs and/or medical standing to be forced against their will to be/ or for their children to be vaccinated. Especially when the companies who produce, said product, are immune from litigation, cannot be put at fault or held responsible for the outcome. If a bad batch is made and hundreds die, "oops, oh well give some of the tax money to the families to shut them up." and they continue to function normally as if nothing happened. Such power over the people cannot be handed over to such a corrupt system, one that flourishes on keeping the populace ill with life-long "treatable" diseases.

Measles, England & Wales 1900-1999
Image

Measles U.S.A 1912-2010.
Image

Dyptheria England and Wales 1901-1999
Image

Scurvey 1901-1967.
Image

England and U.S.A Typhoid 1901-1964
[img]https://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/us-uk-typhoid-1901-1965.gif?w=464&h=310&zoom=2][/img]

England and U.S.A. Scarlet Fever 1901-1964
Image

Typhoid Rate of Decline: No Vaccine.
Image

Scarlet Fever Rate of Decline: No Vaccine.

Image

Measles Rate of Decline in Australia v. Vaccine Introduction.
Image

U.S. Mortality Rates of Decline in Relation to Vaccine Introduction.
Image

Whooping Cough Mortality Rate

Image

Whooping Cough Mortality Rate in Relation to Vaccine Introduction.

Image
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 24
The Trump Shut Down

Since when is taking a position in a debate proof[…]

EU-BREXIT

So can anyone actually tell me what May's plan B w[…]

Toxic Masculinity

So this means I cannot ask you questions, I guess[…]

Helping Jesus. To do what? You said spreading […]