Parental rights and vaccines - Page 50 - 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.
#14994222
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you have been saying that they are not safe and effective.


That's a deliberate distortion. I have stated my doubts about the safety of vaccines but the point I've been making all along is that the science does not support the establishment's claims that vaccines are proven safe and effective.

And then you present evidence that the data collected by US government bodies is not enough to determine certain things.


Those "certain things" are the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. :lol:

And I am pointing out that the latter does not provide evidence for the former.


I never said it did and I don't need it to because I have plenty of evidence for both.

Or you present the opinion of some person with credentials.


No, it's not just 'some person", I got the top babbitts themselves like the director of the CDC saying vaccines can cause autism. You want me to repost the video of Julie Gerberding saying vaccines can and do cause autism? I can also repost the recording of the chief of the Immunization Safety Branch of the National Immunization Program saying the same exact thing. I can repost the testimony of Dr Spitzer saying that the epidemiology is underpowered to the point that it couldn't detect a vaccine/autism association in up to 20% of cases and I can repost the director of NIH saying the science isn't settled and the public health establishment is trying to ignore the issue.

I have posted ten pages of thread(conservatively) of just the opinions of top experts, and another ten of studies, meta analyses, and systematic reviews and you've ignored it all. You don't care what the reality is, you're only interested in defending your inane worldview. For any honest, intelligent person, this "debate" was over like 50 thread pages ago.


That is also not evidence


:knife: Expert opinion is definitely evidence.

thought they sometimes allude to such evidence in the quotes you choose.


I post the science, you just ignore it because you don't like what it says. Just a few pages back I posted two studies discussing the under-reporting of adverse events and your response was to just to flat out deny that I had posted them. :knife:
#14994225
Just a few pages back I posted two studies discussing the under-reporting of adverse events and your response was to just to flat out deny that I had posted them.


Actually that is not what those studies concluded. You extracted a distinction from them and built a mountain on it but you missed the point entirely. But it is Saturday night. I lectured all week and I do not wish to educate yet another speed reader.
#14994227
Drlee wrote:Actually that is not what those studies concluded.


:knife: That is exactly what those studies stated. But of course you can't be bothered to explain your idiotic claims, we just have to take them on your dubious authority. :lol:
#14994228
Sivad wrote:That's a deliberate distortion. I have stated my doubts about the safety of vaccines but the point I've been making all along is that the science does not support the establishment's claims that vaccines are proven safe and effective.


I have no idea what “the establishment” said, nor do I care. If your whole argument is merely attaxking some strawman you made up, then it is not worth debating.

Those "certain things" are the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. :lol:

I never said it did and I don't need it to because I have plenty of evidence for both.


No.

Again, you are confusing a lack of knowledge due to data collection with certain knowledge that vaccines are not safe.

No, it's not just 'some person", I got the top babbitts themselves like the director of the CDC saying vaccines can cause autism. You want me to repost the video of Julie Gerberding saying vaccines can and do cause autism? I can also repost the recording of the chief of the Immunization Safety Branch of the National Immunization Program saying the same exact thing. I can repost the testimony of Dr Spitzer saying that the epidemiology is underpowered to the point that it couldn't detect a vaccine/autism association in up to 20% of cases and I can repost the director of NIH saying the science isn't settled and the public health establishment is trying to ignore the issue.

I have posted ten pages of thread(conservatively) of just the opinions of top experts, and another ten of studies, meta analyses, and systematic reviews and ...
:knife: Expert opinion is definitely evidence.


Yes, you repeatedly use a fallacy (argument from authority) instead of providing evidence. This repetition does not make it stronger or less of a fallacy.

I post the science, you just ignore it because you don't like what it says. Just a few pages back I posted two studies discussing the under-reporting of adverse events and your response was to just to flat out deny that I had posted them.


No, I pointed out that flaws in US data collection do not support claims that vaccines are not safe and effective.
#14994229
Everything you typed is so fucking retarded I don't even know where to begin. It would take years of remediation just to correct your errors in basic reasoning, it's just too stupid to go on arguing with you people. From Drlee's asinine tactics of appealing to his own authority without ever demonstrating a thing to PoD's ludicrous obtuse denial and PRATT spamming, this is by far the stupidest discussion I've ever encountered on the internet(just think about that for a minute). It has been super duper extra cosmically retarded, like beyond surreal. I'm not engaging with either of you ever again on this board, if this was a board with standards you would both be mocked or ignored until you decided to leave.
#14994292
It has been super duper extra cosmically retarded, like beyond surreal. I'm not engaging with either of you ever again on this board, if this was a board with standards you would both be mocked or ignored until you decided to leave.


Since there is no one rising to defend you, and your ideas and dubious "evidence" is rejected pretty much by the entire scientific community, perhaps you should consider a few moments of self-reflection.

As a matter of fact, I have posted evidence. Time and time again. Since it came from the scientific community and respected academic sources you decided it was Babbitry. Then, when you found us dedicated to the facts rather than your websites (one of which founded by a former Playboy bunny) you resorted to personal attacks. 'DrLee could not know what he is talking about because he does not agree with me and I googled.....'

The absurdity of your position is characterized by your challenging the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing diseases and so the negative effects of those diseases. It would be absurd to post endless studies of the effectiveness of, say, polio vaccines to assuage your desire for 'science'. Why? Because every soul with the intelligence of a crustacean knows the deal. In 1988 there were 350,000 cases of Polio worldwide. In the early 1950's there were 15,000 cases of paralysis in the US annually from polio. Now there are none. The last case was 1993 and it was an inbound case. This did not happen because we use more deodorant.

You wish to challenge the effectiveness of vaccines yet present no evidence that they are not effective. We can clearly see that they are. Anti-vaxxers whine about side effects yet they can't seem to find them. At least they can't find the link they are looking for so they challenge the studies. But at the end of the day there are no bodies in the street. They point to settlements from side effects and the decision of the government to indemnify producers from frivolous law suits as evidence of some conspiracy to hide the dangers. Yet anyone looking at television can see ad after ad from lawyers looking for victims with which to plague some manufacturer or another decades after a drug was licensed. These folks are not looking for justice they are an industry. That is why every drug commercial on television (and there should not be any allowed IMO) is a picture of some good looking girl with the soundtrack of the Merck Manual.

You are upset that we refuse to accept your nit-picking resources. Why do we do that? Because we realize that people like you are dangerous to the population. By contriving to sound like an expert and cherry picking sources you cause others to choose a dangerous course of action. (Or should I say inaction.)

Is there a lack of surveillance on some effects of vaccine safety in the US and around the world? That would depend on what one considers an acceptable level of risk. It also depends on what one considers "doable". Asking doctors to report obscure presentations on the outside chance that they are linked to vaccines is not a good economic solution and it is especially not a good scientific one. So a balance is struck. When there is a good reason to ask the medical community for data it can be done. Looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack is not good science and it is potentially dangerous and I have pointed out (and you ignored) previously.

The irony is that YOU and people like you are the best argument for not launching expensive and usually unreliable reporting programs to look for side effects against the evidence of carefully reviewed meta analysis. For example. There is absolutely no evidence in any of dozens of good meta studies that there is a link between vaccines and autism. But people like you want stricter reporting. First of all, report what? That little Johnny got a measles vaccine and was diagnosed on the spectrum? Well no shit. All kids get the vaccine. (And I am keeping this overly simply so that anyone who stumbles onto this thread can understand it.) But what about certain predispositions? Is there a link? That is being studied but not by some massive reporting requirement. Secondly the mere presence of a reporting requirement could discourage people from vaccination by playing into the hands of the witch hunters like yourself thereby inviting seriously dangerous consequences not only for the individual who is not vaccinated but by all who are around them.

And finally, reporting presupposes that the person reporting knows what and how to report. Adverse event reporting is a perilous pursuit and particularly difficult when one understands that not all practitioners are qualified to or inclined to know how to do it. The data from reporting is devilishly difficult to use but it is still required in some cases looking for trends to spur further study but not much else.

There is a tendency today to require the "perfect" solution. We want everyone to be protected from mumps because it can be a dangerous disease but we are not willing to accept any risk to achieve this. ALL medical care is the balance between potential prevention or cure and the risk of adverse events. Having your appendix out, while particularly safe, is not completely safe. The use of antibiotics instead is safer but not completely safe. But even with both options on the table some people will die. Shit happens. But at the end of the day when someone has appendicitis you have to do something or they might die. That is completely understandable for the overwhelming majority of people. Anti-vaxxers are the ones who would caution that one ought to do nothing until there is a completely safe option. And there will never be one.

So you are free to go away now. You have stated your position and we understand what it is. Your opinion of us is irrelevant.
#14994371
Burton Critical of Vaccine Approval Process

A House Government Reform Committee staff report published this week criticized the FDA and the CDC for routinely allowing scientists with conflicts of interest to serve on two influential advisory committees that make recommendations on vaccine policy.

The report concludes that, “conflict-of-interest rules employed by the FDA and the CDC have been weak, enforcement has been lax, and committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies have been given waivers to participate in committee hearings.”

In an August 10th letter, Chairman Burton called on HHS Secretary Donna Shalala to implement reforms to crack down on conflicts of interest on the two committees. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) makes recommendations on the approval of new vaccines. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices (ACIP) makes recommendations on guidelines for the administration of vaccines. The Government Reform Committee staff report found that the majority of members of both committees have financial ties to vaccine manufacturers or hold patents on vaccines under development.

The report focuses on the advisory committees’ review of the controversial rotavirus vaccine in 1997 and 1998. Despite concerns about potentially serious side effects of the drug, it won unanimous votes of support in both committees. Within one year, the vaccine, made by Wyeth Lederle had to be pulled from the market because it was causing severe bowel obstructions in infants that required surgery to correct. One baby died.

The Committee found that three out of the five full-time FDA advisory committee members who voted for the vaccine had financial ties to Wyeth Lederle or tow companies developing rival rotavirus vaccines...Merck and SmithKline Beecham. Four out of eight CDC advisory committee members who supported the vaccine had conflicts with the same companies. The staff report concludes that the committees demonstrated a “lack of vigilance” in their review of the rotavirus vaccine known as “Rotashield”, with the CDC’s committee rushing to approve guidelines for the vaccine even before the FDA had licensed it.

One physician who voted to recommend the rotavirus vaccine on the FDA’s advisory committee received $255,000.00 per year in research funds from the maker of the vaccine, Wyeth Lederle. She received a waiver from the FDA to vote on the issue because her research for Wyeth focused on other vaccines.

One member of the CDC’s advisory committee who was not allowed to vote on the rotavirus vaccine because of a conflict was allowed to participate in closed-door working group meetings that drafted the committee’s recommendations for the vaccine. He was also allowed to make an impassioned plea for approval of the vaccine at the full committee hearing.

Another member of the CDC’s advisory committee held a lucrative patent on a rival rotavirus vaccine under development by Merck. Despite this conflict, the doctor voted three times on recommendations regarding Wyeth’s vaccine. It was not until the committee voted to rescind its recommendation of the rotashield that he recused himself because of a “perception of conflict”.

The staff report takes issue with the FDA’s tax guidelines for conflicts of interest. For instance, under the FDA’s rules, ownership of up to $100,000.00 in stock is considered a “medium involvement” conflict that is also eligible for waiver. Until sometime in 1999, the Chairman of the CDC’s advisory committee owned 600 shares of stock in Merck, one of the world’s largest vaccine manufacturers. The chairwoman of the FDA’s advisory committee also owned stock in Merck.

The staff report finds that the CDC’s practice of automatically granting annual waivers to all members of its committee for one-year periods “does not lend itself to a healthy respect for the conflict-of-interest rules.” (Members who have direct conflicts with the sponsor of a vaccine are generally not allowed to vote on that company’s products, but they are free to participate in working groups that draft the recommendations and in committee deliberations leading up to the vote.)

In his letter Secretary Shalala, Chairman Burton stated: “For the public to have confidence in the decisions made by their government, they must be assured that those decisions are not being affected by conflict of interest.”

“It has become clear over the course of this investigation that the VRBPAC and the ACIP are dominated by individuals with close working relationships with the vaccine producers. This was never the intent of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that a diversity of views be represented on advisory committees.”

Committee on Government Reform
2157 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515

Article taken from http://www.house.gov/reform/press/00.08.23b.htm
#14994373
"It almost appears that there is an `old boys network' of vaccine advisors that rotate between the CDC and FDA, at times serving simultaneously. Some of these individuals served for more than 4 years. We found one instance where an individual served for 16 years continuously on the CDC committee. With over 700,000 physicians in this country, how can one person be so indispensable that they stay on a committee for 16 years?"

rep DAN BURTON, Chair of the House Committee on Government Reform
#14994377
Until sometime in 1999, the Chairman of the CDC’s advisory committee owned 600 shares of stock in Merck, one of the world’s largest vaccine manufacturers.


At current market value that represents a whopping $48,000.00 investment. I have more than that in my checking account. :roll:

Yet another example of pole vaulting over mouse turds.

With over 700,000 physicians in this country, how can one person be so indispensable that they stay on a committee for 16 years?"


There is so much wrong with this simple sentence I don't know were to start. So lets start here. Here are the current advisory committee members:
ROMERO, José R., MD, FAAP Arkansas Children’s Hospital Research Institute
Little Rock, AR 10/31/2018-06/30/2021

Executive Secretary:
COHN, Amanda, MD Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Atlanta, GA

Members:
ATMAR, Robert L., MD Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, TX 7/1/2016 – 6/30/2020

AULT, Kevin A., MD, FACOG, FIDSA University of Kansas Medical Center
Kansas City, KS 10/26/2018 – 6/30/2022

BERNSTEIN, Henry, DO, MHCM, FAAP Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Cohen Children’s Medical Center
New Hyde Park, NY 11/27/2017-6/30/2021

EZEANOLUE, Echezona, MD, MPH University of Nevada
Las Vegas, NV 7/1/2015-6/30/2019

FREY, Sharon E., M.D. Saint Louis University Medical School
Saint Louis, MO 11/27/2017-6/30/2021

GRAVENSTEIN, Stefan, MD, MPH Providence Veterans Administration Hospital
Providence, RI 10/26/18 – 6/30/2022

HUNTER, Paul, MD City of Milwaukee Health Department
Milwaukee, WI 7/1/2016 – 6/30/2020

LEE, Grace M., MD, MPH Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford, CA 7/1/2016 – 6/30/2020

MCNALLY, Veronica V., JD Franny Strong Foundation
West Bloomfield, Michigan 10/31/2018 – 6/30/2022

MOORE, Kelly, MD, MPH Vanderbilt University School of Medicine
Nashville, TN 7/1/2015-6/30/2019

ROMERO, José R., MD, FAAP University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Arkansas Children’s Hospital
Little Rock, AR 9/01/2018-6/30/2021

STEPHENS, David, MD Emory University
Atlanta, GA 7/1/2015-6/30/2019

SZILAGYI, Peter MD, MPH University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Los Angeles, California 7/1/2016 – 6/30/2020

TALBOT, Helen Keipp, MD, MPH Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 10/29/2018 – 6/30/2022

WALTER, Emmanuel, Jr., MD, MPH Duke University School of Medicine
Durham, NC


Note: No industry folks?

Well. So much for your idiotic attempt to smear the people running the show. I know a couple of them. Chip Walter is a great pediatric infectious disease specialist. Kelly Moore...MD Vanderbuilt University, MPH - Harvard. Pediatric residency - Johns Hopkins. Former member of the Epidemic Intelligence Service, CDC.

As I said. Intellectual dishonesty. Who the fuck do you think you are? You could not understand their breakfast conversation, not to mention the absurdity of your questioning their professional qualifications and personal integrity.

Fucking anti-vaxers. Monumentally stupid people. But oh so full of themselves.
#14994381
Now a dishonest babbitt might look for the lowest dollar amount and seize on that to claim the conflicts are insignificant but the reality is these regulatory positions are extremely lucrative and the back-end payoffs come in a number of forms from academic funding to highly paid consultancy gigs to executive positions in the private sector after they leave public service and head through that revolving door:

A four-month investigation by United Press International found a pattern of serious problems linked to vaccines recommended by the CDC -- and a web of close ties between the agency and the companies that make vaccines.

Members of the CDC's Vaccine Advisory Committee get money from vaccine manufacturers. Relationships have included: sharing a vaccine patent; owning stock in a vaccine company; payments for research; getting money to monitor manufacturer vaccine tests; and funding academic departments.
https://www.upi.com/UPI-Investigates-Th ... 058841736/


And it's not just direct quid pro quo, if you're the kind of piece of shit that's willing to play ball the whole establishment opens up for you through these informal 'old boys networks' and provides you with benefits and opportunities that can't be linked directly back to any one specific instance of corruption. The way it works is "everybody stays friends, everybody gets paid, and everybody's got a future."

There are exceptions but in general the rule of this corrupt system is shit floats, the people who rise through the ranks within the public health establishment are those who have a healthy self-interest and are ethically flexible. It's the people who are willing to carry water and cross the line that are selected and groomed for upper management.

And sociologists who studied these institutions have long known that this is how the system works:

The higher immorality is a systematic feature of the American elite; its general acceptance is an essential feature of the mass society. Of course, there may be corrupt men in sound institutions, but when institutions are corrupting, many of the men who live and work in them are necessarily corrupted [...] the private conscience is attenuated-and the higher immorality is institutionalized.

[..]

In a world of corporate hierarchies, men are selected by those above them in the hierarchy in accordance with whatever criteria they use. [...] Men shape themselves to fit them, and are thus made by the criteria, the social premiums that prevail. If there is no such thing as a self-made man, there is such a thing as a self-used man, and there are many such men among the American elite.

[...]

In a system of co-optation from above, whether you began rich or poor seems less relevant in revealing what kind of man you are when you have arrived than in revealing the principles of those in charge of selecting the ones who succeed.

[...]

Those who sit in the seats of the high and the mighty are selected and formed by the means of power, the sources of wealth, the mechanics of celebrity, which prevail in their society. They are not men selected and formed by a civil service that is linked with the world of knowledge and sensibility.

viewtopic.php?f=71&t=174697&p=14946593&hilit=Wright+Mills#p14946593



Former CDC Director that Approved Gardasil Vaccine and Became Head of Merck’s Vaccine Division Named “Woman of the Year”
It has recently been reported that Merck Pharmaceutical Company’s leading lady, Dr. Julie Gerberding, has won yet another impressive title, being named Woman of the Year 2018.

Gerberding is an Example of the Revolving Door Between the CDC and Vaccine Manufacturers

In 2002, Gerberding became the first ever female Director for the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Whilst at the CDC, she single-handily overhauled the agency’s entire organizational structure, causing many of the CDC’s senior scientists and leaders to leave, whilst replacing them all with individuals who had ties to the vaccine industry.

During her time at the CDC, the FDA approved the humanpapilloma virus vaccination, Gardasil, manufactured by Merck. This is important because, in 2009, Gerberding resigned from her position at the CDC and then took over the position of President at Merck’s vaccine division.

In other words, after she had given the green light to potentially one of the most dangerous vaccinations in history, which, according to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, has injured a total of 53,383 individuals and killed a further 383, she takes over the presidency at Merck and appears to be cashing in on the popularity of the vaccine approved by the CDC under her watch.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :knife:
#14994386
Tell me something anti-vaxer. When are you going to post one shred of evidence that vaccines do not save millions of lives every year?

No. You are simply behaving like a stooge for the fringe lunatics who think they are such special snowflakes that their opinion trumps the science.

I posted the committee son. I see you were unable to google anything bad or dishonest about them.

Anti-vaxxers are just stupid.
#14994419
Can't wait for anti-antibioxxers to become a thing. Then we have two groups trying to revert mankind's two greatest medical achievements.

Nothing justifies a totalitarian state except suppressing these fuckers.
#14994434
THE VACCINE TRIAL PLACEBO PYRAMID SCHEME

According to the Department of Health and Human Services;

"In undertaking a clinical trial, researchers don’t want to leave anything to chance. They want to be as certain as possible that the results of the testing show whether or not a treatment is safe and effective. The “gold standard” for testing interventions in people is the “randomized, placebo-controlled” clinical trial."

The flow chart below reveals how vaccines are NOT tested against real, inert placebos. Vaccines are tested against other vaccines which, in turn, are tested against other vaccines. What is unearthed is the shocking reality that no more than ONE pediatric #Vaccine trial had a real placebo group.

The entire childhood immunization schedule has not been properly tested for safety, going all the way back to the polio vaccine.

Image

#14994438
More Youtube bullshit videos, @Sivad? can't find any real evidence, eh?

Have you checked Reddit, 4Chan, or Twitter? :lol:
#14994442
ugh.

The scientific community can’t even decide amongst themselves if the humble egg is a harmless a source of protein or a cardio vascular killer.

Being lonely is apparently the equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes a day..and ah, have any of you walked through the Academic Grievance Studies thread? (dont try to convince me it’s isolated to social/soft sciences :roll: ) .

Also, let’s take the above comments as mere statements. Save the mockery for another thread. This one has had more than it’s fair share.
#14994443
The mocking of anti-vaxers is well warranted given their tendency to ignore reality, and facts.
#14994446
Yes. We are done in now Godstud. He posted true facts and evidence from icandecide.org. He really did us in with the opinions of Del Matthew Bigtree, the director of such classics as Bitter Sweet (2005), Sex and Sensuality (2007).

He knows all about conspiracy theories. His movie "Sex and Sensuality" from 2007 is described on IMDB as "A woman undresses for a bath and uncovers a dirty little secret.".

These people are fucking hilarious. They would follow a rat down a sewer looking for a leader. Of course they suck at such trivialities as, well, you know, science.
#14994593

Julie Louise Gerberding (born August 22, 1955), is an American infectious disease expert and the former director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
#14994597
Is this another YouTube video that came out years before the Wakefield study was debunked?

Perhaps the problem is that anti-vaxxers are relying on outdated information.
  • 1
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52

the MSM and a few dozen other sources such as NA[…]

College Admissions Scandal

https://i.redd.it/5zdq8me81do21.p[…]

Well, I will focus solely on this story in this t[…]

Well, we can always weed idiots out of the gene p[…]