Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Finnegan, Aug 16, 2009.
Look at the ingredients of Vaccines and use your common sense.
If you're going to use the common sense argument... Look at the ingredients in your body, and use your common sense, there's no way you could be alive.
There are plenty of things that are good(or at least benign) for you in small amounts that will kill you in large.
Hey Tachy, did you know there are billions of toxic bacteria all over your skin? If they ever make their way inside a wound you'll probably die. Go bathe in a vat of antibacterial soap, just to be safe.
Oh, wait. You need those to live. Crap!
Like I said, what you post here isn't science. Not in any way, shape, or form. It's fear, paranoia, and misinformation.
From the original study, published in the Lancet 1998.
"Interpretation. We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers."
Note 'possible environmental triggers'. The original paper said that there might be a causal link between autism and the MMR vaccine, not that there was one for certain.
In 2004, ten of the thirteen scientists who carried out the original study made a formal retraction.
"We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent."
This year the Sunday Times discovered that Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who ran the study, had received more than four hundred thousand pounds from lawyers trying to prove that vaccines are unsafe. A legal aid fund, attempting a lawsuit against pharmaceutical manufacturers, paid nearly three and a half million pounds in an attempt to find suitable evidence.
Furthermore, the British General Medicine Council has begun an investigation into Wakefield. There are two grounds. The first, based on claims by journalist Brian Deer, are of serious professional misconduct, involving totally unnecessary surgical procedures that in one case caused life threatening injuries.
In addition, evidence has arose indicating that during the study Wakefield suppressed and falsified data to better support the results he wanted.
So it's not really a case of "choosing the words of one bunch of scientists over another bunch". It's a case of deciding who is more reliable.
On the one hand you have the vast majority of scientists. Yes, many work for 'big pharm' and could conceivably be covering themselves. But many others are independent and have no such motivation. Included in their ranks are ten of the original group, who have removed their support after the many flaws and conflicts of interest came to light.
In the other group, you have a tiny minority, the greatest of which is known to be on the take, and suspected of unethical proceedings and scientific fraud.
Ho boy, my first visit to this area & what do I see? Trust in quasi-corrupt agencies.
Oh, I thought it was general sanitary conditions, silly me!
Big Pharm, like any other governmental agency, knows that people remember nothing. Mention the Bhopal accident to anyone and watch them go, "What?"
Time heals all PR problems.
That's a hard thing for peeps to do, you don't get common sense with a side of fries at fast food joints.
Remember when margarine was pushed by health peeps? Valium? Not breast feeding kids?
Put a few letters after someone's name & the lemmings jump.
Hey don't I know it. I'm currently infected by Staphylococcus aureus. In the middle of a course of antibiotics for a heart infection, and the closest thing I can think of for a source of infection is a nasty scratch from my cat.
What does "quasi-corrupt" mean? Something is either corrupt or it isn't. Or does it just mean you want an adjective to throw in there?
"The 'dubious' part is very important. It doesn't mean anything, but it scares people!"
-Londo, Babylon 5
You're right to an extent, though----no agency should be trusted to do its job simply because that *is* it's job. Agencies should be trusted to do what's best for the agency. Which means that the check on both the megas *and* the FDA is the press----bad PR is bad for everyone except the press, who see it as a field day.
So if there's something wrong going on, please provide a link to something the press has said about it, which contains more substance than the vague concerns voiced in the original article (which is more about past events than future).
I meant it as in sometimes peeps there are able to do their jobs correctly, and sometimes not, depending on the department, the political and economic pressures, and the individuals involved. Gonna get all black & white on me? Okay, it's corrupt, as is every governmental agency AND every government on the planet. is that better for ya?
The press hates reporting on technical stuff that the public has no training to understand, they like "Peeps killed/peeps saved" stories. So, yeah, the press is there, and they do some good stuff, but as to precisely what vaccines do & don't do, they are useless until peeps start dying IMO. If most doctors have so little understanding of the field they're in, why put any faith in the FDA or the WHO or the press is what I'm wondering.
I was with you up to here. Where do you get that premise from?
I've dated doctors, I've known doctors, and occasionally, I visit doctors. They are people. And as such, about one third are on the ball, one third get along doing minimal work, and one third are borderline incompetent, just like in most other professions.
So, when cutting edge info (like this latest vaccine, its projected readiness or efficacy) is being sussed out, it's really only a small percentage of folk that really know what they're talking about- the rest who bother to know anything at all are parroting, you gotta hope they're parroting it well is all.
When asked a question of a nutritional nature 8 out of 10 are clueless. How the HELL can you be a doctor and have no extensive knowledge of NUTRITION- the BASIS of good health?
Oh, a link-
I just see that as common sense. Of course there's no "long term" data available so soon after the strain first became known. How could there be?
There's always a balance between exhaustive testing and promptness of delivery. In every field, not just medicine.
Know what I see as common sense?
Doctor comes up to me, says he wants to inject me & mine with:
Cow pus, monkey cells, live viruses, pig tissue, mercury, etc.
I punch him twice in rapid succession. "Take two of these & call me in the morning," I say.
Don't forget your intestinal flora, which you need in order to digest food, but would make you incredibly sick if you ever actually ingested it. E. coli lives in your intestines!
My experience as a parent taught me that one shouldn't even uncritically accept the recommended childhood immunization schedule. I had one who showed a frightening sensitivity to one vaccine, and as a result we took a different approach with the others. They got all their vaccinations eventually, but not on the schedule or dosages that doctors used to insist were mandated by God.
The last flu vaccination I had was for the strain of swine flu that Jerry Ford was insisting we be shot up for. I've had the flu twice in my adult life - three or four days of discomfort, and then on with the business of living. Meh.
Which is why, I conjure, gut shot = bad.
Same here as well.
Again, same here. I've had pneumonia twice since then, *cough cough* *hot*... big deal. Why are peeps so scared of getting sick for a few days?
Most of us aren't in a high-risk group and it's generally not advised that you get a flu shot unless you are.
Children, the sick, and the elderly are most at-risk from influenza. The rest of us can get by without the vaccine, for the most part. That's why they ration it when they don't have enough produced.
In this case, the high-risk group is pregnant women, children over 6, and young adults. This flu is of the same type as the Spanish flu of 1918 that targeted the young, rather than the elderly or otherwise immuno-compromised. Most of the deaths so far have been people under 30 and the most severe cases have been in young adults. So, there are actually probably many here who are in the high-risk group.
Well, there you go. I was speaking mostly of the "regular" flu. I didn't know this swine flu had the characteristics of the 1918 pandemic. Does it cause an immune overreaction? I recall that's what made the 1918 flu so deadly in the healthiest demographics--those with strong immune systems saw it backfire and kill them, due to how the virus worked.
Separate names with a comma.