Quacks & Pseudoscience

[braineclipse]

I am stupid for believing vaccine damage exists?

I am stupid for trying to give a voice to all those vaccine damaged people who you deny exist?

I am stupid for questioning whether every vaccine is safe and necessary?

I am stupid for questioning whether Pharma's financial interests influence vaccine policy?

Frankly, your causal insults are typical of the way the Pharma industry, the medical industry and their supporters treat vaccine damaged people

But it is that patronising, arrogant, dogmatic attitude that drives the vaccine damage movement forward.

Your refusal to listen, your lack of compassion and your outright fear of this movement will in the end bring the changes to vaccine policy that are needed

This is going to be a big issue in the next few years. Hillary has promised nationwide obligatory (and forced) vaccination for everyone within 2 years of her presidency (that's the pay back for. Pharma funding her campaign)

Your argument that vaccine damage doesn't exist because a doctor says so just is no longer credible. It reminds me of the Doctors prefer to smoke Camels campaign. We simply don't believe your trite self serving arguments when on the other side of the argument are the thousands, even millions of damaged kids.

How was the damage from smoking demonstrated? Science...

You've shown an inability to interpret scientific evidence and an unwillingness to learn. Luckily when the majority of people thought smoking was harmless there were scientifically minded people who were interested in the cold hard facts science could bring to the discussion. Science denialism did nothing good in that example, and certainly caused a lot of harm.

 

[JPBB]

A serious question @JPBB - how can the anti-vaccine campaigners prove that they are right when they reject scientific method?

People fighting for vaccine damage to be acknowledged don't reject scientific method. It is the vaccine lobby who reject normal scientific methods. Vaccines do not go through drug testing. They are exempted.

There has only been one vaccine safety study with real salt water-based placebos - Cowling 2012. That study showed no difference in influenza viral infection between groups but astonishingly it revealed a 5-6 times higher rate of non-influenza viral infections in the vaccinated.

America has the highest rate of crib death in the industrialized world and gives more vaccines than any other county? But hey fudge it. Who needs a legitimate drug trials when a doctor says it ok without proper drug trials? All those deaths, as Scara says, are most likely to be caused by meteorites.

 

[braineclipse]

You don't think we are serious?

We will never stop fighting for vaccine damaged kids

I think the majority of anti-vaccers you are serious people with good intentions who are unfortunately causing harm because they're misinformed.

You seem very strong in your in-group out-group thinking. It's seemingly not enough for those with a scientific view on vaccines to be misinformed for your worldview to make sense. We have to be lacking in compassion? We have to be cynical and perfectly happy to see children suffer?

 

[braineclipse]

People fighting for vaccine damage to be acknowledged don't reject scientific method. It is the vaccine lobby who reject normal scientific methods. Vaccines do not go through drug testing. They are exempted.

There has only been one vaccine safety study with real salt water-based placebos - Cowling 2012. That study showed no difference in influenza viral infection between groups but astonishingly it revealed a 5-6 times higher rate of non-influenza viral infections in the vaccinated.

America has the highest rate of crib death in the industrialized world and gives more vaccines than any other county? But hey fudge it. Who needs a legitimate drug trials when a doctor says it ok without proper drug trials? All those deaths, as Scara says, are most likely to be caused by meteorites.

If this was true surely the majority independent scientists in relevant fields should agree with you? Is it not a cause for concern for your point of view that they don't?

You earlier misinterpreted and rejected the claims in the Rotavirus review study that looked at a total of tens of thousands of participants. Now you're citing Cowling (2012), a study with 115 total participants in both the experimental and placebo groups. A small study where the authors themselves say that their results "could be an artefactual finding." This is classic science denialism...

 

[milo]

It is the vaccine lobby who reject normal scientific methods. Vaccines do not go through drug testing. They are exempted.

That is demonstratively nonsense. The link below is to the process for getting a vaccine licenced in the US. All developed countries will have a similar process

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html

We have also provided links to numerous clinical trials of vaccines on this thread.

 

[milo]

And here is a link to the WHO guidance on the same

http://www.who.int/immunization/pro...es/vaccine_intro_resources/nvi_guidelines/en/

 

[braineclipse]

That is demonstratively nonsense. The link below is to the process for getting a vaccine licenced in the US. All developed countries will have a similar process

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html

We have also provided links to numerous clinical trials of vaccines on this thread.

Spot on. There are differences in how vaccines are tested because getting a flu vaccine 3 years after the outbreak is about as useful as a footballer scoring goals in a post-season friendly game.

This has been done based on a serious evaluation of the scientific evidence and public health concerns.

But from this to conclude that "Vaccines do not go through drug testing" is just a complete misrepresentation of the facts and scare-propaganda.

 

[milo]

Spot on. There are differences in how vaccines are tested because getting a flu vaccine 3 years after the outbreak is about as useful as a footballer scoring goals in a post-season friendly game.

This has been done based on a serious evaluation of the scientific evidence and public health concerns.

But from this to conclude that "Vaccines do not go through drug testing" is just a complete misrepresentation of the facts and scare-propaganda.

Yes. Vaccinating for seasonal flu is very difficult because of the number of different strains. They have to make an educated guess of which strain to vaccinate against several months in advance based on the prevalent strain in the other hemispheres.

I have only browsed the extract of the trial that @JPBB cited and do not know the details but I noticed that it had a very small number of people participating.

 

[JPBB]

Vaccines are not tested to same standards as drugs because double blind placebo trials for vaccines are conveniently deemed "unethical".

And because of that Pharma companies demand that are indemnified against compensation for damage because they can not be sure they work (passim)

Like it or not, that is a reality.

 

[JPBB]

Yes. Vaccinating for seasonal flu is very difficult because of the number of different strains. They have to make an educated guess of which strain to vaccinate against several months in advance based on the prevalent strain in the other hemispheres.

I have only browsed the extract of the trial that @JPBB cited and do not know the details but I noticed that it had a very small number of people participating.

brick. Are you saying that flu vaccine is not tested properly and might not be safe. Woah. Did you just break rank? You are finished in the scientific world. There goes your funding. I would delete that post.

 

[JPBB]

But from this to conclude that "Vaccines do not go through drug testing" is just a complete misrepresentation of the facts and scare-propaganda.

But it is true. Vaccines do not go through normal drug testing processes. Simple as that.

 

[braineclipse]

But it is true. Vaccines do not go through drug testing. Simple as that.

Source?

Remember the Rotavirus vaccine study we talked about earlier. The one with over 60.000 participants... What made that "not a drug test" in your opinion?

 

[milo]

brick. Are you saying that flu vaccine is not tested properly and might not be safe. Woah. Did you just break rank? You are finished in the scientific world. There goes your funding. I would delete that post.

No I didn't say that. I said that it was difficult to immunise against because a vaccine can only protect against one strain and there are many circulating at any one time. In order to produce them in time, the WHO has to predict which will be the prevalent strain that winter.

I think that we should do more research into the effectiveness of flu vaccination. The beauty of the scientific method is that this is all out in the open and the strengths and weaknesses of any treatment are there for all to see.

 

[JPBB]

Now you're citing Cowling (2012), a study with 115 total participants in both the experimental and placebo groups. A small study where the authors themselves say that their results "could be an artefactual finding." This is classic science denialism...

Oh yes. The pro vaxxer default position when faced with something which is unhelpful. Simply say that the study doesn't count.

No explanation of why it doesn't count. Other than it doesnt count because it is a flu vaccine trial ? Flu vaccine is number three in the most dangerous vaccines list.

 

[braineclipse]

Oh yes. The pro vaxxer default position when faced with something which is unhelpful. Simply say that the study doesn't count.

No explanation of why it doesn't count. Other than it doesnt count because it is a flu vaccine trial ? Flu vaccine is number three in the most dangerous vaccines list.

Did you read the part of my post where I said the trial had 115 total participants? Did you read the part where I said it was a small study? Did you read the part where I directly quoted the authors saying it could an artefactual finding?

I could try to explain why sample size matters in these issues. And why relying on a single small study over a multitude of larger studies is unhelpful when evaluating the totality of scientific evidence. But I'm guessing before I even got started you would re-state your claim and jump to another topic. Both myself and milo have tried repeatedly to explain basic scientific and statistical concepts to you, but you seem utterly unwilling to learn. Despite showing beyond any doubt that you have very little knowledge on a topic you're talking very confidently and loudly about.

 

[JPBB]

Source?

Remember the Rotavirus vaccine study we talked about earlier. The one with over 60.000 participants... What made that "not a drug test" in your opinion?

But it didn't use a real salt water-based placebo so it would not have allowed for a drug trial.

Ergo. It was not tested to the same standard as a drug or to normal scientific methods. Ergo it is not a valid drug test.

 

[braineclipse]

But it didn't use a real salt water-based placebo so it would not have allowed for a drug trial.

Ergo. It was not tested to the same standard as a drug or to normal scientific methods. Ergo it is not a valid drug test.

What makes "a real salt water-based placebo" the appropriate placebo for this study? What makes it superior to the placebo used in the study?

 

[JPBB]

Despite showing beyond any doubt that you have very little knowledge on a topic you're talking very confidently and loudly about.

Ah yes. People fighting for vaccine damage kids are stupid. The arrogance of the scientist.

You have no idea what my experience of vaccine damage is. And your sweeping statement that I have little knowledge of it is very offensive.

 

[JPBB]

I think that we should do more research into the effectiveness of flu vaccination.

But not the safety of the flu vaccine?

BTW. Seriously I think you should delete all the posts in which you even hint at the idea that a vaccine might not be effective. if someone sees them, you could be ruined. (I am assuming you work in some sort of scientific, medical environment)

 

[milo]

But not the safety of the flu vaccine?

BTW. Seriously I think you should delete all the posts in which you even hint at the idea that a vaccine might not be effective. if someone sees them, you could be ruined. (I am assuming you work in some sort of scientific, medical environment)

Where I work is irrelevant and you seriously do not understand the scientific community if you think that people cannot challenge established views within it.

I have not seen any evidence that flu vaccination is dangerous but I have not read up on it that widely.