Topic Wiki

The wiki is divided into groups for "fact" and "opinion." Please feel free to add whichever facts you know and opinions you have. Please try to avoid cluttering the wiki with unnecessary information such as outside links.

Please do not delete anything from this wiki.  If you disagree with an opinion, feel free to post your own. If you disagree with a fact--well, that's your opinion, and feel free to post it under opinions!

Facts
The flu vaccine causes more deaths per year than chicken pox.
The direct injection of RSV immunoglobulin, commonly known as the "RSV vaccine" would prevent 16x more deaths than the flu vaccine does, but is too expensive.
There is a vaccine for the plague, and that is why it is no longer an epidemic.
Ebola is caused by vaccines.
There is a vaccine for autism, but it causes mumps.


Opinions
Vaccines do not contain thimerosal, a known toxin.
If you snuck up on your neighbor's kid and cut open his skull, you would be arrested.  But when brain surgeons do it, and charge hundreds of thousands of dollars, it considered "medicine."
99% of vaccines do not cause autism (HT JJ1000).
Every pedi has seen healthy kids become sick physically & mentally hours after a vax (HT Baryochai)
Vaccines cause cancer, infertility, astma, adhd etc (HT Baryochai)

Poll

Did You Get The Flu Vaccine This Winter?

Yes (Shot)
115 (37.7%)
Yes (Nasal Spray)
5 (1.6%)
No
185 (60.7%)

Total Members Voted: 304

Author Topic: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread  (Read 257722 times)

Offline churnbabychurn

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jul 2012
  • Posts: 7249
  • Total likes: 283
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #570 on: March 04, 2014, 02:35:24 PM »
Why would you say there are no risks, if there are extremely rare severe risks?
There are extremely rare allergic reactions to lots of things. They would not be considered vaccine risks. Just general life risks.

Offline YankyDoodle

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Gold Elite
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 798
  • Total likes: 42
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #571 on: March 04, 2014, 02:37:44 PM »
Dude, Side affects like a sore arm and mild fever are not "risks."
The only severe "risks" to vaccines are severe allergic reactions that are extremely rare. I understand that you want to be reasonable by recognizing the "other side." Realize that they are kooks who usually have personal circumstances that need to blame on the evil doctors. There is no room for an intelligent discussion.

Allergic reactions (such as anaphylactic shock) are not the only reactions possible from vaccines. There are others, and all are well documented as would be expected for side effects from medications that have been given on a wide scale for decades. Whatever the case, I will not do what others may try and pretend that vaccines are either the perfect cure nor the modern Satan. They are an excellent advance in medicine - by far the finest in terms of lives saved - in the 20th century.

Offline henche

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: May 2011
  • Posts: 3866
  • Total likes: 421
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #572 on: March 04, 2014, 02:42:50 PM »
Allergic reactions (such as anaphylactic shock) are not the only reactions possible from vaccines. There are others, and all are well documented as would be expected for side effects from medications that have been given on a wide scale for decades. Whatever the case, I will not do what others may try and pretend that vaccines are either the perfect cure nor the modern Satan. They are an excellent advance in medicine - by far the finest in terms of lives saved - in the 20th century.

+1, precisely.


Offline YankyDoodle

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Gold Elite
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 798
  • Total likes: 42
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #573 on: March 04, 2014, 03:17:15 PM »
Did you miss this?
http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=24137.msg630419#msg630419

No I did not miss that. I looked through it then and again now.

1) You quoted 11 articles, that I must assume you did not actually read through. Either you found them linked on some website or you did a Google search or the like. Regardless, you present them so I will respond.

2) The last 4 either have no mention of vaccines or are not studies and are simply speculation.

3) 5 of the articles are referring specifically to thimerosal and Hg which have not been used in childhood vaccines in over a decade now. I cannot view any of these because I do not have access to them. They all seem to be trying to prove correlation and not causation. Regardless, they aren't used now so we'll move on.

4) There are 2 studies on vaccines within the last decade. One claims a correlation with Aluminum in the vaccines (http://omsj.org/reports/tomljenovic%202011.pdf). The study is decent but not compelling. It makes assumptions such as "we calculated the cumulative amount of Al administered from all vaccines that children receive", they argue that since in a specific disease (macrophagic myofasciitis) the Al from vaccine remains for months to years, therefore it is reasonable to assume that is the case for all vaccines. This is not a reasonable assumption to make without further evidence and calls the entire study into question. They also argue that the strength of the correlation is enough to prove causation. That is just not true, especially in light of their poor study design. Finally for the icing, at the very end it says that the study was sponsored by Neurodyn corporation. Neurodyn's co-founder is Christopher Shaw, the author of the article. From what I can gather, his company is working on alternative options to vaccines... Conflict of interest much?

The last article you quoted (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535) I also cannot access. All I can see is the abstract and it is not an experiment rather a study attempting to prove correlation. This is done through regression statistics accounting for a couple of factors (income, ethnicity). These types of studies are notorious for being able to be manipulated, however I will reserve judgement until a link can be provided that allows full access to the article.

Online skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3111
  • Total likes: 253
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #574 on: March 05, 2014, 12:30:16 PM »
No I did not miss that. I looked through it then and again now.

1) You quoted 11 articles, that I must assume you did not actually read through. Either you found them linked on some website or you did a Google search or the like. Regardless, you present them so I will respond.

2) The last 4 either have no mention of vaccines or are not studies and are simply speculation.

3) 5 of the articles are referring specifically to thimerosal and Hg which have not been used in childhood vaccines in over a decade now. I cannot view any of these because I do not have access to them. They all seem to be trying to prove correlation and not causation. Regardless, they aren't used now so we'll move on.

4) There are 2 studies on vaccines within the last decade. One claims a correlation with Aluminum in the vaccines (http://omsj.org/reports/tomljenovic%202011.pdf). The study is decent but not compelling. It makes assumptions such as "we calculated the cumulative amount of Al administered from all vaccines that children receive", they argue that since in a specific disease (macrophagic myofasciitis) the Al from vaccine remains for months to years, therefore it is reasonable to assume that is the case for all vaccines. This is not a reasonable assumption to make without further evidence and calls the entire study into question. They also argue that the strength of the correlation is enough to prove causation. That is just not true, especially in light of their poor study design. Finally for the icing, at the very end it says that the study was sponsored by Neurodyn corporation. Neurodyn's co-founder is Christopher Shaw, the author of the article. From what I can gather, his company is working on alternative options to vaccines... Conflict of interest much?

The last article you quoted (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535) I also cannot access. All I can see is the abstract and it is not an experiment rather a study attempting to prove correlation. This is done through regression statistics accounting for a couple of factors (income, ethnicity). These types of studies are notorious for being able to be manipulated, however I will reserve judgement until a link can be provided that allows full access to the article.
This is not a comment on vaccines per se, just on the underlying logic you appear to be employing. You're making it sound like the bar for a 'link' to be taken seriously is that you need to prove causation. Even correlation is enough to begin a discussion of weighing benefits and risks. Correlation implies a potential risk, which should still be factored into the discussion, albeit with less weight than causation would.

Offline henche

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: May 2011
  • Posts: 3866
  • Total likes: 421
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #575 on: March 05, 2014, 12:34:32 PM »
This is not a comment on vaccines per se, just on the underlying logic you appear to be employing. You're making it sound like the bar for a 'link' to be taken seriously is that you need to prove causation. Even correlation is enough to begin a discussion of weighing benefits and risks. Correlation implies a potential risk, which should still be factored into the discussion, albeit with less weight than causation would.

Surely there must be more than just correlation.


Offline churnbabychurn

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jul 2012
  • Posts: 7249
  • Total likes: 283
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #576 on: March 05, 2014, 12:52:45 PM »
Good stuff

Offline Achas Veachas

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jul 2012
  • Posts: 4224
  • Total likes: 35
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 3
    • View Profile
    • Torah && Tech
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #577 on: March 05, 2014, 12:55:51 PM »
Surely there must be more than just correlation.


Like this one?

Online skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3111
  • Total likes: 253
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #578 on: March 05, 2014, 01:02:12 PM »
Surely there must be more than just correlation.


I'm not sure if you're making an actual comment in response to mine, or simply taking the opportunity to post a funny pic.

Offline henche

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: May 2011
  • Posts: 3866
  • Total likes: 421
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #579 on: March 05, 2014, 01:03:43 PM »
I'm not sure if you're making an actual comment in response to mine, or simply taking the opportunity to post a funny pic.

I'm saying that pure correlation should not lead to any conclusions at all. You should only even wonder about conclusions if there is also some theory.

Offline YankyDoodle

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Gold Elite
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 798
  • Total likes: 42
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #580 on: March 05, 2014, 01:04:55 PM »
This is not a comment on vaccines per se, just on the underlying logic you appear to be employing. You're making it sound like the bar for a 'link' to be taken seriously is that you need to prove causation. Even correlation is enough to begin a discussion of weighing benefits and risks. Correlation implies a potential risk, which should still be factored into the discussion, albeit with less weight than causation would.
You would be correct if no studies were done to weigh the association between vaccines and autism. However, these studies have been done tens of times. They continuously reflect the "conventional medical wisdom" that vaccines do not lead to autism.

If there were a breakthrough study showing any sort of real concern that vaccines are actually linked to autism, there would be 10 copycat studies to test it within a year. In addition as I mentioned the study that has the greatest potential appears seriously flawed.

In conclusion, causation is smoke but that doesn't mean that my BBQ is the source of the fire. Especially when I'm looking at my BBQ and it isn't even on!
« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 01:34:07 PM by YankyDoodle »

Offline YankyDoodle

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Gold Elite
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 798
  • Total likes: 42
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #581 on: March 05, 2014, 01:18:41 PM »
I'm saying that pure correlation should not lead to any conclusions at all. You should only even wonder about conclusions if there is also some theory.

Well there is theory in this case. I do believe it is reasonable to consider whether vaccines has a link to autism. There is no benefit to being blind to the possibility. However, the research has been done already, there is no known link between vaccines and autism and no reason to suspect one based on the research.

Online skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3111
  • Total likes: 253
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #582 on: March 05, 2014, 01:28:56 PM »
You would be correct if no studies were done to weigh the causative relationship between vaccines and autism. However, these studies have been done tens of times. They continuously reflect the "conventional medical wisdom" that vaccines do not lead to autism.

If there were a breakthrough study showing any sort of real concern that vaccines are actually linked to autism, there would be 10 copycat studies to test it within a year. In addition as I mentioned the study that has the greatest potential appears seriously flawed.

In conclusion, causation is smoke but that doesn't mean that my BBQ is the source of the fire. Especially when I'm looking at my BBQ and it isn't even on!
What studies are you referring to? It would be basically impossible to prove that even a partial causative relationship does not exist. Short of actually truly understanding autism on a genetic/molecular/[fill in other potential fields that may help explain autism], the only way to prove that would be to demonstrate that no child that was vaccinated ever had autism, which is obviously not the case. You can suggest more logical causative effects, and explain any potential correlation between vaccines and autism via the other causes, or even show that the correlation is insignificant.

I'm saying that pure correlation should not lead to any conclusions at all. You should only even wonder about conclusions if there is also some theory.
As YD mentioned, theory is not the issue. How strongly you weigh a correlation when causation hasn't been demonstrated will hinge on the strength of the correlation (and associated theory) and the severity of the risk involved.

Offline YankyDoodle

  • Dansdeals Platinum Elite + Lifetime Gold Elite
  • ******
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 798
  • Total likes: 42
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #583 on: March 05, 2014, 01:46:32 PM »
What studies are you referring to? It would be basically impossible to prove that even a partial causative relationship does not exist. Short of actually truly understanding autism on a genetic/molecular/[fill in other potential fields that may help explain autism], the only way to prove that would be to demonstrate that no child that was vaccinated ever had autism, which is obviously not the case. You can suggest more logical causative effects, and explain any potential correlation between vaccines and autism via the other causes, or even show that the correlation is insignificant.
I have edited my OP to reflect "association" instead of "causation".

There are many theories as to what causes autism. It is likely a genetic predisposition in certain ppl together with some environmental trigger. This could be tylenol use, cell phone radiation or any # of thousands of things that have become more commonplace than they were prior to the "outbreak" of autism. Can it be vaccines? Sure, it's a reasonable guess. However as I mentioned this has never been proven. In fact it has very rarely been shown to have any correlation, and none of these have ever been reproducible.

How strongly you weigh a correlation when causation hasn't been demonstrated will hinge on the strength of the correlation (and associated theory) and the severity of the risk involved.
The key here is what I bolded in your quote. While you are trying to say the severity of autism, I argue (together with 99% of the medical community) that the severity of the supposed association must be weighed against the severity of not using vaccines and allowing these life-threatening diseases to become commonplace again. Without any good data, do oyu really want to take that chance?

I will say again,
When someone responds with any decent answer regarding Fakefield or with an actual peer-reviewed article connecting modern vaccines with autism I will be glad to listen.

It is fine to discuss the possibility of correlation, but it is a very dangerous game to play to stop vaccines without very solid studies first.

Online skyguy918

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Mar 2011
  • Posts: 3111
  • Total likes: 253
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Queens, NY
Re: Vaccine Discussion Master Thread
« Reply #584 on: March 05, 2014, 04:54:04 PM »
I have edited my OP to reflect "association" instead of "causation".

There are many theories as to what causes autism. It is likely a genetic predisposition in certain ppl together with some environmental trigger. This could be tylenol use, cell phone radiation or any # of thousands of things that have become more commonplace than they were prior to the "outbreak" of autism. Can it be vaccines? Sure, it's a reasonable guess. However as I mentioned this has never been proven. In fact it has very rarely been shown to have any correlation, and none of these have ever been reproducible.
The key here is what I bolded in your quote. While you are trying to say the severity of autism, I argue (together with 99% of the medical community) that the severity of the supposed association must be weighed against the severity of not using vaccines and allowing these life-threatening diseases to become commonplace again. Without any good data, do oyu really want to take that chance?

I will say again,
It is fine to discuss the possibility of correlation, but it is a very dangerous game to play to stop vaccines without very solid studies first.
You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating that people not get vaccinated, especially not because of the possible connection to autism. I'm just pointing out that you mentioned several times that the 'research' linking vaccines and autism only shows correlation if even that, as if correlation is irrelevant and doesn't warrant further discussion.