Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[psychoslice]

You still haven't been able to show us anything official from the CDC over this alleged apology.

Yes, It was over one particular vaccine, a flue vaccine, so yes your right, its nothing too worry over, I will admit that, but it doesn't mean any other is good for you.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, you just need the intelligence to decipher the truth from fiction.

Don't leave out training. A big part of intellectual disciplines, be it science or other academic pursuits, is learning how to distinguish between what is hyperbolic dishonest crap *cough* gives dirty look at alternative medical practitioners using purposely faulty language when relaying data of scientific studies *cough* and articles/links/statements that hold up to intellectual/scientific scrutiny. That training also elevates what we layfolk call "intelligence" to actual honest to god knowledge. If you get me?

So again, I'm going to trust the knowledge of trained medical scientists, over laypeople who equate Googling to actual legitimate research. Like seriously, Google is not research, it's the basic model to teach young kids the IDEA of research. Not the be all and end all of intellectual inquiry.

 

[philbo]

Yes, you just need the intelligence to decipher the truth from fiction.

Seeing as you seem so sure you're right, in addition to what the others have said, I'd just like to leave this here. It seems relevant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, It was over one particular vaccine, a flue vaccine, so yes your right, its nothing too worry over, I will admit that, but it doesn't mean any other is good for you.

You are still ignoring the issue, which is that none of us have been able to find this alleged apology. You can talk about it all you want, but as far as any of us are concerned, until you show us, through official CDC-related sources, this apology doesn't exist.
Or, is it a total fraud like your "banned" source that is freely and readily found on the internet, meaning that it is indeed not banned?

 

[InChrist]

The mortality rates for the various diseases have decreased as we get better at treating them, and as nutrition improves. In a recent measles outbreak in Africa, better nutrition (including vit A supplements) halved mortality from 14% to 7% - but if you catch measles in the West, it's more of a 1:3000 (or 0.03%) mortality these days. But it has never got down to zero, and one in six people who get measles need hospitalization.

The decreasing mortality rate shouldn't be confused with a decreasing incidence rate: without vaccines, the number of people getting measles would still be in the hundreds of thousands in every year there was an outbreak, so hundreds would still be dying and many tens of thousands would be in hospital needing treatment for the typical side-effects of measles: encephalitis, pneumonia, that sort of thing. Today we can keep people with pneumonia alive (hence the decrease in mortality), but it's still a lot nastier than any of the side-effects from the vaccine.

I don't know where you re getting your figures, but I just don't think they are accurate.

There are a tiny handful of vaccine-caused polio cases (VDPV) - one in a hundred million or so shots of vaccine - and with decent herd immunity they don't cause outbreaks - they're not being "spread by the vaccines", that's a gross distortion. To quote the WHO:

I don't think it is a tiny handful. The WHO simply refuses to acknowledge that...non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) have increased 1200% since the oral polio vaccine was introduced to India a decade ago...India: Paralysis cases soar after oral polio vaccine introduced By ignoring this and calling it non-polio acute flaccid paralysis they can still go on claiming to be eradicating polio.

1. There is a direct correlation between doses of the live oral polio vaccine and the incidence of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis.
2. In the past 13 months, India has reported 53,563 cases of “non-polio acute flaccid paralysis,” giving India the distinction of having the highest rate of non-polio acute flaccid paralysis in the world.
3. Even in other countries that have “polio-free” status, there is a resurgence of polio and that includes India.
4. The live oral polio vaccine is so dangerous, with so many side effects, that it is being phased out. WHO has called on a complete withdrawal of the vaccine by the end of 2016.

The big question is: why are they waiting until the end of 2016 when the dangers of this vaccine are so well known?? Could the fact that UNICEF, the primary agency used to “eradicate polio” by the pharmaceutical manufacturers, purchased 1.7 BILLION doses of the oral polio vaccine in 2013, representing BILLIONS of dollars of revenue for the vaccine manufacturers, have anything to do with not phasing out the oral polio vaccine immediately?

We reported late last year how UNICEF used the Philippines Typhoon tragedy, as well as the Syrian refugee tragedies, to buy more live polio vaccines and start giving these vaccines in mass polio vaccination programs, despite the fact that there had been no recorded incidents of polio in the Philippines since 1993, and none in Syria since 1999. They used these tragedies to justify increasing their purchase of the live oral polio vaccine from 1.35 billion doses to 1.7 billion for 2013. The financial motive to continue such a lucrative market, where these vaccines are purchased by the United Nations through tax dollars of contributing member countries, the largest of which is the United States, must be a very strong motivation indeed to continue the oral vaccine program, and get ALL countries around the world the “polio-free” certification.

- See more at:
The Vaccine Myth of “Polio-free” Status – Polio Vaccine Caused 53,000 Paralysis Victims in India Last Year

...and to finish: I see you still have no evidence for vaccines causing autism. You linked to a page containing 86 (no! it's up to 99) research papers which someone with no scientific knowledge and a financial incentive to rubbish vaccines has put together and you're too uncertain to pick specific articles from there because you know full well they won't stand up to scrutiny - and this is presumably the best you've got, right? The time has got to come when you admit you have nothing other than an unsubstantiated fear from reading too many scientifically-illiterate web pages, and even if you don't trust your CDC/FDA, what about every other health department everywhere else on the planet?

Okay, how about this one for specifics...Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk....Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. - PubMed - NCBI

Or this one...Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism. Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism. - PubMed - NCBI

Actually, I think those who are so trusting of vaccines to protect their health are the ones who do so out of fear rather than take personal responsibility for their own health. It is a very common mentality today to expect a pill or a shot to fix everything.

 

[dgirl1986]

The damage that first study did on MMR and Autism, which was retracted by the way, is just phenominal.

 

[psychoslice]

Don't leave out training. A big part of intellectual disciplines, be it science or other academic pursuits, is learning how to distinguish between what is hyperbolic dishonest crap *cough* gives dirty look at alternative medical practitioners using purposely faulty language when relaying data of scientific studies *cough* and articles/links/statements that hold up to intellectual/scientific scrutiny. That training also elevates what we layfolk call "intelligence" to actual honest to god knowledge. If you get me?

So again, I'm going to trust the knowledge of trained medical scientists, over laypeople who equate Googling to actual legitimate research. Like seriously, Google is not research, it's the basic model to teach young kids the IDEA of research. Not the be all and end all of intellectual inquiry.

Its not just training and being a science, we all have a brain and we all can use it just as anyone else does, be that a science or whoever, science don't know everything, their learning all the time just like all of us.

 

[psychoslice]

Seeing as you seem so sure you're right, in addition to what the others have said, I'd just like to leave this here. It seems relevant.

That was silly.

 

[SomeRandom]

Its not just training and being a science, we all have a brain and we all can use it just as anyone else does, be that a science or whoever, science don't know everything, their learning all the time just like all of us.

Yes, but having a brain and Googling something is not the same as legitimately studying something for a living. Come on now. The two are in separate bloody universes as far as knowledge is concerned and don't pretend they're not. Googling Biology is not and will never be the same as a Biologist actually studying Biology. Sure Googling can increase your knowledge but without proper training in that field, it's not going to be properly filtered by you. If a legitimate Biologist with years of training and some layman who Googled Biology for a while (hell even for a year or so) go head to head in a battle of Biological knowledge, the legitimate Biologist will wipe the floor with the Googler without breaking a sweat EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Google is not a Doctor, Google is not a Physicist, Google doesn't have a bloody degree in anything. There is FAR more misinformation on Google than there is legitimate information, because there's no real quality checker on Google. That's not it's job.

So don't pretend that your mere Googling or mine for that matter come anywhere close to the level of knowledge and the legitimate research being conducted by trained professionals in ANY field of Academia.Because to do so is not only appallingly insulting to people who ****ing study this **** legitimately but it's also grossly arrogant.

 

[philbo]

I don't know where you re getting your figures, but I just don't think they are accurate.

Not sure which figures you don't believe, but the reducing death rate from 14% to 7% in Africa came from an article often quoted by antivax idiots who think that it shows that vitamin A supplements "cure" measles: Barclay, AJG et al. "Vitamin A supplements and mortality related to measles: a randomised clinical trial.: British Medical Journal (January 31, 1987): 294-96
(Sorry, just realized I said "recent".. it wasn't particularly)

The 1 in 3000 death rate for measles in the West is rough: in the UK, it's better than most. According to the ONS, it averages out at 1:3873 over the last 20 years; mortality in the US between 1987 and 2002 was considerably higher (Acute Measles Mortality in the United States, 1987–2002

I don't think it is a tiny handful. The WHO simply refuses to acknowledge that...non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP) have increased 1200% since the oral polio vaccine was introduced to India a decade ago...India: Paralysis cases soar after oral polio vaccine introduced By ignoring this and calling it non-polio acute flaccid paralysis they can still go on claiming to be eradicating polio.

So it's basically your mistrust of the people whose analysis suggested a different disease agent? Non-polio enteroviruses in acute flaccid paralysis children of India: vital assessment before polio eradication. - PubMed - NCBI

And please, please get it into your head that correlation does not mean causation: an oubreak of a different disease which occurred at the same time as a vaccination programme does not mean the vaccine caused the outbreak. Come back when you have something other than paranoia to link these together.

Okay, how about this one for specifics...Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk....Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. - PubMed - NCBI

Two things spring to mind here.. firstly, does this mean you will accept that all the other vaccines *don't* even correlate with autism, given that this is one specific vaccine delivery showing a correlation in one subset of people?

Secondly, can you see how this applies: xkcd: Significant

..i.e. if you start trawling data, you will find correlations in specific subsets of your data. This does not mean that there is a causal relationship in the one subset which is surprisingly absent from all the others, it just means that if you're looking at dozens of different possible correlations, you're overwhelmingly likely to spot one.

Or this one...Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism. Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism. - PubMed - NCBI

How many "may"s are there in that abstract? If a correlation could be shown between MMR and autism (which there most emphatically isn't - even the link you gave above wasn't anything to do with MMR), then it "may" have given some hint towards the cause; but as there is no such correlation, all those "may cause" can simply be interpreted as "well, it may have, but it doesn't"

Actually, I think those who are so trusting of vaccines to protect their health are the ones who do so out of fear rather than take personal responsibility for their own health. It is a very common mentality today to expect a pill or a shot to fix everything.

I suppose thinking that allows you to cast yourself in the form of a fearless, personally-responsible type.. rather than the fearmongering paranoiac endangering others. I think that says more about you than people who get their vaccinations

 

[philbo]

That was silly.

So you can't even see how it was relevant? I'm not entirely surprised.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes, but having a brain and Googling something is not the same as legitimately studying something for a living. Come on now. The two are in separate bloody universes as far as knowledge is concerned and don't pretend they're not. Googling Biology is not and will never be the same as a Biologist actually studying Biology. Sure Googling can increase your knowledge but without proper training in that field, it's not going to be properly filtered by you. If a legitimate Biologist with years of training and some layman who Googled Biology for a while (hell even for a year or so) go head to head in a battle of Biological knowledge, the legitimate Biologist will wipe the floor with the Googler without breaking a sweat EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Google is not a Doctor, Google is not a Physicist, Google doesn't have a bloody degree in anything. There is FAR more misinformation on Google than there is legitimate information, because there's no real quality checker on Google. That's not it's job.

So don't pretend that your mere Googling or mine for that matter come anywhere close to the level of knowledge and the legitimate research being conducted by trained professionals in ANY field of Academia.Because to do so is not only appallingly insulting to people who ****ing study this **** legitimately but it's also grossly arrogant.

There are science that do agree that vaccines need to be looked at, but most don't say anything because of the backlash and even losing their job.

 

[McBell]

There are science that do agree that vaccines need to be looked at, but most don't say anything because of the backlash and even losing their job.

LMFAO

"Expelled: Vaccine Version"

:biglaugh:

 

[dgirl1986]

There are science that do agree that vaccines need to be looked at, but most don't say anything because of the backlash and even losing their job.

What about the hundreds of peer reviewed studies that have been conducted on the subject of vaccines?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are science that do agree that vaccines need to be looked at, but most don't say anything because of the backlash and even losing their job.

If they don't say anything, for fear of losing their jobs, then how is you know they have said anything? How can their names be attached to anything in order to establish credibility if they won't say anything in the first place?

 

[psychoslice]

What about the hundreds of peer reviewed studies that have been conducted on the subject of vaccines?

Peer, lol.

 

[psychoslice]

If they don't say anything, for fear of losing their jobs, then how is you know they have said anything? How can their names be attached to anything in order to establish credibility if they won't say anything in the first place?

Good observation, its the ones who do come forth that know of these people, and of course their not going to name names, I also know that this cannot5 be 100% proven, but I believe their are many people like this, whistle blowers their called.

 

[McBell]

If they don't say anything, for fear of losing their jobs, then how is you know they have said anything? How can their names be attached to anything in order to establish credibility if they won't say anything in the first place?

Way to go.
Ruin his fantasy with logic and reason...

Next you will undoubtedly ask for evidence which he will, as per normal, not provide.
Though to be fair, he will likely present some nonsense from some pseudoscience website that he used to ratify his beliefs.

 

[psychoslice]

Way to go.
Ruin his fantasy with logic and reason...

Next you will undoubtedly ask for evidence which he will, as per normal, not provide.
Though to be fair, he will likely present some nonsense from some pseudoscience website that he used to ratify his beliefs.

Na, of course they don't want to be known, but that doesn't mean that its not happening, do you really believe that all the vaccines are perfect and could never hurt anyone ?.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good observation, its the ones who do come forth that know of these people, and of course their not going to name names, I also know that this cannot5 be 100% proven, but I believe their are many people like this, whistle blowers their called.

Uh huh. Of course we all know people who know this guy. What makes their claims any more realistic than any other random person who says "Well, I know this guy who knows this guy."
And if they did find hard evidence that disproves incorrect knowledge: they are shame to science. There silence would then be putting millions at risk: shame on them.
But it masquerades as being "banned," but, there it is, freely available for all. There are also "banned" sites for dating and penis enlargement methods. When it's banned, that means it's like it is in China and nobody sees it. It wouldn't be freely available to be so easily linked to a public forum like this.
And why can nobody find the CDC apology from the CDC itself? If the information was right there, they wouldn't deny it. Not unless it is "right there" as in Roswell "Right There."