This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
My impression of the forumers here is you're half onto the global warming lie, but little else of whats going on behind the mass media, so let me just run a test or few now and soon.
No hits for 'gardasil' on this forum. Have you lot chosen to ignore that part of reality? Or you just not looked at that yet?
There's been a huge tide of net activity on gardasil and vaccines these last few years, so it's a little hard to believe you've all managed to narrow your view of reality right down to blindness on the issue.
Here's one _many_ sites that have sprung up.
You should read at least a couple of the accounts.
I knew vaccines were crap years before gardasil came on the market. I remember seeing the adverts - "go take gardasil, protect against cervical cancer!". 'What a terrible lie, they're going to maim and kill so many beautiful young women with that' I thought. Well now it's been done.
They didn't get any of my family. But worryingly there are a few kids that will, in the next 5 years or so, be in the age range for gardasil and the like, and their parents are still vacine-aholics. Hope they'll see sense before too late.
I am very pleased that vaccines preventing my catching poliomyelitis, whooping cough or mumps and that they have eliminated smallpox from the world. I wish the measles vaccine had been introduced when I was a child as it would have spared me a long and serious illness.
We should all be in favour of actual science. It can't tell us what we should do, but it can tell us how to do it. This is why we should oppose the AGW theory - because it is not Science, but Shouting.
Well, it's what I expected. Either this forum is becoming underpopulated due to same old stuff - there's only so much fun in ridiculing religion, or you all, just like AGWer's, are all heavily into blocking out reality when it suites you.
From the whole numberwatch uk community - not a word of acknowledgement of vaccine damage. You don't want to know. So no wonder it is so rife, the cries for help from 1000s of familys are falling on deaf ears.
Only Frank overcame his contempt for me broaching the subject and/or my judgemental tone( Most people don't like being tested, because the examiner is more alpha than the test sitter.)
His was the 'it was ok by me decades ago- so that means it must be ok now, so no need to make effort to move mouse and click on link or google search vaccine damage'.
Likewise, I plugged myself into the mains electricity when I was a kid once. 240V went through me for about 5 seconds. Lucky for me there was more resistance in the circuit I made besides myself.
But unlike frank I don't just take my own direct experience as complete evidence. I later read about electricity and worked out I was lucky.
The numberwatch uk community have failed the vaccine test.
Well, here's a few things you'll want to take care to block out of your reality.
1st, a few more of the hundreds of grass root sites that have popped up due to mass vaccine damage. i.e. vaccine awareness websites by parents whose kids have been killed or damaged by vaccines. Rich in both solid science and passionate personal accounts.
Sod 'em! Right?!
Gotta ignore all of them and loads more.
Then there's quotes from medical professional who've realized what going on with vaccines ( many of which were soon after ostracized from the medical profession ).
"Compare these well vaccinated countries with Australia, the least vaccinated country in the world. In 134 years, not one-fifth of the children born have been vaccinated. Yet only three Australian children under five have died of that disease. In the last 50 years, no child under five has died of smallpox, and in the whole of her history, less than one person per annum has died of it, although allowing five years protective period, only 2 per cent, of her population have ever been "protected." - M. Beddow Bayly M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P.
"...participants tried to imply that autism was a genetic disorder and therefore could have nothing to do with vaccines. Dr. Weil put that to rest with this comment, "We don't see that kind of genetic change in 30 years." In other words, how can we suddenly see a 300% increase in a genetically related disorder over such a short period? It is also known that there are two forms of autism, one that is apparent at birth and one that develops later in childhood. The former has not changed in incidence since statistics have been kept; the other is epidemic" - Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
"Autism is not the only severe chronic illness which has reached epidemic proportions as the number of (profitable) vaccines has rapidly increased. Children now receive 33 vaccines before they enter school – a huge increase. The vaccines contain not only live viruses but also very significant amounts of highly toxic substances such as mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde. Could this be the reason for the upsurge in autism, ADHD, asthma, arthritis, Crohn’s disease, lupus and other chronic disorders?" - Dr Rimland Ph.D
This is a tiny sample of pro quotes, I've loads more if you want 'em, but they take up a lot of space.
Then there's books
Silenced witnesses vol I & II - by the parents
What the Pharmaceutical companies don't want you to know about Vaccines - Dr Todd M. Elsner, D.C.
Jabs, Jenner and Juggernauts - Jennifer Craig
Vaccination is not immunization - Tim O'Shea
Tiny sample. More if you want.
Then there's the vaccine damaged people in your family.
What? you think you've not got any? Chances are, you are wrong.
Many long term disabilitys are likely caused by childhood vaccination. Such as epilepsy, autism, Chronic fatigue syndrome, migranes, brain damage and diabetes. Anyone in your family got that? Most familys have at least one. Mine has 3 ( cousins ) But in your bubble of reality it's just misfortune at the hands of genetics, bad luck and... infectious dieases!
Finally, next time one of the kids in your family has a vaccine, notice how the kid gets ill soon after. Some don't even acknowledge this. Others put it done to a safe 'vaccine reaction'. But it's there, vaccines often make you ill soon after. If you fully recover, lucky you. All too often, and more and more often these days, people don't.
Any numberwatchuk members with family vaccine damage want to speak up?
The reason you don't get replies is that you are so far removed from objective reality that there is no point in trying to drag you back.
Like a religious fundamentalist, attempting to reason with you about vaccines in general (which is not really relevant - the risks and benefits of each individual product need to be assessed individually) would be as futile as administering medicine to the dead.
I don't mind too much you not engaging with me James, it's what i expected. I've visited before. For someone to follow up some presented evidence on this forum is rare.
Even so, the community might want to debate amongst itself to rationalise the aspects of reality I've plonked under there nose, even if they refuse to look at any of it.
What's nwuk's stance on why there's been so many anti vaccine websites and medias spring up recently with so many people dedicated to this mode of thinking?
I'm guessing you think they're a bunch of mad people. So end of investigation? Ignore them, like you said you'd do with me?
Then why have you dedicated so much time to dissing the AGW movement, carefully deconstructing their arguments, and generally spending so much timeenergy focused on them?
Aren't they mad, deluded, stupid stubborn or whatever like the anti vacciners?
would it mean anything to you if I point out your response is the same form of response skeptics ( i.e you and the nwuk forum ) get when they question AGWers?
Most so-called skeptics aren't real skeptics. They are just AGWers who happen to have picked the skeptic side of the fence. So no suprise when I come here I get the same modes of respond from nwuk as you get when you question an AGWer.
Religion has 3 modes of conduct when it's integrity is questioned - silence, obfuscation, and adhomien. Frank choose the 2nd option ( didn't address the issue), you've choosen the 3rd, anyone else here apparently thinks reality goes away if you ignore it. I'll go away from this forum, but the anti vaccine websites and the community of anti vacciners will still exist.
Why debate by link? Make your own claims in your own words, preferably in coherent sentences and paragraphs and I'll look at them.
The typical anti-vaccine argument (coherent version) runs along the lines of:
1) Only a tiny proportion of people benefit from vaccines
2) Almost everyone has an adverse event in response to vaccination
3) Thousands of people every year have serious or even fatal responses to vaccination.
All of these statements are true. But that doesn't make the anti-vaccine position (especially in general) tenable. Take a vaccine and it might kill you, but don't take it, and the thing it would protect you against might. That ratio of probabilities (among other consequences short of death) contributes to the risk/benefit calculation.
Another problem is that with increasing vaccine uptake you get some form of herd immunity when the disease can no longer find enough hosts to get going, in the old-fashioned epidemiological sense. As a result, once you have say 90% coverage, the risk/benefit ratio for the remaining 10% might indeed not be positive, since they are already largely protected by everyone else having got vaccinated. In practice, it's difficult to work out exactly where that trade-off point is - especially as the world (or even your town or village) is not a homogeneous population which behaves uniformly for the convenience of medical statisticians.
As for the supposed associations with rare and horrible diseases such as MMR with autism, the evidence is weak in the extreme. One would expect rare side-effects to be seen only at the post-marketing surveillance stage, but this is usually weak evidence for causality, unless the incidence is very substantially higher (three times or more) than expected (and the statistics for disease incidence in the "general" population are themselves fraught with problems). There isn't a good method for comparing the incidence in a nontreated population (this is a consequence of the way postmarketing AEs are reported), and running a RCT large enough to demonstrate causality for a vanishingly rare adverse effect after the product is marketed would be ethically dubious and an immense waste of money. As for the argument that these things are diagnosed more now than they used to be, this applies to just about any disease you can mention. Besides which, if there is any cause other than better, cheaper, more intensive, more hi-tech medicine (as if comparisons between now and the past -e.g. times when taking your sixth kid to the doctor on your husband's labourer's wage was reserved for dire life-threatening emergencies), there are literally thousands of other environmental, dietary and whatever factors you could pick on. Vaccines are just the bogeyman of choice for one subgroup of unhinged individuals with a kid with some terrible disease who desperately need to know the cause, or make one up if there isn't an identifiable cause. Others pick on hormones, fertilisers, electricity pylons, power stations, motorways, ozone, and so on.
@James -- I loved the following...
"times when taking your sixth kid to the doctor on your husband's labourer's wage was reserved for dire life-threatening emergencies"
My variant -- The ability to sit around and discuss whether or not it is best to eat vegetarian, vegan, omnivore or carnivore is solely reserved to those who have so much available to them that they can choose. For most of history, humans haven't been worried about the ideal diet, they have been worried about having something in the diet. Such discussions are perfect for the bar over a beer or 10 as an intellectual exercise. But it is just that... It isn't real. Real is starving and not giving a **** what fills your tummy, so long as it doesn't kill you tomorrow. Killing you 30 years from now is a dream..
>But it is just that... It isn't real. Real is starving and not giving a **** what fills your tummy, so long as it doesn't kill you tomorrow. Killing you 30 years from now is a dream..
Stick with only cola, fried food, alcohol and crispy cream donuts then. It'll kill you within 30 years.
>Why debate by link? Make your own claims in your own words, preferably in coherent sentences and paragraphs and I'll look at them.
Because links are evidence. Debate without evidence is philosophy.
Thanks for taking the time to write your take on vaccines. It's self consistent in some places, and that must be satisfying for you. But if you don't check it against evidence, you'll never be able to argue it's truth.
I sense you haven't followed up any of the leads I've given you.
So let me compare your theory against the evidence you haven't looked at for you.
>As for the supposed associations with rare and horrible diseases such as MMR with autism, the evidence is weak in the extreme.
1st, autism and many of the new wave of dieases are not rare. But if you were set on researching the internet to find the ratio per population, you'd find the data is fuzzy. The official reports conflict.
As I say, I've 3 family members out of 12 of my generation with dieases I associate with vaccine damge. That's not rare! I haven't measured other familys formally, but the frequency of people I know, and people know who've got someone in there family with these diseases is roughly the same as with my family - about 25%.
2nd, a self inconsistancy in your model.
>3) Thousands of people every year have serious ...responses to vaccination.
Well, what are these responses? Is there a group of of symptons which can can be used to diagnose vaccine damage?
What are they?
You should take time to research them.
There must be some identified illness, to which by definition, will have a strong link to vaccine damage.
What is the offical vaccine damage disease? You think it's just called vaccine damage?
I sense you haven't read both sides of the autism MMR debate. Did you ever read Andrew wakefield's story? Or just the vaccine manufacturers take on Andrew's story in the tabloids?
>One would expect rare side-effects to be seen only at the post-marketing surveillance stage,
I start to lose track of what you say later in your post. There are terms and abreviations I'm not familiar with. But you seem to assume vaccines go through effectively a standard 3 phase double blind studys like phamaceutical drugs are 'spose to.
Part of the concern over vaccines these days, which can be found all over the media ( cept the mass ) is that vaccines go through few safety tests, no where near as rigourous as an ideal 3 phase double blind study.
Soz if this post isn't so complete, I'm a bit rushed for time.
Looking at this thread, it may be worth pointing out two things to fellow forum members:
1) Meemoe visited this forum two years ago (Dec 2008) under the name James E Grist and was trying to promote the '9/11 Twin Towers collapse was an inside job' conspiracy theory.
2) The particular vaccine, 'Gardasil', that he is expressing concern about is not actually used in the UK. The Department of Health in the UK opted to use another different vaccine called 'Cervarix' to save money.
>1) Meemoe visited this forum two years ago (Dec 200 under the name James E Grist and was trying to promote the '9/11 Twin Towers collapse was an inside job' conspiracy theory.
That's right. I'm impressed you've got the resource to look back that far. But this is going down as a dirt digging ad-homien, since it's entirely OT and we know nwuk members don't like that theory.
Ideally, you be embarrassed when someone points out you've done a pure ad-homien. This isn't the daily mirror forum you know.
>2) The particular vaccine, 'Gardasil', that he is expressing concern about is not actually used in the UK. The Department of Health in the UK opted to use another different vaccine called 'Cervarix' to save money.
Wrong. Gardasil is available in the UK privately, and has been since at least 2007. The uk goverment wouldn't agree an NHS licence to use gardasil, but soon after, they agreed one on ceravix, which is claimed to do exactly what gardasil does. Anti vaccine groups think gardasil and ceravix are near enough the same vaccine, the latter being a cheaper repackaging of the former.
Now the real question about your 'point', why does the availability of gardasil in the uk, available or not, have any bearing on the arguement that vaccines do too much damage to be worth using?
I don't see where it leads. Vaccines can and have done damage if used, regardless of the availability of a particular one in the uk.
I am reluctant to start censoring this forum, as many zealot sites do, but below the title at the top of the page are mentioned the two matters we respect. This contribution does neither.
Hi all, just wanted to remind the old crowd here about their duties to the shrine of ignorance, and to skim off any open minded indviduals who've wandered here by mistake or nievity.
In the ocean of evidence on the net that says vaccines are dangerous and unnecessary, I've picked out this one. A list of briefs of kids that took a vaccine shot, then suffered a serious effect or worse.
It is accounts of the most clear cut causality you'll get in medicine. Yet numberwatch ignores it all.
Wake up from your pride and hypnosis. Don't give your kids vaccines!