Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: the nwuk vaccine test!

@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..

Re: the nwuk vaccine test!

>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..

OT.
Stick with only cola, fried food, alcohol and crispy cream donuts then. It'll kill you within 30 years.

Re: the nwuk vaccine test!

>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.

Re: the nwuk vaccine test!

meemoe_uk

Because links are evidence. Debate without evidence is philosophy.


No - you tell me the claims you wish to use in evidence. I'm not spending my time reading through dozens of links

1st, autism and many of the new wave of dieases are not rare.


Irrelevant what you call it or what incidence or prevalence you consider to be "rare". I expect all diseases (particularly psychological diseases) which are based on a clinical as opposed to objective diagnosis, to appear more common now than at any time in the past.

As I say, I've 3 family members out of 12 of my generation with dieases I associate with vaccine damge.


What is "vaccine dam(a)ge"?

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?


You tell me, since "vaccine damage" is your terminology. A substance you put in the body could theoretically procduce any symptom all the way up to death, or no symptoms.

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?


"vaccine damage" is your terminology. You tell me what you mean by it.

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?


You can "sense" whatever you like, personally I don't believe in ESP.

I start to lose track of what you say later in your post. There are terms and abreviations I'm not familiar with.


That's because you are unfamiliar with medical research. Thanks for confirming that for me.

But you seem to assume vaccines go through effectively a standard 3 phase double blind studys like phamaceutical drugs are 'spose to.


What is a 3 phase double-blind study? Are you referring to the three "phases" of pre-marketing clinical development? You are aware that phase I trials are frequently not blinded? Clearly not.

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.


I confess to knowing nothing about the licensing procedures for vaccines - not my area. For the flu vaccine, that changes yearly, it wouldn't be possible to do the licensing the traditional way and still have an effective product.

Soz if this post isn't so complete, I'm a bit rushed for time.


Then I wouldn't bother if I were you, unless you have time to do this properly.

Re: the nwuk vaccine test!

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.

link

Re: the nwuk vaccine test!

Now Dave,
>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.

OffTopic.
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.

Re: the nwuk vaccine test!

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.

Re: the nwuk vaccine test!

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.

http://followingvaccinations.com/
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!