Science/Environment Anti-vacc Crazies at it again. Post appropriate outrage ITT

[Clubs are trumps]

It might be news to you that there is a world wide shortage of IC Nurses. Guess why?

Mate i work at the hospital i mentioned in my post above. Im giving an insight into whats happening. I watched my ex struggle to get employment as a nurse after graduating here during the outbreak of the pandemic, simply because she was born in Nepal. If you're going to ask a condescending sarcastic question you can cram it.

 

[Pie eyed]

Another cult member of Scientism, I see. Any actual science, or just more name-calling?

I'll be waiting here for the science should any of the Scientism adherents try to engage in discussing actual science.

How can it be treason?
Start with English and we'll work our way up.
I don't give a rats about your scientism idiocy. You can have that discussion with someone else.

 

[Pie eyed]

Reason? It's been proved that pharmaceutical companies have been withholding treatments for cancer because they can't make money from it. They have spent millions over decades to bribe politicians to maintain the ban on medical marijuana.

As a result we have millions addicted to their pain killers and whole industry pumping people full of radiation.

Please explain?
They make money by making drugs yet making the biggest breakthrough drug in the history of mankind would not make them any money?
I assume all the drug companies are in on this together, all agreeing to not make massive profits for some "higher" as yet undisclosed self-interest?

Why is it that they all do not already have drugs (which do not work and which in fact causes cancer) which they market as cancer cures? It seems to be their business model for all other ailments.

 

[Furn2]

If you were medically trained you would know that the environment interacts with the genetic code of the individual, and that not all individuals have the genetic code required for the environmental factor (in this case one or more of the components of the various vaccines) to trigger a response that leads to the outcome classified as autism. Just because on a large sample size there is no statistically significant increase in the risk of autism does not mean that certain individuals and families do not have a significantly increased risk of developing autism subsequent to the injection of vaccines. The problem right now in the status quo of medical science is that there is no relevant test to demonstrate which individuals have said genetic code which puts them at a higher risk of developing adverse outcomes from vaccines.

Basically, science has plenty of room to grow. In the interim, people should be able to choose. There are cases whereby parents have vaccinated their child or children and become reluctant to do so with the subsequent children due to the onset of symptoms of autism in their vaccinated child or both (or all three) children. These people only want to do what is best for their offspring. It is simplistic of a scientific community to suggest that one size fits all when we know already the natural variation in the genetic code which predisposes different people to different outcomes when exposed to certain environmental factors.

The problem with case studies is that they cannot be extrapolated to the broader population. But the poorly recognised problem with large randomised clinical trials or cohort studies and case-control studies is that they cannot necessarily be interpolated appropriately to the individual. THIS is the problem with big business ("Big Pharma" if you will) - they do not promote the latter point, only the former. Should the latter point be admitted, it would render their business of conducting large-scale clinical trials precarious on the basis of the huge investment made and massive profit to be gained.

If there was a group of people predisposed genetically to becoming autistic from vaccinations that group would appear statistically in a vaccinated group and not in a non-vaccinated group unless it was so rare as to not be statistically significant or in other words non existent.

What you're suggesting is scientifically, mathematically and statistically impossible and yet you wonder why people call you people nuts.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Where have I said anything about 'autism'? Try again.

OK, well the thread title is "anti vacc crazies at it again". So I felt it was appropriate, given the thread title, to use the term.

Blame whoever mods the thread titles then.

If you were medically trained you would know that the environment interacts with the genetic code of the individual, and that not all individuals have the genetic code required for the environmental factor (in this case one or more of the components of the various vaccines) to trigger a response that leads to the outcome classified as autism. Just because on a large sample size there is no statistically significant increase in the risk of autism does not mean that certain individuals and families do not have a significantly increased risk of developing autism subsequent to the injection of vaccines. The problem right now in the status quo of medical science is that there is no relevant test to demonstrate which individuals have said genetic code which puts them at a higher risk of developing adverse outcomes from vaccines.

Basically, science has plenty of room to grow. In the interim, people should be able to choose. There are cases whereby parents have vaccinated their child or children and become reluctant to do so with the subsequent children due to the onset of symptoms of autism in their vaccinated child or both (or all three) children. These people only want to do what is best for their offspring. It is simplistic of a scientific community to suggest that one size fits all when we know already the natural variation in the genetic code which predisposes different people to different outcomes when exposed to certain environmental factors.

The problem with case studies is that they cannot be extrapolated to the broader population. But the poorly recognised problem with large randomised clinical trials or cohort studies and case-control studies is that they cannot necessarily be interpolated appropriately to the individual. THIS is the problem with big business ("Big Pharma" if you will) - they do not promote the latter point, only the former. Should the latter point be admitted, it would render their business of conducting large-scale clinical trials precarious on the basis of the huge investment made and massive profit to be gained.

And vaccines themselves are not 100% effective, partially reliant on the herd immunity so that if there is a patient who is still susceptible to a disease they are less likely to be exposed due to having a reduced chance of contracting it. It would be a shame if the anti vaccination numbers rose to a point that individuals who were vaccinated still had a significant risk of encountering the wild disease.

As you correctly pointed out, science currently cannot use population based studies to say it will always work for the individual. Nevertheless it is still better than the old method of "do this because I say so" from medically "eminent" persons. I think if drug X has been shown in a large population study that it benefits a significant proportion of the population (reduced illness rate, improved quality of life, increased lifespan etc) and the harm incidence is either significantly less, minimal in nature, or no greater than placebo it is reasonable to use.
And if the adverse event rate is no different to placebo then I don't think there is a strong argument for causation - unless it is the type of event where the adverse event ceases on stopping the drug and then restarts when drug is reintroduced - I would agree causation there.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Please explain?
They make money by making drugs yet making the biggest breakthrough drug in the history of mankind would not make them any money?
I assume all the drug companies are in on this together, all agreeing to not make massive profits for some "higher" as yet undisclosed self-interest?

Why is it that they all do not already have drugs (which do not work and which in fact causes cancer) which they market as cancer cures? It seems to be their business model for all other ailments.

Possibly the reason is that the drug, which is expensive to develop, then doesn't get regulatory approval for government subsidies. Therefore drug is too expensive for persons to obtain, and this also contributes to high costs as only a small number of persons could afford it (no economy of scale/ mass production offsets etc). So expensive drug which cant be sold = no profit.

Better to make yet another cholesterol drug. Even though mortality benefits of lipid lowering agents are unclear - certainly less so than vaccination.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Who is rejecting 'science'? Where is the scientific debate here? The statists arguing for everybody to inject kids with chemicals, where is their science?

I think you mean Science, with a capital S. Scientism, the religion of the dumbed-down masses, who trust everything the tv says that 'scientists' say, without showing any of the actual science.

How many people referring to 'science' even know what the scientific method is? Very few, would be my guess.

Tell me how long the 'scientists' spent doing double-blind tests of infant injections with these chemicals, tell me how long these trials were carried out into adulthood to test possible long-term side-effects.

You can't because you have been indoctrinated into the cult of Scientism and trust everything your pastor, I mean your tv, I mean the 'scientists' on the tv, tell you.

You want to stick those chemicals into your own kid, and trust that big pharma care about your child, then go for it. But to suggest that others should be forced to do likewise is borderline treason.

So which vaccine do you want evidence for?

Measles:
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/1766702

Mumps:
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/9592852 - interestingly this one shows that one variant of the mumps vaccine didn't work. Hopefully has been removed.

Chicken pox:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm200103293441302 - more the effect is that illness is less severe compared to unvaccinated, I don't know if you've had the experience of itch from chicken pox (let alone more severe complications such as pneumonia, or rarely encephalitis)

Pertussis:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa050824

H.influenza - Diptheria: (often given as a combination)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014067369191028S - does conclude this is less effective than other vaccines

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Measles:
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/1766702

Uh-oh...

The measles vaccine efficacy found in this study is similar to those obtained in previous years and indicates that the measles epidemic of 1989 to 1990 occurred despite high vaccine effectiveness.

And that is just the first one. I will check the rest later...

 

[Crankyhawk]

Uh-oh...

The measles vaccine efficacy found in this study is similar to those obtained in previous years and indicates that the measles epidemic of 1989 to 1990 occurred despite high vaccine effectiveness.

And that is just the first one. I will check the rest later...

So you didn't read the rest of even the abstract then. It showed of the 203 children, only 4.2% of vaccinated children spread it to their close contacts (household) whilst 77.8% of unvaccinated children spread it to their close contacts. So the vaccine works.

The final statement means that other factors contributed to the measles epidemic in California in 1989 and 1990. As shown by this following link it is the low rates of immunisation which caused a loss of herd immunity, and exposed the population to measles. So even vaccinated children could be susceptible due to frequent contact with infected patients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1022280/

 

[Illinois Nazi]

So you didn't read the rest of even the abstract then. It showed of the 203 children, only 4.2% of vaccinated children spread it to their close contacts (household) whilst 77.8% of unvaccinated children spread it to their close contacts. So the vaccine works.

The final statement means that other factors contributed to the measles epidemic in California in 1989 and 1990. As shown by this following link it is the low rates of immunisation which caused a loss of herd immunity, and exposed the population to measles. So even vaccinated children could be susceptible due to frequent contact with infected patients.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1022280/

pfft, those so-called "infected children" were all crisis actors.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yeah cause hardening the **** up is going to protect against rabies... ******* clown.

Probably not a great example, you avoid rabies by not getting bit by wild animals in the first place (in Australia specifically bats). If bit then you get the shots over a 28 day period.

 

[Crankyhawk]

It's more likely that the kid contracted the disease from someone who had been vaccinated.

about 70 per cent of reported cases of whooping cough occur in people who have had the pertussis vaccine.​

http://www.abc.net.au/health/thepulse/stories/2012/08/14/3567495.htm

That said we would need to know the ages of the affected persons, as there is mounting evidence that the vaccine does lose effectiveness over time (and therefore advice to people planning to have children is to get a pertussis booster)

 

[Crankyhawk]

they can test for allergic reactions nowadays. i believe its could a dot test or some s**t. If your worried your about it have your child tested before entering a vaccination program, what causes the reactions are well known, its not a mystery nowadays heres a quick look at it: http://www.drgreene.com/vaccine-ingredients-allergic-reactions/

Striker475 reaction may not have been allergy per se but local irritation by the vaccine - so wouldn't necessarily come up on allergy testing. There were individual cases of "sterile abscess" post pertussis vaccine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3029045/

 

[Pie eyed]

Possibly the reason is that the drug, which is expensive to develop, then doesn't get regulatory approval for government subsidies. Therefore drug is too expensive for persons to obtain, and this also contributes to high costs as only a small number of persons could afford it (no economy of scale/ mass production offsets etc). So expensive drug which cant be sold = no profit.

Better to make yet another cholesterol drug. Even though mortality benefits of lipid lowering agents are unclear - certainly less so than vaccination.

There are literally thousands of drugs which cost thousands of dollars to purchase per month which are subsidized by Government.
Drugs which show any major efficacy are added every year to the PBS.
The only drugs which do not get added are those which do not show any benefit.
The exact opposite of the idiotic line being peddled regarding vaccines and cancer drugs.

Little Graham would have us believe the drug companies are so wrapped up in the desire to conspire for conspiracies sake as to totally neglect their actual core business.
Highest order bullshit at it's finest.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

So you didn't read the rest of even the abstract then.

I did. And I noticed that its sample size was just 200 children, which seems tiny for the matter at hand. And I notice that the study didn't even pretend to track long-term effects on individuals resulting from injection of these chemical concoctions which is one of the major concerns held by those who are opposed to forced chemical concoction injection.

Do you have any studies which track the effects of these things long-term?

The gay agenda...how dare those homosexuals want equal rights!

You think we are seeing boys kissing in mainstream tv clips, gay rounds for AFL, and widespread coverage of 'sex changes' so that gay people can have 'equal rights'? Seriously?

This isnt about rights. If it were, all of this nonsense would disappear the moment that gay marriage gets passed. It didn't disappear after gay marriage was passed in the US and elsewhere, and it won't disappear here after our government inevitably passes gay marriage. There is a much bigger agenda here and it centers on changing the nature of society.

Is there anything you don't have a conspiracy theory for?

There is your programming kicking in. Like a good little member of the 'herd'.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

I did. And I noticed that it sample size was just 200 children, which seems tiny for the matter at hand. And I notice that the study didn't even pretend to track long-term effects on individuals resulting from injection of these chemical concoctions which is one of the major concerns held by those who are opposed to forced chemical concoction injection.

Do you have any studies which track the effects of these things long-term?

You think we are seeing boys kissing in mainstream tv clips, gay rounds for AFL, and widespread coverage of 'sex changes' so that gay people can have 'equal rights'? Seriously?

This isnt about rights. If it were, all of this nonsense would disappear the moment that gay marriage gets passed. It didn't in the US and elsewhere, and it won't here. There is a much bigger agenda here and it centers on changing the nature of society.

There is your programming kicking in. Like a good little member of the 'herd'.

Why shouldn't two men be able to kiss? Why should two men or two women not be allowed to get married? Gay marriage isn't legal in ALL FIFTY STATES of the US and so the battle continues.

Explain to me why homosexuals should not have equal rights when it comes to marriage and distribution of property in case of death.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Why shouldn't two men be able to kiss?

They should be. And they are.

Why should two men or two women not be allowed to get married?

Why shouldn't a man be able to get married to two or more women?

I am all for changing the marriage laws if it is to end discrimination against consenting adults.

The problem is that those pushing for gay marriage generally still want to discriminate against others, which is hypocritical in the extreme.

If there is one thing I oppose it is hypocrisy. And historical laws should not be getting changed by hypocrites.

 

[Scotland]

There is your programming kicking in. Like a good little member of the 'herd'.

Do you not see the irony in parroting the same lines about others who you perceive to just be parroting what the "MSM" tells them?

 

[Smiling Buddha]

I don't think you have thought that question through.

 

[kfc1]

You think we are seeing boys kissing in mainstream tv clips, gay rounds for AFL, and widespread coverage of 'sex changes' so that gay people can have 'equal rights'? Seriously?

This isnt about rights. If it were, all of this nonsense would disappear the moment that gay marriage gets passed. It didn't disappear after gay marriage was passed in the US and elsewhere, and it won't disappear here after our government inevitably passes gay marriage. There is a much bigger agenda here and it centers on changing the nature of society.

Your theory on this sounds interesting. New thread?

 

[Crankyhawk]

I did. And I noticed that its sample size was just 200 children, which seems tiny for the matter at hand. And I notice that the study didn't even pretend to track long-term effects on individuals resulting from injection of these chemical concoctions which is one of the major concerns held by those who are opposed to forced chemical concoction injection.

Do you have any studies which track the effects of these things long-term?

You think we are seeing boys kissing in mainstream tv clips, gay rounds for AFL, and widespread coverage of 'sex changes' so that gay people can have 'equal rights'? Seriously?

This isnt about rights. If it were, all of this nonsense would disappear the moment that gay marriage gets passed. It didn't disappear after gay marriage was passed in the US and elsewhere, and it won't disappear here after our government inevitably passes gay marriage. There is a much bigger agenda here and it centers on changing the nature of society.

There is your programming kicking in. Like a good little member of the 'herd'.

Do you have studies looking at long term effects of measles encephalitis?

 

[Crankyhawk]

They should be. And they are.

Why shouldn't a man be able to get married to two or more women?

I am all for changing the marriage laws if it is to end discrimination against consenting adults.

The problem is that those pushing for gay marriage generally still want to discriminate against others, which is hypocritical in the extreme.

If there is one thing I oppose it is hypocrisy. And historical laws should not be getting changed by hypocrites.

Maybe there's tax implications with polygamy/ difficulty calculating child support or tax rebates?

 

[Scotland]

I don't think you have thought that question through.

Enlighten me, wise one.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Maybe there's tax implications with polygamy/ difficulty calculating child support or tax rebates?

Equality (only if it is easily taxable within existing tax framework)!

Lol.

 

[Smiling Buddha]

Your theory on this sounds interesting. New thread?

Sure. But the SRP mods have banned me and/or my threads a number of times recently. Apparently my 'conservative' views are 'too radical' over there. If you guys think Orwell was kidding when he spoke of thought crime, you didn't read 1984 properly.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Equality (only if it is easily taxable within existing tax framework)!

Lol.

Reality is that the revenue side of things will always trump anything that is fair/ just.