Customer Discussions > Health forum

Anti Vaccines - Disease by Injection?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 11:38:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 29, 2011 11:39:03 AM PDT
So your "proof" is the you somehow "know" that the proof would exist *if* a meta-analysis was performed?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 11:51:13 AM PDT
D. Nelson says:
What proof do you need that there was no autism epidemic, no alzheimers epidemic, no ADHD epidemic and no allergy epidemic until after governments began to routinely vaccinate people in early childhood. Do the facts themselves not speak loud enough. Your statistics focus on infectious diseases. Yet 1 in 100 people are diagnosed as autistic. By definition this is epidemic and must have resulted from an environmental influence. Yet none of these are caused by infection. What else is the population so predominantly exposed to that could cause all these conditions! How unhealthy does a population have to become to constitute proof in your eyes?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 6:56:09 PM PDT
Darks says:
Lol, I am a fascist now? Hardly. I am not provax, but if someone ignores someone else's evidence purely because it is possible that the stats were tampered with (without actually knowing whether it was or not), I am allowed to point it out.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 9:04:23 PM PDT
D. Nelson says:
If you ignore something you simply don't respond to it. My response indicated that all statistics are based on samples and data collected on a specific population. To generalize the results of a single vaccination statistic and apply them to a larger population with different parameters being given multiple vaccinations, is a manipulation of the facts and an improper use of the information, thus it is misleading. Therefore, if truth is relevant compare apples to apples. If arguing in favor or against a particular vaccine first lets have full disclosure on what the contents are, possible side effects, etc. If arguing against a policy of combining vaccinations and giving multiple vaccines to developing newborns and children then provide the appropriate data to backup whatever position you take.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 9:06:14 PM PDT
Darks says:
And my initial response was not directed at you. I was actually talking to DJD.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 9:15:44 PM PDT
D. Nelson says:
We're talking about vaccines. It doesn't matter who is doing the talking unless you care more about personalities than issues.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 9:27:21 PM PDT
ColdShot says:
they don't have the integrity to print full disclosure

it's always game on with the corporate prostitutes

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2011 9:39:36 PM PDT
Darks says:
It actually does matter, because you are arguing a point which is irrelevant to me. DJD's sole argument against a post was that Mark Twain implied that statistics could be manipulated and therefore he could ignore any statistics presented to him on that premise alone. Such a limited point of view allows opinions to run free while rejecting premises that can be statistically verified regardless of whether that premise is factual or not, purely because there are statistics which support it. Unless you can provide evidence that the statistics themselves have been manipulated, rejecting someone's argument for the sole reason that they provided statistics to back their argument has no place in scientific debate.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2011 5:55:29 AM PDT
@Nelson
"Do the facts themselves not speak loud enough."

What facts? Like I said, what you think you "know" is not a fact.

"Your statistics focus on infectious diseases"

What statistics? I gave no statistics.

"By definition this is epidemic and must have resulted from an environmental influence."

Has nothing else in the world changed since the advent of vaccines? Has the diagnosis of autism, ADHD and Alzheimer's not changed and improved? The 'epidemic' you talk about also correlates with the invention of the microchip, do you think this might be responsible?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2011 9:41:33 AM PDT
DJD says:
The point being made was that statistical evidence should be applied only to scenarios that are specifically identical otherwise the use of them should be rejected and/or another study done to include the differences in the two populations. The premise can in fact be factual while the conclusion is not, ergo, you have an invalid argument.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2011 9:48:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2011 11:44:09 AM PDT
Darks says:
Then you, my friend, are an incredibly hard person to please.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2011 9:49:06 AM PDT
DJD says:
You give the same argument that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation. I agree, that is why meta-analysis studies should be done to include follow-up over time with both a control group (no vaccines) and those willing to take the risk freely. Oh, but then we have an ethical problem because what infant or child can be said to be making a free-will choice! Here we have the greatest reason not to vaccinate the human guinea pig is not capable of choosing for himself. So then, who should have authority over the health and well being of a child the state or the family. I'll go with the family any time even if uncle Sam can afford to pay the bills in the event of a catastrophic health crisis. Oh! that's right, we already have a national health catastrophe and uncle Sam isn't in a position to pay for it. We can bankrupt the country while the pharmaceutical industry walks away with billions and a generation of Americans are weakened in their capacity to function independently!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2011 10:09:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2011 10:11:23 AM PDT
The angry ramblings aside....

There is no way you can isolate a factor like vaccines/no vaccines an epidemiological study and factor out genetics, diet, other health issues and environment.

And who's studies will you use?

Posted on Jun 30, 2011 11:41:37 AM PDT
gary says:
You just have to love that people are making these silly decisions about vaccines when they don't even know anything about the threat of viruses or other pathogens or the side effects of seemingly benign diseases such a measles. All the anti-vaxxers should be put on an island somewhere without the aid of herd immunity and see how much they like getting all those lovely diseases. Watching a child sick from encephalitis because you thought the measeles was no big deal -- there's an eye opener.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2011 11:47:17 AM PDT
as lng as they know the risks...they should (and be able to) do what they think is best.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2011 11:55:24 AM PDT
Darks says:
Whereas people with such extreme views as yours should be placed in straight-jackets in mental institutions until such a time as these psychotic notions are permanently repressed. Exiling millions of people and wishing death and disease on them purely because they didn't want to receive voluntary vaccines seems a bit extreme, don't you think?

Posted on Jun 30, 2011 12:30:12 PM PDT
Mr. Jumps says:
Just don't go to the doctor. My son fell off his bike and sliced his arm open the other day. We put some butter on it and covered it in newspaper and he was back on his bike.

If I have a headache I just go outside and pull up some green plants that grow by my rain gutter and I eat them. I feel better.

My cousin has epilepsy. To stop his seizures we would lay him down flat and Iron his stomach. At the same time we would place a funnel in his mouth and pour in 6 oz of a 1:1 mixture of mazola corn oil:cat urine.

I also eat organic spinach.

I dont take vaccines because they could be injecting me with cancer cells from my neighbors pancreas.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2011 12:43:31 PM PDT
D. Nelson says:
You factor them out the same way pharmaceutical companies factor out those very same considerations before they can make a statement that their synthetic products are safe. Are you angry or just trying to suggest that I am in an attempt to distract from the issue?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2011 12:43:49 PM PDT
Darks says:
I'm not entirely sure, but I think I might have detected just a hint of sarcasm. Now if only I could pinpoint the source...

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2011 12:59:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2011 1:01:56 PM PDT
D. Nelson says:
This is how people respond when they don't have a logical argument. They call it an Ad hominem in logic classes. It means that you try to portray the other person(s) character as negative and the reason not to believe their argument. It is a fallacious argument aka fallacy. If I were to do the same thing I would portray those who want government forced vaccines as only people who are sheep like and swallow without chewing every parcel of information that the authority (pharmaceutical companies, government agencies) provide them. They accept it as true simply because of who said it also a fallacy that something is true just because they are experts in the field. Of course I don't believe this because I know that some people actually believe vaccines are good because they base their decision on their limited knowledge and are too easily fooled by fallacious arguments.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2011 4:34:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2011 4:37:25 AM PDT
"You factor them out the same way pharmaceutical companies factor out those very same considerations before they can make a statement that their synthetic products are safe"

You do not seem to understand srtatistics, or are just parroting "meta analysis" from something that you read. When a pharmaceutical is tested, they are done in double-blind studies where people are either taking the medication, or they aren't.

A meta-analysis CANNOT be double-blind because you already know the results. So to compare the two is a false argument.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2011 7:39:54 AM PDT
DJD says:
Now you're combining information from different posts and putting words in my mouth. Before a drug is determined to be safe or not statistically you do a study on samples from a population. When you determine who to sample it must be a representative sample of the population in question. The process of random sampling and double blind studies still requires that the sample group meet a criteria for the population it claims to represent. Depending on the type of information you are seeking determines the type of statistical analysis. The models used and the definition of what equals the norm vary depending on the model, etc. But during the process you make an attempt to factor out other possible reasons why the drug might work by choosing participants that are closely matched and in some studies you even use the same participant all other factors remaining the same. You can do a study for an unlimited # of hypothesis. Once the studies are complete you consider all the data and then you do your meta-analysis. A double-blind study is simply the use of a control group where neither the participant nor the doctor would know who was getting the placebo and who was getting the actual drug, so that the data being recorded can't be manipulated to achieve a desired outcome. I did not suggest comparing a meta-analysis with statistics from one study. I simply indicated that using the statistics from one study and applying generally was inappropriate before anyone could make the generalization that it is better to vaccinate than not because in the short term it may have prevented an outbreak. Can vaccines prevent outbreak, yes. Is that the only way to prevent them, NO. Are vaccines the safest way to prevent outbreaks of infectious disease, NO. Why, because of the potential side-effects. A meta-analysis of studies done on the long-term effects not just the short-term effects of vaccines is required. Are there studies of the long-term effects of vaccines, probably not. Why, it doesn't profit the pharmaceutical companies and how do you correlate and determine causation for changes in an already changing organism like a developing child? You have to see generational changes in the population before and after the introduction of vaccines which is what we are now being able to see in the deteriorating chronic illnesses of advanced societies. In un-developed countries you have infectious disease in places like the U.S. you have Autism, ADHD, chronic allergies, alzheimers, chronic fatigue, etc.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2011 7:57:14 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2011 8:10:08 AM PDT
DJD

How am I putting words in your mouth when I was responding to D Nelson? *HE* compared drug studies with meta-analysis.

The 'In reply to' button.....use it!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2011 10:01:29 AM PDT
DJD says:
You haven't figured out yet that we are one in the same and I have two different computers I work from.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2011 10:24:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 1, 2011 10:44:33 AM PDT
In that case, you are both wrong.

There are way too many factors which could have influenced health over the last 60 years (since the intro of polio vaccine) societal, diet, activity level, intro of other chemicals to ever isolate vaccines as a "cause" of all the health issues now.

I have read these health boards for a long time. And, so far, there have been people that "knew" and/or "proved" that the ADHD, autism, CFS 'epidemic' is caused by (among other things) flouride, corn syrup, and artifical sweeteners.

The only way is to stop giving vaccines and wait 60 years and see if all the ADHD et al go away.
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  227
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jun 17, 2011
Latest post:  Oct 22, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 17 customers

Search Customer Discussions