U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-15-2015, 05:23 PM
 
8,541 posts, read 5,262,232 times
Reputation: 9100

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
I don't mind a multi-quote when it's just one person's posts. The problem is that you can't see the quote that you are answering in the next quote and I don't know what you are responding to. I want to reply to your thoughts about my posts but when you string them altogether like this, it makes it difficult to respond.
Yep.

 
Old 07-15-2015, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,486 posts, read 26,089,700 times
Reputation: 26440
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
Show me that post. I don't believe I said that. I will say that I believe most VAERS reports are genuine and I'm doubtful that there are many people who just make up fake reports. I doubt anyone making a fake report is doing it to make money. I wouldn't be surprised if some do it to ruin the credibility of Vaers reports though. Maybe some "pro-vaxxers"
Many of the reports are not genuine. Mark posted some way early in the thread. Things like "I saw on the internet that someone died after taking Gardasil" or "a nurse told me a doctor told the doctor she works for that someone died after taking Gardasil". The hatred for Gardasil is rampant, which is ironic since it is highly effective and there are actually no confirmed deaths from it.

All of those reports are investigated. Some are indeed conditions possibly caused by the vaccine, like fainting after Gardasil (which may be due to getting a shot, not specifically due to the vaccine). Others are clearly not due to the vaccine. A small number are true, serious adverse effects of the vaccine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
These findings give plausibility to i.v. ascorbic acid in cancer treatment, and have unexpected implications for treatment of infections where H(2)O(2)

Effect of high dose vitamin C on Epstein-Barr viral infection. - PubMed - NCBI

"Conclusions The clinical study of ascorbic acid and EBV infection showed the reduction in EBV EA IgG and EBV VCA IgM antibody levels over time during IVC therapy that is consistent with observations from the literature that millimolar levels of ascorbate hinder viral infection and replication in vitro. "
The first link does not work.

The second abstract is so poorly written I cannot understand what the authors think they have proved. Edit: I see that it was done at an alternative medicine clinic by someone with not a clue about how to conduct a medical study. That explains it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
Does sound more plausible. The whole set up of VAERS reporting makes it look like a big joke. No wonder people don't take the numbers seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juram View Post
VAERS is a starting point for researchers to look for signals, anyone can file a claim on the site, even if they are in another country and for that reason, the data is too unreliable to ever be taken at face value, which is why followups are conducted on cases that seem to be somewhat based in reality.
Yes, VAERS is clunky. However, there is a method to its madness. It is designed to gather as much data as possible and encourage reporting.

It is much like a single stream recycling center: everything is dumped on a conveyor belt and someone picks out the various recyclables and sorts them into the proper bins.

With VAERS, what goes into the bin for serious adverse effects of vaccines is a very small percentage of what is on the conveyor belt.

It strikes me that the anti-vaccine folks never mention the Vaccine Safety Datalink

Vaccine Safety Datalink | Vaccine Safety | CDC

The VSD uses real records of real people and generates tons of safety information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlvancouver View Post
I find it interesting that in defending "personal belief" exemptions on one hand, a couple of the anti-vax people on this forum clearly state that science is irrelevant. On what are "personal beliefs" founded if not science?
What a great question! And some who supposedly base their beliefs on science do not want to share with us the science they based their beliefs on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri View Post
There's also a major issue with underreporting. I suspect the reason why reports go up with media stories is because people are more inclined to report when the issues is raised. I know parents who's children had negative reactions to vaccinations. Some severe. They didn't report the incidents. It's common for people not to report or to assume that their doctor will report, etc.
Did you suggest they report? Do you know their doctors did not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
OMG are you serious? It was the other poster that mentioned the criminal behavior... I made a joke out of it. You guys seriously need to lighten up. You are pro-vaccine. You are vaccinated. You have all the proof. Why are you so sensitive to people who want a choice. That does not affect you at all. You are vaccinated.
Not vaccinating does affect us all. That's the reason for mandates.

Quote:
Any proof shown would be labeled as "debunked," "discredited," "not a reliable source," "crazy," "ignorant," and my favorite... "anti-vax madness" As if speaking out against vaccines is some crime of the conspiracy minded and "anti-science" movement. There is science that says the ingredients used are toxic. There is science that says there are treatments for these infectious diseases.
There is no science that says the ingredients in vaccines are "toxic", only the opinions of some who are illiterate as far as biochemistry and human physiology are concerned.

Quote:
The more questions people ask, the more answers we can get both those we like and those we don't. NOT asking questions is the problem and why pro-vaxxers are called sheeple.
The difference between the anti-vaccinationists and those who are pro vaccine is that the former toss out any answers that conflict with their "beliefs" and those who are pro vaccine accept answers they might wish were not true.

Being anti-vaccine is being anti-science. There is not one iota of science supporting not vaccinating, and there are a sizable number of anti-vaccinationists who support various conspiracy theories, too.

The ingredients in vaccines are not "toxins" and there is no science that says they are.

There are indeed treatments for infectious diseases; however, none of them cure viral illnesses.
 
Old 07-15-2015, 05:33 PM
 
8,541 posts, read 5,262,232 times
Reputation: 9100
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Many of the reports are not genuine. Mark posted some way early in the thread. Things like "I saw on the internet that someone died after taking Gardasil" or "a nurse told me a doctor told the doctor she works for that someone died after taking Gardasil". The hatred for Gardasil is rampant, which is ironic since it is highly effective and there are actually no confirmed deaths from it.
Some of the reports are not genuine but many of them are.


Quote:
Did you suggest they report? Do you know their doctors did not?
It was years after the fact. There are a lot of incidents that don't get reported.
 
Old 07-15-2015, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
84,962 posts, read 98,795,031 times
Reputation: 31371
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
Those who refuse to vaccinate know/have chosen to accept the risks. Those who vaccinate are protected from outbreaks and it should be none of their business for this very reason, right from the CDC website:
1. Are you kidding? We have people on here who think smallpox is a picnic in the park!

2. You should know, a small percent of those vaccinated to not get immunity; there are people who can't be vaccinated due to age or medical condition who should be considered.
 
Old 07-15-2015, 05:51 PM
 
25,804 posts, read 49,697,815 times
Reputation: 19249
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
That's nonsense. I had polio when I was a kid, my dad was deaf in one ear due to complications from measles. You clearly have NO idea what the world was like before we had ways to prevent these diseases.
For some it is the sheer volume in such a short time... never before have newborns to toddlers been exposed to so much so soon.

A school nurse may or not be able to give a child aspirin... yet, we are suppose to blindly accept anything the government wants to inject into our bodies?

I'm not anti vaccination... I do work with many physicians in a hospital setting and it is interesting how many of them will delay and space out vaccinations for their own children or insist on a particular one and avoid others intended for the same purpose.

Last edited by Ultrarunner; 07-15-2015 at 07:07 PM..
 
Old 07-15-2015, 05:51 PM
 
25,804 posts, read 49,697,815 times
Reputation: 19249
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
That's nonsense. I had polio when I was a kid, my dad was deaf in one ear due to complications from measles. You clearly have NO idea what the world was like before we had ways to prevent these diseases.
For some it is the sheer volume is such a short time... never before have newborns to toddlers been exposed to so much so soon.

A school nurse may or not be able to give a child aspirin... yet, we are suppose to blindly accept anything the government wants to inject into our bodies?

I'm not anti vaccination... I do work with many physicians in a hospital setting and it is interesting how many of them will delay and space out vaccinations for their own children or insist on a particular one and avoid others intended for the same purpose.

There is such a thing as Informed Consent...
 
Old 07-15-2015, 05:57 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
84,962 posts, read 98,795,031 times
Reputation: 31371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
For some it is the sheer volume is such a short time... never before have newborns to toddlers been exposed to so much so soon.

A school nurse may or not be able to give a child aspirin... yet, we are suppose to blindly accept anything the government wants to inject into our bodies?

I'm not anti vaccination... I do work with many physicians in a hospital setting and it is interesting how many of them will delay and space out vaccinations for their own children or insist on a particular one and avoid others intended for the same purpose.
There are fewer antigens in the vaccine schedule now than there were in the 80s. I already posted a link.

I don't know any physicians who do that for their own kids, and I work with pediatricians. Maybe if you work with proctologists, that's what they do.
 
Old 07-15-2015, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,573,351 times
Reputation: 7672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
For some it is the sheer volume is such a short time... never before have newborns to toddlers been exposed to so much so soon.

A school nurse may or not be able to give a child aspirin... yet, we are suppose to blindly accept anything the government wants to inject into our bodies?

I'm not anti vaccination... I do work with many physicians in a hospital setting and it is interesting how many of them will delay and space out vaccinations for their own children or insist on a particular one and avoid others intended for the same purpose.

There is such a thing as Informed Consent...
Great Points.

And on the same topic/point, from the Standford University school of medicine:

Most doctors who were terminally ill would AVOID aggressive treatment | Daily Mail Online

I think some of you really need to wake up. Realize some of us like myself harp on freedom of choice for valid reasons/concerns without strings attached like this CA law does. Ultrarunner's experience via observation and the url above should be very eye opening to the sleeping sheep out there.
 
Old 07-15-2015, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,486 posts, read 26,089,700 times
Reputation: 26440
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
Here is a clinic that researched and uses it as a therapy for cancer and antiviral treatment. You would have to ask them directly about the stats in their clinic but the science they tout is spot on.

https://riordanclinic.org/research-s...-research-ivc/
They sell vitamin C treatments! Of course they want you to believe vitamin C is great for all that ails you!

Quote:
It means the original study was untrustworthy... Either it is trustworthy or not. If it is pulled from sale then it was not a trustworthy study. Vaccines are not pulled for "rare problems"... notice these rare problems are the case with all vaccines. It takes a pretty major problem to get a vaccine taken off the shelf.
No, the original study may not have has the statistical power to pick up rare complications. That does not mean it was not trustworthy. Studies big enough to pick up all complications would be too expensive and impossible to accomplish.

Your comments just underline that you know very little about the epidemiology of vaccine research.

Yes, it takes a major problem for us to stop using a vaccine. That's the way it should be.

Quote:
I don't mind a multi-quote when it's just one person's posts. The problem is that you can't see the quote that you are answering in the next quote and I don't know what you are responding to. I want to reply to your thoughts about my posts but when you string them altogether like this, it makes it difficult to respond.
Any blue box without a name belongs to the last blue box ahead of it that does have a name. It's just like quoting a single poster. There is just a series of them rather than one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
There is no science showing that the ingredients are not toxic in vaccine schedule amounts nor in any relevant combination. No science either way so you cannot claim they are not toxic. They are classified as toxic.

So a blood pressure meds prevent the need for good health and healthy weight. Diet pills prevent the need for exercise. Vaccines prevent the need for a healthy immune system and natural treatment. I get it.
There is plenty of science confirming the safety of the ingredients in vaccines, topped off by the fact that billions of doses have been administered with no serious adverse effects.

Vaccines need a healthy immune system to work. All they do is give the immune system a dead or greatly weakened germ to work with. Some of the newer ones, like the hepatitis B vaccine, only use part of the germ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevek64 View Post
Those who refuse to vaccinate know/have chosen to accept the risks. Those who vaccinate are protected from outbreaks and it should be none of their business for this very reason, right from the CDC website:

Vaccines: Vac-Gen/What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations

"But a person who is immune to a disease because she has been vaccinated canít get that disease and canít spread it to others. "

Again:

"But a person who is immune to a disease because she has been vaccinated canít get that disease and canít spread it to others. "
You posted it twice and missed the key words both times: a person who is immune to a disease.

A small number of vaccine recipients do not develop immunity.

Quote:
Yes, the rest in that paragraph on that CDC says those who aren't vaccinated/immune can potentially spread it to others who aren't vaccinated/immune. Got it. Loud and clear. And again, my main point...the vaccinated folks have made their choice. The unvaccinated have also made their choice to take on their own level of risk for reasons they feel are valid for their own situation.
The vaccinated help protect the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated increase the risk of large outbtreaks and exposure to vaccine preventable diseases for people who are unprotected - not by choice.

Quote:
Given this data, I get the feeling 2 things are at play here with some of the pro law/vaccine people"

1.) They aren't at all that confident in how effective these vaccines really are.

2.) They want to control what others do as they are ignoring the science from the CDC, neatly concluded in the line above that I bolded. I base this statement on nothing more than the CDC data that says vaccinated people won't be effected by the choice those who don't want to vaccinate.
1. Vaccines are effective, just not perfectly effective. If we did not think they worked, we would not use them.

2. You did not read the CDC statement carefully enough, did you?

Quote:
And to plug a hole in the excuse that "some can't take vaccines and they will be effected by others who don't vaccinate!". Well, again back to the science that we've listened to over and over again here by some posters on this thread who are pro law/vaccine how well these shots are tolerated, this group is very, very small. And as we were told many times by the vaccine/pro law folks, you can't satisfy/protect everyone and the majority is the most important element. I agree. And may I suggest you follow your own logic on this point.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What "group is very, very small"? If you mean people truly harmed by vaccines, yes, that group is very small.

Vaccine mandates are not there for the protection of the majority who are immune by virtue of being vaccinated. They are there to protect the minority who are not protected by the vaccine, who are not old enough to be vaccinated, who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, or who have compromised immune systems, like the lady who died a few weeks ago.

Quote:
I strongly disagree. That's one thing I agreed with the poster that I responded too in that each of our decisions do indeed have a ripple effect on others. Many have big ripple effects. Take diet choice/obesity. That's a choice. Eat too much of certain types of food, stay inactive, one gets fat and lots of health issues arise. Those health issues push up all of our health care costs which directly impact the health insurance rates you and I pay. It costs our society in productivity. Those who decide to be alcoholics, the same thing....it affects the stability of family and society. And smokers.....I could go on and on. You get the point.
All of that is entirely true. It has nothing to do with vaccines, though. Other health problems in the country need to be dealt with, but that does not mean we should ignore dropping vaccination rates.
 
Old 07-15-2015, 06:11 PM
 
25,804 posts, read 49,697,815 times
Reputation: 19249
Not that it is really relevant... here are the specific areas with the most volume..

General Surgery
Gynecology
Neurosurgery
Ophthalmology (Eye)
Oral Surgery
Orthopaedics
Otorhinolaryngology (Ear, Nose and Throat)
Pain Management
Plastic Surgery
Podiatry
Urology

The Hospital Chief of Anesthesia is highly respected and was very selective for his own children... noticed that I DID NOT say he was anti vaccinations...

Pharmaceutical companies are in business to be profitable... I have a right to be informed and many parents expressing concerns are just that...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top