U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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 10-12-2012, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 9,836,951 times
Reputation: 4243

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
THE ONLY HARM HERE WE HAVE INCLUDED IS AUTISIM

This is a red herring at its best, or perhaps strawman. I never said that a vacinne can't ever hurt. . .said it didn't create autisim.
how do you know?

 
Old 10-12-2012, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 9,836,951 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Meteorite risks:

Death by meteorite | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

"Astronomer Alan Harris has made that calculation. Allowing for the number of Earth-crossing asteroids — the kind that can hit us because their orbits around the Sun intersect ours — as well as how much damage they can do (which depends on their size), he calculated that any person’s lifetime odds of being killed by an asteroid impact are about 1 in 700,000."

Vaccine risks:

Vaccines: Vac-Gen/Some Misconceptions

"As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically. Of all deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 1992, only one is believed to be even possibly associated with a vaccine. Each death reported to VAERS is thoroughly examined to ensure that it is not related to a new vaccine-related problem, but little or no evidence suggests that vaccines have contributed to any of the reported deaths. The Institute of Medicine in its 1994 report states that the risk of death from vaccines is 'extraordinarily low.'"
and who oversees this program, CDC, Dept of Health Kathleen Sebelius et al. It's like looking to Monsanto to take reports from people that got sick from Roundup. They admit nothing, but they will pay you to go away.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 06:53 PM
 
4,743 posts, read 3,728,826 times
Reputation: 2481
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
and who oversees this program, CDC, Dept of Health Kathleen Sebelius et al. It's like looking to Monsanto to take reports from people that got sick from Roundup. They admit nothing, but they will pay you to go away.
yes yes, all big conspiracy to mass manufacture death for your kids so that the new order can be launched or they can protect a industry that worldwide is worth 12B (about two pharma drugs)
 
Old 10-12-2012, 06:56 PM
 
4,743 posts, read 3,728,826 times
Reputation: 2481
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
how do you know?
because I made no argument that you can't have an allergic reaction to a vaccination (its possible, egg is an igrident

because there always could be random defects in any manufacturing process, so I would not argue that anything in this world is 100%


but Autism, we know, isn't caused by vacine. WE know this via something scary, that doesn't fit into your religion. Its called - boo ya- science

burn the scientist, i know, they are heretics!. They are all part of some big conspiracy to take over the world, or protect a market that is worth 10-12b worldwide (or 1.5 Lipitors or 4 Viagras). Hell, most of the big 10 pharma don't even sell vacines. . .but i'm sure they are all in on it too
 
Old 10-12-2012, 07:50 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,402 posts, read 28,242,738 times
Reputation: 28974
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
Here is the website for Cochrane Collaboration, lots of studies!
The Cochrane Collaboration | Working together to provide the best evidence for health care

I know what Cochrane is.

I still need a link to the specific study you referenced earlier. Name of article, authors, where published.

I found this one:

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults | Cochrane Summaries

Is that it?

Note: it was only published online, not in a journal. Of interest is that the authors seem to have an agenda:

"The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies."

Bias, maybe? I do not see any facts supporting "manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety."

Those pesky, pesky facts! We keep stumbling over them everywhere, don't we?

But here:

Same authors:

Vaccines for preventing influenza... [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

"AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Influenza vaccines are effective in reducing cases of influenza, especially when the content predicts accurately circulating types and circulation is high. However, they are less effective in reducing cases of influenza-like illness and have a modest impact on working days lost. There is insufficient evidence to assess their impact on complications. Whole-virion monovalent vaccines may perform best in a pandemic."

This article first, then the other one as an "update."

Which is it, effective or not?

It appears that the authors did the very thing they accuse researchers of doing: they "manipulated conclusions."

Of course, if you want to have a hard time evaluating a vaccine, the best thing to do is choose one of the least effective ones.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 9,836,951 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
I know what Cochrane is.

I still need a link to the specific study you referenced earlier. Name of article, authors, where published.

I found this one:

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults | Cochrane Summaries

Is that it?

Note: it was only published online, not in a journal. Of interest is that the authors seem to have an agenda:

"The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies."

Bias, maybe? I do not see any facts supporting "manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety."

Those pesky, pesky facts! We keep stumbling over them everywhere, don't we?

But here:

Same authors:

Vaccines for preventing influenza... [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

"AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Influenza vaccines are effective in reducing cases of influenza, especially when the content predicts accurately circulating types and circulation is high. However, they are less effective in reducing cases of influenza-like illness and have a modest impact on working days lost. There is insufficient evidence to assess their impact on complications. Whole-virion monovalent vaccines may perform best in a pandemic."

This article first, then the other one as an "update."

Which is it, effective or not?

It appears that the authors did the very thing they accuse researchers of doing: they "manipulated conclusions."

Of course, if you want to have a hard time evaluating a vaccine, the best thing to do is choose one of the least effective ones.
My link referencing this group said they found them to be 4% effective. Did you read the article I referenced, all those chemicals may be affecting your memory.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,402 posts, read 28,242,738 times
Reputation: 28974
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
My link referencing this group said they found them to be 4% effective. Did you read the article I referenced, all those chemicals may be affecting your memory.

I would be happy to read your article if you will tell me where to find it.

Your link was not to the original article, it was someone's interpretation of an article. An article with no title, no authors, and no publication source.
 
Old 10-12-2012, 09:12 PM
 
Location: Northern CA
12,770 posts, read 9,836,951 times
Reputation: 4243
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
I would be happy to read your article if you will tell me where to find it.

Your link was not to the original article, it was someone's interpretation of an article. An article with no title, no authors, and no publication source.
I hate having to do your work for you.

Quote:
They are not permitted to accept funding from commercial organisations such as pharmaceutical companies. This is to ensure that the conclusions of Cochrane Reviews are not influenced by commercial interests.
that means you won't agree with their reviews suzyq. What they do is review studies, they do not do the studies themselves.

Looks like this is what you are looking for.
Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults | Cochrane Summaries

Quote:
Main results:

We included 50 reports. Forty (59 sub-studies) were clinical trials of over 70,000 people. Eight were comparative non-RCTs and assessed serious harms.

Last edited by CaseyB; 10-13-2012 at 05:56 AM.. Reason: copyright
 
Old 10-12-2012, 11:46 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,402 posts, read 28,242,738 times
Reputation: 28974
Quote:
Originally Posted by claudhopper View Post
I hate having to do your work for you. You're the one getting paid for this, not me. Earn your keep.


that means you won't agree with their reviews suzyq. What they do is review studies, they do not do the studies themselves.

Looks like this is what you are looking for.
Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults | Cochrane Summaries
Apparently you did not actually read my previous post. I found that study and asked if it was the one you were referring to.

However, there is an earlier version of the same article by the same authors with a totally different conclusion.

I will quote myself here to make it easier for you

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
I know what Cochrane is.

I still need a link to the specific study you referenced earlier. Name of article, authors, where published.

I found this one:

Vaccines to prevent influenza in healthy adults | Cochrane Summaries

Is that it?

Note: it was only published online, not in a journal. Of interest is that the authors seem to have an agenda:

"The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies."

Bias, maybe? I do not see any facts supporting "manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety."

Those pesky, pesky facts! We keep stumbling over them everywhere, don't we?

But here:

Same authors:

Vaccines for preventing influenza... [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

"AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
Influenza vaccines are effective in reducing cases of influenza, especially when the content predicts accurately circulating types and circulation is high. However, they are less effective in reducing cases of influenza-like illness and have a modest impact on working days lost. There is insufficient evidence to assess their impact on complications. Whole-virion monovalent vaccines may perform best in a pandemic."

This article first, then the other one as an "update."

Which is it, effective or not?

It appears that the authors did the very thing they accuse researchers of doing: they "manipulated conclusions."

Of course, if you want to have a hard time evaluating a vaccine, the best thing to do is choose one of the least effective ones.
So the same people did two reviews of the same studies and came up with two different conclusions. Which study do we believe? The first one or the second one? Apparently the first result was not what they wanted to see so they manipulated the data to prove their preconceived notions. They did exactly what they accused the researchers in industry funded studies of doing.

The review technique known as meta analysis is difficult. It does not work very well if the studies are too dissimilar, and it is worthless if you throw away most of the data.

By the way, you can stop accusing me of making any money from pharmaceuticals, vaccines, or anything I write here. It would be nice to be paid for writing, but, alas, no. I have no connection to the pharmaceutical industry at all.
 
Old 10-13-2012, 12:52 AM
 
9,091 posts, read 5,609,834 times
Reputation: 3838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Actually you did create the implication. You said the vaccines can cause harm. This is not true. The reaction causes harm.
David, this is what drinking Kool-aide on all fours will do to the mind of a man.

Even the vaccine documentation from the manufacturer admits that it can cause harm. So you can say whatever you want ... but the facts are, it really was the "jump" from the top of the high rise building that caused the damage, and not the sudden stop at the bottom upon impact. Cause-Effect .. it's really a simple equation.

Last edited by GuyNTexas; 10-13-2012 at 01:10 AM..
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 > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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