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.
Cats (all animals?) lick their own wounds to heal them. Anyone who has lived with a cat, will know that if their human gets a wound, their cats will be all over them trying to lick the wound. It probably has some scientific basis, at least in the animal kingdom.
Cat saliva in a vaccine? I think I will pass on that, and all the others artificially created for humans.
Too True! That's why an "appeal to authority" such as "My doctor says cat saliva will prevent the flu" is not a good argument. Every and all professions have their loons.
I'm not a big fan of appeals to authority but see them used often in vaccine debates. "So and so is a surgical oncologist so of course he is an expert on vaccines and his opinion on things is as good as the word of god". "So an so is a pediatrician who holds stock in the rotavirus vaccine so of course whatever he says is golden". I think it's worth considering when trying to pass anyone off as an expert based upon their credentials that these "experts" are still human and prone to mistakes, errors, conflicts of interest, fraud and dishonesty. This particular doctor is a very obvious and easy to spot example of a medical professional who has crossed the line, others may be more ambiguous.
I'm not a big fan of appeals to authority but see them used often in vaccine debates. "So and so is a surgical oncologist so of course he is an expert on vaccines and his opinion on things is as good as the word of god". "So an so is a pediatrician who holds stock in the rotavirus vaccine so of course whatever he says is golden". I think it's worth considering when trying to pass anyone off as an expert based upon their credentials that these "experts" are still human and prone to mistakes, errors, conflicts of interest, fraud and dishonesty. This particular doctor is a very obvious and easy to spot example of a medical professional who has crossed the line, others may be more ambiguous.
Just who are you referring to? Is Gorski the first example? His stuff is always well researched. He doesn't say "I think, therefore, it is". He shows where he got his sources. The second can't be Offit; and he does not own stock in, or get royalties from rotateq. Offit, along with two others, invented the rotateq vaccine. He's pretty accomplished. In point of fact, one would own stock in Merck, not rotateq. I don't know what his investments are. You seem to have some inside knowledge of this.
Then there is a DO who sold tanning beds that weren't supposed to cause cancer, makes a fortune selling supplements that are untested and have no quality control. There's a doctor up against the California Medical Board for poor record keeping and dubious immunization exemptions.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 09-30-2016 at 12:28 PM..
Cats (all animals?) lick their own wounds to heal them. Anyone who has lived with a cat, will know that if their human gets a wound, their cats will be all over them trying to lick the wound. It probably has some scientific basis, at least in the animal kingdom.
Cat saliva in a vaccine? I think I will pass on that, and all the others artificially created for humans.
No, they lick there wounds, (and there butts) to clean them.
I'm not a big fan of appeals to authority but see them used often in vaccine debates. "So and so is a surgical oncologist so of course he is an expert on vaccines and his opinion on things is as good as the word of god". "So an so is a pediatrician who holds stock in the rotavirus vaccine so of course whatever he says is golden". I think it's worth considering when trying to pass anyone off as an expert based upon their credentials that these "experts" are still human and prone to mistakes, errors, conflicts of interest, fraud and dishonesty. This particular doctor is a very obvious and easy to spot example of a medical professional who has crossed the line, others may be more ambiguous.
Lol....we can't even get most anti-vaxxers to admit that Wakefield had conflicts of interest, fraud or dishonesty. It's like they got tricked and can't admit to all the damage they've done helping to spread his lies and so they double down with a big helping of cognitive dissonance.
Heck, in another thread we had one poster claiming that Wakefield was exonerated by some publication and then cited....Wakefield saying so.
I'm not a big fan of appeals to authority but see them used often in vaccine debates. "So and so is a surgical oncologist so of course he is an expert on vaccines and his opinion on things is as good as the word of god". "So an so is a pediatrician who holds stock in the rotavirus vaccine so of course whatever he says is golden". I think it's worth considering when trying to pass anyone off as an expert based upon their credentials that these "experts" are still human and prone to mistakes, errors, conflicts of interest, fraud and dishonesty. This particular doctor is a very obvious and easy to spot example of a medical professional who has crossed the line, others may be more ambiguous.
It is not an "appeal to authority" fallacy if the authority being cited has the evidence to back up what he says. Gorski does. Offit sold all of his rights to the rotavirus vaccine he developed, and he has actual research experience with vaccines. That makes him a true expert. When the consensus of the scientists who know a vaccine from a vacuum cleaner is that vaccines work and have very low rates of serious adverse effects, it is appropriate to cite that as authoritative. All of the anti-vax gurus have a financial interest in trying to bring down vaccines - and no evidence to back up any of their claims. Many make their living off of being anti-vax.
The physicians who have ended up in the anti-vax camp are pretty unambiguous. I have not seen one yet who is not making money catering to the anti-vax crowd. "Dr. Bob" Sears does it. Mercola does it. Name one and he is selling supplements or books and DVDs and/or being paid to testify about the dangers of vaccines.
I have recently seen a claim that there is peanut oil hidden in vaccines. There isn't. Thimerosal was totally removed from pediatric vaccines (you can get flu vaccines without it, too) but there are those who insist it is still there. Why? Because the incidence of autism did not drop when thimerosal was removed. Ergo, since mercury causes autism (it does not) there must still be mercury in vaccines. "Vaccines don't work". Yes, they do. "Polio has just been renamed." No it hasn't. "There has been no "fully vaccinated" vs "fully unvaccinated" study. No, such an unethical study will not ever be done. It is not necessary to do that because there are other ways to get the information.
When pushed into a corner, the ultimate anti-vax argument is that vaccines are a big conspiracy. We have Wakefield and Hooker alleging there was a "cover up at the CDC". That the CDC "destroyed data". They even made a movie about it. The truth is that the CDC destroyed some paper documents after all the data on them was digitized. The CDC will still make the data available to any legitimate researcher who wants to analyze it. They gave it to Hooker himself, who wrote his own article. He managed to get it published in an obscure journal but had it retracted when readers pointed out that he botched the statistical evaluation. He also did not disclose his conflict of interest: he has a child with autism and was involved in a claim in the vaccine court trying to get compensation for a vaccine injury. Hooker's entire anti-vax campaign has been waged to try to bolster that claim. He recently lost his case.
The irony is that some people will say how loony it is for a board certified allergist to be making his own vaccine from vodka and cat spit and then turn around and sing the praises of "ancient Chinese medicine".
The interesting thing is that the Chinese actually were inoculating people against smallpox centuries before Jenner invented smallpox vaccination. They would either place a small amount of fluid from a smallpox blister in a scratch on a person's arm or crush a scab from a blister, grind it up, and blow it up the person's nose. The hope was that the ensuing smallpox infection would not be fatal. Unfortunately that was not always the case. That is why I said earlier that I had guessed Lin's ethnicity. There is precedent for the method he was using. Lord only knows why he chose cat saliva.
The interesting thing is that the Chinese actually were inoculating people against smallpox centuries before Jenner invented smallpox vaccination. They would either place a small amount of fluid from a smallpox blister in a scratch on a person's arm or crush a scab from a blister, grind it up, and blow it up the person's nose. The hope was that the ensuing smallpox infection would not be fatal. Unfortunately that was not always the case. That is why I said earlier that I had guessed Lin's ethnicity. There is precedent for the method he was using. Lord only knows why he chose cat saliva.
Wow! I knew the bold, but I didn't know the rest. How interesting. Thank you!
"Method of storing the material. Wrap the scabs carefully in paper and put them into a small container bottle. Cork it tightly so that the activity is not dissipated. The container must not be exposed to sunlight or warmed beside a fire. It is best to carry it for some time on the person so that the scabs dry naturally and slowly. The container should be marked clearly with the date on which the contents were taken from the patient.
In winter, the material has yang potency within it, so it remains active even after being kept from thirty to forty days. But in summer the yang potency will be lost in approximately twenty days. The best material is that which had not been left too long, for when the yang potency is abundant it will give a 'take' with nine persons out of ten people—and finally it becomes completely inactive, and will not work at all. In situations where new scabs are rare and the requirement great, it is possible to mix new scabs with the more aged ones, but in this case more of the powder should be blown into the nostril when the inoculation is done."
The article also describes using material from people who have been inoculated, not those with full-blown smallpox. That suggests that passage through inoculated persons who survive may have resulted in an attenuated strain of the virus. That is how modern live virus vaccines are made: attenuation by passage through cell cultures. A similar procedure was used in Circassia: passage of the virus from inoculated person to inoculated person.
More smallpox trivia. Smallpox inoculation helped win the American Revolution:
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.
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.
Smallpox inoculation helped win the American Revolution:
