Are anti-vaxxers liable if their children spread preventable diseases? (2014, attractive, worker)
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.
You say that your brother's ADHD was probably due to Diethylstilbestrol and then go on to say that the children of today's cases are probably due to too much TV. What about all of the endocrine disruptors, hormones, pharmaceuticals as well as all of the other chemicals in our environment?
It could be due to any or all of those things. And regarding Diethylstilbestrol, after further reading I was reminded that problems have been genetically trickled down through the generations, even after the FDA banned it in 1971.
All I know is that I agree with the comment that there seem to be a lot more crazy children in recent generations than in the past. I have many more speculations as to why, (modern society always rushing about, rapid transportation & distance separating families, society placing more importance on the acquisition of $ than healthy human development, etc) but that's another topic.
So you make jabs at me and claim that I don't understand as much as you and demand that I go through an industry funded advertisement, err, I mean study line by line and explain what is wrong with it but when I post a study you claim it's hogwash because you don't like the topic or the study. When I challenge you to practice what you preach and do the same you choose an entirely different study then the one I posted and make a weak attempt to dissect it.
The post to which I responded and described Tomljenovic as writing hogwash did not have a link to a specific study. I have invited you to supply the one and only study you wish me to critique.
You insist that no industry funded vaccine research can be trusted. Pick an industry funded study, any of them, and tell us exactly what is wrong with it. What information in it is untrustworthy? Did they study the wrong subjects? Did they not rule out confounders? Did they use the wrong statistical method?
Quote:
Do however many you want. It's fine by me if you choose to waste your time like that. I shared one study and you attacked the author without childish name calling and without addressing the study at all.
The article that I shared, not a random study that you picked by the same author.
The post I replied to about Tomljenovic writing hogwash did not have a specific study in it. For goodness sake tell me which one you want me to look at! Just be warned that you are not going to like the results.
Quote:
Just because you tell us that you studied epidemiology does not mean that you are qualified to dissect peer reviewed published research. Her qualifications are appropriate. I've seen how you interpret things over the years and I can't say that I'm impressed.
No, Tomljenovic is out of her league. She's an antivaccinationist - whose funding comes from antivaccinationists, by the way.
Let's hear from a PhD vaccinologist about an article by Tomljenovic.
"Dr Helen Petousis-Harris blogs about vaccines and vaccination. Her background is predominantly biological sciences, and she did her PhD in Vaccinology, specifically around vaccine reactions. She has worked at the Immunisation Advisory Centre at the University of Auckland since 1998 where she has developed a passion for all things vaccine. Currently Helen has an appointment as a Senior Lecturer in the Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care and her teaching is largely around vaccination."
She calls the paper, about the HPV vaccine, pseudoscientific garbage, which is a fancy way of saying hogwash.
"So Tomljenovic and Shaw completely ignore all of this information (or is the above not explicit enough?) aside from the fact that the issues are blatantly obvious to anyone vaguely rational, the fact that the VAERS data are deliberately misused renders the entire paper not only complete garbage but technically fraudulent."
"Claim: In a review of the literature on the safety of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines (1) the authors Lucija Tomljenovic and Christopher Shaw conclude that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and risk for adverse effects underestimated and that this matter has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community.
Fact: Other reviews on the safety of aluminium adjuvants and vaccines in general (of which there are many) consistently support the safety of aluminium adjuvanted vaccines (2, 3). Tomljenovic and Shaw appear to have cherry picked the research to fit with their theory and omitted work by prominent experts in the field of aluminium adjuvants, most notably Professor Stanley Hem. There is no description of how the papers were selected for review or criteria for inclusion or exclusion. This is a serious flaw in any literature review and an unscientific approach to testing a theory. The paper also includes a range of erroneous assumptions. The World Health Organization considers the paper seriously flawed."
"GACVS considers that these 2 studies (3, 4) are seriously flawed. The core argument made in these studies is based on ecological comparisons of aluminium content in vaccines and rates of autism spectrum disorders in several countries. In general, ecological studies cannot be used to assert a causal association because they do not link exposure to outcome in individuals, and only make correlations of exposure and outcomes on population averages. Therefore their value is primarily for hypothesis generation. However, there are additional concerns with those studies that limit any potential value for hypothesis generation. These include: incorrect assumptions about known associations of aluminium with neurological disease, uncertainty of the accuracy of the autism spectrum disorder prevalence rates in different countries, and accuracy of vaccination schedules and resulting calculations of aluminium doses in different countries."
That's the same thing I said. Also:
"The GACVS also reviewed the US FDA risk assessment model of aluminium in vaccines. The FDA calculations incorporate the most recently published aluminium risk assessments by adjusting for gastrointestinal absorption and uptake from the site of injection. The FDA analysis indicates that the body burden of aluminium following injections of aluminium-containing vaccines never exceeds safe US regulatory thresholds based on orally ingested aluminium even for low birth-weight infants. GACVS concludes that this comprehensive risk assessment further supports the clinical trial and epidemiological evidence of the safety of aluminium in vaccines. Current research on pharmacokinetics of aluminium in ]vaccines is ongoing and should be encouraged as a means of further validating and improving this model."
It does not matter whether you are impressed with what I write or not. The problems with Tomljenovic are so bad that even a passable experience with reading medical studies makes it easy to see them.
.
First, we do not know the level of vaccine uptake to produce herd immunity. It might be more or less than 90%.
You are projecting your own views about vaccination on others. There is no way you can know that "only a small fraction (pregnant women and their partners?) will agree to take a Zika vaccine."
Why should a woman decide until she was already pregnant to take the vaccine? That makes no sense. We do not wait until a woman is already pregnant to give the rubella vaccine. It is a live virus vaccine, which we avoid during pregnancy, although we have experience with women who did not know they were pregnant getting the rubella vaccine and it does not harm the baby. They may develop an inactivated Zika vaccine that could be given during pregnancy, but preconception is better. Since only half of pregnancies in the US are planned, that means that all women of childbearing age are candidates for the vaccine, and their partners are candidates to reduce the risk to them and to give mosquitoes fewer infected targets. Ultimately, the target population would be children before they become sexually active.
Many would take the vaccine to protect all pregnant women, not just their own families but friends and neighbors, too. It is obvious that you would not take it, but some of us do feel an obligation to the community. Preventing my neighbor from having a child with life long handicaps is important to me.
Woman to Woman transfer? How would that happen? An infected mosquito would have to bite you first. Then an uninfected mosquito would have to bite infected you, get infected, and then bite a pregnant woman.
A far better solution would be to get rid of the infected mosquitoes in the first place so they cannot bite anyone, which is the other solution. GMO Mosquitoes will probably be released in Florida by next month. You know the concept? Sterile male mosquitoes who will be unable to reproduce. Over time, this would eliminate this mosquito population who carry Zika. There are no Zika carrying mosquitoes in the US today.
Then there is always spraying. Dead mosquitoes cannot carry Zika or bite anyone. Why is it always the only solution must be a vaccine? Where is our EBOLA vaccine we need to get???
Bacterin and killed virus vaccines generally have to be boostered. Some killed virus vaccines, like the flu vaccine, is very short duration. There may be some residual immunity after a few years, but not much. Some bacteria are very resistant to immunization, and reinfection is common. Eliminating a nuisance infection like corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis from a herd requires an integrated program of sanitation, antibiotics and vaccination. I think the situation is similar in humans to MRSA infections, but I don't think the vaccine has been released because it functions about as poorly.
The terrors of ignorant people are not my problem. Yes, herd immunity is important to control some diseases like pertussis, and shunning unvaccinated children is a reasonable response, but being terrified is nonsense. An unvaccinated child is a disease vector, so you avoid them and institute precautions.
How do you shun unvaccinated children, or adults (Pertussis booster)? How do you know who is vaccinated or not? Maybe we need to brand humans like cattle? Years ago, that small pox vaccination left a big white mark, just about for life. Other people could see that mark (until it was given on the upper thigh) and then they would know who had received their vaccination, and could "shun" those without it. lol
Imagine all the branding this would take with how many vaccines are given? Full Body "Tats"!
Woman to Woman transfer? How would that happen? An infected mosquito would have to bite you first. Then an uninfected mosquito would have to bite infected you, get infected, and then bite a pregnant woman.
That is exactly how Zika is spread. Do you not understand that? The sex of the infected person does not matter to the skeeter. Every man, woman, and child is a potential target.
Yes, Zika is spread from woman to woman, and from man to woman, and from man to man, and from woman to child, and from child to woman, and from man to child, and from child to man, and from child to child.
Quote:
A far better solution would be to get rid of the infected mosquitoes in the first place so they cannot bite anyone, which is the other solution. GMO Mosquitoes will probably be released in Florida by next month. You know the concept? Sterile male mosquitoes who will be unable to reproduce. Over time, this would eliminate this mosquito population who carry Zika. There are no Zika carrying mosquitoes in the US today.
Then there is always spraying. Dead mosquitoes cannot carry Zika or bite anyone. Why is it always the only solution must be a vaccine? Where is our EBOLA vaccine we need to get???
GMO mosquitoes and spraying will not eliminate every mosquito.
If we continue to get infected people in the US, eventually we will have infected mosquitoes. In fact, mosquitoes are no respecters of national boundaries. They can travel.
This is a huge thread that is going to take a while to read... just wondering if anybody had already posted anything like this, regarding the herd immunity? (best visual I've seen)
That is exactly how Zika is spread. Do you not understand that? The sex of the infected person does not matter to the skeeter. Every man, woman, and child is a potential target.
Yes, Zika is spread from woman to woman, and from man to woman, and from man to man, and from woman to child, and from child to woman, and from man to child, and from child to man, and from child to child.
GMO mosquitoes and spraying will not eliminate every mosquito.
If we continue to get infected people in the US, eventually we will have infected mosquitoes. In fact, mosquitoes are no respecters of national boundaries. They can travel.
Mosquito eradication was how malaria was eliminated from the USA after WWII, but DDT is no longer approved for use within the USA, and other insecticides are either much more dangerous or ineffective. Poisoning millions of square miles of the country is no longer politically acceptable.
This is a huge thread that is going to take a while to read... just wondering if anybody had already posted anything like this, regarding the herd immunity? (best visual I've seen)
That is exactly how Zika is spread. Do you not understand that? The sex of the infected person does not matter to the skeeter. Every man, woman, and child is a potential target.
Yes, Zika is spread from woman to woman, and from man to woman, and from man to man, and from woman to child, and from child to woman, and from man to child, and from child to man, and from child to child.
GMO mosquitoes and spraying will not eliminate every mosquito.
If we continue to get infected people in the US, eventually we will have infected mosquitoes. In fact, mosquitoes are no respecters of national boundaries. They can travel.
People can travel to these countries also. Did President Obama cancel this trip to Cuba just because the CDC warned him about Zika there? No. If he didn't, do you think average citizens will? Will the US Olympic Athletes refuse to go to Brazil? MLB teams go to play in Puerto Rico. Cancel that? Do not let those players come into the country either? Your vaccine will never be ready in time for any of this.
The majority of people infected show no or very mild symptoms. They would not even know they have it. Are you going to test every traveler coming into the country too? Imagine how massive and expensive that would be?
Good luck with your massive vaccination program for Zika, whenever that happens.
I fly back and forth from Florida to NY frequently. Last time at JFK my flight was delayed because we had to wait for the flight from San Juan to arrive. Their Pilot was flying our plane back to Ft. Myers. Several of the passengers from the San Juan flight were continuing on to Ft. Myers also. This flight was in March. Were any of those passengers infected with Zika? Who wold know? There would be a lot of very angry passengers if they all had to be tested for Zika at the airport. Flights from Puerto Rico do not have to go through customs or anything else.
Last edited by Jo48; 05-04-2016 at 07:20 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.
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.
Just be warned that you are not going to like the results.
