Vaccination / Screening

PaulP

Split off from Regulation of CAM thread - davros

have a look at this facinating article on the question of breast cancer screening http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA382.htm . As you will see the question of whether screening the general female public for signs of incipient breast cancer is surprisingly complicated. Note particularly the failure of comprehension among "senior postgraduate students at a course for specialists in breast cancer run by the Royal College of Surgeons of England". This is not surprising because this particular failure of undestanding is common to most doctors,
even the most eminent consultants.

The thread on recommended books mentions a book by Gerd Gigerenzer. He wrote a whole book on this error and how to avoid or prevent it: "Reckoning with Risk: Learning to Live with Uncertainty ".


The moral of this story is that everything in matters of health is more complicated than it seems.

williamgrogan

This post was in

Doctors (not to mention drug companies) make a lot of their money from vaccination. I'd sooner listen to Dr Andrew Saul, biologist, teacher and author (see www.doctoryourself.com/resume.html): "Speaking as an experienced parent and a multi-certified teacher who has taught pretty much every grade from first to post-doc, I think vaccinations fail to confer adequate protection. I do not think they ever did, and I do not think they do now. The recent whooping cough epidemic near New York City is a good example: over 80% of those with the disease had been vaccinated against it. Go ahead and get shots if you want to. But whether you get shots or not, I think our primary concern should be to make our children's bodies strong so they can fight off disease. We do this with good food, routine supplements, and lots of vitamin C. If and when they get sick, they will recover rapidly and without complications. My kids were not immunized. They played daily with the neighbors' children during the week or two before their entire household broke out in chicken pox. Our kids were raised vegetarian-plus-dairy, and had every-meal megavitamin C doses. They each had a spot or two, which went away in a day or two. No other symptoms, period. The best way to a strong immune system is through optimum nutrition and ample vitamin supplementation. Trying to exist in a vaccination-blown bubble is futile."

williamgrogan

I don't know what the ethics of copying a post from one board to another is but anyway.......

Below is my post after reading the one above and Joe's reply is below it again.

I am going to ask Joe to come and pay us a vist. Maybe we could trash out why he thinks as he does. Sort of a "case".

William (williamgrogan) Posted: 06/02/2004 10:03

Joe says, Doctors (not to mention drug companies) make a lot of their money from vaccination. So do teachers and with a lot less work so that proves nothing. Joe thinks vaccinations fail to confer adequate protection. Virtually all the Scientists and Doctors in the world disagree but hey! Joe’s a teacher he should know. Joe thinks our primary concern should be to make our children's bodies strong so they can fight off disease. .. with good food, routine supplements, and lots of vitamin C. “Good food” will not in any way whatsoever stop you getting diseases. All you need is normal food. There is no evidence that supplements are of any use whatsoever with the exception of literally two or three, e.g. Folic Acid for pregnant women. In fact the “supplements industry” is nearly as big as the regular pharmaceutical industry. A person with a reasonably normal diet who takes Vitamin “C” is completely wasting his time and high doses of Vitamin have been shown to be dangerous. Joe is being conned systematically and is totally wasting his money on supplements and Vitamin “C”. So there.

William (williamgrogan) Posted: 06/02/2004 10:15

PS Read this article on supplements http://lists.isb.sdnpk.org/pipermail/health-list-old/2000-April/001175.html

Joe (joet61) Posted: 06/02/2004 22:19

Re William's Washington Post report about a report of a US National Academy of Sciences panel, that's interesting but far from conclusive; you're still left to make up your own mind. Oh, except that the medical establishment is making up your mind for you and doing its best to stop you buying vitamins and supplements. I resent that. (Anyway, the NAS doesn't always get it right; look at how they blundered, for decades, over fluoride intake: http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/) Many people who look at the ingredients of vaccines decide, quite understandably, that they don't want them injected into their child's body. Besides, all vaccinations have side-effects. Some children are going to react VERY badly to vaccination. Neither William nor the med establishment are looking for evidence of vaccination damage. If they don't look, how can they find it? Finding good evidence means time, effort and money. Who will fund that research? Not the med establishment (who hate the precautionary principle), nor the drug companies. The Government should fund such research, but the DoH and vaccination-backers keep insisting that it's pointless. Has anyone ever died from taking too much vitamins? I don't think so. Has anyone ever died from vaccinations? You bet! Vitamin C (in bulk powder form) costs next to nothing. There is NO EVIDENCE that it is dangerous. Why would the med establishment want to stop you using it? Is it because it works?! And why would the med establishment want to dose every baby with about 30 shots of toxic vaccines, and dose them with unmeasured amounts of extremely toxic fluoride at the same time? I (and many others) have a doubt about the reasoning and motivation behind these public "health" measures, and I'm exercising my right to say No to them. (Mind you, I had to leave Ireland to escape the fluoride...) William disputes the claim that "vaccinations fail to confer adequate protection", but you can easily find numerous reports about inadequate protection from vaccines. For example, most recently in Ireland: www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=5371&ss=flu%20jab And see www.irishhealth.com/index.html?level=4&id=939&ss=%5C%22flu%20vaccine%5C%22 and related articles. William, you can keep shouting that people like Dr Saul (www.doctoryourself.com) and www.jabs.org.uk know nothing, but ordinary people have to use their common sense and their judgement. I know many unvaccinated children; there is nothing wrong with them or with their parents. They are the most loving, caring, responsible parents in the world. Whether you like it or not, they have a right to keep their children unvaccinated. Please respect that right. Prof O'Leary's statement just does not correspond with reality. I must admit: I have a problem with many things that William has written here. Earlier he wrote: "Refusing to vaccinate your children should be a crime. It is a form of child abuse." Then he wrote: "You cannot be both vaccinated and not vaccinated. You must decide." But he doesn't want us to be able to decide; he wants parents of unvaccinated children to be criminalized as child abusers. This is a really big issue, because senior figures in the Irish med establishment feel the same as William and are angling to push through their agenda, whether we like it or not.

williamgrogan

Joe

If you followed the link you are now in the Skeptics forum, where we debate what to do about the ongoing conning of the public in matters to do with supplements, CAM etc... Please join in and your opinion will be listened to and you may try and convince us that you are right as we will try and convince you that you are not.

You said….

You're still left to make up your own mind.

There is no point in “making up your mind” when it comes to facts. Facts are not matters of opinion. There is a saying I like, “you don’t buy a dog and bark yourself.” We all use professionals to advise us and doctors are generally intelligent and well trained and certainly know more than the “man in the street” about medicine. Much more importantly research Scientists and their mechanisms are very much more knowledgeable than the man in the street and should be listened to.

Oh, except that the medical establishment is making up your mind for you and doing its best to stop you buying vitamins and supplements.

Why would they do that? Studies have shown that for a person on a normal diet supplements are completely un-necessary.

I resent that. (Anyway, the NAS doesn't always get it right; look at how they blundered, for decades, over fluoride intake: http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/)

There is no evidence that fluoride in water is dangerous, in fact it has dramatic benefits, particularly for the poorest sections of society, on the health of their teeth.

Many people who look at the ingredients of vaccines decide, quite understandably, that they don't want them injected into their child's body. Besides, all vaccinations have side-effects. Some children are going to react VERY badly to vaccination.

Huge studies involving millions of people have been done on the effects of vaccination and there is no evidence that the danger is any where near as bad as the enormous benefits. One of the major reasons for the improvements in health over the last century is vaccination.

Has anyone ever died from taking too much vitamins? I don't think so.

Yes they have. What is the point on you being ripped off by the manufacturers of Vitamin C & multi-vitamins? They are laughing at you as they bank your money.

Has anyone ever died from vaccinations? You bet!

Far far fewer than would have died if the population was unvaccinated, not to mention all sorts of other problems such as brain damage.

Vitamin C (in bulk powder form) costs next to nothing. There is NO EVIDENCE that it is dangerous. Why would the med establishment want to stop you using it? Is it because it works?!

It can be dangerous. You ask why the med. establishment would want you to stop taking Vitamin C? Well you tell us.

And why would the med establishment want to dose every baby with about 30 shots of toxic vaccines,

….. to save lives

but ordinary people have to use their common sense and their judgement.

Unfortunately “common sense” is notoriously bad at helping people make medical decisions. A very large part of what Science has learned completely defies common sense. Our senses developed as we evolved in very simple surroundings and are not up to making good decisions about complex medical matters. When it was first suggested that the Earth was round people laughed and thought they would fall off if it was. Their “common sense” did not explain how someone in Australia didn’t imagine they were standing on their head. If you have read Relativity or Quantum Mechanics then common sense goes straight out the window.

I know many unvaccinated children; there is nothing wrong with them or with their parents.

To a large extent your unvaccinated children are somewhat protected from illness by more responsible parents. In fact their children and they themselves are at risk from your irresponsibility.

They are the most loving, caring, responsible parents in the world. Whether you like it or not, they have a right to keep their children unvaccinated. Please respect that right.

Parents do not own their children and the law is hard on anyone including parents that injure their children. There was another thread on irishhealth where we discussed whether or not Jehovah’s Witnesses could refuse a life saving treatment such as a blood transfusion. What do you think about their rights on this?

The following is the link back to this discussion in www.irishhealth.ie

http://www.irishhealth.ie/discussion/message.html?dis=2&topic=3533&pop=1

williamgrogan

Public Health Fears & the Conspiracy Theorists

Irish Health has a forum below

http://www.irishhealth.com/discussion/message.html?dis=2&topic=3533

Joe and Mairead in particular fear fluoride in water, MMR & vaccines in general.

There are a group of commonly held opinions that I certainly think ISS can look into. These options are fear of Fluoride in water, fear of Vaccines, fear of GMO’s, fear of non-natural chemicals when they are identical to naturally occurring ones, fear of mobile phones & masts and fear of Mercury Amalgam used in dental fillings.

As a matter of interest does either Joe or Mairead smoke or drink alcohol or allow their children to be in a room with smokers? Do they like many parents allow children in the back seat to be unbelted? Do they leave their children in cars when they “pop into the shop” and thereby risk their lives from fire? Do they drink & drive? We know they avoid vaccines and thereby seriously endanger their lives.

Only half of Americans have flu shots although 36,000 people die from flu per year.

Joe quotes an API Journalist but I will quote from the American Council on Science and Health.

http://www.acsh.org/publications/reports/vaccines_sr2003.html

The following is from the above report, “Worldwide, it is estimated that over 2 million children die annually from infectious diseases that could be prevented through timely immunization. In the United States over 50,000 adults and approximately 300 children die annually from vaccine-preventable diseases.”

The API article by the “Investigations Editor” Mark Benjamin was long and I cannot comment on every point made but the comments can be grouped into categories. There is no evidence that Mark has any medical or scientific background and I would imagine that an “Investigations Editor” has to dig up some shenanigans or he has little to write about. I presume neither Joe not Mairead think journalists are the sort of people we should believe without question? In fact in many polls journalists get only 10% or so “satisfaction” rating, similar to politicians and lawyers. Scientists & doctors get far higher, sometimes up around 90%.

One category of comment is the reporting in detail on individual cases where someone claimed that their child was damaged by a vaccine. Simply put, these stories prove absolutely nothing. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of some basic concepts of proof, logic, probability etc. that applies to any opinion that uses as its “evidence”, anecdotal evidence.

The first example opens dramatically with, “The screaming started four hours after 8-month-old Chaise Irons received a vaccination against rotavirus, recommended in June 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for every infant to prevent serious diarrhea.” (American spelling) It is easy to assume that there is a connection but other than one event followed by another 4 hours later there is none. As I have said to Mairead before, presumably the baby also had its nappy changed. Do we infer from this that changing nappies causes this problem? No. Ah! But you say changing nappies occurs thousands of time in a child’s lifetime and that didn’t cause this effect. Ah! But I say that thousands of vaccines with no problems would also prove the same thing. The same applies to the story about “Jackson” and that his parents think that he started showing signs of Autism shortly after getting a jab. Studies done with hundreds of thousands of children who got the MMR jab shows no correlation between the vaccine and an increase in Autism. The increased “reporting” of Autism started before the MMR was first given and therefore MMR cannot be solely related to the increase.

One Republican politician from Indiana called Dan Burton who believes that his grandson “caught” autism from a vaccine is quoted. However he gives no evidence to support this. You may or not be aware that Dan is a conservative right wing “family values” anti-abortion nut who advocated nuking Iraq during the first Gulf War or that he is a serious hypocrite who called President Clinton a “scumbag” and then had to admit to having affairs and an illegitimate son himself. He has also been investigated for “financial irregularities”.

The main thrust of the article and content is an attempt to prove that the particular organisation, the CDC, is biased because some of its funds come from vaccine companies and that some of its members who are scientists did work for vaccine companies. No actual proof of unprofessional conduct is forthcoming and is categorically denied by CDC.

There are many examples of databases showing thousands of “reports” of possible reactions to vaccines but no mention is made of how many are actually caused by the vaccine. In other words every time a doctor administers a vaccine and soon after the child is ill he reports this as a possible reaction. There is no intention that this is a cause of the vaccine and this cannot be implied. Children get sick and die all the time. Some will get sick and die after receiving a vaccination. This most certainly does not link the two. Studies carried out using this data does not show a link. The statistical analysis shows the exact opposite.

Dr. Paul Offit, chief of infectious disease at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a member of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), outlined why he believes the MMR vaccine is not a plausible cause of autism. Because more measles proteins are made during natural infection than are made after immunization, the immune response to natural infection is greater, he said. "If measles virus caused autism, measles vaccination would lower, not raise, the incidence of autism," he said. The theory that an infant's immune system is "overwhelmed" by three viruses introduced simultaneously in a vaccine also doesn't make sense because infants encounter and mount immune responses to so many foreign proteins that the MMR vaccine is "a raindrop in the ocean of what infants successfully encounter in their environments every day," Dr. Offit said.

There have been 330,000,000 doses of MMR administered worldwide. There is no scientific evidence that it causes Autism.

The following contains a link to a booklet called “Facts v Fears” that can be downloaded. (The fear of Mercury Amalgam is well covered as is Water Fluoridation.)

http://www.acsh.org/publications/reports/factsfears.html

I particularly liked this comment, “The survival of this fake controversy represents, in our opinion, one of the major triumphs of quackery over science in our generation.”

This is a good one, “The Promise of Vaccines”, on vaccines

http://www.acsh.org/publications/reports/vaccines_sr2003.html

and finally

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006E00D.htm

PaulP

In the UK the magazine Private Eye has played an ignoble role in this controversy. It has been interesting to watch it twist itself into all sorts of contortions to try to maintain the possibility of MMR causing autism.

It started out like the last posting's example, backing parents who said they could see the almost immediate of autism after vaccination. When the evidence came in that a child was as likely to be diagnosed with autism just before immunisation as just after, it changed its story: this research could not rule out a delayed effect. (Although the greater the delay the less certain a parent could be about any link, one might think).

Similarly it started out by pointing to the great increase in the rate of autism being diagnosed, claiming this was/might be due to MMR. When the research was done showing that diagnosis rates were increasing anyway and that the introduction of MMR had no detectable effect, it changed its story: this research could not rule out the possibility of a minority of children being uniquely vulnerable to getting autism from MMR. (Of course every parent will still think their child to be in this category).

Such thinking as above is espoused by Private Eye but not original to it. The magazine has allowed its usual dirt-digging instincts - don't believe those in authority - to override its common sense.

PaulP

I have to add about autism & MMR: the claimed link is that MMR damages the immune system in some way that leads to autism. This hypothesis is unlikely. As far as I know (I 'm no doctor) autistic people show no signs of immune-system damage in general (by being unable to defend themselves from bacteria for example.)
The cause of autism is unknown - there may even be more than one cause or more than one underlying medical condition involved.

On another point, we often hear the old logical fallacy of the "argument from ignorance", especially from parents: if it's not MMR that's the cause, what is it? In another variant, it is claimed that more research should be done on this hypothesis because it is the "only one we have".

We also see what is probably a relatively new logical fallacy: being a victim, or the parent of a victim, endows expertise and knowledge. Such a person is, by the fact of their victimhood or vicarious victimhood, to be treated as having as much knowledge on the technical issues as someone who spent years in medical school, even if they have never opened a single medical book or read a single medical article from the technical literature.

Medical experts and researchers who oppose this alleged link as perceived as cold and unfeeling rather than detached and rational. It reminds me of soemthing I read in Carl Sagan (I think) many years ago. At the scene of an accident some people will faint - out of sympathy with the victims' injuries. Medical people must suppress this reaction to do something practical to try to save the victims. So the question is, which reaction do we want?

PaulP

You may have seen the latest round in the MMR non-controversy. It looks like the person most responsible, Dr. Wakefield, may have gone against basic scientific procedure, not to mention professional ethics, in his original work. The Lancet now says it should never have printed the section about MMR in his paper.


Although Wakefield's errors (putting it mildly) may not invalidate his results in the strict scientific sense, he himself recently reacted to one of his co-author's declaring himself now satisfied with the safety of MMR by publically accusing him of dishonesty. And questioning the integrity of any scientist who came to different conclusions to Wakefield's has been normal practice. So Wakefield et al are hoist by their own petard.

williamgrogan

On another thread on boards.ie (Community/Activism) I have been arguing, in relation to E-Voting, that a printed VVAT (Voter Verifiable Audit Trail) is un-necessary. I have been arguing on two fronts; that technically it is un-necessary and that the people behind the VVAT “movement” are in the same class as the anti-MMR, anti-fluoridation group of activists and that they are illogical and basically acting from a fear of change, i.e. Luddism. It is ironic that one the main supporters of VVAT is from the Labour party, hardly known for its technical innovation. The Trade Union movement has traditionally been the most active opponent of replacing men with machines.

Ecksor is the Moderator and has actually banned me! Feel free to see if you agree with him.

Says a lot about their ideas of democracy and free speech! I think even banning me helps prove my point. That they are not driven, as they claim, by a fear to our democracy but instead an irrational fear of change.

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Ecksor is the Moderator and has actually banned me! Feel free to see if you agree with him.

Says a lot about their ideas of democracy and free speech! I think even banning me helps prove my point. That they are not driven, as they claim, by a fear to our democracy but instead an irrational fear of change.

3 Points.

1) Noone ever said anywhere that boards.ie was a democracy or entitled anyone to free speech.

2) Its not a very good idea to go pissing off site admins (which ecksor is).

3) Its well out of order you posting about this here. Its a totally different forum, its nothing to do with skeptics or this thread.

I suggest an apology/retraction before you get more than a ban off one board.

ecksor

Actually, I think that e-voting is an excellent topic for investigation and discussion by Irish Skeptics!

However, it has nothing to do with Vaccination / Screening. Perhaps another misunderstanding of boards etiquette. That said, I have no problem with him asking others to look and judge the situation for themselves. Appeals to bans can be made on the Admin forums as usual.

williamgrogan

Interesting suggestions from Syke!

1) If the Internet is part of the media then it is part of free speech. No one would accept that the print media suppress information. I totally agree that someone can get banned for using foul language, personally insulting someone or libelling them but disagreeing with their pov?

2) Did I piss off Ecksor here or there? Or both? Did I piss him off as a poster or as the site admin? Is it not possible that he “had it in for me” due to our disagreements here? There is another connection, which is that I am claiming that VVAT is an irrational fear. I do think Luddism is a condition that is allied to Creationism and other “false” ways of thinking and solving problems. Anyone who heard the first Joe Duffy program after the project was announced would clearly form the opinion that many opposing E-Voting are irrational & are bordering on hysteria in their reaction to it.

3) What do you suggest I apologise for, disagreeing with Ecksor?

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Interesting suggestions from Syke!

1) If the Internet is part of the media then it is part of free speech. No one would accept that the print media suppress information. I totally agree that someone can get banned for using foul language, personally insulting someone or libelling them but disagreeing with their pov?

Boards.ie is not a democracy, nor does it advocate 100% free speech. It is never claimed anything to the contrary, perhaps look at the site rules/FAQ.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
2) Did I piss off Ecksor here or there? Or both? Did I piss him off as a poster or as the site admin? Is it not possible that he “had it in for me” due to our disagreements here? There is another connection, which is that I am claiming that VVAT is an irrational fear. I do think Luddism is a condition that is allied to Creationism and other “false” ways of thinking and solving problems. Anyone who heard the first Joe Duffy program after the project was announced would clearly form the opinion that many opposing E-Voting are irrational & are bordering on hysteria in their reaction to it.

Oh FFS. You posted off topic in an unrelated foruma nd thread to "rally the troops".
This is not only against the rule sof the site and the etiqutte of BBS in general, but also not the way to do things. Start a thread in admin or feedback and PM ecksor, getting other involved will do you no good and only worsen your case.

Originally posted by williamgrogan
3) What do you suggest I apologise for, disagreeing with Ecksor?

No, I suggest you apologise to everyone else for the stuff outlined in point 2.


[edit] Apologies to the mods here, perhaps ye or the admins could move the relevent threads to feedback or admin, I think the point needs to be made, but I don't want to thread spoil[/edit]

williamgrogan

I agree I was trying to rally the troops. It thought that’s why we had troops?

I like “FFS”. You learn something every day. You should learn to relax a bit Syke, maybe a good Homeopathic stress reducing tonic - Pharmaton maybe?

I have no intention of appealing to anyone including Ecksor for “unbanning”. If an activist thread doesn’t want to hear alternative voices then it will be the poorer not me. The main reason people often remain locked into a false view of reality is that they are excluded from dissenting input for one reason or another.

Sorry, I thought you were suggesting I apologise to Ecksor. OK as Ecksor agrees with me on this point that the E-Voting issue is suitable for ISS then I will open a new thread.

DeVore

1) If the Internet is part of the media then it is part of free speech. No one would accept that the print media suppress information. I totally agree that someone can get banned for using foul language, personally insulting someone or libelling them but disagreeing with their pov?

Not only is this utter rubbish regarding Boards in particular. Its utter rubbish regarding the Media in general. You think Fox news is going to allow a balanced freedom-of-speech to Muslims? We are considerably freer then many many parts of the "Media".... and we are privately owned website, we owe you nothing and you're "rights" only seem to apply because we gift you a free voice.

You werent banned from that forum because you were disagreed with. You were banned because in your on going opposition to *their* opposition... the physical *existance* of your argument (and your unwillingness to see any other point of view) caused difficulties with the operation of that board.

If you want to view that as a moral victory, go ahead. I honestly dont care.


Finally, you are wrong.... I started out thinking as you do that anyone opposed to e-voting is a luddite who fears change. I've looked into it and I'm violently opposed to it now. Its code which is hidden, written by a foreign company, with no verifiable audit trail and a reduction in our ability to over see our own government.

How do we even know *what* those boxes are doing? If they are so secure, why cant we see the code.... its not like anyone is going to warez it now is it!! I mean, how many people need to warez a program to enable entire COUNTRIES to vote.
So, in at least my case you consistent shrieking of "luddite" is incorrect. If you like we can set up an E-Voting In Favour board and we will ban anyone who acts similarly (in reverse) from it!

Your "rights" do not apply here. If you are unhappy about that, I will refund your money.

DeV.

williamgrogan

I accept that you have a rule that any forum can ban anyone for any reason, I had read that. However, a forum advocating a pov that our democracy is under threat is hardly a place to start banning dissenting voices. The fact that “you are privately owned” is not relevant in so far as that also applies to all the media in the western world. I do not accept your point about Fox or anyone similar. Fox does broadcast the opinions of Muslims and there certainly is no Fox policy afaik on *banning* those dissenting from the editorial position on policy. If you wish to discuss this further perhaps you might point me to the appropriate forum/thread, I’d hate to break any more rules of netiquette?

williamgrogan

UK Independent 24-02-04 on MMR and the Wakefield story

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health/story.jsp?story=494556

Am I the only one who thinks the "Questions" at the end are a scandalous misinterpretation of the situation? Bear in mind the UK I. has been very much at the fore front of the scare mongering. Its bad enough that the tabloids are but the UK I. claims to be a broadsheet.

PaulP

The questions are appalling, as if written by someone who had not read let alone written the rest of the article.
But par for the UK I. I once read a supposed news report about Pres. Bush changing some environmentla regulations, full of nonsense from the enviro-nuts. The article failed to mention that Bush was merely implementing a policy of Pres. Clinton, which was designed to correct a situation in which the regulations were having the opposite effect to that intended (ie they were in fact damaging the environment by preventing the introduction of cleaner replacement installations).