MMR Vaccine

RobFowl

Martx wrote: »

I don't see any comments to my posted researches, can they be trusted or not?

Possibly take a lack of response to your posts as as lack of interest in what you have to say?
What was the gist of the "research" and what response were you looking for?

Martx

RobFowl wrote: »

Possibly take a lack of response to your posts as as lack of interest in what you have to say?
What was the gist of the "research" and what response were you looking for?

I thought that the point of this thread is to get information. Do I have to agree with everything what is said in here without doubt? I was hoping to get response which would say whether researches are true or false and why.

RobFowl

Martx wrote: »

I thought that the point of this thread is to get information. Do I have to agree with everything what is said in here without doubt? I was hoping to get response which would say whether researches are true or false and why.

I never said you had to agree with anything, all I pointed out was that a lack of response suggests others do not share the same level of interest or passion that you do.
Also to be perfectly honest it's all been gone through many times before and if you search the thread I'm sure you'll fin what you're looking for.
I know as a Mod my heart sinks every time a post appears here and more often than not its of the conspiracy type..

Martx

RobFowl wrote: »

I never said you had to agree with anything, all I pointed out was that a lack of response suggests others do not share the same level of interest or passion that you do.
Also to be perfectly honest it's all been gone through many times before and if you search the thread I'm sure you'll fin what you're looking for.
I know as a Mod my heart sinks every time a post appears here and more often than not its of the conspiracy type..

I have to agree, you can't trust pubmed at all.

RobFowl

Martx wrote: »

I have to agree, you can't trust pubmed at all.

And that sort of comment is why my heart sinks .......

If you want to keep posting here try something constructive, and more of this nonsense and expect a long term ban

steddyeddy

Martx wrote: »

I have to agree, you can't trust pubmed at all.

My whole career has been based on nothing

shaz84

Jumboman wrote: »

Vaccines contain mercury.

Some do, some don't. It's irrelevant anyway, as the *peer reviewed* research shows they are not linked to developmental disorders.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/114/3/793.full

steddyeddy

You do realise that people are dying because of the anti vaccine movement don't you anti vacciners?

Mr Williams

steddyeddy wrote: »

You do realise that people are dying because of the anti vaccine movement don't you anti vacciners?

Thats what we are told but when you examine those claims they dont stand up.

Mr Williams

Is this woman crazy ?

Dozen Wicked Words

Mr Williams wrote: »

Is this woman crazy ?

No, just wrong.

Turtwig

Who is she?

Smart isn't an absolute characteristic btw, you can be intelligent on some topics/disciplines and stupid on others.

Dozen Wicked Words

Turtwig wrote: »

Who is she?

Smart isn't an absolute characteristic btw, you can be intelligent on some topics/disciplines and stupid on others.

She is in big bang theory, she was also Blossom. What she actually advocates is parents making their own decisions. She just makes the wrong decisions herself.

Mayim Bialik is her name.

Xeyn

Mr Williams wrote: »

Is this woman crazy ?

So your argument is if 0.01% of the scientific community hold your view that's enough scientific backing to validate your erroneous view ?
If you don't want to believe in science that's your perogative but it weakens your argument when you then come back with an attempt of justification based on scientific opinion because it is held by so few.

Mr Williams

Xeyn wrote: »

So your argument is if 0.01% of the scientific community hold your view that's enough scientific backing to validate your erroneous view ?
If you don't want to believe in science that's your perogative but it weakens your argument when you then come back with an attempt of justification based on scientific opinion because it is held by so few.

Where did you get the 0.01% figure from ?

Just Like Heaven

Mr Williams wrote: »

Where did you get the 0.01% figure from ?

You're right it's probably less.

shaz84

I'll just leave a link to this page here, which debunks many of the ant-vaxxer myths. Mr Williams and others on this thread who have been advocating not getting your kids vaccinated, Im sure pretty you wont read this, but on the off chance you do click the link:

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/dear-parents-you-are-being-lied

steddyeddy

Mr Williams wrote: »

Where did you get the 0.01% figure from ?

Mr.Williams could you detail your main arguments against the vaccine?

Mr Williams

steddyeddy wrote: »

Mr.Williams could you detail your main arguments against the vaccine?

I could but this forum will not let me post information which is not approved by the medical establishment.

The pro vaccine brigade does not like free speech on this issue.

As for the claim that the majority of "scientists" believe MMR is safe, this does not mean they are right.

The majority of people once believed the world was flat.

Just Like Heaven

Mr Williams wrote: »

The majority of people once believed the world was flat.

That's true but peer-reviewed science proved otherwise.

Would you just get on with it and post the information you claim to have, enough with the suspense.

shaz84

Mr Williams wrote: »

As for the claim that the majority of "scientists" believe MMR is safe, this does not mean they are right.

The majority of people once believed the world was flat.

I don't get your point. People believed the world was flat before there was any evidence to prove it wasnt. Most people eventually changed their beliefs after the evidence was presented to them.

Out of interest, Mr. Williams, did you by any chance look at the link I posted for you? What are you'r thoughts on it?

steddyeddy

Mr Williams wrote: »

I could but this forum will not let me post information which is not approved by the medical establishment.

The pro vaccine brigade does not like free speech on this issue.

As for the claim that the majority of "scientists" believe MMR is safe, this does not mean they are right.

The majority of people once believed the world was flat.

Ok could you post peer reviewed data to back up your claims?

Just Like Heaven

Which 'medical establishment' are you even on about.

Turtwig

Mr Williams wrote: »

I could but this forum will not let me post information which is not approved by the medical establishment.

The pro vaccine brigade does not like free speech on this issue.

As for the claim that the majority of "scientists" believe MMR is safe, this does not mean they are right.

The majority of people once believed the world was flat.

You see here is the problem.

There is currently no evidence other than spurious correlations that vaccines could cause autism. Now, if you look at things very carefully you'll notice that the number of cheese consumed per capita in the U.S directly correlates with the number of people who die by being tangled in their bed sheets. Now, far be it for one of us to conclude that buying cheese causes people to die by being tangled in their bedsheets. Except, this is kind of what is happening in the case of vaccines and autism.

So, let's make one thing clear. It is possible that vaccines are having a negative impact on health, that we're not yet aware of. It's also possible that they do in fact cause autism. Both seem unlikely at this point, but can never be ruled out. The same can be said for your average organic banana. However, in so far as actually discerning this, there's a right way to go about it and a wrong way. Currently, the approaches done the 'right' way suggest that vaccines have nothing to with autism.

The current way the anti-vaxxers are going about their claims isn't constructive or helpful. In fact, even if it were to turn out that vaccines did cause autism the majority of anti-vaxxers would still have been mostly wrong anyway. They got to the correct results, but their methodology was wholly and fundamentally flawed. It's like solving an algebra equations but having the solution littered with so many errors you accidentally stumble upon the solution. In general, that approach usually leads to erroneous conclusions and more often than not it does. Ultimately, it's with sound methodology that you assess the claims on whether something is true or not. Sometimes, you'll still get it wrong. All you can do is go on the best evidence available to you. That evidence currently suggests that vaccines do not cause autism. Posting stuff on facebook and shouting really loudly isn't really going to help change any of that. If anything, it will only polarise the debate bilaterally and make both sides ideologically biased towards certain points of view. Nobody wants anything in science, especially evidence based medicine that has real lives at stakes, to be driven by ideological beliefs! One way or the other.

Finally, if it turns out that vaccines do cause autism, or some other condition, that risk will still have be balanced against the likelihood of serious morbidity that the vaccines work to prevent in the first place. This decision might not always be as straight forward as it appears.

steddyeddy

Turtwig wrote: »

You see here is the problem.

There is currently no evidence other than spurious correlations that vaccines could cause autism. Now, if you look at things very carefully you'll notice that the number of cheese consumed per capita in the U.S directly correlates with the number of people who die by being tangled in their bed sheets. Now, far be it for one of us to conclude that buying cheese causes people to die by being tangled in their bedsheets. Except, this is kind of what is happening in the case of vaccines and autism.

So, let's make one thing clear. It is possible that vaccines are having a negative impact on health, that we're not yet aware of. It's also possible that they do in fact cause autism. Both seem unlikely at this point, but can never be ruled out. The same can be said for your average organic banana. However, in so far as actually discerning this, there's a right way to go about it and a wrong way. Currently, the approaches done the 'right' way suggest that vaccines have nothing to with autism.

The current way the anti-vaxxers are going about their claims isn't constructive or helpful. In fact, even if it were to turn out that vaccines did cause autism the majority of anti-vaxxers would still have been mostly wrong anyway. They got to the correct results, but their methodology was wholly and fundamentally flawed. It's like solving an algebra equations but having the solution littered with so many errors you accidentally stumble upon the solution. In general, that approach usually leads to erroneous conclusions and more often than not it does. Ultimately, it's with sound methodology that you assess the claims on whether something is true or not. Sometimes, you'll still get it wrong. All you can do is go on the best evidence available to you. That evidence currently suggests that vaccines do not cause autism. Posting stuff on facebook and shouting really loudly isn't really going to help change any of that. If anything, it will only polarise the debate bilaterally and make both sides ideologically biased towards certain points of view. Nobody wants anything in science, especially evidence based medicine that has real lives at stakes, to be driven by ideological beliefs! One way or the other.

Finally, if it turns out that vaccines do cause autism, or some other condition, that risk will still have be balanced against the likelihood of serious morbidity that the vaccines work to prevent in the first place. This decision might not always be as straight forward as it appears.

Brilliant post. I'll also add there seems to be no dispute from the anti vaccine side that vaccines fail to prevent illnesses. So they had better be clear in their heads why they are campaigning against vaccines or they are causing people to die.

Jerrica

I'm pregnant, and I see the vaccine debate raging with alarming frequency on a lot of the internet groups I frequent. It's incredibly frustrating primarily because you cannot - as someone with logic, sense, and invested in my own child's health - have a reasoned debate with anti-vaxxers. When I get frustrated to the point of rage-face I remind myself that it's not me, it's them - I first read this wonderfully apt description of the traits of those who support the anti-vaccine movement in an article in The Guardian, and later went to read the article in full (be warned, it's from the highly regarded and internationally respected journal, Vaccine, so it must be biased....)...

Research into the mindsets of anti-vaccination campaigners suggests that they tend to exhibit traits such as conspiratorial thinking, reasoning flaws, a reliance on anecdote over data and low cognitive complexity in thinking patterns.

There are a few circuitous arguments I most commonly encourter that anti-vaxxers use in their repetoire to shout down fact:
1. Vaccines are untested in pregnant women so they can't be safe.
2. Vaccines contain aluminium and mercury so they can't be safe.
3. The FDA (or governing body of choice) are funding/ coerced/ in cahoots with BIG-PHARMA (you have to shout that for added malice)
4. "My family were not vaccinated and none of us died"
5. I know a girl who got the swine flu vaccine and she still got the flu.
6. For all the above there will be a whole range of blogs available to support each view.

All of these arguments fall perfectly in line with the psychology described in the Vaccine article above, and it's what will make this argument so eternally frustrating. You cannot argue science with an anti-vaxxers because they will resolutely refuse to believe it. The lure of a conspiracy is infinitely more appealing than choosing to set aside their own fears and insecurities. They don't want to entertain the idea of peer-reviewing, they can't grasp the concept that vaccines are not all alike, they don't understand the basic biology of the human immune system so the idea that a vaccine may only be 95% effective means to them that it's a failure. To those of us that understand it we know that it's a bloody fantastic rate of effectiveness and only further supports the need for herd immunity.

But what probably makes me most irate is the unfairness of it. When I had myself vaccinated against flu and whooping cough, I know that I was actively protecting myself, my baby and any babies I may come into contact with in the near future. The only risk posed was to me and my baby, and that risk was so infinitesimally small it was a no brainer. But in not vaccinating, people are putting everyone's kids at risk. So it's not a fair argument and they aren't fair choices. In being so horribly blind to logic, reason and fact, the anti-vaxxers are ultimately putting my future children at risk. I am protecting theirs. How is that a fair fight?

Biologic

Mr Williams wrote: »

As for the claim that the majority of "scientists" believe MMR is safe, this does not mean they are right.

The majority of people once believed the world was flat.

And they still would if it weren't for "scientists".

Martx

I don't see any comments on my posted pubmed researches. Here's another one related to chickenpox. Reasearh posted on pubmed 22659447.

To Shaz84, we can argue about your post. Regarding aluminum, baby doesn't get more aluminum from breast milk. "/pubmed/20010978"

"It is only when the GI barrier is bypassed, such as intravenous infusion or in the presence of advanced renal dysfunction, that aluminum has the potential to accumulate. As an example, with intravenously infused aluminum, 40% is retained in adults and up to 75% is retained in neonates. " emedicine.medscape. com/article/165315-overview

Vaccination is bypassing the GI barrier. Could anybody post the link to research which shows safe levels of aluminum in baby's? Researches based on real studies and not based on mathematical calculations made "on paper".
Aluminum could accumulate in human's body. brain.oxfordjournals. org/content/124/9/1821.full

"Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration" ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/

There's more interesting studie's posted in here:
vaccinationcouncil. org/2012/07/05/herd-immunity-the-flawed-science-and-failures-of-mass-vaccination-suzanne-humphries-md-3/
There are links to peer reviewed study's, but I won't be surprised if I will get ban for posting
"anti-wax website".

RobFowl

Martx wrote: »

There's more interesting studie's posted in here:
vaccinationcouncil. org/2012/07/05/herd-immunity-the-flawed-science-and-failures-of-mass-vaccination-suzanne-humphries-md-3/
There are links to peer reviewed study's, but I won't be surprised if I will get ban for posting
"anti-wax website".

The first quotes refer to chickenpox, smallpox, toxicity related to long term dialysis and Gulf war related anthrax vaccinations in the military.

The last "peer reviewed" link in simply an opinion piece from an organisation
"The international medical council on vaccination" which is a self confessed anti vaccination group with little if any credibility.

I have wasted too much of my time reading all that stuff above, the peer reviewed links are simply not relevant to the thread and the last one simply a lobby group.
You said you wouldn't be surprised so don't be, you're now banned.

Mr Williams

RobFowl wrote: »

You said you wouldn't be surprised so don't be, you're now banned.

So much for free and open debate:rolleyes: