Anti-vaxxers

batgoat

Amantine wrote: »

Ah yes, sciencebasedmedicine! The self appointed expert with a blog and 0 credentials! It has "science" and "medicine" in the name, that's what makes it a reliable source!!

Numerous studies are also referenced so you don't have to rely on the blog..

Igotadose

Amantine wrote: »

Ah yes, sciencebasedmedicine! The self appointed expert with a blog and 0 credentials! It has "science" and "medicine" in the name, that's what makes it a reliable source!!

Uh? Did you read their credentials, or are you simply making this up?
The particular article referenced is by an MD: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/mark-a-crislip-md-associate-editor/



It's a reliable source. You, on the other hand, appear to be a WUM.

And, do you believe vaccines cause autism? You've yet to answer that question directly (that is, without a link or text dump.) Thanks.

Amantine

Igotadose wrote: »

Uh? Did you read their credentials, or are you simply making this up?
The particular article referenced is by an MD: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/mark-a-crislip-md-associate-editor/



It's a reliable source. You, on the other hand, appear to be a WUM.

And, do you believe vaccines cause autism? You've yet to answer that question directly (that is, without a link or text dump.) Thanks.

An MD? Says who? Himself? What research has he done? How do we know anything he says is valid? It's a blog for christ sake, ANYONE can write a blog and write whatever they want, do you really believe everything on the internet? How do we know he's not sponsored?

Igotadose

Amantine wrote: »

An MD? Says who? Himself? What research has he done? It's a blog for christ sake, ANYONE can write a blog and write whatever they want, do you really believe everything on the internet?

Umm...so, you actually haven't read anything there have you? As I pointed out, this is a site run by PhD's with specialization in infectious diseases.

So, can you come up with something better than your silly 'it's a blog!' rejoinder?

Again, do you believe vaccines cause autism? Direct question. Answer?

jh79

Amantine wrote: »

Ah yes, sciencebasedmedicine! The self appointed expert with a blog and 0 credentials! It has "science" and "medicine" in the name, that's what makes it a very reliable source!!

If his argument is flawed, counter it.

AtomicHorror

DublinWriter wrote: »

There's a big difference between direct injection into the bloodstream and exposure to airborne or ingested toxins.

Yes there is, but since children scrape their knees, lose teeth, cut themselves etc. very frequently, that point is moot. They're receiving a massive novel antigen load via GI, airways and circulatory system on a daily basis.

DublinWriter wrote: »

The GI tract will happily expel toxins such as mercury.

What does mercury have to do with anything? We were talking about antigen load.

DublinWriter wrote: »

If anyone could point me in the way of studies based on examining the Immunisation Schedule in-toto I'd be grateful.

I'm just concerned that the 'more-and-earlier' approach is failing. Could it be that we're over-taxing developing immune systems with too many antigens at the same time? Even with 'dead' antigens, action is still needed on the part of the immune system to learn to develop antibodies.

What are the expected indicators of immune system being "over-taxed"? What is the evidence linking those indicators to changes in the schedule over time?

AtomicHorror

Amantine wrote: »

An MD? Says who? Himself? What research has he done? How do we know anything he says is valid? It's a blog for christ sake, ANYONE can write a blog and write whatever they want, do you really believe everything on the internet? How do we know he's not sponsored?

Nothing is knowable, folks. :rolleyes:

rawn

DublinWriter wrote: »

There's a big difference between direct injection into the bloodstream and exposure to airborne or ingested toxins. The GI tract will happily expel toxins such as mercury.

If anyone could point me in the way of studies based on examining the Immunisation Schedule in-toto I'd be grateful.

I'm just concerned that the 'more-and-earlier' approach is failing. Could it be that we're over-taxing developing immune systems with too many antigens at the same time? Even with 'dead' antigens, action is still needed on the part of the immune system to learn to develop antibodies.

Vaccines are injected intramuscular, so nothing to worry about then.

fash

Amantine wrote: »

Ah yes, sciencebasedmedicine! The self appointed expert with a blog and 0 credentials! It has "science" and "medicine" in the name, that's what makes it a very reliable source!!

I agree with amantine - this does not prove that taking vaccines can send you back in time to the time of the dinosaurs. This sciencebasedmedicine guy is no better than Amantine - who doesn't even need "science" or "medicine" in his name - or links to reliable sources - nobody has proved to our satisfaction that vaccines don't cause people to travel back in time to the time of the dinosaurs - isn't that right Amantine?

Amantine

fash wrote: »

I agree with amantine - this does not prove that taking vaccines can send you back in time to the time of the dinosaurs. This sciencebasedmedicine guy is no better than Amantine - who doesn't even need "science" or "medicine" in his name - or links to reliable sources - nobody has proved to our satisfaction that vaccines don't cause people to travel back in time to the time of the dinosaurs - isn't that right Amantine?

So let me get this straight! All these scientist who are affiliated with universities and do peer reviewed studies sometimes for many years, that are published in prestigious journals should be discredited because some self appointed expert who does no research, is not peer reviewed and doesn't work with any university says so on his blog? Am I getting this right?

Igotadose

Amantine wrote: »

So let me get this straight! All these scientist who are affiliated with universities and do peer reviewed studies sometimes for many years, that are published in prestigious journals should be discredited because some self appointed expert who does no research, is not peer reviewed and doesn't work with any university says so on his blog? Am I getting this right?

No.

Amantine

Igotadose wrote: »

No.

You make a rational, reasoned argument. #ImConvinced

jh79

Amantine wrote: »

You make a rational, reasoned argument. #ImConvinced

Define what is acceptable experience to you that a researcher must have before they critise another paper?

fash

Amantine wrote: »

So let me get this straight! All these scientist who are affiliated with universities and do peer reviewed studies sometimes for many years, that are published in prestigious journals should be discredited because some self appointed expert who does no research, is not peer reviewed and doesn't work with any university says so on his blog? Am I getting this right?

Wait a minute - you are not suggesting that there is no possibility that vaccines could send people back in time to the time of the dinosaurs? Have I got this straight!?

Amantine

jh79 wrote: »

Define what is acceptable experience to you that a researcher must have before they critise another paper?

Not someone who criticises a paper on their blog, that's what peer review is for!

Definition by wikipedia: Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work. It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility.

I'm not saying that all peer reviewed papers are faultless but it's a minimum standard. Other metrics would be affiliations with universities, not being funded by people with conflicting interests, number of publications, citations, journals used, people trained, prizes won...

Igotadose

Amantine wrote: »

Not someone who criticises a paper on their blog, that's what peer review is for!

Researchers can't criticize papers after it's been published? Fatuous.

Amantine

Igotadose wrote: »

Researchers can't criticize papers after it's been published? Fatuous.

Of course they can! Are these people with blogs researchers?

ancapailldorcha

Amantine wrote: »

Not someone who criticises a paper on their blog, that's what peer review is for!

Definition by wikipedia: Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work. It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility.

I'm not saying that all peer reviewed papers are faultless but it's a minimum standard. Other metrics would be affiliations with universities, not being funded by people with conflicting interests, number of publications, citations, journals used, people trained, prizes won...

Completely wrong. Criticising a paper on a blog isn't trying to serve the same function as rigorous peer review. The latter is a necessity before a paper gets published. All the blog is is someone's opinion on the paper once it has been published. I don't know what you are trying to equate the two.

Amantine

when a paper's method is faulty, it will often be retracted in peer review. If it wasn't, the journal would lose credibility. Here is an example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0162013417300417

Igotadose

Amantine wrote: »

Of course they can! Are these people with blogs researchers?

Sciencebasedmedicine.org is. Is there some point to your questions? You still haven't answered whether vaccines cause autism. Do they?

Amantine

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Completely wrong. Criticising a paper on a blog isn't trying to serve the same function as rigorous peer review. The latter is a necessity before a paper gets published. All the blog is is someone's opinion on the paper once it has been published. I don't know what you are trying to equate the two.

My point exactly, just someone's opinion, it this case, not even a researcher's opinion.
There are lots of people with opinions here is one from a scientist: https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2018/04/12/according-to-skeptical-raptor-125-mcg-1250-mcg/

jh79

Amantine wrote: »

My point exactly, just someone's opinion, it this case, not even a researcher's opinion.
There are lots of people with opinions here is one from a scientist: https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2018/04/12/according-to-skeptical-raptor-125-mcg-1250-mcg/

So you don't think a specialist in Infectious Disease would have the required knowledge to understand papers on vaccines and vaccine load?

Igotadose

Amantine wrote: »

My point exactly, just someone's opinion, it this case, not even a researcher's opinion.
There are lots of people with opinions here is one: https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2018/04/12/according-to-skeptical-raptor-125-mcg-1250-mcg/

That typo was corrected (says 1250 now.)

Amantine

Igotadose wrote: »

Sciencebasedmedicine.org is. Is there some point to your questions? You still haven't answered whether vaccines cause autism. Do they?

Who does research, what kind of research?

Igotadose

Amantine wrote: »

Who does research, what kind of research?

Do your own research and find out.

jh79

Amantine wrote: »

My point exactly, just someone's opinion, it this case, not even a researcher's opinion.
There are lots of people with opinions here is one from a scientist: https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2018/04/12/according-to-skeptical-raptor-125-mcg-1250-mcg/

"A review of his publication record is telling – other than a few papers on statistical modeling, he has no published research in basic biomedical sciences where he was the first or last author"

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/anti-vaccine-pseudoscientist-james-lyons-weiler-aluminum/

So why does this guy get a pass from your lofty standards.

Amantine

jh79 wrote: »

"A review of his publication record is telling – other than a few papers on statistical modeling, he has no published research in basic biomedical sciences where he was the first or last author"

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/anti-vaccine-pseudoscientist-james-lyons-weiler-aluminum/

So why does this guy get a pass from your lofty standards.

He doesn't pass my standards, I merely showed how easy it is to have an opinion on a blog, since that seems to be what gives someone credibility by your standards. He's not critiquing a paper, he's pointing out mistakes in a blog.
Also
- doesn't criticise other well regarded researcher's papers in a childish, condescending tone.
- IS actually a researcher, here are 40 papers and yes "has no published research in basic biomedical sciences where he was the first or last author" is utter BS: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=James+Lyons+Weiler
But of course if the great authority "skeptical raptor" decides he " hasn’t done real scientific research" then it must be so!

Patty Hearst

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Are parents here actually agreeing with the state injecting their own children without their permission

Amantine

Igotadose wrote: »

.

And, do you believe vaccines cause autism? You've yet to answer that question directly (that is, without a link or text dump.) Thanks.

My original reply was that really, you'll find it's a bit more complicated than a yes or no answer... but now that you've explained that science is all about simplifying, I stand corrected! So I'm trying to simplify my answer into a binary one..let me see...is it 0 or 1? No, sorry to be so unscientific, I can't give you a binary answer. #fallaciousall-or-nothingpropaganda

jh79

Amantine wrote: »

He doesn't pass my standards, I merely showed how easy it is to have an opinion on a blog, since that seems to be what gives someone credibility by your standards. He's not critiquing a paper, he's pointing out mistakes in a blog.
Also
- doesn't criticise other well regarded researcher's papers in a childish, condescending tone.
- IS actually a researcher, here are 40 papers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=James+Lyons+Weiler
But of course if the great authority "skeptical raptor" decides he " hasn’t done real scientific research" then it must be so!

He hasn't though done actual clinical trials, meta analysis or animal studies just gives his opinions on others research and what it might mean just like a blog. And in low impact journals

Can you give an example of an anti vax paper in an high impact journal, thats not pay to publish where funding hasn't come from an anti vax organisation?

That's the standard you're setting isn't it?