Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Anti-vaxxers

Options
1…101102104106107…199

Comments

  • Options
    #3092
    bt25
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭bt25


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Pasting a huge list of papers with no indication that you've read them constitutes dumping IMO. The appeal to this lad's credentials is a weird touch as well.

    I'm a scientist working in cancer research. I read papers regularly.

    To be fair to the poster, they were indicating that the author of the paper has a record of work that would indicate that they aren't to be dismissed automatically and require more than "sarcasm" as a reason to do so, not that the papers themselves were the reason to take the new research as true. This is reasonable because if it was the first or they all started with "God made it happen obviously" then you would consider the text of this paper a little differently :) (though I would stress, even if they did it wouldn't obviously discount this paper at all but that isn't obviously what we are talking about but I'm aware that those with an already formed opinion or worse still, no opinion of their own will assume I suggesting the same time I'm pointing out as a breakdown in rational and logical thinking)

    It's great that you are doing work in cancer research, well done you. It's important that your interest is being put into something that has a larger social purpose :)


  • Options
    #3093
    mamablue
    Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭mamablue


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    Pasting a huge list of papers with no indication that you've read them constitutes dumping IMO. The appeal to this lad's credentials is a weird touch as well.

    Nonsense, I'm pasting papers showing that Dr. Exley isn't just some lad with a blog. I'm posting it to show that he didn't just wake up one day with an opinion. He has actually put his funding at risk by stating what has become taboo.

    But let's not just chit chat here, let's link some papers, like this one co-authored by Jonathan J. Darrow, from Harvard Medical School: Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2282014

    Who would have thought that Pharmaceutical compagnies are corrupted? Surely they only want the best for everyone!


  • Options
    #3094
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,815 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    mamablue wrote: »
    My experience has been, that the "scientific community" will stands behind what has the most funding, as these many individual scientist need their work funded too. And it just so happens to big pharma has plenty of funds and anyone who endangers their profits has their funding cut off.

    In your experience? ell if you mean reading sites like truthwiki then I'm not surprised to hear the phrase "big pharma"

    Just for clarity here, do you believe that vaccines cause autism?


  • Options
    #3095
    bt25
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭bt25


    I also want to make one glaringly obvious fallacy that is often missed in arguments like this. Argumentum ad Populum, just because something is a common or popular view doesn't make it true. If it was, we wouldn't have gotten very far scientifically, would we? It's a blight on modern scientific efforts to dismiss ideas that are different for any reason other than solid research done by multiple unbiased (near impossible I know but that is what the method is there for) research. But this seems to be the norm these days which is a bit of a disappointment. Instead, all I see is a lot of emotions being thrown like it's in some way more valid than "because god did it" as an answer to why my alarm didn't go off this morning... let's try to leave our preconceived ideas at the door and actually discuss. You don't have to agree, just give a good reason for YOUR disagreement and maybe it will go somewhere more than just upping the traffic on this site's ad revenue counter.


  • Options
    #3096
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,958 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    mamablue wrote: »
    Nonsense, I'm pasting papers showing that Dr. Exley isn't just some lad with a blog. I'm posting it to show that he didn't just wake up one day with an opinion. He has actually put his funding at risk by stating what has become taboo.

    But let's not just chit chat here, let's link some papers, like this one co-authored by Jonathan J. Darrow, from Harvard Medical School: Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and Effective Drugs

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2282014

    Who would have thought that Pharmaceutical compagnies are corrupted? Surely they only want the best for everyone!

    You're just pushing that appeal to authority to be honest. Is there a point about anti-vaxxers or vaccines here?

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3097
    bt25
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭bt25


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    You're just pushing that appeal to authority to be honest

    dear lord.. I'm clearly talking to air here


  • Options
    #3098
    bt25
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭bt25


    this thread is going nowhere if only one side of the discussion is giving sources and basis for their arguments...


  • Options
    #3099
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    bt25 wrote: »
    dear lord.. I'm clearly talking to air here

    Yes, apparently you are.


  • Options
    #3100
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,815 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    bt25 wrote: »
    this thread is going nowhere if only one side of the discussion is giving sources and basis for their arguments...

    Would strongly suggest you read the thread before casting assertions


  • Options
    #3101
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,958 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    bt25 wrote: »
    this thread is going nowhere if only one side of the discussion is giving sources and basis for their arguments...

    You've provided no argument nor sources to back it up. You've just been pasting that chap's bibliography and said some research needed following up with no further elaboration.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3102
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,815 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    You've provided no argument nor sources to back it up. You've just been pasting that chap's bibliography and said some research needed following up with no further elaboration.

    Think that was another user who pasted the bibliography..


  • Options
    #3103
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,606 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Are bt25 and mamablue the same poster?
    Seems to be quite sock puppety imo?


  • Options
    #3104
    mamablue
    Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭mamablue


    Dohnjoe wrote: »

    Just for clarity here, do you believe that vaccines cause autism?

    I believe that autism would exist if there were no vaccines, that not all vaccines are the same and that it dependends on a multitude of factors including adjuvants, pathogens and genetics (like MTHFR mutation for example) of the individual being injected. Ultimately, in all medicine it is always about risk vs benefit. The truth is that we have no idea what the long term effects are of the cocktail of chemicals that we are exposed to on a daily basis. We have no idea of how it affects something as complicated as our immune systems, our epigenetics or the epigenetics of future generation. I believe that vaccines can be life saving but that it's always about risk vs benefit and that there is always a risk. I also know, that certain adjuvants are known toxins and that other adjuvants we have very little science on. Anyone here over the age 25 was not injected with the amount/type of chemicals that we are now injecting our kids with. It's all just one big experiment and only the future will tell what the results are. Anyone who believes that there is science showing that all vaccines are safe is mistaking. The science we have is the tip of the iceberg. Everyday new interesting papers are coming out sometimes turning certain theories on their head. Antibiotics are linked with obesity, they can be life saving but people take them for the wrong reasons, feed them to lifestock and only now are we realising the long term effects both on our health (like our microbiome and on antibiotic resistance). Again it's about risk vs. benefit. You should take an antibiotic if you have pneumonia, but probably not if you have cold. I got vaccinated against yellow fever before going to Africa but my vaccine didn't have any questionable adjuvants. Would I inject mercury, aluminium, MSG, Formaldehyde, Squalene, polysorbate 80 etc into my child? Not in a million years. Would my child be fine if I did? Probably. Then again, he is part of the 9% of the population who has two MTHFR mutation so maybe not. But I'd have to be very, very naive to think it's without any risk.


  • Options
    #3105
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,203 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Nice paper here debunking the 'Aluminum Hypothesis.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4131942/
    Apparently, "Aluminum as the cause of all evils" started around 1913 due to someone getting gastritis and then replacing his aluminum flatware wtih non-aluminum flatware, and feeling better. The fellow in question began speaking about it, and the Seventh Day Adventists took it up, perhaps they're anti-aluminum too.

    The scientific point of the article is aluminum-induced cognitive disorders only superficially resemble Alzheimers, once you delve deeper, aluminum doesn't cause Alzheimer's.


  • Options
    #3106
    bt25
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭bt25


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Think that was another user who pasted the bibliography..

    yes, different names so I can see why the mistake was made :) we're almost twins!


  • Options
    #3107
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,203 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    mamablue wrote: »
    I believe that autism would exist if there were no vaccines, that not all vaccines are the same and that it dependends on a multitude of factors including adjuvants, pathogens and genetics (like MTHFR mutation for example) of the individual being injected.

    What is 'it' in that sentence? Autism certainly existed before there were vaccines, no argument there. Not all vaccines are the same, true. It's the next sentence that's confusing - are you saying autism arises from vaccination?


  • Options
    #3108
    rawn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭rawn


    mamablue wrote: »
    I believe that autism would exist if there were no vaccines, that not all vaccines are the same and that it dependends on a multitude of factors including adjuvants, pathogens and genetics (like MTHFR mutation for example) of the individual being injected. Ultimately, in all medicine it is always about risk vs benefit. The truth is that we have no idea what the long term effects are of the cocktail of chemicals that we are exposed to on a daily basis. We have no idea of how it affects something as complicated as our immune systems, our epigenetics or the epigenetics of future generation. I believe that vaccines can be life saving but that it's always about risk vs benefit and that there is always a risk. I also know, that certain adjuvants are known toxins and that other adjuvants we have very little science on. Anyone here over the age 25 was not injected with the amount/type of chemicals that we are now injecting our kids with. It's all just one big experiment and only the future will tell what the results are. Anyone who believes that there is science showing that all vaccines are safe is mistaking. The science we have is the tip of the iceberg. Everyday new interesting papers are coming out sometimes turning certain theories on their head. Antibiotics are linked with obesity, they can be life saving but people take them for the wrong reasons, feed them to lifestock and only now are we realising the long term effects both on our health (like our microbiome and on antibiotic resistance). Again it's about risk vs. benefit. You should take an antibiotic if you have pneumonia, but probably not if you have cold. I got vaccinated against yellow fever before going to Africa but my vaccine didn't have any questionable adjuvants. Would I inject mercury, aluminium, MSG, Formaldehyde, Squalene, polysorbate 80 etc into my child? Not in a million years. Would my child be fine if I did? Probably. Then again, he is part of the 9% of the population who has two MTHFR mutation so maybe not. But I'd have to be very, very naive to think it's without any risk.

    Sources for these, please?


  • Options
    #3109
    bt25
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭bt25


    banie01 wrote: »
    Are bt25 and mamablue the same poster?
    Seems to be quite sock puppety imo?

    Interesting, why would you even question if we were? So far I have said nothing about the subject they are posting about as honestly it's not my area and I'm here to actually learn rather than validate my view. I'm always open to being wrong after all. In fact, all I have said so far is that a different poster is incorrectly classifying the points made in a hypocritical way which IS an area I'm sensitive to :)

    Interesting though that you jumped to that conclusion though. I wonder where that way of viewing it might indicate generally.


  • Options
    #3110
    mamablue
    Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭mamablue


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Nice paper here debunking the 'Aluminum Hypothesis.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4131942/
    Apparently, "Aluminum as the cause of all evils" started around 1913 due to someone getting gastritis and then replacing his aluminum flatware wtih non-aluminum flatware, and feeling better. The fellow in question began speaking about it, and the Seventh Day Adventists took it up, perhaps they're anti-aluminum too.

    The scientific point of the article is aluminum-induced cognitive disorders only superficially resemble Alzheimers, once you delve deeper, aluminum doesn't cause Alzheimer's.

    This paper mostly refferences very old papers. Let's get something a bit more recent:

    we are discovering now is that a lot of modern diseases like CFS, CHD, type 2 diabetes,alzheimers are linked with inflammation:

    "the most recent evidence suggests a strong linkage between aluminum sulfates and induction of NF-kB-sensitive pro-inflammatory miRNAs (Lukiw et al., 1987; Alexandrov et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2013). Aluminum has been previously shown to significantly induce the transcription factor NF-kB (Pogue et al., 2009; Bondy, 2013), and up-regulation of NF-kB drives synthesis of NF-kB-sensitive miRNAs which in turn down regulate the expression of many AD-relevant genes, including complement factor H (CFH) and neurotropic signaling in human brain cells (Pogue et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2013)."
    Fom this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3986683/


  • Options
    #3111
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,606 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    bt25 wrote: »
    Interesting, why would you even question if we were? So far I have said nothing about the subject they are posting about as honestly it's not my area and I'm here to actually learn rather than validate my view. I'm always open to being wrong after all. In fact, all I have said so far is that a different poster is incorrectly classifying the points made in a hypocritical way which IS an area I'm sensitive to :)

    Interesting though that you jumped to that conclusion though. I wonder where that way of viewing it might indicate generally.

    I didn't jump to a conclusion, I asked a question.
    Thanks for the rebuttal tho.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3112
    mamablue
    Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭mamablue


    Aluminium neurotoxicity: neurobehavioural and oxidative aspects:

    "Being involved in the production of reactive oxygen species, aluminium may cause impairments in mitochondrial bioenergetics and may lead to the generation of oxidative stress which may lead to a gradual accumulation of oxidatively modified cellular proteins. In this review, the neuropathologies associated with aluminium exposure in terms of neurobehavioural changes have been discussed. In addition, the impact of aluminium on the mitochondrial functions has also been highlighted."
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-009-0455-6


  • Options
    #3113
    mzungu
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭mzungu


    bt25 wrote: »
    I'm not sure which is more frustrating, the incorrect definition of "argument from authority" or the fact that you actually give a good example of it in your next sentence...

    The statement was that he shouldn't be discounted off hand due to his experience and expertise, not believed without question because of it. This is actually a normal approach to any paper or response to paper or else what is the point of having put years into understanding something if those reading your work are going to just off hand discard it like it was a blog post? However, then saying that the "scientific community" doesn't agree as an actual argument without your own arguments of a specific text is actually (though obviously not the worst in history, I'm looking at you pope!) argument from authority.

    "An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion." - wikihastoomuchtimeonitshandspedia

    1. A scientist has experience (authority) so we shouldn't just discount what he is saying off hand (his conlusion ... no)
    2. The scientific community does not agree (authority) so his research is to be discounted (their conclusion ... yep)

    I'm not saying you're right or not in what you're saying, just that you're not using reasonable or logical arguments to validate it...

    can't stand incorrect use of logic

    When was he discounted off hand? He released his paper, it didn't have the impact he thought it would. The poster made a massive link dump and then a list of his credentials, these were hardly put in there for no reason. The reason was an argument from authority (a tactic often used by previous posters in this thread). This was followed by a bizarre link from TruthWiki (a conspiracy site). It is difficult to take that kind of thing seriously.

    I never engaged in an argument from authority. Scientific consensus does not back up Exley's opinion. That is scientific consensus, not an argument from authority. I wasn't implying that they had to believe it because of that. The poster is free to dismiss it. But if claims of links to vaccines and autism are to be taken seriously, then they need some solid evidence behind it. The author of this study failed to notify of potential conflict of interests and has in the past accepted funding from anti-vaxx groups. People should be wary of Exley's findings because the evidence thus far does not back it up, and that he has receiving funding from sources that gain from such findings. That's not an argument from authority. That's a call to take a look at the background and come to your own conclusion.



    bt25 wrote: »
    this thread is going nowhere if only one side of the discussion is giving sources and basis for their arguments...
    You couldn't be more wrong. A quick glance at the thread will show otherwise...


  • Options
    #3114
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,317 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    How is any of this related to vaccines?


  • Options
    #3115
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,958 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    mamablue wrote: »
    This paper mostly refferences very old papers. Let's get something a bit more recent:

    we are discovering now is that a lot of modern diseases like CFS, CHD, type 2 diabetes,alzheimers are linked with inflammation:

    "the most recent evidence suggests a strong linkage between aluminum sulfates and induction of NF-kB-sensitive pro-inflammatory miRNAs (Lukiw et al., 1987; Alexandrov et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2013). Aluminum has been previously shown to significantly induce the transcription factor NF-kB (Pogue et al., 2009; Bondy, 2013), and up-regulation of NF-kB drives synthesis of NF-kB-sensitive miRNAs which in turn down regulate the expression of many AD-relevant genes, including complement factor H (CFH) and neurotropic signaling in human brain cells (Pogue et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2013)."
    Fom this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3986683/

    That's a long way off causation. It's also a fairly old paper. I would expect something more definite has emerged if there was anything to this.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #3116
    bt25
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭bt25


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Would strongly suggest you read the thread before casting assertions

    Much like all good useful debate and discussion, I'm not talking about what happened in the past, I'm talking about where the thread is now and where it is going. If it is degrading to the point that arguments and points are reduced to sideways insults and opinion then my statement stands.


  • Options
    #3117
    bt25
    Registered Users Posts: 47 ✭bt25


    banie01 wrote: »
    I didn't jump to a conclusion, I asked a question.
    Thanks for the rebuttal tho.

    I figured :) poking fun


  • Options
    #3118
    mamablue
    Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭mamablue


    Effects of oral aluminum exposure on behavior and neurogenesis in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease

    "Aluminum exposure impaired learning and memory in wild mice and increased the total number of proliferating cells in the dentate gyrus of hippocampus. The low Al doses here experimented suggest that this element might impair cognition in the general population at doses comparable to current levels of human exposure."

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001448860800349X


  • Options
    #3119
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,958 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    mamablue wrote: »
    Effects of oral aluminum exposure on behavior and neurogenesis in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease

    "Aluminum exposure impaired learning and memory in wild mice and increased the total number of proliferating cells in the dentate gyrus of hippocampus. The low Al doses here experimented suggest that this element might impair cognition in the general population at doses comparable to current levels of human exposure."

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001448860800349X

    Have you anything more recent perhaps or are you just going to dump text? That paper is from 2008. How about definite proof on human beings?

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #3120
    mamablue
    Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭mamablue


    ancapailldorcha wrote: »
    That's a long way off causation. It's also a fairly old paper. I would expect something more definite has emerged if there was anything to this.
    The paper is from 2014, that's not an old paper.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3121
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,958 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    mamablue wrote: »
    The paper is from 2014, that's not an old paper.

    5 years ago. Not exactly a spring chicken in scientific terms. That's a long, long way off causation.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement