Anti-vaxxers

ancapailldorcha · 23-04-2019 2:34pm

How many times must this be said?

Aluminium and Aluminium compounds are different things. When Aluminium forms a compound with one or more other elements, the new compounds have different properties to their constituent elements. Copper burns but Copper Oxide does not.

mamablue · 23-04-2019 2:45pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Aluminium and Aluminium-based adjuvants aren't the same thing. You would need properly conducted, ethically and peer-reviewed studies showing that specifically the adjuvants are causing harm.

How about we start by showing that the adjuvants are safe instead?
"Currently, ethylmercury (EtHg) and adjuvant-Al are the dominating interventional exposures encountered by fetuses, newborns, and infants due to immunization with Thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs). Despite their long use as active agents of medicines and fungicides, the safety levels of these substances have never been determined, either for animals or for adult humans—much less for fetuses, newborns, infants, and children."

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/2/1295

ancapailldorcha · 23-04-2019 2:47pm

mamablue wrote: »

How about we start by showing that the adjuvants are safe instead?
"Currently, ethylmercury (EtHg) and adjuvant-Al are the dominating interventional exposures encountered by fetuses, newborns, and infants due to immunization with Thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs). Despite their long use as active agents of medicines and fungicides, the safety levels of these substances have never been determined, either for animals or for adult humans—much less for fetuses, newborns, infants, and children."

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/2/1295

Nope. You are the one saying that they are harmful so go ahead and prove it.

Apples contain formaldehyde by the way. Should we ban apples?

Igotadose · 23-04-2019 2:47pm

mamablue wrote: »

Haha, so when I post studies you don't read them.

Easy to find them debunked, though. Just takes a bit o' googling. Lyons-Weiler is an anti-vax crank, a new one to the mix, but a crank nevertheless

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

But, keep 'em coming. It's pretty easy to show these papers are junk. You can look at skepticalraptor.com yourself if you want to see analysis of these papers before dumping links everywhere. You won't find every one of them - no one can keep up with all the drivel coming out - but you'll find a lot of them and a lot about their authors.

And, do you believe vaccines cause autism? You've ducked the question. None of the papers you've cited establish a causal link, and the few I've looked into are bad science (no controls in the experiments, tiny sample sizes, etc.)

mamablue · 23-04-2019 2:50pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

How many times must this be said?

Aluminium and Aluminium compounds are different things. When Aluminium forms a compound with one or more other elements, the new compounds have different properties to their constituent elements. Copper burns but Copper Oxide does not.

Yes I pointed that out myself. Do you read the thread?

mamablue wrote: »

In nature aluminium is always bound, mostly as aluminosilicates. It's only when it's mined that it enters our environment (and body) as in it's elemental form. Before we started mining it the level of aluminium in the human brain was... 0. It has a high affinity for silicium which is why water that is high in silicium is good at detoxifying it. There was a research paper from France which showed that the higher the silicium level was in the drinking water of a region, the lower the alzheimers rate. Very interesting. I'm going to look for the paper and link it if I can find it.

mamablue · 23-04-2019 2:58pm

Igotadose wrote: »

Easy to find them debunked, though. Just takes a bit o' googling.
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/anti-vaccine-pseudoscientist-james-lyons-weiler-aluminum/#A_paper_by_James_Lyons-Weiler

skepticalraptor.com? Another random dude with a blog? Paid for by someone with vested interests? Come on! GIVE ME SOME SCIENCE NOW, something YOU came up with, not some propanganda linkfrom the web that you are naive enough to swallow. "Debunked" is not proper medical science nothing is ever fully "debunked". No medical science is ever that black and white. There is always new information coming through. We are always learning and any recomendation can only ever be made with the information we have at the time.

ancapailldorcha · 23-04-2019 3:03pm

mamablue wrote: »

Another random dude with a blog? Paid for by someone with vested interests?

Proof of this please.

Dohnjoe · 23-04-2019 3:12pm

mamablue wrote: »

GIVE ME SOME SCIENCE NOW

E = MC^2!

There is no link between vaccines and autism!
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

mamablue · 23-04-2019 3:19pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nope. You are the one saying that they are harmful so go ahead and prove it.

Apples contain formaldehyde by the way. Should we ban apples?

Wow such flawed logic, the pseudo science on this thread! I'm going to laugh, it's better than crying.

Are we injecting apples into our kids?

ancapailldorcha · 23-04-2019 3:20pm

mamablue wrote: »

Are we injecting apples?

Where did I mention injecting them?

mamablue · 23-04-2019 3:25pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

E = MC^2!

There is no link between vaccines and autism!
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

The link mentions nine CDC-funded or conducted studies.
How extraordinary!

banie01 · 23-04-2019 3:28pm

mamablue wrote: »

The link mentions nine CDC-funded or conducted studies.
How extraordinary!

And the issue with CDC funding or oversight is?

mamablue · 23-04-2019 3:42pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Proof of this please.

NO! You prove that he is someone who opinion is relevant!

ancapailldorcha · 23-04-2019 3:45pm

mamablue wrote: »

NO! You prove that he is someone who opinion is relevant!

You have no evidence then so your claim is baseless. Ok.

mamablue · 23-04-2019 3:52pm

banie01 wrote: »

And the issue with CDC funding or oversight is?

Bias!!

"After revelations that the CDC is receiving some funding from industry, Jeanne Lenzer investigates how it might have affected the organisation’s decisions"
https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362

mamablue · 23-04-2019 3:53pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You have no evidence then so your claim is baseless. Ok.

You have no evidence that skepticalraptor.com is relevant. OK.

ancapailldorcha · 23-04-2019 3:54pm

mamablue wrote: »

Bias!!

"After revelations that the CDC is receiving some funding from industry, Jeanne Lenzer investigates how it might have affected the organisation’s decisions"
https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362

Another dump or did you actually read this?

mamablue · 23-04-2019 3:56pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You have no evidence then so your claim is baseless. Ok.

You must be jocking right! How many studies have I linked? Where is your evidence!

mamablue · 23-04-2019 3:58pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Another dump or did you actually read this?

So when I post evidence it's a dump and when I don't it's not relevant? You crack me up!

ancapailldorcha · 23-04-2019 3:59pm

mamablue wrote: »

So when I post evidence it's a dump and when I don't it's not relevant? You crack me up!

It's a dump when you just paste it there with no argument of your own. This is a discussion forum not a link repository.

TheRepentent · 23-04-2019 4:06pm

mamablue wrote: »

So when I post evidencesh1te it's a dump and when I don't it's not relevant? You crack me up!

fyp

mamablue · 23-04-2019 4:06pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a dump when you just paste it there with no argument of your own. This is a discussion forum not a link repository.

Anyone who has been following this thread can see that that is exactly what you do! You criticise other people posts without ever substantiating anything yourself.

manufan16 · 23-04-2019 4:08pm

I found this link recently while researching the topic and found it very informative.

http://docbastard.net/

ancapailldorcha · 23-04-2019 4:08pm

mamablue wrote: »

Anyone who has been following this thread can see that that is exactly what you do! You criticise other people posts without ever substantiating anything yourself.

You're the one making the claims about the harmfulness of vaccines without providing evidence. You've pasted links to studies by dubious authors with funding from unethical sources that aren't really relevant. Calling out this sort of thing is important.

Now, if you have a link to a scientific study proving the harmful effects of vaccines on human beings then go ahead and provide it. Otherwise you can expect more of the above.

mamablue · 23-04-2019 4:13pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're the one making the claims about the harmfulness of vaccines without providing evidence. You've pasted links to studies by dubious authors with funding from unethical sources that aren't really relevant. Calling out this sort of thing is important.

Now, if you have a link to a scientific study proving the harmful effects of vaccines on human beings then go ahead and provide it. Otherwise you can expect more of the above.

I can expect more of nothing? No arguments other than "that's been debunked"?
No studies? Oh noooooo! This was such an intelectually challenging conversation. You lot brought so much to the table!

mamablue · 23-04-2019 4:17pm

manufan16 wrote: »

I found this link recently while researching the topic and found it very informative.

http://docbastard.net/

Oh another dude with a blog! How inventive!

mamablue · 23-04-2019 4:22pm

Guys I'm done wasting my time with a bunch of gamer kids who don't have an opinion of their own (only some other dude's with a blog) and can't seem to post anything relevant like a study. I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I wish I could say it has been illuminating.

Igotadose · 23-04-2019 4:41pm

mamablue wrote: »

Guys I'm done wasting my time with a bunch of gamer kids who don't have an opinion of their own (only some other dude's with a blog) and can't seem to post anything relevant like a study. I'm unsubscribing from this thread. I wish I could say it has been illuminating.

O.K. here's an opinion: You're an anti-vaxx crank regurgitating nonsense you get on mammy blogs run by the U of Google types like yourself. Your beknighted offspring has some kind of genetic defect that impacts on it's ability to be vaccinated, so you're striving desperately to find reasons not to vaccinate. You've found the usual anti-vax suspects out there (Exley et al) and without anything vaguely resembling critical thinking, dump links to their papers and then object when their refutations are provided to you.

And, you've yet to answer the question: Do you believe vaccines cause autism?

But, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Off to "Age of Autism" with you.

banie01 · 23-04-2019 4:47pm

mamablue wrote: »

Bias!!

"After revelations that the CDC is receiving some funding from industry, Jeanne Lenzer investigates how it might have affected the organisation’s decisions"
https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2362

So as the CDC receives some funding from industry it's findings are somehow tainted?
Despite their being subject to the rigours of Scientific method and actual peer review?

But...

Studies sponsored by avowed Anti-Vax funders and orgs, are all correct?
Despite their scientific methods being faulty, their assertions flawed and being legitimately critiqued as such?

How does one decide which source of funding induces bias?
Is it only applicable to "Big Pharma" money?
Whereas the little guy obviously has no bias at all?

mzungu · 23-04-2019 5:55pm

bt25 wrote: »

yes, the truthwiki wasn't a great one to link to and the connections to companies that could prove to be a conflict of interest isn't great as it makes it a more "political" situation as it then starts to be about the person instead of the work though I think the list of credentials was a reasonable post considering the context they were presented. If they were to imply that he was to be trusted as a result I would agree with your assessment but it doesn't seem to be as I'm reading it. I would also point out that the potential of a conflict of interest doesn't actually mean there is one obviously and it wouldn't be unusual for someone who sees something beneficial in their research to invest or even create a company based on it, kind of logical if you think about it so we can't assume one way or the other but I digress.

The context was a link dump! It certainly appears that they were used as a means to bolster what Exley said, especially since his reputation has taken a hit of late. Ergo, the poster made an argument from authority. However, I realise this is a case of your interpretation vs mine and that won't really go anywhere, other than drag the thread off topic. So, I'll leave it there.

bt25 wrote: »

The consensus is important to help narrow a focus but again, shouldn't be taken as the sole a basis for an opinion. It makes it statistically more likely to be correct but I think we all can think of examples where consensus, even in the scientific community can still not make it "true". To make it the sole basis for an opinion is then an appeal to authority and an appeal to numbers. I'm not saying the opinion is right or wrong, just pointing out the use of the terms are incorrect and muddys the waters and a few more elements for the reasoned position you've taken will go a long way to help readers like me to see your argument more clearly and be more informed. Otherwise it all is just saying stuff and what is the aim of that in the end other than it's own?

I don't doubt consensus changes. Currently, it is as good as guide as any in making a decision. I also never said I made it a sole basis, but it makes for a pretty handy roadmap. I offered up a few examples of where Exley's methodology wasn't quite cutting the mustard. That wasn't an argument from authority on my part, just a rundown on what parts of his paper have raised questions. If the poster wished to challenge the consensus (always a good thing IMO, I am more than aware that it's not infallible) then at least the paper should pass the first few hurdles, and of course avoid backing it up with a link to TruthWiki.

But anyway, now I've dragged this off-topic

Over and out.

Anti-vaxxers

Comments