BBO Discussion Forums: I Didn’t Vaccinate My Kids and the One Who Lived Turned out Fine - BBO Discussion Forums

onoway, on 2017-January-20, 14:34, said:

I didn't bother to look at the "research" because I recognized the website, I know who Sayer Ji is, and I know enough not to waste my time looking at anything that he is selling...

The fact that you would cite his lunacy as "research" tells me all that I need to know...

onoway, on 2017-January-20, 16:08, said:

Anybody can write an internet article with references to The Lancet, Nature, Science, or the Bible, for that matter. It doesn't say anything about the value of the internet article.

Rik

onoway, on 2017-January-20, 16:08, said:

I read as far as the first major claim, that polio cases has sharply increased after the introduction of vaccination, and had a quick look for some statistics. The wiki page is quite clear in its statistics and these are backed up by the other sites that I found:-

Quote

Would you care to explain the difference? If the article is simply stating untruths as its basis, it is pointless to go further into it.

In many countries, children are admitted to school without proof of vaccinations. This is a very poor policy, and mandating vaccinations would virtually eliminate free riders.

The policies probably depend on how high the risks are. I saw in a previous post here that in Canada there's no mandatory vaccine at birth. In Romania there are two: HepB in the first 24 hours and BCG (tuberculosis) at 2 to 7 days. These are administered in the hospital and although they are called mandatory, the parents have to sign and consent to the vaccines. They do have the option to refuse vaccine.

Next vaccines are done via the family doctor and/or in school. Each time parents are asked to sign and agree. That's why despite the mandatory vaccine list parents still have the possibility to say no, and some do.


However you can't get your kid in any kindergarten or school without the vaccination proof. Actually, it seems you can get the kids in school without vaccine proof at the moment. I was asked to bring proof every time and assumed it was mandatory. Apparently it's not (it's highly recommended, but there's no law saying the school should refuse your kid if not vaccinated). You need to bring the medical record of your child, and a paper from the family doctor stating that the child is apt for community integration.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2017-January-22, 07:06

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-22, 05:50, said:

This brings to mind a contrast. As a youngster in the early 1950s I have a vivid memory of the fear of polio. I went swimming in a public pool (at Highland Park) but people seriously worried about the danger of polio. When the Salk vaccine came out the only question was "How soon ca we get it?" By contrast, this was also the time when fluoridation of the public water supply was attacked by some as a Communist plot, and this claim had its believers, although I don't think I knew any of them. The difference is this: Fluoridation was advertised as helping prevent tooth decay, the Salk vaccine was advertised as preventing polio. If you get a cavity you can go to the dentist and get it filled, if you get polio the consequences are huge.

Things are rarely simple. I seem to recall some issues with the Salk vaccine that had to be addressed. But I took it, and so did everyone else.

This contrast between how people thought about the Salk vaccine, very positive, and how they thought about fluoridation, some skepticism, might be a clue to why some react as they do to vaccinations. As a kid, I had measles. So did every other kid I knew. We understood that measles has its dangers and we stayed quiet at home until it passed. No kid that I knew had any long term after affects. Now think about autism. As a kid, I didn't know anyone who had autism, or so it seemed. Measles is easier to diagnose than autism, so we have to take this lack of observed autism with a grain of salt. But today autism is a big issue. And it is a lifelong condition. So just think about it for a moment and I think you can see someone pondering: "Hmm. Without the vaccine, my kid may get measles. With a little care, this passes in two weeks and that's it. With the vaccine, he might get autism and this could be a lifelong problem. I think I will pass on the vaccine."

I don't agree with that thinking, but it does not take much imagination to see how someone could go down that road. Quite possibly, although I really have not studied it, the case for vaccine is strong enough to justify overruling parental judgment and requiring it for all children attending public schools. Or for all kids period. I am then ok with doing this. I do think that every effort should be made to explain to parents why society at large believes that the evidence is sufficient to justify this. So do it, but take the concerns seriously would be my view. If you come in and tell a parent :I know best, you must do as I say" then you are responsible for the result.

http://rationalwiki....Medical_Veritas

Quote

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-22, 05:50, said:

The article claims that at the same time as the vaccine came out, the medical community also changed the definitions of polio and related diseases. As a result, many people who previously would have been diagnosed as having polio were diagnosed with aseptic meningitis or coxsackie virus instead. So the statistics for polio went down, but the actual number of people suffering didn't.

This is somewhat similar to the increase in autism in the past few decades. Some say that the incidence hasn't really increased much, it's just that doctors have gotten better at recognizing it (many autistic children would previously have been considered mentally retarded), and also related conditions like Asperger's have been lumped together under the "austism spectrum".

I have no idea how true their claim about polio is. But when comparing statistics across time, we have to make sure we're comparing the same things.

barmar, on 2017-January-22, 23:18, said:

But this is not what the paper says. It provides a graphic stating that the numbers of polio cases goes up strongly after vaccination is introduced. I am not inclined to believe a non-peer-reviewed paper that starts off with a huge lie, even if it tries to back away from it later on by claiming that it did not really mean what it stated.

I also did a quick check into aseptic meningitis and there was great interest in the US during the late 50s and early 60s in isolating the echovirus 30, so cases were being reported. The evidence suggests that this was not a major player during that time and unlikely to be the cause of large numbers of earlier polio cases. That echovirus 30 reached epidemic status from 1968 is true though with nearly 3000 cases being reported. Over a third of these were in California, where it was indeed shown that some cases of aseptic meningitis were being misdiagnosed. Most likely some cases were therefore also diagnosed as polio prior to vaccination but it seems a major leap to take from that that vaccination was ineffective given the statistics that we have.

I believe there are places where you "have to show proof of vaccination" where you can also show "proof that vaccination will be harmful to this child" (immunodeficient, transplant, allergic to compound, et al). However, I don't think there are many where "proof of vaccination" is actually required (unless harmful) due to legal challenges and celebrity spokesscarers.

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-23, 04:03, said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think they're trying to make a distinction between the statistics reported by the medical establishment (which were based on the revised definitions, and showed polio decreasing) and the statistics the authors determined (which are comparing apples with apples, so showed an increase).

But I'm also skeptical. The claims they make about the dangers from the vaccine are in thalidomide levels, so it's hard to imagine the FDA not taking notice.

Found this article today and this is something that the courts have acknowleged. So the choice to ignore someone that is citing research from published peer reviewed studies can be bypassed if you so choose, but the evidence is mounting. http://www.naturalbl...nst-doctor.html

As well , nobody seems to have addressed the question: why should parents accept having less accountability from a manufacturer putting out a coffeemaker than for injections of toxic substances into their child's body?

onoway, on 2017-January-28, 09:17, said:

Onoway, you are clearly too stupid to be offering opinions on scientific matters. (Hell, I question your ability to read a simple newspaper article)

The German case that you are citing hinges on standards of proof and what constitutes an enforceable claim. It is not making a statement about the validity of the germ theory.

Here's the relevant quote: Im Verfahren in Stuttgart kam es zu einer Wende im Prozess: Der „Impfgegner muss nicht zahlen.“[7] Der Grund dieser Entscheidung vom 16. Februar 2016 liegt im besonderen Wesen einer Auslobung: Der Auslober (Herr Lanka) habe sich eine einzige Arbeit mit dem Beweis gewünscht, der Kläger habe hingegen mehrere Publikationen geliefert, die nur in der Summe den Nachweis erbringen können. Daher wurde der Berufung im Wesentlichen stattgegeben.

(Also, the BHG is not the German Supreme court. It does not rule on constitutionality.)

deleting a dup

onoway, on 2017-January-28, 09:17, said:

Here you go...

https://en.wikipedia...i/Vaccine_court

Along the same line as claims stopping production, rampant market-based capitalism has caused medical research to move away from antibiotic formulations into chronic treatment drugs due to the low profitability of the former and the high profitability of the latter. A lack of new antibiotics has left the world susceptible to new resistant strains of bacteria.

Somewhere, there needs to be found a middle ground between corporate profit interests and public good, and I tend to lean more heavily toward protecting public good than protecting the rights of corporations to meet the shareholder demands for quarterly profit increases.

This explains the bacterial resistance problem.

onoway, on 2017-January-28, 09:17, said:

What do you mean by this? Drugs have to be approved by the FDA, and the process is extremely difficult. There's no comparable requirement for coffeemakers.

I see a lot of hearty chortles here about the idiocy of being cautious about vaccinations.

Gee, I guess everyone here "knows" that the "fools" who don't believe those (in "AUTHORITY") who claim that "it cannot be proved" that vaccinations can be harmful to the brain development of children in the age range when vaccinations are normally administered - are clearly mentally deficient. Must be they don't play bridge.

After all, the companies who might be liable if it were determined that thimerosal or other Mercury containing preservatives were found to affect infant brain development in a way that might engender things like autism; would certainly not attempt to manipulate public perception of such hazards.

The semi-official text used is often roughly:
Today, except for some flu vaccines in multi-dose vials, no recommended childhood vaccines contain thimerosal as a preservative.
(Nice to know that this is true (?) "today", but perhaps one can understand a parent who's scientific data is not current being somewhat concerned.)

In all other recommended childhood vaccines, no thimerosal is present, OR ( ) the amount of thimerosal is close to zero.
(How close to zero is close to zero? Scientifically speaking of course...)

No reputable scientific studies have found an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism.
(Kind of, sort of, makes you wonder what the disreputable studies say. And who conducts the DISreputable studies anyway?)


So, in short: Before you start castigating everyone who thinks they should be concerned about something that You Know they should not worry about, perhaps you should ask them what their concerns might be? Maybe rather than mirth, you might get the disquieting feeling that there is a reason for you avoid the presumption that those who think differently about a given topic, are not the morons that you would have them be.

strings11, on 2017-February-03, 06:38, said:

I don't particularly care what their concerns might be.
I care about the quality of their analysis.

(and "Oh, actors have motives" does not constitute analysis)

strings11, on 2017-February-03, 06:38, said:

Do you think it is correct to give equal weight to the peer-reviewed material from scientists that have carefully gathered evidence and analysed it exhaustively to show that the risks are minimal and the benefits substantial against the opinions of random friends/strangers with the opinion that the risks are of an unacceptable level?