|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
We've never left square one, PD, because you haven't given very many straight answers to very straight questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
The thing is, the manufacturers and retailers of Black Cohosh will be able to legally go right on selling it as a remedy for those symptoms if they just put the little disclaimer on the box.
They shouldn't be allowed to, and that's what the lobbying effort was all about stopping the FDA from being able to do back in the 90's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: See, that's already a red flag right there. Did she publish a popular press book only, or did she also submit her analysis of her extensive literature search and the conclusions drawn from it to experts in the field of vaccination? My guess is "A". You do know that she is a retired geologist with no training in Biology, virology, or immunology (other than a single year of medical school), right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: (It certainly helped line the pockets of whomever does your dental work) I was depressed previous to getting three amalgam fillings. I have never had them removed, and after working through a couple of years of mild to moderate depression, I became what I would describe as a very happy, content person. I conclude, then, that my depression was completely unrelated to my fillings and had far more to do with the history of childhood abuse I was dealing with. Is there any crank medical thing you won't believe, LindaLou? Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I've copied this reply to PD's message below. I've also edited it a bit.
quote: Yes, possibly. Of course, if you think it is better for nearly all, or all children in one or more generations to die so that evolution could make the species less suceptible to a disease, then we should stop vaccinations. We could also just have a very high infant mortality rate every year. There could also be a local or even worldwide extinction of humans due to disease as well. This will be more likely if vaccines are abandoned. We could also stop giving people antibiotics to combat infection and only let the people with the strongest immune systems survive. Similarly, we could stop giving any medical assistance to pregnant women and let more of them and their infants die from pre- and post-childbirth complications. This would allow only the people for whom pregnancy and birth were easiest to survive, thus making the species stronger. And so on. But that seems a rather callous, Ayn Randian sort of attitude, don't you think? The Spartans certainly would have approved. I think you would be well served by reading up on the history of early childhood diseases before Pasteur came along. Do you have any idea what the death rate was for children under two years of age back then? What you are forgetting is the entirety of the history of life is the history of survival against disease as well as against starvation, environmental change, etc. Even in theory, no species will never be able to evolve to be completely immune from all disease, because, of course, viruses mutate and evolve, too. It is not a game that we can ever win once and for all, but we can and do alleviate a lot of suffering and prevent a lot of death with vaccines. Why anyone would want to go back to the days of kids becoming paralysed from polio and simply dying from whooping cough?
quote: Yes, it has been checked. About 200 years ago, the notion of inheritence of acquired characteristics was rejected. The only way parents could pass on immunity to disease would be through a mutation. (Are you talking about the antibodies that newborns get from their mothers through the colostrum in her milk? That still isn't hereditary)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: We're all really saying the same thing here, LindaLou, so you could probably reply to everyone in a single post. Perhaps you are finding it hard to defend your stance against vaccination because your position is indefensible, being based upon ignorance and fear as it is. You are wrong to not vaccinate. Period. there's no other way to say it. Your reasons for not doing so are misguided and inadequate. Yet again, you have shown is this thread that you share exactly the same "quick fix" mentality that you accuse the "allopathic" medical establishment of having. Depressed? It's just the mercury in your fillings! Take them out and you'll feel better! Feel jittery at work? Take these herbs, you'll feel better! I ask again, is there any out-there, crank medical thing you won't believe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Vaccination eliminated smallpox from the face of the earth.
Polio WAS on the way to being the second disease similarly dispatched, but for people like you. I am going to stop writing now, because I am so outraged and disgusted at your willfull ignorance and your willingness to put your own child and everyone else around her at risk that I am afraid I might say something I shouldn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
There is no evidence whatsoever that vaccinations cause autism.
None. And there have been studies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, thst is not a fact. The fact is that the diagnosis of autism is more common than it used to be. Autism has probably been around a long time but wasn't understood as well as it is today, so it is no surprise that the number of identified cases is higher now that our understanding is greater. Autism is NOT on the rise due to vaccines. It it likely that it isn't on the rise at all. Added by edit: LL, here is an excellent article that examines the evidence we have been discussing. Please do not reject it out of hand becasue it is a skeptical source. It is a well-referenced article and is balanced. Please read this Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Again, I must correct this. The diagnosis of autism is on the rise. This does not mean that the actual incidence of autism is increasing. From this article, which I hope everyone here reads. bold added by me:
Let’s begin with the hypothesis that thimerosal is one of the causes of autism and it is the main culprit in the increased incidence of autism during the 1990s. This is a plausible hypothesis, but as Karl Popper taught us, a good scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. That is, it must be possible to conceive of evidence that would prove it wrong. What evidence might suggest that the thimerosal hypothesis is false? For obvious ethical reasons, we can’t perform the kind of gold-standard experiment ” a randomized double-blind study ” which would most convincingly indicate the lack of a causal relation. We must rely on natural experiments. One such experiment was occasioned by the removal of thimerosal in Denmark in 1992. If the thimerosal hypothesis were false, we would not expect to see changes in the rates of autism following the removal of thimerosal. In fact, the results were more robust: despite the removal of thimerosal, the rates of autism continued to climb. And not only in Denmark but in Sweden, too, where thimerosal was removed at about the same time.6 A similar way the thimerosal hypothesis could be falsified is to show that there is no link between the amount of thimerosal exposure and the likelihood of autism. That is, we would ask if there is a dose-response relation between thimerosal exposure and developmental problems. Several studies have confirmed that there is no convincing evidence of a dose-response relation.7 In fact, one study suggested a beneficial effect of thimerosal! For example, exposure at three months was inversely related to problems of hyperactivity, conduct, and motor development months or years later.8 Now, these results do not imply causation, nor do they pertain to autism per se, but they do question the general validity of the thimerosal hypothesis. Another problem for the purported vaccine-autism link is that there is good reason to be suspicious of claims for an autism epidemic. A number of factors can account for the dramatic increase in numbers, including the expansion of diagnostic criteria in 1994, and changes in criteria for inclusion in child-count data for children with autism. Remember that 273 percent increase over a decade in autism spectrum disorders in California? Consider, as did the authors of a recent paper published in Current Directions in Psychological Science,14 that this increase could be due to an expanded diagnostic definition of autism. The authors found that a similar expansion in the definition of “tall” ” from 74.5 inches to 72 inches ” generated in one county in Texas a 273 percent increase if these two criteria were applied a decade apart. More importantly, autism is not even a “thing” that can be clearly correlated with any other thing. Unlike cancer or a broken bone, there are no discrete physical, biological, or genetic markers on which to base a diagnosis. Instead, autism is a diagnostic label based on the presence of a number of behavioral excesses and deficits. The diagnosis is subjective and subject to great variability. When you consider that many resources are made available only to those children with some formal diagnosis, it is easy to see why some diagnoses might be made with scant supporting evidence. The physician or psychologist notices some obvious learning delays and behavior problems in a patient and recognizes the need for intensive services, but the only way the family can obtain those services is if the child fits a certain diagnostic category. Correlations are tenuous things under the best conditions. Degrade one of the variables, and you are in serious trouble. Such is the case with the autism-vaccine correlation. Consider that the average age for many vaccinations is between 12 and 18 months. Now consider that many of the “symptoms” of autism ” such as social withdrawal and delayed language ” aren’t readily detectable until this same age or just a bit later. It could very well be that any relationship between vaccination and diagnosis is purely coincidental. If these vaccinations were not commonly given until age four, perhaps no correlation would be observed. Not to mention that the vast majority of children receive these vaccinations without incident.13
The bottom line is that correlation is not causation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024