Flu Vaccine Panic A Medical Poseidon Adventure?

[Rouser2]

The current panic over getting the current new flu vaccine "before the flu gets you" brings to mind the pathetic history of past flu vacciines and vaccinations in general. Fact is, the current Flu preventive potion being served up by the Medical/ Industry Complex in conjunction with the Federal Government doesn't exactly match the strain currently making people sick and no one really knows if it even works. But there is plenty of evidence that past attempts to panic people into getting their flu shots have caused more sickness, suffering and death than the disease the shots were intended to prevent. Last year, Dr. Thomas Stone wrote an open letter to pediatricians on the subject citing amongst other medical failures, the governement's promotion of the Swine Flu panic of the 1970s and the disasters that followed.

An Excerpt:

OPEN LETTER TO PEDIATRICIANS ON FLU VACCINES by THOMAS STONE, MD.

"Let us examine then the CAUTION displayed by the CDC in the Great Swine Flu Vaccination Disaster. When swine flu, or what was thought to be swine flu, broke out in a small epidemic at Fort Dix, New Jersey, public-health officials panicked and jumped to a lot of unwarranted conclusions. This panic set in motion the greatest public-health fiasco in the history of the United
States thus far...."

"When three people dropped dead shortly after receiving the swine-flu vaccine in Pittsburgh, the program was temporarily closed down and nine states quickly followed suit. The panic subsided when President Ford and his family got their flu shots (or was it really saline?) on national television, and
the fiasco continued. As people were dropping dead or becoming permanently paralyzed from the shots, it was decided to drop the tag line on the promotion: "Swine flu shot. Get It Before It Gets You." It sounded like a bad joke..."

"You know the disaster that followed: After a thousand cases of paralysis had been reported, the CDC reluctantly admitted that they were caused by the vaccine. The program was suspended "temporarily--in the interest of good
medicine"--and was never heard of again. The American people, being smarter than these public-health bureaucrats, stayed away from the shots by the millions. If they hadn't, the tragedy could have been much worse..."

http://www.whale.to/a/stone.html

[BTox]

Note to Rouser2, all those CAPITAL LETTERS should be a tipoff to nonsense. And the source site of that letter is Mercola, a certified quack.

woowoo.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox
Note to Rouser2, all those CAPITAL LETTERS should be a tipoff to nonsense. And the source site of that letter is Mercola, a certified quack.

woowoo.

Capital letters certify "nonsense"? And just what government school did you attend? If you can cite just one example?? But of course you can't. Just another mindless lurker. Probably in diapers at the time. Perhaps still in diapers?

Woowoo yourself.


-- Rouser

[BTox]

Another anti-vac kook. Get lost.

[BTox]

One question, though, care to expound on this statement (just focus on the capital letters)?

Originally posted by Rouser2
The current panic over getting the current new flu vaccine "before the flu gets you" brings to mind THE PATHETIC HISTORY OF past flu vacciines and VACCINATIONS IN GENERAL.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by BTox
Another anti-vac kook. Get lost.

You know, he may be an anti-vac kook, but the best way to refute his non-sense is with some logic.

The claim in the letter is that people were right in deciding not to get vacinated for swine flu in the past, and this was linked to current flu imunization efforts. But several things should be kept in mind:
- Science has never denied that vaccines pose a risk. The risk must be weighed against the benefits that the vaccine would bring. In the swine-flu case, the main risk was Guillain-Barre syndrome which can cause paralysis. However from what I've seen, the disease is reversable in most cases. Its all statistics and probability; the chance of being seriously affected by the vaccine (typically very low) gets weighed against the chance of catching the disease itself.

- The vaccine for swine flu given in the 1970s is a different vaccine given today; it works against different viruses, and I'm sure the technology to produce the vaccine has greatly improved. The fact that you don't hear of people dropping dead or getting paralized today after their flu shot should be a good indication that the vaccine is very safe.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Capital letters certify "nonsense"?


The use of capital letters makes documents difficult to read, and makes things appear as if the writer is 'shouting.

Although there is no hard rule, its generaly against the rules of "netiquette". (See for example: http://www.user.fast.net/~acheson/policies/netiquette.html)

Many people with weak arguments (such as those who post woo-woo type stuff) make up for the weakness by using a lot of capitals. Trust me, it doesn't help. If an atricle has a significant amount of text in capitals, you might assume (although its not always the case) that the writer has weak support.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Segnosaur [/i]


>>You know, he may be an anti-vac kook, but the best way to refute his non-sense is with some logic.

Some logic? Like ad hominem attacks? How does the use of the word "kook" present "logic"???


>>The claim in the letter is that people were right in deciding not to get vacinated for swine flu in the past, and this was linked to current flu imunization efforts. But several things should be kept in mind:
- Science has never denied that vaccines pose a risk. The risk must be weighed against the benefits that the vaccine would bring. In the swine-flu case, the main risk was Guillain-Barre syndrome which can cause paralysis. However from what I've seen, the disease is reversable in most cases. Its all statistics and probability; the chance of being seriously affected by the vaccine (typically very low) gets weighed against the chance of catching the disease itself.


And the evidence of catching the swine flu disease was virtually zero. It was a classically orchestrated panic.

>>- The vaccine for swine flu given in the 1970s is a different vaccine given today; it works against different viruses,

Of course it's different. But the history of Flu Vacccines is that the strains they allegedly prevent are in the past. There is no hard evidence that today's flu vaccine which everyone seems to be in a panic to get, does anything to prevent the current flu strain that is making so many people sick. The history of Flu vaccines is that they all pose risk, make some people sick and even cause death.

>>and I'm sure the technology to produce the vaccine has greatly improved. The fact that you don't hear of people dropping dead or getting paralized today after their flu shot should be a good indication that the vaccine is very safe.

Correction. YOU don't hear of such things. They nonetheless occur.

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by Segnosaur [/i]

>>The use of capital letters makes documents difficult to read, and makes things appear as if the writer is 'shouting.

Which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the content.

>>Although there is no hard rule, its generaly against the rules of "netiquette". (See for example: http://www.user.fast.net/~acheson/policies/netiquette.html)

One of the common sense rules of "netiquette" is that if you are going to critique somthing, you'd better be accurate and know what you are talking about. The letter in question in fact has a minority of "caps" which seems to be dictated by the fact that no other means of emphasis (bold, italic, colors) is available.

>>Many people with weak arguments (such as those who post woo-woo type stuff) make up for the weakness by using a lot of capitals.

Obviously, many people who haven't got a brain in their heads attack something for its style merely because they are unable to address its substance and in the absence of any cogent argument, resort to calling it "woo-woo".

>>Trust me, it doesn't help. If an atricle has a significant amount of text in capitals, you might assume (although its not always the case) that the writer has weak support.

Trust me. If a poster has nothing more to point to than the use of "caps," one might rightly assume basic ignorance of the topic or some severe mental handicap.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>One question, though, care to expound on this statement (just focus on the capital letters)?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
The current panic over getting the current new flu vaccine "before the flu gets you" brings to mind THE PATHETIC HISTORY OF past flu vacciines and VACCINATIONS IN GENERAL.

Sure. What would you like to know?

-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Sure. What would you like to know?

-- Rouser

The, as you describe it, pathetic history of vaccinations in general. Do you have any idea how many lives are saved per year because of vaccines?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
]Trust me. If a poster has nothing more to point to than the use of "caps," one might rightly assume basic ignorance of the topic or some severe mental handicap.

-- Rouser

Well, to be honest, I should have added more content. But when I see a post with the phrase "pathetic history of... vaccinations in general" in it, I automatically assume the poster is either a blithering idiot or ignorant beyond all words.

I hope you can prove that my initial reaction was wrong.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

Re: Re: Re: Flu Vaccine Panic A Medical Poseidon Adventure?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
Sure. What would you like to know?

-- Rouser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



>>The, as you describe it, pathetic history of vaccinations in general. Do you have any idea how many lives are saved per year because of vaccines?

No. Do you?

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox


Well, to be honest, I should have added more content. But when I see a post with the phrase "pathetic history of... vaccinations in general" in it, I automatically assume the poster is either a blithering idiot or ignorant beyond all words.

I hope you can prove that my initial reaction was wrong.


If you haven't heard of the horrors which have befallen so many people including so many innocent children due to vaccinations, then it is you who is either the bilthering idiot or ignorant beyond all words.

-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
?

No. Do you?

-- Rouser

Just measles alone, 2 million per year. Probably another 2-3 million from other preventable diseases. And CDC and the WHO estimate another 8 million lives could be saved per year with more complete immunization.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2



If you haven't heard of the horrors which have befallen so many people including so many innocent children due to vaccinations, then it is you who is either the bilthering idiot or ignorant beyond all words.

-- Rouser

So please tell us how many innocent children have "befallen horrors", and compare to those saved a preventable death by vaccines. And try using real sources to back up your claims, not scare articles from quacks like Dr. Mercola.

Good luck.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox


Just measles alone, 2 million per year. Probably another 2-3 million from other preventable diseases. And CDC and the WHO estimate another 8 million lives could be saved per year with more complete immunization.


Of course, those are not facts at all. They are estimates. No, they are "guesstimates." Got any facts?

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox


So please tell us how many innocent children have "befallen horrors", and compare to those saved a preventable death by vaccines. And try using real sources to back up your claims, not scare articles from quacks like Dr. Mercola.

Good luck.

That government school not only didn't teach you any logic. Neither did they teach you how to comprehend what you read. I've never quoted Dr. Mercola on anything. Nor does the use of the word "quack" have any meaning. Nor does it contribute to any rational discussion. Now if you want to call Dr. Mercola a quack, fine. First define "quack" and then explain why he is one. But don't attribute articles that happen to be on his website to him. That's more than a little ridiculous. If Dr. Mercola had an article on his web page that warned parents not to let their little children play in the street, would that mean that parents should encourage their children to play in the street? Try to address substance if you can. Ad hominem attacks only betray your own sub-level of intelligence.

-- Rouser

[Aoidoi]

http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/immu/immu00.html

The success of vaccination programs in the United States and Europe inspired the 20th-century concept of "disease eradication" -- the idea that a selected disease can be eradicated from all human populations through global cooperation. In 1977, after a decade-long campaign involving 33 countries, smallpox was eradicated worldwide. Polio caused by wild virus has been eradicated from the Western Hemisphere; childhood vaccination levels in the United States are at an all-time high; and disease and death from diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) are at or near record lows.

# The average annual number of smallpox cases in 1900-1904: 48,164. United States cases per year since 1950: 0. Worldwide cases per year since 1977: 0.
# The average annual number of diphtheria cases in the U.S. in 1920-1922 (the three years before vaccine development): 175,885. U.S. cases in 1998: 1.
# The average annual number of pertussis cases in 1922-1925 (the 4 years before vaccine development): 147,271. U.S. cases in 1998: 6,279.
# The estimated average annual number of tetanus cases in 1922-1926: 1,314. U.S. cases in 1998: 34.
# The average annual number of paralytic polio cases in 1951-1954 (the 4 years before vaccine licensure): 16,316. U.S. cases of wild type poliovirus in 1998: 0.
# The average annual number of measles cases in 1958-1962 (the 5 years before vaccine licensure): 503,282. U.S. cases in 1998: 89.
# The number of mumps cases in 1968 (the year reporting began and the first year after licensure): 152,209. U.S. cases in 1998: 606.
# The average annual number of rubella cases in 1966-1968 (the 3 years before vaccine licensure): 47,745. U.S. cases in 1998: 345.
# The estimated average annual number of cases of congenital rubella syndrome in 1966-1968 (the 3 years before vaccine licensure): 823. U.S. cases in 1998: 5.
# The estimated average annual number of Hib cases before vaccine licensure: 20,000. U.S. cases in 1998: 54.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/6mishome.htm

Nice graph on the dropoff of measles cases amongst other good info.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_vacc.html

The gasping for breath and desperate hacking of whooping cough. The iron lungs and braces of polio. Birth defects from rubella. For many people today, those signs of terrible diseases are the stuff of history books, thanks to vaccines. But the rare case of vaccine-associated polio or the death of an infant soon after receiving a dose of pertussis vaccine may make people wonder--are vaccines safe enough, or could they be safer?

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/research/lancet.htm

To assess the impact of anti-vaccine movements that targeted pertussis whole-cell vaccines, we compared pertussis incidence in countries where high coverage with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccines (DTP) was maintained (Hungary, the former East Germany, Poland, and the United States) with countries where immunization was disrupted by anti-vaccine movements (Sweden, Japan, the United Kingdom, The Russian Federation, Ireland, Italy, the former West Germany, and Australia). Pertussis incidence was 10 to 100 times lower in countries where high vaccine coverage was maintained than in countries where immunization programs were compromised by anti-vaccine movements.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/research/peds.htm

Immunizations are responsible for preventing death and disability from disease and are among the most cost-effective and widely used public health interventions. However, it is also recognized that no vaccine is perfectly safe or effective. Some people will experience side effects from vaccines, and a few may not experience a complete immunologic response to a vaccine, leaving them susceptible to disease. Sustaining high vaccine coverage rates may become more of a challenge as people question the limitations of vaccines and new parents no longer see or hear about the diseases from which vaccines protect them.

...

Clarifying the distinction between theory, fact and perceived and real risk for the concerned public is critical. What is certain is the risk associated with the vaccine-preventable disease should a person remain non-immune. What is also certain is the small magnitude of risk for any severe vaccine reactions. The significance of uncertainty in vaccine safety is related to individual perceptions. Learning how to effectively communicate with patients will become an increasingly important skill for health care providers in ensuring the protection of our children from vaccine-preventable diseases.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Rouser2


More stupid conspiracy theories that I didn't bother to read



So lets add it up:

1) You believe there were 27 shooters in Dealey Plaza
2) You believe the moon landing was a hoax
3) You believe that vaccinations are some sort of huge conspiracy

Is everyone in your trailer park equally paranoid? Or do you stand out as an idiot?

[reprise]

The "vaccine shortage" story has just hit our newspapers today, but the articles are short on facts and long on emotional rhetoric so perhaps some of the US posters could clarify a couple of points for me.

'Flu vaccine is recommended for "at risk" groups (and the government subsidises the cost of the vaccine for those "at risk") here rather than the general population and the immunisation campaign starts well in advance of winter. The aim is to vaccinate those who are most at risk of morbidity and mortality should they contract the 'flu, not to vaccinate those who are generally in good health and unlikely to suffer any serious complications from infection. The vaccine which is currently in short supply in the US is the same vaccine which was used here earlier this year, so I guess I'm wondering whether someone seriously underestimated the demand for vaccination which would occur in the US this year or whether some other circumstance (such as more people choosing to be vaccinated this year because this year's strain of the 'flu is one of the more serious strains to occur in recent years) has led to the shortfall. Has the company which manufactures the vaccine - for instance - been running some kind of fear-based "immunise now" campaign?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Of course, those are not facts at all. They are estimates. No, they are "guesstimates." Got any facts?

-- Rouser

No, those are facts, not that you would know what one is. Now where are your facts regarding the "befallen horrors" to children from vaccines? Still waiting...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Ad hominem attacks only betray your own sub-level of intelligence.

-- Rouser

So that's why you use them?

Regarding Mercola, check out Quackwatch and do a search on him. If you still think he's not a quack, well...

And finally, regarding substance, you've supplied, let's see... none. Still waiting for the befallen horrors to children...

[BTox]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


So lets add it up:

1) You believe there were 27 shooters in Dealey Plaza
2) You believe the moon landing was a hoax
3) You believe that vaccinations are some sort of huge conspiracy

Is everyone in your trailer park equally paranoid? Or do you stand out as an idiot?

I figured this guy was a grade A lunatic. He's got another post on General Skepticism (Herbal thread) where he claims that "there is more quarkery [sp] in Modern Medicine than anywhere else".

Anti-vac, moon hoax and JFK conspiracy kook - the trifecta!

[reprise]

I found the information about the events which have led to the current situation outlined in this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1870226826#post1870226826).

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Aoidoi [/i]


>>The success of vaccination programs in the United States and Europe inspired the 20th-century concept of "disease eradication" -- the idea that a selected disease can be eradicated from all human populations through global cooperation....


The difficulty is swallowing the premise of disease eradication is the fact that diseases and epidemics come and go with or without vaccinations. The Bubonic Plague killed off a third of Europe, but eventually it ended, but not because of any vaccine. Not that all vaccines are useless but often the risks outweigh any protective benefit. To conclude just because a vaccine was introduced is the reason for a drop off in infections is a classic example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy (after the fact, therefore because of the fact.) Many other factors contribute to a decline in infections in the past century including improved sanitation, clean drinking water, improved nutrition and the natural tendency of infectious diseases to run out of suitable victims. All epidemics run a general bell shaped curve of initial steep incline followed by a leveling off, and gradual decline. This is exactly what has happened to AIDS in this country, and there is no vaccine for AIDS. Most heathy, disease free people are that way not because of vaccinations, but because of good dietary habits, exercise, regular sleep, etc. After all the false propaganda concerning the current flu panic, Congressman (majority leader). Bill Frist (MD) just provided the first real truth I've yet to hear from any physician. In a CNN interview he said that the best way to avoid catching the flu is to "Wash your hands... and wash them often" -- Bill Frist

Amen. Nuff said.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


So lets add it up:

1) You believe there were 27 shooters in Dealey Plaza
2) You believe the moon landing was a hoax
3) You believe that vaccinations are some sort of huge conspiracy

Is everyone in your trailer park equally paranoid? Or do you stand out as an idiot?

Of couse I believe none of that nonsense. Now why don't you go back to your playpen or your vidoe games, sonny and leave the gown-up boards to the grown-ups.


-- Rouser

[geni]

Fact: The impact of immunisation has been internationally demonstrated, in addition to any effect arising from other changes.

Mr Phillips suggests that the World Health Organization (WHO) found no relation between immunisation and disease, but references the statement to another anti-immunisation book. There are countless WHO publications which show that diseases decline in response to immunisation.

Polio was on the increase from the beginning of this century, because of improved hygiene, as this caused a later age of infection and so increased chance of paralysis. Because polio occurred in epidemic cycles with considerable year to year variation, comparison of single years can mislead. Polio immunisation with the injectable Salk vaccine, and then the oral Sabin vaccine appears to have eliminated polio from New Zealand by 1962. Contrary to the assertion by Mr Phillips, all countries introduced polio immunisation. Polio has been eliminated from the Western hemisphere. There is now a global WHO programme to eradicate polio from the world by the year 2000, through immunisation.


source (http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/a59eed166c4016a54c2566bf000e8c9d?OpenDocument)

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Regarding Mercola, check out Quackwatch and do a search on him. If you still think he's not a quack, well...

Are you able to think for yourself without substituting slogans and epithets? Obviously not.

-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
To conclude just because a vaccine was introduced is the reason for a drop off in infections is a classic example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy (after the fact, therefore because of the fact.) Many other factors contribute to a decline in infections in the past century including improved sanitation, clean drinking water, improved nutrition and the natural tendency of infectious diseases to run out of suitable victims. All epidemics run a general bell shaped curve of initial steep incline followed by a leveling off, and gradual decline.

Post hoc fallacy, eh?

Try it on all these:

TABLE 2. Baseline 20th century annual morbidity and 1998 provisional morbidity from
nine diseases with vaccines recommended before 1990 for universal use in children
-- United States
================================================== =============================================
Baseline 20th century 1998 Provisional %
Disease annual morbidity morbidity Decrease
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smallpox 48,164* 0 100%
Diphtheria 175,885+ 1 100%&
Pertussis 147,271@ 6,279 95.7%
Tetanus 1,314** 34 97.4%
Poliomyelitis (paralytic) 16,316++ 0&& 100%
Measles 503,282@@ 89 100%&
Mumps 152,209*** 606 99.6%
Rubella 47,745+++ 345 99.3%
Congenital rubella 823&&& 5 99.4%
syndrome
Haemophilus 20,000@@@ 54**** 99.7%
influenzae type b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Average annual number of cases during 1900-1904 ( 1 ).
+ Average annual number of reported cases during 1920-1922, 3 years before vaccine
development.
& Rounded to nearest tenth.
@ Average annual number of reported cases during 1922-1925, 4 years before vaccine
development.
** Estimated number of cases based on reported number of deaths during 1922-1926
assuming a case-fatality rate of 90%.
++ Average annual number of reported cases during 1951-1954, 4 years before vaccine
licensure.
&& Excludes one cases of vaccine-associated polio reported in 1998.
@@ Average annual number of reported cases during 1958-1962, 5 years before vaccine
licensure.
*** Number of reported cases in 1968, the first year reporting began and the first year after
vaccine licensure.
+++ Average annual number of reported cases during 1966-1968, 3 years before vaccine
licensure.
&&& Estimated number of cases based on seroprevalence data in the population and on the
risk that women infected during a childbearing year would have a fetus with congenital
rubella syndrome ( 7 ).
@@@ Estimated number of cases from population-based surveillance studies before vaccine
licensure in 1985 ( 8 ).
**** Excludes 71 cases of Haemophilus influenzae disease of unknown serotype.


Source: mmwr public health achievements (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr//preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm#00003752.htm)

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[BAre you able to think for yourself without substituting slogans and epithets? Obviously not.

-- Rouser [/B]

Are you able to supply any credible evidence regarding your claim of "befallen horrors on children"? Obviously not.

Still waiting...

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Post hoc fallacy, eh?

>>Try it on all these:

Same stats. Same fallacy. Lumping in all of the diseases prevelent in the 20th century and attributing their decline entirely to vaccines is fallacious reasoning. And, now, course we have a whole host of new diseases -- auto-immune diseases where the prime causation suspect is vaccinations.

-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Post hoc fallacy, eh?

>>Try it on all these:

Same stats. Same fallacy. Lumping in all of the diseases prevelent in the 20th century and attributing their decline entirely to vaccines is fallacious reasoning.

Lumping in? Did you actually read it? So you think by chance each one of those diseases decreased their prevalence by 95-100% within a few years of vaccination, all at different time periods of the 20th century?

Originally posted by Rouser2
And, now, course we have a whole host of new diseases -- auto-immune diseases where the prime causation suspect is vaccinations.

-- Rouser

Auto-immune diseases caused by vaccination? I suppose you don't see the irony in that statement, as that is classic post hoc fallacy thinking!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox


Are you able to supply any credible evidence regarding your claim of "befallen horrors on children"? Obviously not.

Still waiting...

Keep your bib on, junior. I'm not going to do what others do on this board -- simply copy a web page or a link and then walk away. I'd like to see if you or anyone can actully think and speak for yourself. The horrors that have befallen people, and especially innocent children because of vaccinations are legion. But the topic is far to large to discuss in detail, so why don't you narrow it down? Pick your poison.

Why not start with polio? In the past half century virtually the only people in this country who have contracted polio are either those who got the polio vaccine or came in close contact with someone who got it. In September 1977 Jonas Salk, the developer of the killed polio virus vaccine, testified along with other scientists to that effect. He said that most of the handful of polio cases which had occurred in the US since the 197Os probably were the by-product of the live polio vaccine that was in standard use in the United States. I'd say that was pretty horrible that the vaccine itself caused it. Course, that was the live, oral vaccine. But Salk's dead vaccine had its own problems. That's one disease and one vaccine causing a whole lot of horror. You want more? Be specific.

-- Rouser

[geni]

Originally posted by Rouser2
And, now, course we have a whole host of new diseases -- auto-immune diseases where the prime causation suspect is vaccinations.


Please provide evidence for this statement.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Of couse I believe none of that nonsense. Now why don't you go back to your playpen or your vidoe games, sonny and leave the gown-up boards to the grown-ups.


-- Rouser

Of course you failed to answer the question - Is everyone in your trailer park equally paranoid? Or do you stand out as an idiot?

[geni]

Rouser2

You have not by any chance read a book by a certian Mr miller have you?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
He said that most of the handful of polio cases which had occurred in the US since the 197Os probably were the by-product of the live polio vaccine that was in standard use in the United States. I'd say that was pretty horrible that the vaccine itself caused it. Course, that was the live, oral vaccine. But Salk's dead vaccine had its own problems. That's one disease and one vaccine causing a whole lot of horror. You want more? Be specific.

-- Rouser

So you are saying the 150 cases or so of vaccine induced polio from 1980 to present are a horror, but the 15,000 cases per year prior to the vaccine being used are not? Nobody says vaccine are perfectly safe. There will always be adverse reactions, just like with any ethical drug.

Looks to me like the polio vaccine is just one that has saved a whole lot of horror. Next...

[athon]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Keep your bib on, junior. I'm not going to do what others do on this board -- simply copy a web page or a link and then walk away. I'd like to see if you or anyone can actully think and speak for yourself. The horrors that have befallen people, and especially innocent children because of vaccinations are legion. But the topic is far to large to discuss in detail, so why don't you narrow it down? Pick your poison.

Why not start with polio? In the past half century virtually the only people in this country who have contracted polio are either those who got the polio vaccine or came in close contact with someone who got it. In September 1977 Jonas Salk, the developer of the killed polio virus vaccine, testified along with other scientists to that effect. He said that most of the handful of polio cases which had occurred in the US since the 197Os probably were the by-product of the live polio vaccine that was in standard use in the United States. I'd say that was pretty horrible that the vaccine itself caused it. Course, that was the live, oral vaccine. But Salk's dead vaccine had its own problems. That's one disease and one vaccine causing a whole lot of horror. You want more? Be specific.

-- Rouser

Rouser, no matter how you put it, the end results justify the means.

Yes, some vaccines can possibly result in abnormal reactions, and in some cases, can even convey the disease they are protecting against. Very few immunologists will deny this, and it is the biggest sword anti-immunisers are swinging. So, no arguments.

But let's look at the reality of it. A society without vaccination in a modern world is near impossible to study, but it is possible to evaluate the repurcussions. There are a wide variety of diseases that we can vaccinate against, all with their own epidemiologies. But all have one thing in common - the chances of catching the disease in a non-immunised world are far higher than the chance of being afflicted with a side-effect of the vaccination.

To simplify, if you have a one in 10,000 chance of catching disease A, it would not be unreasonable to expect negative side effects from vaccination in one in 200,000 or less.

The irrational side of anti-immunisation is easy to understand considering the emotion of the issue. If you get your child immunised and they get sick, it is directly linked to your own actions. If they don't get immunised, and get sick, it is out of your hands. A flawed approach that ignores any sense of social contract, but one that is easy to understand in an emotive sense.

The basic anti-immunisation arguement falls down whenever it is scrutinised. It is based primarily on the emotions behind 'risk', and unfortunately 'risk' is a diffuclt concept to wrestle with. What angers me is that while many of us are socially responsible and put our children at this extremely necessary (although very remote) risk, anti-immunisers get a free ride: their children have a decreased chance of getting sick because of a responsible society, and they don't risk side-effects because they don't immunise their children.

And that, quite frankly, pisses me off!

Athon

[Rouser2]

[Originally posted by geni [/i]


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
And, now, course we have a whole host of new diseases -- auto-immune diseases where the prime causation suspect is vaccinations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Please provide evidence for this statement.

Evidence of a prime suspect? Are youi playing games or feigning ignorance???


Asthma and Allergies
Several asthma and allergy researchers have found results similar to the earlier described relationship between immunization and IDDM. A group from New Zealand (Kemp, Pearce, Fitzharriset al.1997) found that asthma and allergies were more common in children that received pertussis vaccine than in those that were not immunized. Similar results have been suggested by others (Odent, Culpin & Kimmel, 1994) . More recently Dr. Julian Hopkin presented data at the British Thoracic Society meeting in 1997 which linked asthma to immunization. He has also published data that early immunization with BCG in Japan is associated with a decreased risk of IDDM (Shirakawa, Enomoto, Shimazuet al.1997).


V.K. Singh has studied autism as an autoimmune disorder for over fifteen years. He believes that up to eighty percent (and possibly all) cases of autism are caused by an abnormal immune reaction, commonly known as autoimmunity.
http://www.healing-arts.org/children/vaccines/vaccines-auto-immunity.htm


* * *

Making Informed Choices about Vaccinations The effects of some vaccines on the autoimmune system can be far greater than the adverse effects of the infectious disease itself. For example, live oral polio vaccines have been shown to induce polio at a rate of 0.2 cases per 100,000. This has caused some countries, including the U.S. to immunize with a killed polio vaccine instead of the live vaccine. In the case of the hemophilus influenza vaccine, immunization may only prevent 30 to 36 cases of meningitis per 100,000 while it may cause a rise in the incidence of insulin-dependent diabetes in children (i.e., 200 cases per 100,000). On one hand, the vaccine is helping a small number of potential meningitis cases, but on the other, is contributing to a chronic disease for which there is currently no cure. In this case, the benefit does not outweigh the risk. The Ministry of Health in France recently announced the suspension of routine hepatitis B immunizations of school age children in France. Routine Hepatitis B immunizations given at birth would continue. The reason for this decision was the increased risk of autoimmune diseases associated with the vaccine when it is given to school age children as compared to newborns. Immunologist John B. Classen, M.D. originally published papers linking the hepatitis B and other vaccines to the development of insulin dependent diabetes, an autoimmune disease. At that time certain public health officials attempted to deny an association between auto-immunity and immunization; however, two recently published U.S. government studies have supported the association. One study linked hepatitis B immunization to an autoimmune form of hair loss. Another small study showed that when hepatitis B immunization was given at two months and older, it was associated with a near doubling of the risk of diabetes. "The French decision to continue hepatitis B immunization at birth while discontinuing immunization starting at school age suggests the French Ministry of Health may believe that timing of immunization has a role on the development of auto-immunity. They appear to be accepting our findings." Dr. Classen is referring to his numerous publications indicating immunizations given at birth are associated with lower risks of auto-immunity than immunization given later in life. Long-term safety studies are typically not performed on vaccines prior to them attaining government approval. "Without these studies we can not be sure that the benefits of immunization exceed the risks of and thus we should not mandate the hepatitis B or other vaccines," adds Classen. For more information about polio, hepatitis B, influenza vaccine safety visit the Vaccine Safety Web site at www.vaccines.net.


***

Hemophilus Vaccine Study in Finland Proves a Causal Relationship Between Vaccines and Diabetes
(published Autoimmunity 35:247-253,2002)
Dr. J. Bart Classen discovered it would be possible to study the effect of Hemophilus B immunization on the incidence of IDDM using data from a large clinical trial in Finland. Dr. J. Bart Classen and D.C. Classen initiated and funded a collaboration with Dr. Tuomilehto in Finland. All children born in Finland between October 1st, 1985 and August 31st, 1987, approximately 116,000 were randomized to receive 4 doses of the HiB vaccine (PPR-D, Connaught) starting at 3 months of life or one dose starting at 24 months of life. Classen and Classen calculated the incidence of IDDM in both groups through age 10 and in an group which did not receive the HiB vaccine, a cohort which included all 128,500 children born in Finland in the 24 months prior to the Hemophilus vaccine study. Immediately following the completion of these two arms all children born in Finland over a two year period were randomized to receive 3 doses of the old PPR-D HiB vaccine or 3 doses of a newer HbOC HiB vaccine. The data supports published findings that the immunization starting after 2 months of life is associated with an increased incidence of IDDM. Rises in diabetes have been seen in the UK and USA following the introduction of the hemophilus vaccine (see HIB)

* * *

Published data links the hepatitis B vaccine to an epidemic of IDDM (Classen,DC & Classen, 1997). The incidence of type I diabetes in the 0-19 year old age group has been studied since 1982 in Christchurch, New Zealand and a rise in type I diabetes was noted to occur in 1989 (Classen,JB, 1996b) after the initiation of an hepatitis B immunization program. The government of New Zealand introduced a massive Hepatitis B vaccination program in 1988 which was extended to include all children under 16 and over 70% of children were vaccinated within a few years with almost all of the immunization starting after 6 week of life. The initial vaccine was a human blood derived product but was switched to a recombinant vaccine around 1990. The annual incidence of type I diabetes in persons 0-19 years old living in Christchurch rose from 11.2 cases/100,000 children in the years prior to the immunization program, 1982-1987, to 18.1 cases/100,000 children (p=0.0008) in the years following the immunization 1989-1991. Additional data presented publicly by Dr. Scott shows the increased incidence of diabetes in Christchurch has been extended through 1994.

http://www.vaccines.net/hepatiti.htm

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by geni [/i]

>>Member of the anti-homeopathy illuminati

Are you also a member of the local book-burning society? What do you have against homeopathy? Are you in the drug business?

-- Rouser

[geni]

Originally posted by Rouser2

>>Member of the anti-homeopathy illuminati

Are you also a member of the local book-burning society? What do you have against homeopathy? Are you in the drug business?


It's a joke. There are a group of homeopaths who keep going on about plots against them. What do I have against homeopathy? There is no evidence that proves it works and yet some (all be it not much) of my taxes pay for it.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>So you are saying the 150 cases or so of vaccine induced polio from 1980 to present are a horror, but the 15,000 cases per year prior to the vaccine being used are not?


Whoa... Nellie. More post hoc ergo propter hoc. The polio epidemic had already been in steep decline by the time the vaccines began to be administered. And in some countries where there were no mass innoculations, the disease declined at the same rates. Moreover, in the face of decades of evidence of the causation of polio by the vaccine itself, where virtually all natural polio had disappeared, the indictment of the medical establishment and the government itself should be clear.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by geni


It's a joke. There are a group of homeopaths who keep going on about plots against them. What do I have against homeopathy? There is no evidence that proves it works and yet some (all be it not much) of my taxes pay for it.

No evidence, eh? Yet Modern Medicine employs homeopathic principles all the time. They just don't call it homeopathic. The very principle of inducing a very small substance to evoke a larger immune response is the principle behind vaccinations. You do believe in vaccinations, don't you?????"


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by athon [/i]


>>Rouser, no matter how you put it, the end results justify the means.

Yeah, that just what Adolph Hitler said.


-- Rouser

[geni]

Originally posted by Rouser2

V.K. Singh has studied autism as an autoimmune disorder for over fifteen years. He believes that up to eighty percent (and possibly all) cases of autism are caused by an abnormal immune reaction, commonly known as autoimmunity.
http://www.healing-arts.org/children/vaccines/vaccines-auto-immunity.htm

Lets start with this one (it's the one I know most about).

Kreesten Madsen, of the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre, compared 440,000 children who had MMR with 97,000 children who didn't. The children who had MMR were no more likely to develop autism than the children who didn't. In Finland, one group looked at 3 million MMR vaccinations, found only 31 cases of related gut symptoms, and not one of these children went on to develop autism in the next 10 years. A group in London looked at 498 children with autism, to see if they developed it after MMR. They looked at when they had the MMR jab, and when they developed the symptoms or the diagnosis, and found no sudden blip after immunisation. Another paper shows no increase in GP consultations in the six months after immunisation. Two hundred children in London and Stafford with autism were studied to see if there was a new type of autism related to MMR, featuring bowel problems and sudden regression, a bit like in the drama: half had the jab, half didn't, and there was no difference in type of autism between the groups. In California, looking at 1,000 children a year, over 14 years, the number of cases of autism increased by 373%, while the number of children getting MMR increased by only 14% (from 72% to 82%). There's plenty more.


Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1103958,00.html)

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by athon [/i]

>>There are a wide variety of diseases that we can vaccinate against, all with their own epidemiologies. But all have one thing in common - the chances of catching the disease in a non-immunised world are far higher than the chance of being afflicted with a side-effect of the vaccination.


That is an assertion that is not only untrue in all cases, but overlooks the possible long term side effects which cannot be predicted. But surely you cannot argue, for example, that the 52 deaths and 600 plus paralyed from the Swine Flu shots were justified.

-- Rouser

[geni]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[B]

No evidence, eh? Yet Modern Medicine employs homeopathic principles all the time. They just don't call it homeopathic. The very principle of inducing a very small substance to evoke a larger immune response is the principle behind vaccinations. You do believe in vaccinations, don't you?????"
B]

Err you don't know much about homeopathy do you. (hint potency of remedies)

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by geni [/i]


>>Lets start with this one (it's the one I know most about).

"Source"

And so, your point is????????



-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by geni


Err you don't know much about homeopathy do you. (hint potency of remedies)


Enough to know that the principle of diluted potency is the very same as the principle of diluted viral potency as employed in vaccines. It's homeopathy pure and simple and all done under the established authority of Modern Medicine.


-- Rouser

[geni]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Enough to know that the principle of diluted potency is the very same as the principle of diluted viral potency as employed in vaccines. It's homeopathy pure and simple and all done under the established authority of Modern Medicine.


Ok let me spell this out. Vacines do not get more powerful as you dilute them. But you don't have to belive me. Try your theory at a few homeopathy boards and see how far you get.

[geni]

Originally posted by Rouser2


And so, your point is????????



The evidence shows that vacintion does not cause autism.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

Whoa... Nellie. More post hoc ergo propter hoc. The polio epidemic had already been in steep decline by the time the vaccines began to be administered. And in some countries where there were no mass innoculations, the disease declined at the same rates.
-- Rouser

Wrong again. The U.S. was in an epidemic when the vaccination started. And rates of infection dropped siginificantly lower than pre-epidemic base levels.

Do you know anything about health sciences other than what you "know" from reading quack web sites?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2


No evidence, eh?

No, there is no credible evidence that homeopathy works any better than placebo, which is exactly what the "remedies" are.


Originally posted by Rouser2

Yet Modern Medicine employs homeopathic principles all the time. They just don't call it homeopathic. The very principle of inducing a very small substance to evoke a larger immune response is the principle behind vaccinations.

Where do you come up with this garbage? Homeopaths claim their "remedies" have nothing to do with immune response. And they use ingredients that they believe cause similar symptoms, not the disease-causing agent itself. Vaccination is a factual science, homeopathy is complete nonsense.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
But surely you cannot argue, for example, that the 52 deaths and 600 plus paralyed from the Swine Flu shots were justified.

-- Rouser

52 deaths? Have a credible source for that figure? And the number of GBS attributed to the vaccine were about 500, most of which fully recovered.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Enough to know that the principle of diluted potency is the very same as the principle of diluted viral potency as employed in vaccines. It's homeopathy pure and simple and all done under the established authority of Modern Medicine.


-- Rouser

Surely you realize vaccines employ either killed, attenuated, or protein fractions of microorganisms, not merely diluted, as is the case with homeopathy. Not at all like homeopathy.

You are truly clueless.

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Rouser2

No evidence, eh? Yet Modern Medicine employs homeopathic principles all the time. They just don't call it homeopathic. The very principle of inducing a very small substance to evoke a larger immune response is the principle behind vaccinations. You do believe in vaccinations, don't you?????"

If proof were needed that Rouser2 is a troll, the above should be quite sufficient.

Anyone that thinks homeopathy is similar - in any way - to vaccination principle must be ignorant almost beyond words. Rouser2 is an attention seeking troll. Be warned.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Rouser2 Enough to know that the principle of diluted potency is the very same as the principle of diluted viral potency as employed in vaccines.


From that idiotic staement, we can now tell you do not know anything.


It's homeopathy pure and simple and all done under the established authority of Modern Medicine.


Vaccines aren't diluted to the point where there are no active molecules remaining.

But what do you know? You enjoy the maiming and crippling of children it seems.

[athon]

Originally posted by Rouser2
]Originally posted by athon [/i]


Yeah, that just what Adolph Hitler said.


-- Rouser

What does this have to do with anything? A pretty lame response; Hitler was about eugenics - vaccination is about preventing people from contracting pathogens. If you have to come up with such inane rebuttals, don't bother posting them.

That is an assertion that is not only untrue in all cases, but overlooks the possible long term side effects which cannot be predicted. But surely you cannot argue, for example, that the 52 deaths and 600 plus paralyed from the Swine Flu shots were justified.

Untrue in all cases, eh? OK, I'm on the border of thinking you are just making stuff up here. Got any valid sources to back yourself up here? If you're referring to the GBS causal hypothesis of Influenza A vaccines, the numbers aren't anywhere this high, although there does appear to be a relationship between GBS and the vaccine.

Besides, you've offered the typical statistics faux pas here - of the '652' who suffered side effects from the swine flu shots (again, please source), you make no reference to how many were vaccinated in total. Compare that with how many could catch influenza and suffer serious effects from the pathogen (do I need remind you of the 1918 epidemic?) then you'll see that an unconfirmed 652 sufferers of side effects is, to me, better than thousands dead.

As I said, it's an emotional issue. Do you roll the dice with very small odds, or let God do it with greater odds?

Athon

[reprise]

Just thought I'd throw in a link to the actual data on vaccine adverse reactions, lest anyone try to claim that the "medical establishment" doesn't acknowledge that they exist. As the table quite clearly shows, a lot of claimed "adverse reactions" are not supported by the scientific data, while the causal relation between the vaccine and the reaction has been clearly demonstrated in other cases.

Separating fact from speculation (http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/puarticles/vaccine.htm)

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by geni


The evidence shows that vacintion does not cause autism.

Fine. But that is a response to an assertion I did not make. All I said was that vaccinations in general were prime suspects as the cause of autoimmune diseases or conditions.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>52 deaths? Have a credible source for that figure?

Yep. Cyril Wecht in "Grave Secrets" And the first three deaths occurred in his jurisdiction. Is Cyril Wecht on your "kook" or "Quack" list? Guess he will be now.


>>And the number of GBS attributed to the vaccine were about 500, most of which fully recovered.

Wecht says at least 600. But do you have a credible source for your assertion that most fully recovered?

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by geni [/i]


>>Ok let me spell this out. Vacines do not get more powerful as you dilute them.

Depends on how you define "powerful" There certainly are more dangerous if you do not dilute them. Thus the more powerful the vaccine, the less preventive cure you get and the more likely that the vaccine will actually cause the disease it is intended to prevent. That's the whole point of using "weakened" virus. Weakened viruses, in theory, create anti-bodies without causeing the actual disease (in theory). A more powerful virus would tend to prodcued the diseasse. Sounds pretty homeopathic to me.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by athon [/i]

>>What does this have to do with anything? A pretty lame response; Hitler was about eugenics - vaccination is about preventing people from contracting pathogens.

Surely not in the administration of the live Polio vaccine for the past 50 or so years, where the government and the health authorities knew since put on notice by Dr. Salk, that virtually the only people contracting Polio were those getting the shots.

>>Untrue in all cases, eh? OK, I'm on the border of thinking you are just making stuff up here. Got any valid sources to back yourself up here? If you're referring to the GBS causal hypothesis of Influenza A vaccines, the numbers aren't anywhere this high, although there does appear to be a relationship between GBS and the vaccine.

Source: "Grave Secrets" by Cyril Wecht. Got a problem with the stats? Take it up with him. Perhaps you got better stats?

>>Besides, you've offered the typical statistics faux pas here - of the '652' who suffered side effects from the swine flu shots (again, please source), you make no reference to how many were vaccinated in total. Compare that with how many could catch influenza and suffer serious effects from the pathogen (do I need remind you of the 1918 epidemic?) then you'll see that an unconfirmed 652 sufferers of side effects is, to me, better than thousands dead.


We're talking about Swine Flu here. The numbers of people who contracted the disease after the initial Fort Dix hysteria was zero. Nuff said.


-- Rouser

[reprise]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by geni [/i]


>>Ok let me spell this out. Vacines do not get more powerful as you dilute them.

Depends on how you define "powerful" There certainly are more dangerous if you do not dilute them. Thus the more powerful the vaccine, the less preventive cure you get and the more likely that the vaccine will actually cause the disease it is intended to prevent. That's the whole point of using "weakened" virus. Weakened viruses, in theory, create anti-bodies without causeing the actual disease (in theory). A more powerful virus would tend to prodcued the diseasse. Sounds pretty homeopathic to me.

-- Rouser

Only live viruses are capable of causing the disease at all, and many vaccines do not use live virus (those that do are contraindicated for those with immunosuppressive conditions precisely because of the risk of contracting the disease). Some vaccines (the smallpox vaccine, for instance) don't use the pathogen against which you are being immunised at all. Other vaccines use only certain proteins from a particular organism because disabling a key component of the organism will basically starve it to death (fire is a good comparison to this model - starve it of oxygen or fuel and it "dies").

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by An Infinite Ocean [/i]

>>Anyone that thinks homeopathy is similar - in any way - to vaccination principle must be ignorant almost beyond words.

Ooops? Got another candidate for your "kook" list. This time, it's Merriam Webster:

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., 1993: Homeopathy is "a system of medical practice that treats a disease especially by the administration of minute doses of a remedy that would in healthy persons produce symptoms similar to those of the disease".
http://www.mtcnet.net/~mossnj/neal/hmdef.html

Sure sounds like vaccination theory to me.

[wert]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


So lets add it up:

1) You believe there were 27 shooters in Dealey Plaza
2) You believe the moon landing was a hoax
3) You believe that vaccinations are some sort of huge conspiracy

Is everyone in your trailer park equally paranoid? Or do you stand out as an idiot? Originally posted by Rouser2


Of couse I believe none of that nonsense. Now why don't you go back to your playpen or your vidoe games, sonny and leave the gown-up boards to the grown-ups.


-- Rouser Interesting.

So are you prepared to say we actually went to the moon?

I've never gotten a clear yes/no answer on this from you.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>Wrong again. The U.S. was in an epidemic when the vaccination started. And rates of infection dropped siginificantly lower than pre-epidemic base levels.


You are certainly entitled to your own opinions on the matter, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Herbert Ratner, M.D., former director of public health in Oak Park, Illinois, and associate clinical professor of preventive medicine and public health at Stritch School of Medicine in Chicago, makes the following analogy between poliomyelitis and infectious hepatitis: "both diseases were in a state of natural decline when the Salk vaccine was introduced in 1955. Since the wide acceptance of the Salk vaccine was based primarily on the sharp decline in polio incidence, it is important to keep in mind that infectious hepatitis equally declined following the Salk vaccine.
What Dr. Ratner is alluding to is that if the Salk vaccine is to take credit for the decline in polio incidence, than it must also take credit for the decline of infectious hepatitis, which it cannot possibly do. --Polio vaccine: Miracle or myth?
by Dr. John R. Riker (Chiropractic Journal)

http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/1989/aug/aug1989g.htm

[CurtC]

Rouser2 wrote:
Is Cyril Wecht on your "kook" or "Quack" list? Guess he will be now.He's certainly on mine.

Rouser, can't you do any thinking for yourself? You goose-step right along with Cyril on the JFK conspiracy, then goose-step along with his vaccination views. Take a look at the evidence, man.

And now we have a new kooky idea to add to your gullibility list: homeopathy. Did Cyril turn you on to that one as well?

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Yep. Cyril Wecht in "Grave Secrets" And the first three deaths occurred in his jurisdiction. Is Cyril Wecht on your "kook" or "Quack" list? Guess he will be now.

Figured as much. Your sources are books. My sources are peer-reviewed scientific journal studies. The first three deaths you described were coincidental. You know, that post hoc fallacy you keep talking about? The actual number of deaths was about 25, from GBS.


Originally posted by Rouser2
Wecht says at least 600. But do you have a credible source for your assertion that most fully recovered?

-- Rouser

Do you know what Guillain-Barre Syndrome is? It is temporary paralysis - those that survive, 90-95%, fully recover or suffer only minor problems.

Am J Epidemiol. 1979 Aug;110(2):105-23. Guillain-Barre syndrome following vaccination in the National Influenza Immunization Program, United States, 1976--1977. Schonberger LB, Bregman DJ, Sullivan-Bolyai JZ, Keenlyside RA, Ziegler DW, Retailliau HF, Eddins DL, Bryan JA.

Am J Epidemiol. 1984 Jun;119(6):841-79. An epidemiologic and clinical evaluation of Guillain-Barre syndrome reported in association with the administration of swine influenza vaccines.
Langmuir AD, Bregman DJ, Kurland LT, Nathanson N, Victor M.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
That's the whole point of using "weakened" virus. Weakened viruses, in theory, create anti-bodies without causeing the actual disease (in theory). A more powerful virus would tend to prodcued the diseasse. Sounds pretty homeopathic to me.

-- Rouser

Weakened viruses are used because they impart immunity with very slight chance of causing the disease. Killed viruses and protein coat vaccines impart immunity with zero chance of causing the disease.

Again, nothing whatsoever to do with homeopathy. Apparently you do not know much about homeopathy, either.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Ooops? Got another candidate for your "kook" list. This time, it's Merriam Webster:

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., 1993: Homeopathy is "a system of medical practice that treats a disease especially by the administration of minute doses of a remedy that would in healthy persons produce symptoms similar to those of the disease".
http://www.mtcnet.net/~mossnj/neal/hmdef.html

Sure sounds like vaccination theory to me.

Oops. Do you know how to read? Homeopathy uses remedies that produce SYMPTOMS similar to those of the disease, not remedies that produce THE DISEASE. Hopefully the caps will help!

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
You are certainly entitled to your own opinions on the matter, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Nor can you. Another clue for you, chiropractic "journals" are not a good source of vaccine information. Most are anti-vac kooks, like yourself.

Check out the graph in this publication:

cdc polio pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/polio.pdf)

[reprise]

I don't know about anyone else, but should I ever contract smallpox I don't think I'll be relying on the homeopathic remedies suggested here (http://jackal.inta.net.au/w02-11.html).

[BTox]

Originally posted by reprise
I don't know about anyone else, but should I ever contract smallpox I don't think I'll be relying on the homeopathic remedies suggested here (http://jackal.inta.net.au/w02-11.html).

One positive note, anyone who contracts smallpox and tries those remedies has a ~60% chance of survival. ;)

Similarly as ridiculous, there are sites that sell homeopathic versions of vaccines for smallpox and other deadly diseases. Not even made from a real vaccine, though, more related to nosodes.

[wert]

Anyone else notice Rousers inability to give us a simple "Yes/No" answer as to whether he believes we've actually landed men on the moon?

The answer would be quite illuminating as to his overall credibility I would think. :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by wert
Anyone else notice Rousers inability to give us a simple "Yes/No" answer as to whether he believes we've actually landed men on the moon?

The answer would be quite illuminating as to his overall credibility I would think. :)

I think he has made it quite clear that he believes in the moon landing "hoax". Which is why it is a waste of time to debate him on any subject. He is a delusional loony toon.

[Prester John]

How do you explain this then:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5243a4.htm


Low level of vaccination led to measles epidemic, resulting in 4 deaths, 3 children 1 adult (29 years). 594 hospitilisations. Total reported cases 1571.

When: 2002.

Where: Italy


There are numerous examples of where vaccination levels have dropped off, and, as predicted, epidemics begin. Note the word predicted. The ability to make predictions is integral to science. This example is in a modern european country.

When vaccinations are introduced the vaccinated disease incidence is dramatically reduced. When vaccination levels drop the disease reapears. Additionally there is a well documented scientific rationalle behind vaccination with an enormous amount of reaseach and evidence.

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by CurtC [/i]
He's certainly on mine.

>>Rouser, can't you do any thinking for yourself? You goose-step right along with Cyril on the JFK conspiracy, then goose-step along with his vaccination views. Take a look at the evidence, man.

The evidence is that pseudo intellectuals like you cannot think for themselves, but simple-mindedly classify anyone who doesn't agree with your own views as a "kook". This includes the former President of the American Academy of Forensic Science and the former President of the American College of Legal Medicine, an M.D. and a J.D. attorney. Apparently his own peers do not share your own knee-jerk views as to his mental competence and expertise.
Have a nice day.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>Figured as much. Your sources are books. My sources are peer-reviewed scientific journal studies.

Oh, so books are bad, journals, good? Do you burn books too?

>>The first three deaths you described were coincidental.

Coincidental??? Source?


>> You know, that post hoc fallacy you keep talking about? The actual number of deaths was about 25, from GBS.


From GBS??? And on this very board you make the claim the GBS is no big deal. I'm afraid you'll have to source that one too.


-- Rouser

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Ooops? Got another candidate for your "kook" list. This time, it's Merriam Webster:


Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., 1993: Homeopathy is "a system of medical practice that treats a disease especially by the administration of minute doses of a remedy that would in healthy persons produce symptoms similar to those of the disease".

Then I'm afraid that Webster is incorrect. Minute doses are not administered in homeopathy - rather, the premise is that water remembers close contact with the supposed active ingredients and cures without having to administer the substance itself.

Dictionaries are clearly not infallible tools.


Sure sounds like vaccination theory to me.

It doesn't sound anything like it, to me.

[Prester John]

And Rouser you must admit that the wealth of evidence suggests that there just might be something in the commonly held belief that vaccination is the most succesful public health measure. So, what if you are wrong ?, Are you so convinced that you would risk thousands of lives. Is your "evidence" that strong. This is the point, it is not an hypothetical, people would die without vaccinations, will you take that responcibility? Will the press ? Will the authors of those books? No.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
You are certainly entitled to your own opinions on the matter, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>Nor can you. Another clue for you, chiropractic "journals" are not a good source of vaccine information. Most are anti-vac kooks, like yourself.

Well, at least your consistent. Any source that you disagree with is not a good source, but must be placed in your "kook" category. But Herbert Ratner, M.D., is not a chiropractor sonny. Are M.D.'s kooks too?


Check out the graph in this publication:

cdc polio pdf

I did check it out. The re-copied graph supports just what I have stated. The polio epidemic was already in steep decline by the time the vaccine was introduced (see the arrow pointing to 1956). Thank you very much.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


>>And Rouser you must admit that the wealth of evidence suggests that there just might be something in the commonly held belief that vaccination is the most succesful public health measure.

The measure of Science does not depend upon "commonly held beliefs".


>> So, what if you are wrong ?,


Wrong about what? All I've asserted is that the history of vaccinations is rather pathetic.

>> Are you so convinced that you would risk thousands of lives. Is your "evidence" that strong.


The evidence is pretty strong that the current vaccination panic concerning the current flu strain is unwarrented as most people in good health will not get the flu, of those that do, almost all will survive, and there is no evidence that the current vaccine will provide any protection for anyone.

-- Rouser

[Ed]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]


I did check it out. The re-copied graph supports just what I have stated. The polio epidemic was already in steep decline by the time the vaccine was introduced (see the arrow pointing to 1956). Thank you very much.

Ummmm...... no, that is not what the graph shows.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
the government and the health authorities knew since put on notice by Dr. Salk, that virtually the only people contracting Polio were those getting the shots.This is how it goes.

Nasty disease is causing real trouble. Vaccine is introduced which gives the majority of susceptible individuals protection from disease. Incidence of "wild" disease declines, usually very markedly.

However, vaccine itself may be associated with a small incidence of problems. Compared to original "real trouble" due to the disease this may have been essentially negligible. However, as the disease declines, the vaccine's own serving of problems will become comparatively less and less negligible set against little or no wild disease.

So, we look at the situation and decide whether in fact the wild disease has been eliminated, and if so, would it be best to stop vaccinating?

Compare brucellosis in cattle in the UK. In the 1970s there was a concerted effort to eradicate the disease from the country. This involved vaccinating all calves with the S19 vaccine. The main drawback to this vaccine was that the vets who injected it were at risk from disease if they accidentally self-injected it in the melee. The other point was that vaccinated animals would sero-react to the tests for the disease, and in fact the only way to demonstrate for sure that you have eradicated disease completely is that you don't get any disease even if you no longer vaccinate. So in the end, for the safety of the operators and as the final step to demonstrating genuine eradication, vaccination was stopped.

However, the down side of this is that it leaves a wholly susceptible population. In continental Europe, up till the 1980s the strategy was to vaccinate against foot and mouth disease. Then it was reported that all the little outbreaks of the disease which had occurred were in fact traceable to escape of virus from vaccine manufacturing plants and things like that. The decision was taken to stop vaccinating, and for a good number of years all was well. The disease had been eradicated, and stopping vaccination also stopped the vaccine-associated trouble. But then the disease was reintroduced to a susceptible population, and caused great trouble.

Humans move around a lot more than cattle, and it is generally not safe to stop vaccinating and leave a population susceptible while the wild virus exists in another country. But it did happen with smallpox, that was eradicated in the wild and vaccination (which has a down-side) was stopped. So we now have a susceptible population if someone decides to get nasty.

The observation that all the polio cases in the USA are now vaccine-associated is very relevant in decision making. If polio is eradicated, should we now cease vaccinating and also lose the vaccine down-side? However, given the mobility of the population and the fact that polio still exists in the world, it is likely that the danger of leaving a susceptible population outweighs the danger of continuing to vaccinate. If polio is indeed eradicated world-wide, the risk-benefit equation will of course go the other way.

Rolfe.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John [/i]
How do you explain this then:

l]http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5243a4.htm[/url]


Low level of vaccination led to measles epidemic, resulting in 4 deaths, 3 children 1 adult (29 years). 594 hospitilisations. Total reported cases 1571.

When: 2002.

Where: Italy


>>There are numerous examples of where vaccination levels have dropped off, and, as predicted, epidemics begin. Note the word predicted. The ability to make predictions is integral to science. This example is in a modern european country.

I've never said that vaccines never work. I've made the general statement that some vaccines have a rather horrific history of killing the people they are supposed to protect.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox


Oops. Do you know how to read? Homeopathy uses remedies that produce SYMPTOMS similar to those of the disease, not remedies that produce THE DISEASE. Hopefully the caps will help!


So they both use "remedies"? It's a fine point. The application is different; the principle, nonetheless, the same.

-- Rouser

[The Don]

So they both use "remedies"? It's a fine point. The application is different; the principle, nonetheless, the same.

No Rouser2 they are completely different....

Innoculation uses a pathogen (usually a de-activated version of the same pathogen that causes the disesase) to stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies. These anibodies are detectable and the effects have been proved through a myriad vaccination trials. The innoculations also are able to be shown to actually contain rather a lot of the active ingredient.

Homeopath(et)ic "remedies" require a different pathogen to be introduced, one which produces similar symptoms. There is no reason to assume that such a material stimulates the immune system (there is certainly a paucity of peer reviewed evidence of this). Homeopath(et)ic "remedies" also do not contain any of the "active" ingredient either.

Once again homeopathy is fishing around trying to catch some credibility.

[Prester John]

I've never said that vaccines never work. I've made the general statement that some vaccines have a rather horrific history of killing the people they are supposed to protect.

And we are still waiting for you to provide evidence in support of this general statement.

Your interpretation of the Polio graph is wrong. Prior to vaccination there were thousands of cases every year. Since vaccination Polio has been erradicated in the Western world.


Science does not depend upon commonly held beliefs indeed. But it doesn't need to with vaccinations as there is abundant evidence. You are avoiding the point.

Regarding Influenza, most virologists dread this Virus, one year it will cause a pandemic resulting in probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths. This is the fear; its a matter of time. The 1918 pandemic accounted for maybe 50 million deaths, including many healthy adults. It is documented that the vaccine being provided this year has missed the Influenza virus likely to be responcible for the most cases. This is beacause it takes a long time to manufacture the vaccine and its an educated guess as to what Influenza strains will be predominant.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>Do you know what Guillain-Barre Syndrome is? It is temporary paralysis - those that survive, 90-95%, fully recover or suffer only minor problems.


According to the CDC, 15 to 20 percent do not recover at all but have persistent symptons.

"However, while most patients recover functionally; some persistent symptoms may be present in 15-20% of patients." -- CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/gbs/default.htm



Am J Epidemiol. 1979 Aug;110(2):105-23. Guillain-Barre syndrome following vaccination in the National Influenza Immunization Program, United States, 1976--1977. Schonberger LB, Bregman DJ, Sullivan-Bolyai JZ, Keenlyside RA, Ziegler DW, Retailliau HF, Eddins DL, Bryan JA.

Am J Epidemiol. 1984 Jun;119(6):841-79. An epidemiologic and clinical evaluation of Guillain-Barre syndrome reported in association with the administration of swine influenza vaccines.
Langmuir AD, Bregman DJ, Kurland LT, Nathanson N, Victor M.


But just what is your point in listing these articles???

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've never said that vaccines never work. I've made the general statement that some vaccines have a rather horrific history of killing the people they are supposed to protect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>And we are still waiting for you to provide evidence in support of this general statement.


Now you are playing games. Read the rest of the thread.

>>Your interpretation of the Polio graph is wrong. Prior to vaccination there were thousands of cases every year. Since vaccination Polio has been erradicated in the Western world.

The graph shows steep decline just as the first vaccine began to be adminstered.


>>Regarding Influenza, most virologists dread this Virus, one year it will cause a pandemic resulting in probably hundreds of thousands if not millions of deaths. This is the fear; its a matter of time. The 1918 pandemic accounted for maybe 50 million deaths, including many healthy adults. It is documented that the vaccine being provided this year has missed the Influenza virus likely to be responcible for the most cases. This is beacause it takes a long time to manufacture the vaccine and its an educated guess as to what Influenza strains will be predominant.


"So doctor, can I have the vaccine shots?"

"Sure, but they'll only protect you from last year's Flu."

"Well, I see everyone lined up here. so I guess it's better to be safe than sorry."

-- Rouser

[Prester John]

The graph shows steep decline just as the first vaccine began to be adminstered

So as the vaccine was administered the disease went into decline. We agree then.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by The Don
Once again homeopathy is fishing around trying to catch some credibility. There's an easy way they could do that, if only they could (if you get my drift).

Here, Mr. Homoeopath, I have two (unlabelled) bottles of the sort of lactose pillules homoeopaths use. One bottle has been "medicated" with a 30C preparation of your choice. The other is unmedicated. I give you one of these bottles. Can you tell me which I gave you? (Or, if you like, I'll give you both bottles and you tell me which is which.)

Remember, the homoeopath gets to choose the remedy, and is free to choose whatever he thinks will be easiest to identify. By any means he likes.

Now this basic test could be passed by any conventional medicine with ease. In fact, it is mandatory that licensed medicines can be shown to contain exactly what it says on the bottle. However, nobody can do it for a homoeopathic preparation. Every time the question arises, the homoeopaths back off with some unconvincing excuse. For example this one here (http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=2&TopicID=768&ReturnPage=&PagePosition=1&ThreadPage=2#7193), posted by our old friend Kumar.

I think that's a pretty fundamental difference between homoeopathy and real medicines, including vaccines. I wouldn't care much for a vaccine that couldn't be demonstrated to have an active ingredient.

And by the way, Rouser2, "remedy" is just a word for a medicine. It's a word favoured by the AltMed fraternity, but penicillin is a "remedy" too.

Rolfe.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
.

Oh, so books are bad, journals, good? Do you burn books too?

No, textbooks are fine. However, books like the one you describe are written to 1) make money for the author and 2) make money for the publisher. Facts tend to get thrown out the window as sensationalism sells. Scientific journal articles are written to elucidate and progress learning.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
I did check it out. The re-copied graph supports just what I have stated. The polio epidemic was already in steep decline by the time the vaccine was introduced (see the arrow pointing to 1956). Thank you very much.

So you do not know how to read a graph? No surprise...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2



So they both use "remedies"? It's a fine point. The application is different; the principle, nonetheless, the same.

-- Rouser

Sheesh, I even used capitals letters and you still don't understand. The difference is causes symptoms vs causative agent. Try again...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>Do you know what Guillain-Barre Syndrome is? It is temporary paralysis - those that survive, 90-95%, fully recover or suffer only minor problems.


"However, while most patients recover functionally; some persistent symptoms may be present in 15-20% of patients." -- CDC

We're both saying the same thing. English comprehension problem again?


Originally posted by Rouser2

But just what is your point in listing these articles???

-- Rouser

Read them and see. It won't hurt you...

[kookbreaker]

[i]Originally posted by Rouser2 [/
Now you are playing games. Read the
rest of the thread.


We have, Rouser, you have not suppoerted this statement. Once you get past the Swine Flu vaccine (over 25 years ago) and your chiropractic quack propaganda (psuedoscience and fear-mongering) you have no evidence of this.


The graph shows steep decline just as the first vaccine began to be adminstered.


Golly. Vaccine administered, cases go down. What a suprirse!


"So doctor, can I have the vaccine shots?"

"Sure, but they'll only protect you from last year's Flu."

"Well, I see everyone lined up here. so I guess it's better to be safe than sorry."

-- Rouser [/B]

More ignorance and oversimplification from Rouser. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5213a1.htm)

[kookbreaker]

(Edit dupliacte posting)

[Rolfe]

This thread has been the rounds in our lab, and the following has provoked much incredulity. I refer toOriginally posted by Rouser2

http://www.b5-dark-mirror.demon.co.uk/cdcpolio.jpgFollowed by the remark:Originally posted by Rouser2
All I've asserted is that the history of vaccinations is rather pathetic.THAT graph is an example of "pathetic"????

You can see from the short section before 1956 that the incidence was fluctuating. Some quite steep decreases were followed by equally steep increases. Rouser seems to want us to extrapolate that 1956 arrow down to see where it intersects with the graph. Well, I've done that. The intersection is on the falling line, but it's still above the level it had been at within the previous few years. The point is that after 1956 it doesn't go back up, it absolutely plummets.

Most people would not call that "pathetic".

By the way, my senior partner, who once worked in immunology, explained the blip around 1960. He told us a cautionary tale of what he descrivbed as "the Cutter incident". Not enough was known about the process of inactivating the virulent virus to produce the killed vaccine. A batch of vaccine was produced which wasn't sufficiently attenuated, and 30,000 people died. Nobody was careless or slap-happy, it was simply that not enough was known. Nevertheless a great deal of money was paid out in compensation, because "if you make a vaccine, you're not supposed to kill people with it".

It was shortly after that incident that the oral vaccine was introduced, and the lessons which had been learned ensured that a similar incident wasn't going to happen again.

Wouldn't we all be happy if things like the Cutter incident never happened. But when you actually intervene and DO something, there's always a possibility that something will go wrong. OK, if the vaccine had never been introduced, the Cutter incident would have been avoided - but at the expense (sorry, Rouser, but this is true) of the graph staying more or less up where it was in the early 1950s.

It's OK if you're peddling something useless and content-free like homoeopathy. If it doesn't do any good, well, at least it won't do harm (or at least it won't if you ignore those weird homoeopathic claims about "aggravations" and "provings"). But if you actually DO something, well, it's a risk. You want to tackle polio and risk somthing like the Cutter incident, or you want to leave things just as they are? Because that's life. The option of totally safe, risk-free intervention just isn't in the territory.

Rolfe.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
The evidence is pretty strong that the current vaccination panic concerning the current flu strain is unwarrented as most people in good health will not get the flu, of those that do, almost all will survive, and there is no evidence that the current vaccine will provide any protection for anyone.

-- Rouser

You are correct, mostly old people and babies die from influenza, so what's the big deal, right? Only 20,000 or so in the U.S. die each year from influenza. Past epidemiological studies show the flu vaccine protects 50-80% of those vaccinated, saving approximately 900 lives per 1,000,000 vaccinations. This year's vaccine may only protect 20-50% of those vaccinated, saving only a minimum 8,000 lives this year, but why bother?

So since 25 deaths over the last 25 years due to vaccine-induced GBS is a "horror", let's not vaccinate anyone against influenza and have an additional 10,000+ elderly and babies die per year - what lunacy.

[athon]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by athon [/i]

We're talking about Swine Flu here. The numbers of people who contracted the disease after the initial Fort Dix hysteria was zero. Nuff said.

-- Rouser

Look, maybe I'm just not getting your rational here (I hope I'm not, because otherwise you're just selecting occasions where a pandemic did not occur as proof that immunisation is wrong, which would be laughable), but Fort Dix was simply an example of the arising of a potential threat in the form of a new serotype. 'Swine Flu' is essentially Influenza A - even the 1918 Inf. A pandemic, typically called 'Spanish Flu', has been serotyped to being a variation of the modern so-called 'swine flu'. So we know that variations of serotype can vary the virulence of a pathogen, we just aren't sure exactly how. The Fort Dix 'hysteria' might not have eventuated into anything significant, but so what? As far as anybody is concerned, it might have been a catastrophe. Without full understanding of viral serotype/virulence relationship in 1976 I think it was a case of 'better safe than sorry'. What would your reaction be if it was a repeat of 1918, and nobody was vaccinated? Because as far as anybody knew, it might have been so.

Is it sad that a number of people suffered side effects of this 'unnecessary' vaccine? Yes, it is. And while this is improving as technology improves, it is indeed unfortunate. But you are arguing that in any case of a new serotype that shows potential to be deadly, we let it run its course.

So I have to ask, if it was you who had to roll the dice, what would you do?

These days we know more about virus virulence, but are still learning more as time goes on. Maybe to prevent such 'unnecessary' mass-vaccinations, you would like to go into research. Sure would be better than sitting back and finding statistics that match your insane views.

Athon

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>And by the way, Rouser2, "remedy" is just a word for a medicine. It's a word favoured by the AltMed fraternity, but penicillin is a "remedy" too.


Take it up with Merriam Webster. The word "remedy" as relates to homeopathy comes from his dictionary.

-- Rouser

[wert]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


I think he has made it quite clear that he believes in the moon landing "hoax". Which is why it is a waste of time to debate him on any subject. He is a delusional loony toon. Yep, his failure to answer this simple "yes/no" question pretty much shows where he's coming from.

I've got to say he's a pretty successful troll though. Look at all these people responding to his fact free claims.

So Rouser, in your estimation, did we or did we not successfully land men on the moon?

We're waiting.

(but definitely not holding our breath) ;)

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John


So as the vaccine was administered the disease went into decline. We agree then.

No, that's your spin. The epidemic had already been in decline.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox


No, textbooks are fine. However, books like the one you describe are written to 1) make money for the author and 2) make money for the publisher. Facts tend to get thrown out the window as sensationalism sells. Scientific journal articles are written to elucidate and progress learning.

Oh, I see. So non-textbooks are bad, but textbooks are good because they are not written for money? And I suppose scientific journals are just published and distributed for free? And there never is any incentive to publish falsified research? Noo, noo, noo. Never happens, eh. So just how did you do grade-wise in Econ 101???


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>Do you know what Guillain-Barre Syndrome is? It is temporary paralysis - those that survive, 90-95%, fully recover or suffer only minor problems.


"However, while most patients recover functionally; some persistent symptoms may be present in 15-20% of patients." -- CDC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--We're both saying the same thing. English comprehension problem again?

No, more like a math problem.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2

But just what is your point in listing these articles???

-- Rouser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>Read them and see. It won't hurt you...


Yeah, well that's why I didn't and won't. You have no point.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>This thread has been the rounds in our lab, and the following has provoked much incredulity. I refer toFollowed by the remark:THAT graph is an example of "pathetic"????

Not at all. The graph is an explanation of two coincidental happenings -- the natrual downward slope of a declining epidemic, and the introduction of a vaccine. What is pathetic are the numbers of innocents killed or impaired by the very preventive vaccination procedures which promise to save them.


>>You can see from the short section before 1956 that the incidence was fluctuating. Some quite steep decreases were followed by equally steep increases. Rouser seems to want us to extrapolate that 1956 arrow down to see where it intersects with the graph. Well, I've done that. The intersection is on the falling line, but it's still above the level it had been at within the previous few years. The point is that after 1956 it doesn't go back up, it absolutely plummets.

Indeed. And it would have plummetd even more if not for the polio cases caused by the vaccine. But there are actually more than just two or three factors influencing the downward slope. As a scientist you surely are well aware of the re-definition of Polio just after the introduction of the vaccine, making the diagnosis much more restricted, thus producing fewer recorded cases and thus influencing media directed public opinion to go "ga-ga" over the vaccine's "success".


>>By the way, my senior partner, who once worked in immunology, explained the blip around 1960. He told us a cautionary tale of what he descrivbed as "the Cutter incident". Not enough was known about the process of inactivating the virulent virus to produce the killed vaccine. A batch of vaccine was produced which wasn't sufficiently attenuated, and 30,000 people died. Nobody was careless or slap-happy, it was simply that not enough was known. Nevertheless a great deal of money was paid out in compensation, because "if you make a vaccine, you're not supposed to kill people with it".

>>It was shortly after that incident that the oral vaccine was introduced, and the lessons which had been learned ensured that a similar incident wasn't going to happen again.

No. The oral vaccine only conferrred Polio the old fashioned way. But simply having the victims ingest it orally.

>>Wouldn't we all be happy if things like the Cutter incident never happened. But when you actually intervene and DO something, there's always a possibility that something will go wrong.

Yes, well Modern Medicine has never been accused by its critics of not attempting to "do" something.

>>OK, if the vaccine had never been introduced, the Cutter incident would have been avoided - but at the expense (sorry, Rouser, but this is true) of the graph staying more or less up where it was in the early 1950s.

That's your spin. Fact is, all, repeat ALL epidemics eventually have such a downward spiral, with or without vaccines.

>>It's OK if you're peddling something useless and content-free like homoeopathy.
If it doesn't do any good, well, at least it won't do harm ...

Yeah, well once wasn't that part of something called the Hypocratic Oath or some such? "First, do no harm?????" When did that concept get trashed???

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by athon [/i]

>>What would your reaction be if it was a repeat of 1918, and nobody was vaccinated? Because as far as anybody knew, it might have been so.

Not so. The leading medical experts at the time cautioned the government that there was no evidence of any impending epidemic, but plenty of evidence of possible harm from the vaccine.

>>Is it sad that a number of people suffered side effects of this 'unnecessary' vaccine? Yes, it is. And while this is improving as technology improves, it is indeed unfortunate. But you are arguing that in any case of a new serotype that shows potential to be deadly, we let it run its course.
So I have to ask, if it was you who had to roll the dice, what would you do?

I wouldn't roll the dice. I'd listen to the experts -- independent experts with no monetary or political motivation.

>>These days we know more about virus virulence, but are still learning more as time goes on. Maybe to prevent such 'unnecessary' mass-vaccinations, you would like to go into research. Sure would be better than sitting back and finding statistics that match your insane views.

I think those who warn people about other people who "cry wolf" are also of value.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>You are correct, mostly old people and babies die from influenza, so what's the big deal, right? Only 20,000 or so in the U.S. die each year from influenza. Past epidemiological studies show the flu vaccine protects 50-80% of those vaccinated, saving approximately 900 lives per 1,000,000 vaccinations. This year's vaccine may only protect 20-50% of those vaccinated, saving only a minimum 8,000 lives this year, but why bother?

There is no evidence that this year's flu vaccine will save any lives.

>>So since 25 deaths over the last 25 years due to vaccine-induced GBS is a "horror",

Not 25, 52 from Swine Flu vaccine alone. Do you have dyslexia too?

>>let's not vaccinate anyone against influenza and have an additional 10,000+ elderly and babies die per year - what lunacy.

Strange how the rates of flu infections have gone up despite the development of flu vaccines. Or perhaps because of them???


-- Rouser

[athon]

Not so. The leading medical experts at the time cautioned the government that there was no evidence of any impending epidemic, but plenty of evidence of possible harm from the vaccine.


This supports your argument how? So the 'experts' (what's an expert? How can I sign up to be one?) state 'there is no impending epidemic', and then there is one...

I wouldn't roll the dice. I'd listen to the experts -- independent experts with no monetary or political motivation.

Again, what's an expert? How do you decide who to listen to? I've studied immunology and pathology for a number of years, and worked in an independent path' lab...I take it anybody who has ever received money from a government is wrong? Or pharmaceutical companies?

You're starting to sound like a conspiracy nut. How about understanding the principles at work and, rather than just looking at statistics and interpreting them with assumptions, form a more rounded opinion. Ralph did an excellent job explaining the polio graph with reference to conventional science, and your response was simply 'that's one way of interpreting it'.

I'm not saying there's nothing sinister here. The Cutter incident shows that where science is concerned, we can only play with the information we have. It's often a gamble, one that pays off more than it doesn't. And I'm sure there has been attempted coverup in the past of such incidences. I've formed these opinions after reading and researching whatever comes my way, and subjecting it to the understanding I have formed.

Rouser, many of us here are not just magazine readers - we've studied these areas not from one narrow viewpoint but by looking at many different models, opinions, and focusses. You seem to have read a couple of books and proclaim to know something the rest of the world doesn't.

Athon

[wert]

Originally posted by athon


You're starting to sound like a conspiracy nut.

* wert points to nose.

Search out some of rousers posts in other threads and you'll find that your presumption is a correct one.

Ask him to give you a credible version of what really happened with the Kennedy assassination or whether or not we actually sent men to the moon and you'll soon be able to gauge his credbility (or lack thereof).

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Oh, I see. So non-textbooks are bad, but textbooks are good because they are not written for money? And I suppose scientific journals are just published and distributed for free? And there never is any incentive to publish falsified research? Noo, noo, noo. Never happens, eh. So just how did you do grade-wise in Econ 101???


-- Rouser

You have no scientific background whatsoever, do you? Here's a suggestion - go back to school and get a degree in one of the health sciences if you're really interested in this topic. You'll see how ridiculous your posts are.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
]Originally posted by BTox [/i]


There is no evidence that this year's flu vaccine will save any lives.


Ah, so every year the vaccine has been used, it has saved thousands of lives, this year it will save none. What a loon!


Originally posted by Rouser2
Not 25, 52 from Swine Flu vaccine alone. Do you have dyslexia too?

Nope, 25. You never read the epidemiological study links, did you?


Originally posted by Rouser2
]Strange how the rates of flu infections have gone up despite the development of flu vaccines. Or perhaps because of them???


Might make a good story if it were true, but it is not. Once again, poor information.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

Not at all. The graph is an explanation of two coincidental happenings -- the natrual downward slope of a declining epidemic, and the introduction of a vaccine. What is pathetic are the numbers of innocents killed or impaired by the very preventive vaccination procedures which promise to save them.

Still can't comprehend a graph - how sad. And once again, where is your data on the number of innocents killed or impaired, compared to those saved by vaccines?


Originally posted by Rouser2

Indeed. And it would have plummetd even more if not for the polio cases caused by the vaccine. But there are actually more than just two or three factors influencing the downward slope. As a scientist you surely are well aware of the re-definition of Polio just after the introduction of the vaccine, making the diagnosis much more restricted, thus producing fewer recorded cases and thus influencing media directed public opinion to go "ga-ga" over the vaccine's "success".

Pure fantasy, without a spec of evidence to support it. I guess the modus operandi with anti-vac kooks is if you're going to lie, make it a whopper.


Originally posted by Rouser2

That's your spin. Fact is, all, repeat ALL epidemics eventually have such a downward spiral, with or without vaccines.

That is true (for once). They do have a downward spiral to background levels, which for polio was ~ 10,000 cases per year. And then epidemics repeat again in the future. But what happened here? The level dropped to 10 cases per year, only caused by the vaccine. Wild polio was eradicated from the country, and now is on the verge of being eradicated from the planet. If you honestly think this could have happened, with polio and all the other diseases similarly reduced with vaccines, you are truly a brain-dead idiot.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by athon [/i]

>>Rouser, many of us here are not just magazine readers - we've studied these areas not from one narrow viewpoint but by looking at many different models, opinions, and focusses. You seem to have read a couple of books and proclaim to know something the rest of the world doesn't.

My first affirmation of doubting the cures, preventives and proclaimations of Modern Medicine came not from books nor journals. That came later. My first affirmation came right in the middle of the Swine Flu hysteria. A very prominent private physician, a man who at one time had been the chariman of the licensiing Dept. for physicians in my state, was interviewed on the radio and raised serious questions. He in fact stated emphatically that there was no evidence of any impending Swine Flu epidemic but plenty of evidence of the dangers of vaccination. Shortly the thereafter, the mass-immunization program went forward. Thousands of government vaccination mobiles were sent across the country. When they came to my office of employment, everyone rushed out to get the shots. Everyone but me. The rest is history. The program was such a fiasco that it ended a month later.

Rouser

[Rouser2]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BTox
[B]

>>Ah, so every year the vaccine has been used, it has saved thousands of lives,

How do you know that? You mean this year's vaccine of last year's flu is going to save lives from this years' strain? How do you know that?


>>Nope, 25. You never read the epidemiological study links, did you?


I do not read links until a point is first made. You had no point. State your point, then provide the link.


-- Rouser

[Graham]

Showing 20 years before the 1950's for reference.

http://www.post-polio.org/cd/about/images/1-7b.gif

What's depressing is the sheer number fo anti-vaccine websites I had to trawl through before I found one, relatively sensible (http://www.post-polio.org/cd/about/about.html) one.

This site for instance (http://www.vaclib.org/intro/present/index4.htm).

Like many people, I have come to increasingly rely on the internet for information on a wide variety of subjects.

Unlike many people, however, I know not to accept things as truth just because they're written down and the author takes an authoritative tone.

It's not the rouser-trolls of this world that we (meaning the JREF, I suppose) should be worried about - it's the people who are deceived by their blather simply because it's everywhere.

Graham

[The Don]

And Rouser,

The left hand scale is logarithmic, the incidence these days is somewhere between one ten-thousandth and one hundred-thousandth or its previous value.

Coincidence ?

Could you perhaps point to anydisease which has demonstrated a similar drop in number of cases without the implementation of a vaccine ?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
[QUOTE]Originally posted by BTox
[B]How do you know that? You mean this year's vaccine of last year's flu is going to save lives from this years' strain? How do you know that?
Projection from the epidemiology statistics and the measured vaccine efficacy in clincal trials.
I do not read links until a point is first made. You had no point. State your point, then provide the link.
Certainly wouldn't want to confuse yourself with the facts.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
>>It's OK if you're peddling something useless and content-free like homoeopathy. If it doesn't do any good, well, at least it won't do harm ...

Yeah, well once wasn't that part of something called the Hypocratic Oath or some such? "First, do no harm?????" When did that concept get trashed???It's true that any apparent effect of homoeopathy has been entirely due to its being a pretty perfect way of implementing the "first do no harm" injunction.

However, let's be realistic. If we're so concerned to do no harm that we decide to do nothing at all, ever, about anything, is that a good outcome?

Let's consider a more familiar situation, in a hypothetical way. Since the introduction of insulin to treat diabetes, a few people each year have died of hypoglycaemic attacks directly caused by insulin. Innocents killed! Pathetic! Obscene! Evil! What happened to "first, do no harm"? Since we can't guarantee that nobody will ever die (or be brain-damaged) from a hypo attack if we treat with insulin, then obviously we should leave things alone.

And all the diabetics will die of their diabetes. But that won't be our fault, of course.

Yes, don't dive in and do stupid things. Don't intervene just for the sake of being seen to do something. Weigh a reasonable assessment of the risks against a reasonable assessment of the expected benefit. But there comes a point where every physician has to decide, am I just going to sit here and wring my hands for fear of a small risk, or am I going to try to do something to help this patient. Anyone who isn't prepared to face this decision needs to find another job. (Then, like Rouser, they can sit on the sidelines and criticise.)

Rolfe.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
. A very prominent private physician, a man who at one time had been the chariman of the licensiing Dept. for physicians in my state, was interviewed on the radio and raised serious questions. He in fact stated emphatically that there was no evidence of any impending Swine Flu epidemic but plenty of evidence of the dangers of vaccination. Shortly the thereafter, the mass-immunization program went forward. Thousands of government vaccination mobiles were sent across the country. When they came to my office of employment, everyone rushed out to get the shots. Everyone but me. The rest is history. The program was such a fiasco that it ended a month later.

Rouser
And this is how you assess the truth? The "prominence" of a physician? That is poor reasoning, rouser. Many prominent physiscians have no clue about the trade-offs between Type I and Type II errors. They have a poor sense of statistics.

The wave of pertussis-vaccination fear that swept the planet thirty years ago was set off by the very prominent, and quite mistaken, Justus Strom, in Sweden. Shall we discuss the horrors that resulted from that anti-vaccination fever? The infants that died in Sweden, Australia, Russia, U.K? Coughing so hard they turned blue. Coughing so persistent they couldn't nurse? Or the children and adults who died when they tried, desperately, to eat, only to inhale and choke on the the food when the next coughing fit started?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by The Don
And Rouser,

The left hand scale is logarithmic, the incidence these days is somewhere between one ten-thousandth and one hundred-thousandth or its previous value.

Coincidence ?

Could you perhaps point to anydisease which has demonstrated a similar drop in number of cases without the implementation of a vaccine ?

Only one? Of course. Bubonic Plague.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2

Indeed. And it would have plummetd even more if not for the polio cases caused by the vaccine. But there are actually more than just two or three factors influencing the downward slope. As a scientist you surely are well aware of the re-definition of Polio just after the introduction of the vaccine, making the diagnosis much more restricted, thus producing fewer recorded cases and thus influencing media directed public opinion to go "ga-ga" over the vaccine's "success".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Pure fantasy, without a spec of evidence to support it. I guess the modus operandi with anti-vac kooks is if you're going to lie, make it a whopper.


"In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August, 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank and ineptly disguised fraud. One of the experts on the panel, statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg, who went on to testify at Congressional hearings, revealed how data had been manipulated to hide the dangers and ineffectiveness of the vaccine from the pubic. Dr. Greenberg explained that the perceived overall reduction in polio cases was achieved by changing the criteria by which polio was diagnosed. (2)
Prior to 1954, all that was required was an examination on admittance and another 24 hours later; if the classic polio symptoms were discernible, the patient was considered to have polio. No lab test, and no residual paralysis were required to establish a paralytic polio case definitely. When the new criteria was established in 1954, for a case to be reportable as polio, residual paralysis had to linger for 60 days or longer. From this time onward, all cases in which paralysis lasted less than 60 days would no longer be classified as polio! Overnight, the majority of cases that would have been diagnosed as polio, were now shifted into a new disease category, cocksackie virus, or aseptic viral meningitis. "

http://64.41.99.118/vran/vaccines/polio/vaccine_pol.htm

"Redefinition of the disease:In order to qualify for classification as paralytic polio myelitis, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for at least 60 days after the onset of the disease. That was after they started the vaccination program. Before the vaccination program started in 1954, the patient had to exhibit paralytic symptoms for only 24 hours. This means that if you walked into a doctors' office before the vaccine was introduced, and you said, “Oh, I have paralytic symptoms here. I've had them for about 2 weeks,” that would have been classified as polio. After the vaccine, if you walked into that same doctors' office and said, “Oh, I've had these symptoms for two or three weeks now,” they would have waited for two months before calling it polio.
The Los Angeles County Health Index Morbidity and Mortality Reportable Disease Data show charts of cases of viral or aseptic meningitis and polio from 1955 to 1966. In that period of time, polio dropped from 273 cases to five. The number of cases of aseptic meningitis from 1955 to 1966 increased in almost the same proportion from 50 cases to 256 cases. They simply changed the name, same disease, and you thought polio was wiped out at that point. The disease was simply reclassified."


http://www.life.ca/nl/50/vaccine.html


Rouser

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Only one? Of course. Bubonic Plague.

-- Rouser

The vector of that disease is rodent fleas. Removal of the vector helped a bit, I'd say. There are still 1,000 - 3,000 cases per year, according to the WHO. From the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/)

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>Projection from the epidemiology statistics and the measured vaccine efficacy in clincal trials.

Of course you can't point to a single epidemiology study which affirms the potency of a Flu Vaccine of one strain, as to the predictablity on another.


>>Certainly wouldn't want to confuse yourself with the facts.

Especially when you seem to come up short on them.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>It's true that any apparent effect of homoeopathy has been entirely due to its being a pretty perfect way of implementing the "first do no harm" injunction.
However, let's be realistic. If we're so concerned to do no harm that we decide to do nothing at all, ever, about anything, is that a good outcome?

Good question. One I think very little research has ever been done on. Example: Each day, perhaps hundreds of people walk into a doctor's office and are diagnosed with Cancer. Most of thess people then undergo the standard treatments. Surgery, chemo, radiation, etc. But some people never get examined. And some few, upon diagnosis, never get "treated". What are the comparitive outcomes. The answer is, nobody really knows.

>>Let's consider a more familiar situation, in a hypothetical way. Since the introduction of insulin to treat diabetes, a few people each year have died of hypoglycaemic attacks directly caused by insulin. Innocents killed! Pathetic! Obscene! Evil! What happened to "first, do no harm"? Since we can't guarantee that nobody will ever die (or be brain-damaged) from a hypo attack if we treat with insulin, then obviously we should leave things alone.

And all the diabetics will die of their diabetes. But that won't be our fault, of course.


Quite of different situation from having the Medical Establishment in league with government persuasion, propaganda and coercion to having you offer up your children as unkowning potential martyrs in pursuit of a grandiose vaccination program to "eradicate" a disease.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>And this is how you assess the truth? The "prominence" of a physician? That is poor reasoning, rouser.


Not at all. He could have been a seer, or a soothsayer, or mystic. But in fact he was a highly credentialed physician who at the time was seen as a "maverick" and a "kook" just as lot of the more light-headed on this board try to paint and classify people who don't happen to agree with their own pathetic brainwash. If this man had been wrong....? But he wasn't wrong. And my sense of life experiences with my own heath and that of health problems with family and friends has reinforced my skepticism.


-- Rouser

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
]Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>Projection from the epidemiology statistics and the measured vaccine efficacy in clincal trials.

Of course you can't point to a single epidemiology study which affirms the potency of a Flu Vaccine of one strain, as to the predictablity on another.
Now just what "single-strain" flu vaccine do you have in mind here? Please name the "single-strain" vaccine.

Especially when you seem to come up short on them.
See above.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>And this is how you assess the truth? The "prominence" of a physician? That is poor reasoning, rouser.


Not at all. He could have been a seer, or a soothsayer, or mystic. But in fact he was a highly credentialed physician who at the time was seen as a "maverick" and a "kook" just as lot of the more light-headed on this board try to paint and classify people who don't happen to agree with their own pathetic brainwash. If this man had been wrong....? But he wasn't wrong. And my sense of life experiences with my own heath and that of health problems with family and friends has reinforced my skepticism.


-- Rouser

Oh, I see. Argument from authority. And argument from anecdote. Now where exactly is the logic and evidence in that?

[BTox]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Now just what "single-strain" flu vaccine do you have in mind here? Please name the "single-strain" vaccine.



That was a good one. The response should be amusing. ;)

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

"In May of 1960, Dr. Ratner chaired a panel discussion, at the 120th Annual Meeting of the Illinois Medical Society to review the increasing rise in paralytic polio in the U.S. The proceedings were reprinted in the August, 1960, Illinois Medical Journal which exposed the Salk vaccine as a frank and ineptly disguised fraud... blah, blah, blah

More anti-vac websites as your "sources"? Really grasping at straws now, eh?

Once again, I humbly suggest reading epidemiological studies conducted by qualified scientists. Do you have a link for med-line - it is a good place to start.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

How do you know that? You mean this year's vaccine of last year's flu is going to save lives from this years' strain? How do you know that?

The vaccine has saved lives every year it has been used. So what evidence do you have that this year, it will not save any?

Originally posted by Rouser2
I do not read links until a point is first made. You had no point. State your point, then provide the link.


No willingness to learn, no willingness to seek out alternative points of view, no willingness to challenge your illogical prejudices. How sad...

[Prester John]

This article is quite good:

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994435

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Oh, I see. Argument from authority. And argument from anecdote. Now where exactly is the logic and evidence in that?


Howabout "The Proof is in the Puddin'"???

If a man is right one time out of 10, it might just be pure dumb luck. But if he turns out to be right 9 times out of 10, then it would seem logical to lend an ear and his Medical Establishment critics be damned.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>More anti-vac websites as your "sources"? Really grasping at straws now, eh?


I would suggest that those who cannot address substance, but only denigrate source have got straws up their nose. Are you calling Dr. Hebert Ratner at "kook"? or "Quack" Are you saying the article is factually incorrect?


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>
The vaccine has saved lives every year it has been used. So what evidence do you have that this year, it will not save any?


None. Nor do I have any evidence that tonight the cow will jump over the moon. Now then, what evidence do you have that this particular vaccince will save any lives or will save more lives than kills??? Not hopes, not dreams, not guesses, not fallacious extrapolations, but EVIDENCE????


-- Rouser

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2



Howabout "The Proof is in the Puddin'"???

If a man is right one time out of 10, it might just be pure dumb luck. But if he turns out to be right 9 times out of 10, then it would seem logical to lend an ear and his Medical Establishment critics be damned.

-- Rouser

Wrong. That is, again, argument from authority. That is fallacious reasoning. Period.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Now just what "single-strain" flu vaccine do you have in mind here? Please name the "single-strain" vaccine.


I repeat the call for an answer here.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

I would suggest that those who cannot address substance, but only denigrate source have got straws up their nose. Are you calling Dr. Hebert Ratner at "kook"? or "Quack" Are you saying the article is factually incorrect?


-- Rouser

Yes and yes.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
None. Nor do I have any evidence that tonight the cow will jump over the moon. Now then, what evidence do you have that this particular vaccince will save any lives or will save more lives than kills??? Not hopes, not dreams, not guesses, not fallacious extrapolations, but EVIDENCE????


-- Rouser

Well, I offered epidemiological evidence, but it seems you are either unwilling or unable to read/comprehend it.

Now exactly how many people do you think will die from this vaccine? Offer specific sources, if you can...

[Prester John]

Still waiting for some evidence to back your position Rouser, but lets hear what WHO have to say:

http://www.who.int/csr/disease/influenza/sars/en/

Influenza typically infects 10% to 20% of the total population during seasonal epidemics, resulting in from three to five million cases of severe illness and at least 250 000 to 500 000 deaths each year worldwide.



For example, in elderly persons cared for in institutions, influenza vaccine is effective in preventing 80% of deaths, 50-60% of hospitalizations or pneumonia and 30-40% of influenza illnesses.

So what did you say:
The current panic over getting the current new flu vaccine "before the flu gets you" brings to mind the pathetic history of past flu vacciines and vaccinations in general. Fact is, the current Flu preventive potion being served up by the Medical/ Industry Complex in conjunction with the Federal Government doesn't exactly match the strain currently making people sick and no one really knows if it even works

As far as i am aware WHO is not part of the USA. Typical small mindedness on your part Rouser, there is a world outside your country you know.

I don't suppose you have a concept of how dangerous influenza really is. So lets repeat again, upto 1/2 million deaths per year from Influenza. Ok so its not a Malaria, or Measles even, but still thats quite a lot of real people that die. If you followed my new scientist link, you may have noticed another, concerning a possible vaccine for Malaria.

So come on Rouser, stop trolling, there is plenty of evidence presented to show vaccines are effective, where's yours to demonstrate the "pathetic history of vaccines" or even just flu vaccines. Unless of course you don't think old people count.

[Prester John]

the current Flu preventive potion being served up by the Medical/ Industry Complex in conjunction with the Federal Government doesn't exactly match the strain currently making people sick and no one really knows if it even works

To emphasize, are you suggesting that every government in the world is also involved in "the" conspiracy, or that every other country in the world is too stupid to see past the cunning propoganda of the federal government ?
Or maybe you don't believe there is a World outside your country?

Who knows, but that statement is plain arrogant. The biggest irony is that your self image portrays you as the open minded one.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]


>>Originally posted by Rouser2

Howabout "The Proof is in the Puddin'"???

If a man is right one time out of 10, it might just be pure dumb luck. But if he turns out to be right 9 times out of 10, then it would seem logical to lend an ear and his Medical Establishment critics be damned.

-- Rouser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Wrong. That is, again, argument from authority. That is fallacious reasoning. Period.

Wrong yourself. It is not fallacious to "lend an ear" to anyone. What's fallacious to argue that hearing a viewpoint is the same as accepting that viewpoint. Period.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2

I would suggest that those who cannot address substance, but only denigrate source have got straws up their nose. Are you calling Dr. Hebert Ratner at "kook"? or "Quack" Are you saying the article is factually incorrect?

-- Rouser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>Yes and yes.

So let's get this straight. Dr. Herbert Ratner is a "kook". The Illinois Medical Journal is either another "rag" publication written and published by 'kooks" or the conference in question was never reported in its August, 1960 issue. Statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg is also a just another "kook" and he never testified to congress on the subject. Is that your one-note song?

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


Well, I offered epidemiological evidence, but it seems you are either unwilling or unable to read/comprehend it.


You offered nothing but a blindfolded tour down an unknown bunny trail. If you had a point, you would state it, then give source.


>>Now exactly how many people do you think will die from this vaccine?

I have no idea and neither do you. But to fallaciously extrapolate from another vaccine, just as you have done with other flu vaccines, I'll say, ummm, well 52 sounds like a good round number.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


>>Still waiting for some evidence to back your position Rouser, but lets hear what WHO have to say:

Back my postion? And just what postion would that be? All I've said is that no one really knows if the current vaccine will protect anyone from the current flu strain making so many people sick. If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.

>>As far as i am aware WHO is not part of the USA. Typical small mindedness on your part Rouser, there is a world outside your country you know.


As far as I am aware The WHO has about as much credibility in its undocumented, unsupported predictive assertions as the lead singer for THE WHO has on child molestation.

>>I don't suppose you have a concept of how dangerous influenza really is. So lets repeat again, upto 1/2 million deaths per year from Influenza. Ok so its not a Malaria, or Measles even, but still thats quite a lot of real people that die. If you followed my new scientist link, you may have noticed another, concerning a possible vaccine for Malaria.


And so your point, is?????

>>So come on Rouser, stop trolling, there is plenty of evidence presented to show vaccines are effective, where's yours to demonstrate the "pathetic history of vaccines" or even just flu vaccines. Unless of course you don't think old people count.

You attempt to muddy the water and blur the question. The question is, does anybody really know if the current vaccine offering will protect anyone from the current flu strain making people sicK? And does anybody really know if it will save more people than it kills?????Pathetic is the history of vaccines that kill.

-- Rouser

[athon]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by athon [/i]

My first affirmation of doubting the cures, preventives and proclaimations of Modern Medicine came not from books nor journals. That came later. My first affirmation came right in the middle of the Swine Flu hysteria. A very prominent private physician, a man who at one time had been the chariman of the licensiing Dept. for physicians in my state, was interviewed on the radio and raised serious questions. He in fact stated emphatically that there was no evidence of any impending Swine Flu epidemic but plenty of evidence of the dangers of vaccination. Shortly the thereafter, the mass-immunization program went forward. Thousands of government vaccination mobiles were sent across the country. When they came to my office of employment, everyone rushed out to get the shots. Everyone but me. The rest is history. The program was such a fiasco that it ended a month later.

Rouser

OK, fine. Obviously 'perspective' isn't a word in your vocab' but we'll look at this then since you're so hooked on the topic.

The 'hysteria', as you call it, was perhaps excessive. Hindsight is a great thing, and as science gets better we can anticipate more effectively. However, at the time we only knew that Influenza A had the capabilities of killing on a massive scale. Which it can. And we knew that this new serotype could kill. The virulence was unknown, and could not be known at the time. Hence a decision was made to vaccinate.

There are always going to be people who object to such things. When AIDS made its debut in the world, there were people who speculated that it was a fictitious disease. Others saw it as a third world issue, and ignored it. A mistake, as we now know, but we are just humans who deal with a whole montage of issues.

Was the Swine Flu innoculation a mistake? In hind sight, there was no real necessity. Nobody had hindsight then, and as far as anybody knew it could have been a catastrophe.

Look at it this way - you are the leader of a population. Ten people in that population are known to have a deadly virus, with several others unconfirmed, which is a variation of a type that already exists (but is not as deadly). There is a consensus that a successful vaccine can be made. In the ten people who have the virus, six die within two weeks.

From what you are telling me, you would seek out experts from 'independent' labs. I've told you, experts are a dime a dozen. How do you choose who to listen to?

As we have already said, you show no sign of understanding the processes at work. Maybe if you did, you would see the issue is not as clearcut as you think.

Athon

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
You offered nothing but a blindfolded tour down an unknown bunny trail. If you had a point, you would state it, then give source.

Well, those were the two key studies on the swine flu incident. Yet you refuse to read them. Afraid of the facts, I suppose...


Originally posted by Rouser2
I have no idea and neither do you. But to fallaciously extrapolate from another vaccine, just as you have done with other flu vaccines, I'll say, ummm, well 52 sounds like a good round number.

-- Rouser

No, I am extrapolating from every flu vaccine since inception. It would be absurd to assume this one year it will save zero lives. But absurdity is one of your specialties, so I am not surprised.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Back my postion? And just what postion would that be? All I've said is that no one really knows if the current vaccine will protect anyone from the current flu strain making so many people sick. If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.

Sure they do. If you cannot comprehend this, we'll try to walk you through it:

Antigenic Characterization
CDC has antigenically characterized 157 influenza A (H3N2) viruses collected by U.S. laboratories since October 1 and found that 45 (29%) were similar antigenically to the vaccine strain A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2), and 112 (71%) were similar to the drift variant, A/Fujian/411/2002 (H3N2). The A/Fujian strain predominated in Australia and New Zealand during the recent Southern Hemisphere influenza season and is a drift variant related to the vaccine strain, A/Panama/2007/99. Antibodies produced against the vaccine virus cross-react with A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses, but at a lower level than against A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2). Vaccine effectiveness depends, in part, on the match between vaccine strains and circulating viruses and cannot be determined by laboratory testing. Although vaccine effectiveness against A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses may be less than that against A/Panama/2007/99-like viruses, it is expected that the current U.S. vaccine will offer some cross-protective immunity against the A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses and reduce the severity of disease. One influenza A(H1N1) virus was antigenically characterized and was similar to the vaccine strain A/New Caledonia/20/99.

Source: cdc influenza weekly report - week 48 (http://www.cdc.gov/flu/weekly/weeklyarchives2003-2004/weekly48.htm)


Originally posted by Rouser2
As far as I am aware The WHO has about as much credibility in its undocumented, unsupported predictive assertions as the lead singer for THE WHO has on child molestation.

"As far as I am aware" is the operative statement here. We already know you are not.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rouser2
You attempt to muddy the water and blur the question. The question is, does anybody really know if the current vaccine offering will protect anyone from the current flu strain making people sicK? And does anybody really know if it will save more people than it kills?????Pathetic is the history of vaccines that kill.

-- Rouser

And again, how many will it kill? Hopefully you realize that the deaths related to the swine flu vaccine in 76-77 have never been repeated, and GBS levels returned to normal (around 500 cases per year unrelated to vaccination).

Pathetic are the arguments of anti-vaccination kooks.

[BillHoyt]

Here is what you said:
If a man is right one time out of 10, it might just be pure dumb luck. But if he turns out to be right 9 times out of 10, then it would seem logical to lend an ear and his Medical Establishment critics be damned.

And me:

Wrong. That is, again, argument from authority. That is fallacious reasoning. Period.

And, finally, you:
Wrong yourself. It is not fallacious to "lend an ear" to anyone. What's fallacious to argue that hearing a viewpoint is the same as accepting that viewpoint. Period.
The "lend an ear" phrase of yours was not the salient one. The salient one was the set up to claim his authority. To wit: "But if he turns out to be right 9 times out of 10." That is argument from authority. Period. You need some basic logic lessons. Period. Do you need some web links to understand this fallacy?

[Prester John]

Back my postion? And just what postion would that be? All I've said is that no one really knows if the current vaccine will protect anyone from the current flu strain making so many people sick.

That sounds like a position to me. If you have any evidence to back up your opinion we would like to see it.

Come on Rouser, no more avoiding the question, out up or shut up!

[Prester John]

As far as I am aware The WHO has about as much credibility in its undocumented, unsupported predictive assertions as the lead singer for THE WHO has on child molestation.

Avoiding the point i made again, i said that the WHO was not part of the USA, so could not be invloved in a conspiracy by the US government. You cast dispersions upon their technical ability. I know out of Rouser and the WHO who i consider to be the more reliable source of information concerning vaccination.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by athon [/i]


>>Look at it this way - you are the leader of a population. Ten people in that population are known to have a deadly virus, with several others unconfirmed, which is a variation of a type that already exists (but is not as deadly). There is a consensus that a successful vaccine can be made. In the ten people who have the virus, six die within two weeks.


Uh, no. I believe it was just one.


>>From what you are telling me, you would seek out experts from 'independent' labs. I've told you, experts are a dime a dozen. How do you choose who to listen to?

You are playing more games. In this case, you listen to people with a background and expertise in epidemiolgy, preferably those with no axe to grind. In fact the CDC's advisory committee in immunolgy recommended the stockpiling of vaccine and an action plan to implement it, if needed. They did not recommend the implementation though. That was Dr. David Senser, Dir. of the CDC's idea which President Gerald Ford bought into.

>>As we have already said, you show no sign of understanding the processes at work. Maybe if you did, you would see the issue is not as clearcut as you think.

I do not argue that vaccines should never be made nor used. That is a strawman argument which all of the "kook" experts on this board have created for themselves. I only argue that vaccines have a rather sad history of killing the very people they are supposed to protect, and that in the current Flu panic, people are rushing to be innoculated with a vaccine that offers little or no protection to the current wave of illness. Perhaps the issue is not as clearcut as you may think.

-- Rouser

[Prester John]

And does anybody really know if it will save more people than it kills?????Pathetic is the history of vaccines that kill.

These look like statements, back em up. How many does the flu vaccine kill ? What is the pathetic history of vaccines???

We've presented scientific data showing that the flu vaccine saves lives, please note the quote from the WHO site.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>Well, those were the two key studies on the swine flu incident. Yet you refuse to read them. Afraid of the facts, I suppose...

Two key stuides that prove what? What is/was your point? That only 25 died from GBS? Your facts are wrong and it is you who is afraid to to admit it. Thus, you cite two obscure studies for no purpose.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antigenic Characterization
CDC has antigenically characterized 157 influenza A (H3N2) viruses collected by U.S. laboratories since October 1 and found that 45 (29%) were similar antigenically to the vaccine strain A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2), and 112 (71%) were similar to the drift variant, A/Fujian/411/2002 (H3N2). The A/Fujian strain predominated in Australia and New Zealand during the recent Southern Hemisphere influenza season and is a drift variant related to the vaccine strain, A/Panama/2007/99. Antibodies produced against the vaccine virus cross-react with A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses, but at a lower level than against A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2). Vaccine effectiveness depends, in part, on the match between vaccine strains and circulating viruses and cannot be determined by laboratory testing. Although vaccine effectiveness against A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses may be less than that against A/Panama/2007/99-like viruses, it is expected that the current U.S. vaccine will offer some cross-protective immunity against the A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses and reduce the severity of disease. One influenza A(H1N1) virus was antigenically characterized and was similar to the vaccine strain A/New Caledonia/20/99.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Source: cdc influenza weekly report - week 48


If this is supposed to be "evidence," I would point out that the entire paragraph is couched in words like "similar", and "cannot be determined" and "may be less" and "it is expected". These are the conditional words and phrases of propaganda unsupported by fact.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>The "lend an ear" phrase of yours was not the salient one. The salient one was the set up to claim his authority. To wit: "But if he turns out to be right 9 times out of 10." That is argument from authority. Period. You need some basic logic lessons. Period. Do you need some web links to understand this fallacy?

Perhaps "web links" are the extent of your understanding of the subject. Period. You, sir, are seriously confused. Period.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority)
"This method of argument is not always strictly fallacious, for the reference to an admitted authority in a special field of his competence may carry geat weight and constitute relevant evidence. If laymen are disputing over some question of physical science and one appeals to the testimony of Einstein on the matter, that testimony is very relevant... But when an authority is appealed to for testimony in matters outside the province of his special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam." -- "Inroduction to Logic" -- Irving M. Copi

-- Rouser


P.S. Period. (almost forgot)

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John


That sounds like a position to me. If you have any evidence to back up your opinion we would like to see it.

Come on Rouser, no more avoiding the question, out up or shut up!

-- I would refer you to the CDC quote provided by Btox. Obviously, they, the CDC is groping in the dark.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Note to Btox:

Originally posted by Rouser2 [/i]

I don't see that you have answered this post, so I'll re-post it. Perhaps you have overlooked it or are reconsidering your position?????


"So let's get this straight. Dr. Herbert Ratner is a "kook". The Illinois Medical Journal is either another "rag" publication written and published by 'kooks" or the conference in question was never reported in its August, 1960 issue. Statistician Dr. Bernard Greenberg is also a just another "kook" and he never testified to congress on the subject. Is that your one-note song?"


Still waiting for confirmation.


-- Rouser

[Prester John]

-- I would refer you to the CDC quote provided by Btox. Obviously, they, the CDC is groping in the dark.

Actually i think you should demonstrate some knowledge of Influenza virology as you do not appear to understand the CDC quote. Start with antigenic shift and drift, what H and N stand for. Basic i know. Your own words, not cut and pasted, try not to use google too much, it provides information not understanding. You seem to lack much of the latter.

[Prester John]

Rouser, how many people die per year from the Influenza vaccine? Basic info you need to support your case.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>The "lend an ear" phrase of yours was not the salient one. The salient one was the set up to claim his authority. To wit: "But if he turns out to be right 9 times out of 10." That is argument from authority. Period. You need some basic logic lessons. Period. Do you need some web links to understand this fallacy?

Perhaps "web links" are the extent of your understanding of the subject. Period. You, sir, are seriously confused. Period.

Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority)
"This method of argument is not always strictly fallacious, for the reference to an admitted authority in a special field of his competence may carry geat weight and constitute relevant evidence. If laymen are disputing over some question of physical science and one appeals to the testimony of Einstein on the matter, that testimony is very relevant... But when an authority is appealed to for testimony in matters outside the province of his special field, the appeal commits the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam." -- "Inroduction to Logic" -- Irving M. Copi
The confusion is yours, sir. And very nice selective quoting of Copi. The rest of the definition includes the very important qualifier: "his opinion is not representative of experts in the field." His opinion was and is at odds with the overwhelming majority in the field. You said it yourself, sir.

This is the epitomy of the fallacy of agumentum ad verecundiam.

Now, will you, at long last, address my call for you to name the single-strain vaccine? Or would you like to correct your original question?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Rouser2


No evidence, eh? Yet Modern Medicine employs homeopathic principles all the time. They just don't call it homeopathic. The very principle of inducing a very small substance to evoke a larger immune response is the principle behind vaccinations. You do believe in vaccinations, don't you?????"


-- Rouser

I realise this quote has been responded to a million times already (at least... it feels like it... Not that the responses weren't deserved, you understand), but I just wanted to say that this is the most profoundly ignorant statement I've seen since Ed Wood Jnr wrote that 'sunlight is made of atoms' in Plan 9 from Outer Space.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
If this is supposed to be "evidence," I would point out that the entire paragraph is couched in words like "similar", and "cannot be determined" and "may be less" and "it is expected". These are the conditional words and phrases of propaganda unsupported by fact.

-- Rouser

Well, I knew you wouldn't understand it. Let me put it this way, the only way for your assumption to be true (i.e. the current flu vaccine offers no protection against the current strains of flu), would be if 100% of the flu virus strains being identified were 1) not similar to A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2), AND 2) the antibodies produced from the vaccine did not cross-react at all with A/Fujian/411/2002 (H3N2). The fact is, at a minimum, the vaccine offers protection against 29% of the flu cases being found in the U.S., and at least some protection to the remaining 71% of the cases. In other words, your ASSumption, is wrong.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Note to Btox:

Originally posted by Rouser2 [/i]

I don't see that you have answered this post, so I'll re-post it. Perhaps you have overlooked it or are reconsidering your position?????



What is/was your point of this question? That polio eradication had nothing to do with the vaccine? Your facts are wrong and it is you who is afraid to to admit it. Thus, you cite two obscure reports for no purpose.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John
Rouser, how many people die per year from the Influenza vaccine? Basic info you need to support your case.


That's a good question -- one that nobody really seems to know. After all, doctors bury their mistakes.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>The confusion is yours, sir. And very nice selective quoting of Copi. The rest of the definition includes the very important qualifier: "his opinion is not representative of experts in the field." His opinion was and is at odds with the overwhelming majority in the field. You said it yourself, sir.


Not at all. His opinion was at odds with the government and the medical establishment. The real experts thought it was lunacy. The only reason I mentioned his qualifications and credits is for the very fact that all of the self-annointed "kook" detecting "experts" on this board denigrate anyone who doesn't have mainstream credentials. Yourself included.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox


Well, I knew you wouldn't understand it. Let me put it this way, the only way for your assumption to be true (i.e. the current flu vaccine offers no protection against the current strains of flu), would be if 100% of the flu virus strains being identified were 1) not similar to A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2), AND 2) the antibodies produced from the vaccine did not cross-react at all with A/Fujian/411/2002 (H3N2). The fact is, at a minimum, the vaccine offers protection against 29% of the flu cases being found in the U.S., and at least some protection to the remaining 71% of the cases. In other words, your ASSumption, is wrong.

The subject of this entire thread is the 71% of cases allagedly caused by the newer strain.

-- Rouser

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Not at all. His opinion was at odds with the government and the medical establishment. The real experts thought it was lunacy. The only reason I mentioned his qualifications and credits is for the very fact that all of the self-annointed "kook" detecting "experts" on this board denigrate anyone who doesn't have mainstream credentials. Yourself included.


You persist in defending your fallacious appeal to authority by demonstrating, step by step, how this crank is not an authority. This crank's opinion is at odds with the experts in the field. You just said so yourself, though you veiled it in a feint at yet another fallacy: the subject / motive shift. When will you begin to present evidence and use logical and critical thinking to defend your claims? We are all waiting.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Rouser2

That's a good question -- one that nobody really seems to know. After all, doctors bury their mistakes.

-- Rouser

You seem to know... earlier in the thread, when I stated that I had heard of few people dying from the current vaccine, you posted: Correction. YOU don't hear of such things. They nonetheless occur

So, you initially said that you know they (meaning deaths or other side effects) occur, now you say nobody really seems to know. So make up your mind. Either you know there's a negative effect, or nobody knows. You can't have it both ways.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2


The subject of this entire thread is the 71% of cases allagedly caused by the newer strain.

-- Rouser

Ah, now the weaseling and squirming begins. Let's review exactly what you claimed:

Now then, what evidence do you have that this particular vaccince will save any lives or will save more lives than kills??? Not hopes, not dreams, not guesses, not fallacious extrapolations, but EVIDENCE????

----Rouser

As you should hopefully realize by now, numerous strains of flu circulate, sicken and kill people in the U.S. every year. This is why the vaccine is composed of three components, two type A and one type B. You specifically claimed that the vaccine would not save ANY lives, meaning it would not be appicable to ANY of the flu viruses currently circulating. As the CDC data clearly indicates, that was a 100% wrong ASSumption. Be a man, admit you were wrong and move on.

A few final questions. What are you doing on this board? Do you really think anyone here is the least bit swayed by the jibberish you post? If anything, this thread has strengthened the awareness and importance of getting vaccinated against the flu and all other such preventable diseases.

Might I suggest you check this board out? I think you will fit in nicely - it is run by an MD who lost his license (in other words, another quack). And the board is populated by similarly uneducated buffoons who know nothing about the health sciences, and, due to their ignorance and prejudice, are against vaccinations and most other medical science advancements. Check it out:

ask walt "quack quack" stoll (http://askwaltstollmd.com/wwwboard/wwwboard.html)

[athon]

Well folks, I bow out of this one.

Rouser 2 is just too smart for me. I can't compete with his lack of evidence, his selective appeal to authority, his lack of comprehention of basic immunology, his vision of conspiracy, his refusal to understand the principle concepts behind both homeopathy and immunology (even in the slightest)...it's like fighting a cloud with a stick.

I wish I had the tenacity of some of you folk.

Athon

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


You seem to know... earlier in the thread, when I stated that I had heard of few people dying from the current vaccine, you posted: Correction. YOU don't hear of such things. They nonetheless occur

So, you initially said that you know they (meaning deaths or other side effects) occur, now you say nobody really seems to know. So make up your mind. Either you know there's a negative effect, or nobody knows. You can't have it both ways.


Oh sure you can. We know very well that people die from flu shots. We just don't know about the ones that are not tabulated and studied. The Swine Flu fiasco was studied. We have those results. 52 dead.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Ah, now the weaseling and squirming begins. Let's review exactly what you claimed:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now then, what evidence do you have that this particular vaccince will save any lives or will save more lives than kills??? Not hopes, not dreams, not guesses, not fallacious extrapolations, but EVIDENCE????

----Rouser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>As you should hopefully realize by now, numerous strains of flu circulate, sicken and kill people in the U.S. every year.

Of course.

>>This is why the vaccine is composed of three components, two type A and one type B. You specifically claimed that the vaccine would not save ANY lives, meaning it would not be appicable to ANY of the flu viruses currently circulating.

Another completely and totally false attribution. I never said any such thing.


>>As the CDC data clearly indicates, that was a 100% wrong ASSumption. Be a man, admit you were wrong and move on.

Be a man, admit you are wrong or prove otherwise. Put up or shut up.

>>A few final questions. What are you doing on this board? Do you really think anyone here is the least bit swayed by the jibberish you post?

I don't post jibberish, but common sense which seems to have gotten under your skin.

>> If anything, this thread has strengthened the awareness and importance of getting vaccinated against the flu and all other such preventable diseases.

Sounds to me like whistling in the dark in in the middle of a cemetary.

>>Might I suggest you check this board out? I think you will fit in nicely - it is run by an MD who lost his license (in other words, another quack).

What is a "quack"? If an M.D. keeps his license, but kills people with Modern Medical Voodoo, is he a "quack"??????

>> And the board is populated by similarly uneducated buffoons who know nothing about the health sciences, and, due to their ignorance and prejudice, are against vaccinations and most other medical science advancements. Check it out:

I've told you before. I don't go hoppin' down cyber bunny trails blindfolded unless there is a point. Do you have a point? Obviously, not.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by athon
Well folks, I bow out of this one.

Rouser 2 is just too smart for me. I can't compete with his lack of evidence, his selective appeal to authority, his lack of comprehention of basic immunology, his vision of conspiracy, his refusal to understand the principle concepts behind both homeopathy and immunology (even in the slightest)...it's like fighting a cloud with a stick.

I wish I had the tenacity of some of you folk.

Athon

Ah, well.. another one bites the dust.


-- Rouser

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Ah, well.. another one bites the dust.


-- Rouser
No, he's doubled over with laughter. So am I. When you stop playing games and show some willingness to actually engage in a substantive discussion, the laughing will stop.

I suggest you begin by addressing the questions you've been dodging so far. Secondly, stop pulling the No True Scotsman's maneuver when you pose questions or make assertions.

[BTox]

Originally posted by athon
Well folks, I bow out of this one...

I wish I had the tenacity of some of you folk.

Athon

Booo, no stamina. As a veteran of many woowoo wars, I can tell you it takes perseverance to win the day. Have to keep hitting them over the head with the facts, while picking apart their inane responses. Eventually, they'll fold like a cheap tent. ;)

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

<< You specifically claimed that the vaccine would not save ANY lives.>>

Another completely and totally false attribution. I never said any such thing.

Gee, you can't even understand your own posts? Or was this another Rouser that said, and I quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

..and there is no evidence that the current vaccine will provide any protection for anyone.

-- Rouser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no evidence that this year's flu vaccine will save any lives.


-- Rouser

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and finally...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now then, what evidence do you have that this particular vaccince will save any lives or will save more lives than kills??? Not hopes, not dreams, not guesses, not fallacious extrapolations, but EVIDENCE????

----Rouser
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Rouser2

I don't post jibberish, but common sense which seems to have gotten under your skin.

The fallacy of common sense - now this makes sense!

Originally posted by Rouser2

Sounds to me like whistling in the dark in in the middle of a cemetary.

Sounds to me like the definition of jibberish!

Originally posted by Rouser2

What is a "quack"? If an M.D. keeps his license, but kills people with Modern Medical Voodoo, is he a "quack"??????

You almost have it. A quack is typically an MD that has killed his patients with medical voodoo, aka "alternative" medicine. But they usually lose their license.


Originally posted by Rouser2

I've told you before. I don't go hoppin' down cyber bunny trails blindfolded unless there is a point. Do you have a point? Obviously, not.

-- Rouser

No, there was no point, only trying to help you find a place where you might fit in. Take a look-see, I really think you'll like it.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

<< You specifically claimed that the vaccine would not save ANY lives.>>

Another completely and totally false attribution. I never said any such thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>Gee, you can't even understand your own posts? Or was this another Rouser that said, and I quote:

"..and there is no evidence that the current vaccine will provide any protection for anyone."

-- Rouser

And just where in that phrase is the assertion that the vaccine would save no lives? "No evidence" means "no evidence". Nothing more. Your attribution is completely and totally false.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rouser2

What is a "quack"? If an M.D. keeps his license, but kills people with Modern Medical Voodoo, is he a "quack"??????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>You almost have it. A quack is typically an MD that has killed his patients with medical voodoo, aka "alternative" medicine. But they usually lose their license.<<

Well, now we finally agree on SOMETHING! "A quack is typically an MD...." Excellent. Well, that's some small progress, anyway.

Now then. What is "alternative medicine"??? Does that include nutrition? Osteopathy? Chiropractic? Holistic? Just how big is your alternative healing paintbrush???? Or do you take the "fifth" on that one too????

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I realise this quote has been responded to a million times already (at least... it feels like it... Not that the responses weren't deserved, you understand), but I just wanted to say that this is the most profoundly ignorant statement I've seen since Ed Wood Jnr wrote that 'sunlight is made of atoms' in Plan 9 from Outer Space.

"Homeopathy is "a system of medical practice that treats a disease especially by the administration of minute doses of a remedy that would in healthy persons produce symptoms similar to those of the disease". -- Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., 1993:

-- Rouser

[Prester John]

Ah Rouser, you have still not demonstrated any knowledge of immunology or virology. You don't even know anything about homeopathy. That a dictonary is the source of your knowledge says much.

Oh any update on the federal conspiracy aspect ? You kind of ignored those points!


"..and there is no evidence that the current vaccine will provide any protection for anyone."

-- Rouser

but there is dear Rouser, you just have blinded yourself to it.

Perhaps you should restate your position Rouser, its seems to change. What are you claiming and where is your evidence for your claims ?

[Prester John]

Hey Rouser, do you understand the principles behind debate? You put a view forward and substantiate it with evidence. You are very good at the former but not at the latter. All we have is your ill formed opinion.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2


"Homeopathy is "a system of medical practice that treats a disease especially by the administration of minute doses of a remedy that would in healthy persons produce symptoms similar to those of the disease". -- Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., 1993:

-- Rouser
Such scholarship! Impressive. Can you possibly stretch that silly putty in your skull a bit to understand that description and then dive into the principle. Homeopathy is based on the (alleged) law of similars. "Like causes like." Homeopaths find that a disease causes itching. They then utterly fail to examine why. They merely scratch around to find something else that causes itching. They then dilute it so far that there are no or nearly no molecules of that substance in the solution, make you take that expensive pure water, telling you it will cure you.

That's it. Now return to some of the previous posts in this thread. The ones discussing how the new strains of flu virus were characterized. Still don't see the difference? No? We have the actual disease agent. Want more? We don't wait until the patient presents. We give the vaccine beforehand? Why? Because we understand the body needs also to characterize this agent and build a defense against it. Still don't see it? It has nothing to do with symptoms and everything to do with causation. Still? No?

Hey, take out the silly putty and mush it up against the Sunday comics.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
"Homeopathy is "a system of medical practice that treats a disease especially by the administration of minute doses of a remedy that would in healthy persons produce symptoms similar to those of the disease". -- Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., 1993:

-- RouserThere's just a wee bit more to it than they nmanaged to squeeze into the dictionary.

"Minute" is a misdescription. "Non-existent" is closer. Just to recap on that (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32172&perpage=30&pagenumber=4#post1870231251), do you think Rouser actually reads other people's posts at all?

Any system of "medicine" which is unable to distinguish between a bottle of its remedy and an identical bottle of a placebo preparation by any in vitro or in vivo method known to mankind, is by no stretch of the imagination comparable to vaccination. (This, of course, is why homoeopathy is eligible for the JREF Challenge, Rouser. The only way to make this distinction would be by paranormal means.)

If you want to read more about homoeopathy than your dictionary definition, Rouser, why don't you go have a look at HomeoWatch (http://www.homeowatch.org/)? Be sure to follow all the links, now. Then maybe you can diversify your support for woo-woo notions into new and interesting areas.Originally posted by BillHoyt
Homeopaths find that a disease causes itching. They then utterly fail to examine why. They merely scratch around to find something else that causes itching. They then dilute it so far that there are no or nearly no molecules of that substance in the solution, make you take that expensive pure water, telling you it will cure you.Actually, that's the version they give to the uninitiated. In fact the determination of what the substance causes in healthy persons is also done on the magic water, not on the real substance. They tend not to be looking for real physical effects at all, but subtle changes in mood and "outlook". The "proving diaries" are nothing but a stream of self-obsessed gibberish (http://www.hominf.org/proving.htm).

The more you look at the subject the madder (and the more paranormal) it becomes. MRC_Hans has been looking closer than most of us, and some of the results of his researches can be examined here (http://www.homeopathyhome.com/ultimate/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000358;p=1). These people are serious fruitcake.

Rolfe.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

"..and there is no evidence that the current vaccine will provide any protection for anyone."

-- Rouser

"No evidence" means "no evidence". Nothing more. Your attribution is completely and totally false.

Exactly - you claimed there is NO evidence that the current vaccine will protect anyone, and NO evidence that it will save any lives. And I provided incontrovertible diagnostic and antigenic evidence that it will. Case closed - your claim is completely and totally false.



Originally posted by Rouser2


Now then. What is "alternative medicine"??? Does that include nutrition? Osteopathy? Chiropractic? Holistic? Just how big is your alternative healing paintbrush???? Or do you take the "fifth" on that one too????

-- Rouser

"Alternative" medicine is the use of methods that are not proven by well-conducted, placebo-controlled clinical trials to be both efficacious AND safe relative to benefit. Homeopathy is a perfect example. There is no scientific rationale for its mode of action, in fact the proposed mechanism violates laws of chemistry, pharmacology and physics. There is no credible evidence that it has any effect beyond placebo. Yet quacks continue to try to treat people with this nonsense, with tragic results.

As for your list - nutrition? Are you serious? That is a scientific discipline. Osteopathy I don't know anything about so can't comment. Chiropractic has been shown to be of limited value only in alleviating lower back pain, most likely due to massage therapy. All other aspects of it are confirmed quackery. Holistic is a meaningless marketing term some "alternative" practitioners use in an attempt to lure the ignorant (i.e. suckers).

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John [/i]



"..and there is no evidence that the current vaccine will provide any protection for anyone."

-- Rouser

>>but there is dear Rouser, you just have blinded yourself to it.

No, none at all. Not for the new strain in question.

>>Perhaps you should restate your position Rouser, its seems to change. What are you claiming and where is your evidence for your claims ?

Well now, one thing I'm claiming is that a whole lot of pseudo-intellects on this board have zero evidence for their claims, but in defense, they say in effect "where is your evidence that we have no evidence?".


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]
]
>>Such scholarship! Impressive. Can you possibly stretch that silly putty in your skull a bit to understand that description and then dive into the principle. Homeopathy is based on the (alleged) law of similars. "Like causes like." Homeopaths find that a disease causes itching. They then utterly fail to examine why. They merely scratch around to find something else that causes itching. They then dilute it so far that there are no or nearly no molecules of that substance in the solution, make you take that expensive pure water, telling you it will cure you.

>>That's it. Now return to some of the previous posts in this thread. The ones discussing how the new strains of flu virus were characterized. Still don't see the difference? No? We have the actual disease agent. Want more? We don't wait until the patient presents. We give the vaccine beforehand? Why? Because we understand the body needs also to characterize this agent and build a defense against it. Still don't see it? It has nothing to do with symptoms and everything to do with causation. Still? No?

>>Hey, take out the silly putty and mush it up against the Sunday comics.

So it's one diluted subtance as versus another. Sounds similar to me -- and to Webser. Same principle; different application.

Rouser

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
"..and there is no evidence that the current vaccine will provide any protection for anyone."

-- Rouser

>>but there is dear Rouser, you just have blinded yourself to it.

No, none at all. Not for the new strain in question.



Malarky. Year after year, study after study demonstrate that vaccinated, immunocompetent individuals develop cross-immunity to the currently circulating strains. One example:

"The effectiveness of influenza vaccine depends primarily on the age and immunocompetence of the vaccine recipient and the degree of similarity between the viruses in the vaccine and those in circulation…..A 2-year randomized study of children aged 6--24 months determined that more than 89% of children seroconverted to all three vaccine strains during both years; vaccine efficacy was 66%." MMWR 2002: 51(RR03);1-31

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe


>>Any system of "medicine" which is unable to distinguish between a bottle of its remedy and an identical bottle of a placebo preparation by any in vitro or in vivo method known to mankind, is by no stretch of the imagination comparable to vaccination. (This, of course, is why homoeopathy is eligible for the JREF Challenge)


Are the nostrums of Modern Medicine also eligble for the JREF Challenge???


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>Exactly - you claimed there is NO evidence that the current vaccine will protect anyone, and NO evidence that it will save any lives. And I provided incontrovertible diagnostic and antigenic evidence that it will. Case closed - your claim is completely and totally false.


You provided a quote from the CDC that consisted of a bunch of assertions unbacked by evidence. And let's be clear that we are speaking of evidence of effectiveness for immunizing against the current strain, not last year's strain. In place of evidence the CDC offers conjecture. Thus, you and the CDC accept a form of medical treatment that has not been tested, much less double-blind tested for safety and effectives nor for any placebo effect. Thus, by your own "Alternative Medicine" definition, the CDC and all of the Establishment doctors who bow down to it, are practicing Alternative Medicne. By your own definiation QUACKERY. Deal with it.

-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
You provided a quote from the CDC that consisted of a bunch of assertions unbacked by evidence. And let's be clear that we are speaking of evidence of effectiveness for immunizing against the current strain, not last year's strain. In place of evidence the CDC offers conjecture. Thus, you and the CDC accept a form of medical treatment that has not been tested, much less double-blind tested for safety and effectives nor for any placebo effect. Thus, by your own "Alternative Medicine" definition, the CDC and all of the Establishment doctors who bow down to it, are practicing Alternative Medicne. By your own definiation QUACKERY. Deal with it.

-- Rouser


Sadly, your inability to understand and/or accept the evidence, and it is iron-clad serological evidence from current flu victims, does not change the facts. Case closed - your claim is completely and totally false.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]


>>Malarky. Year after year, study after study demonstrate that vaccinated, immunocompetent individuals develop cross-immunity to the currently circulating strains. One example:

>>"The effectiveness of influenza vaccine depends primarily on the age and immunocompetence of the vaccine recipient and the degree of similarity between the viruses in the vaccine and those in circulation…..A 2-year randomized study of children aged 6--24 months determined that more than 89% of children seroconverted to all three vaccine strains during both years; vaccine efficacy was 66%." MMWR 2002: 51(RR03);1-31

Not for Your Eyes Only:

HEY, GENIUS? KIN YOUSE REED DIS????

"...the level of protection remains uncertain until vaccine effectiveness studies are completed.

From: MMWR, Dec. 12, 2003
-- http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5249a1.htm

Thus, an untried, untested vaccine is being foisted upon A gullible public on the basis of conjecture. MODERN MEDICAL QUACKERY!!!

-- ROUSER

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2

HEY, GENIUS? KIN YOUSE REED DIS????

"...the level of protection remains uncertain until vaccine effectiveness studies are completed.

From: MMWR, Dec. 12, 2003
-- http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5249a1.htm

Thus, an untried, untested vaccine is being foisted upon A gullible public on the basis of conjecture. MODERN MEDICAL QUACKERY!!!

-- ROUSER
How about you try to read the whole paragraph?
"So far this season, influenza A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses are predominating in the United States. This strain differs from the influenza A (H3N2) virus contained in the 2003--04 vaccine (i.e., A/Panama/2007/99). The A/Fujian-like viruses are antigenic drift variants of the A/Panama strain and were detected by global surveillance early this year but too late for inclusion in the current influenza vaccine. Hemagglutination inhibition testing using postinfection ferret sera indicates that antibodies to the A/Panama vaccine virus cross-react with A/Fujian-like viruses; therefore, current influenza vaccines should provide some protection against A/Fujian-like viruses. However, the level of protection remains uncertain until vaccine effectiveness studies are completed. The vaccine also contains A/New Caledonia/20/99 (H1N1)-like and B/Hong Kong/330/2001-like viruses and should protect persons who are vaccinated against these viruses if they circulate more widely later in the season. "

The newest strain is an antigenic drift variant of a strain present in the vaccine. It was detected too late to be included. Preliminary testing indicates cross-reaction. The protective nature of this vaccine is clear; the exact efficacy numbers are not yet available.

This is a long way from your inflammatory "untried, untested.. foisted" language.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

HEY, GENIUS? KIN YOUSE REED DIS????

"...the level of protection remains uncertain until vaccine effectiveness studies are completed.

From: MMWR, Dec. 12, 2003
-- http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5249a1.htm

Thus, an untried, untested vaccine is being foisted upon A gullible public on the basis of conjecture. MODERN MEDICAL QUACKERY!!!

-- ROUSER

My, my, you sure are getting hot under the collar. I wonder why?

Let's review:

Rouser: "and there is NO evidence that the current vaccine will provide ANY protection for ANYONE."

CDC: "CDC has antigenically characterized 212 influenza A (H3N2) viruses collected by U.S. laboratories since October 1 and found that 54 (25%) were similar antigenically to the vaccine strain A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2).."

This means the current vaccine provides protection against 25% of the influenza A viruses currently circulating - fact.

CDC: "Antibodies produced against the vaccine virus cross-react with A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses, but at a lower level than against A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2)... "

This means the current vaccine provides some level of protection against 75% of the influenza A viruses currently circulating - fact.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

HEY, GENIUS? KIN YOUSE REED DIS????

... MODERN MEDICAL QUACKERY!!!

-- ROUSER

And since you were so adamant about it: "and there is NO evidence that the current vaccine will provide ANY protection for ANYONE.", let's not forget the other virus strains currently identified.

CDC: "Among the 6,751 influenza viruses, 6,716 (99.5%) were influenza A viruses and 35 (0.5%) were influenza B viruses."

CDC: "One influenza A(H1N1) virus (0.1%) was antigenically characterized and was similar to the vaccine strain A/New Caledonia/20/99."

Therefor, even the remaining 0.6% of influenza cases identified to date in the U.S. are covered by the current vaccine.

So in conclusion, not only is your statement: "and there is NO evidence that the current vaccine will provide ANY protection for ANYONE" completely and totally false, the truth is the current vaccine provides SOME level of protection for EVERYONE.

[Prester John]

No, none at all. Not for the new strain in question

So you concede that the Influenza vaccine can provide protection?
You're position is that because the Fujian strain is not included in the current vaccine that the aforementioned vaccine will provide no protection?


Thus, an untried, untested vaccine is being foisted upon A gullible public on the basis of conjecture

Well others have covered the untried, untested bit, i would suggest that the only gullible one here is yourself. You never did answer the question about the moon hoax. You appear to believe in a rather large and impossible conspiracy, and no doubt have decided that any information presented that does not agree with your particular world view is part of the conspiracy. Thus you are actually closed minded whilst you believe youself to be the opposite.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
So it's one diluted subtance as versus another. Sounds similar to me --Rouser, do you have any idea at all what Avogadro's number is?

It's one solution versus a bottle containing nothing but solvent. Webster's dictionary isn't exactly the foremost authority on these matters, you know.

Now go back and read my previous post, properly.

Rolfe.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Rouser, do you have any idea at all what Avogadro's number is?

It's one solution versus a bottle containing nothing but solvent. Webster's dictionary isn't exactly the foremost authority on these matters, you know.

Now go back and read my previous post, properly.

Rolfe.

Avogadro's number? I'm sure Rouser is reading it as avocado's number. And it is pretty clear he thinks Webster is the inventor of homeopathy! :D

[geni]

To make things easy Avogadro's number is 6.02214*10^23 per mol

[BTox]

Originally posted by geni
To make things easy Avogadro's number is 6.02214*10^23 per mol

Now you're really going to confuse him. He's going to think it is 6.022 times 10 minus 23.

[Rolfe]

Try 6.02214 x 10<SUP>23</SUP>

Rolfe (has read the easy pages of HTML for Dummies....)

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

CDC: "Antibodies produced against the vaccine virus cross-react with A/Fujian/411/2002-like viruses, but at a lower level than against A/Panama/2007/99 (H3N2)... "

>>This means the current vaccine provides some level of protection against 75% of the influenza A viruses currently circulating - fact. <<


If it proivided zero protection, that would cover the conditional verb "should" (but perhaps not). Fact is, CDC does not know and neither do you. If "should provide" translates into one percent or 10 percent or 25 percent or more, that also covers the conditional verb "should". But as to actual studies, there are none. This is all conjecture -- like i said, Modern Medical Quackery.

"Hemagglutination inhibition testing using postinfection ferret sera indicates that antibodies to the A/Panama vaccine virus cross-react with A/Fujian-like viruses; therefore, current influenza vaccines should provide some protection against A/Fujian-like viruses."

Let us also be mindful that a human being is not a ferret.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>So in conclusion, not only is your statement: "and there is NO evidence that the current vaccine will provide ANY protection for ANYONE" completely and totally false, the truth is the current vaccine provides SOME level of protection for EVERYONE.


Of course that alleged "quote" is a thorough mis-representation lifted out of context. Of course what I refer to is the fact that there is no evidence of protection against the current new strain, the A/Fujian strain that is allegedly making most flu-stricken people sick. The entire quote reads:

"The evidence is pretty strong that the current vaccination panic concerning the current flu strain is unwarrented as most people in good health will not get the flu, of those that do, almost all will survive, and there is no evidence that the current vaccine will provide any protection for anyone."

Meaning any protection from the current flu strain. Your allegation that my allegation is completely and totally false is completely and totally false.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]


>>The newest strain is an antigenic drift variant of a strain present in the vaccine. It was detected too late to be included. Preliminary testing indicates cross-reaction. The protective nature of this vaccine is clear; the exact efficacy numbers are not yet available.

>>This is a long way from your inflammatory "untried, untested.. foisted" language.

Prelimary testing with ferrets indicating a "cross-reaction" of anti-bodies from the A/Panama strain, is a long way from tried, tested, and true, safe and effective. The phrase "should provide" in the paragraph is an indication of a conclusion based on conjecture, and not on substance nor evidence. The same kind of conditional language was used by the promoters of the Swine Flu vaccine as well as the snake oil promoters of the 19th century. It's quackery, pure and simple.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


>>So you concede that the Influenza vaccine can provide protection?
You're position is that because the Fujian strain is not included in the current vaccine that the aforementioned vaccine will provide no protection?


Concede? As far as the Fugian strain is concerned, the operative phrase is "no evidence".


>>You never did answer the question about the moon hoax.

I do not address nitwittery that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. If you like, start your own thread. You will attact other nitwits who love to engage in nonsensical diversions for lack of any thing better to do, like yourself. No, there was no "moon hoax"; I never said there was. Satisfied? Now, back to your silly putty.

-- Rouser

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Prelimary testing with ferrets indicating a "cross-reaction" of anti-bodies from the A/Panama strain, is a long way from tried, tested, and true, safe and effective. The phrase "should provide" in the paragraph is an indication of a conclusion based on conjecture, and not on substance nor evidence. The same kind of conditional language was used by the promoters of the Swine Flu vaccine as well as the snake oil promoters of the 19th century. It's quackery, pure and simple.

-- Rouser
Rouser,

Animal models are used thr oughout biology and medicine. Those models are characterized beforehand to understand in what ways they can and can't be used to predict the effects in humans. The cross-reaction in ferrets is very telling here. It says the strains are similar enough for the immunlogical recognition system to be triggered and for it to react effectively.

As if this misunderstanding doesn't already evince ignorance of the subject matter, you then rant on about basic, stock-in-trade scientific language. "Should provide" is not conditional language. It is the standard conservative language of all science. Other stock phrases include "the data suggests," or "we can draw the inference." When scientists are speculating, they say things like "we might suppose," or "one can speculate." In this conservative language, "should provide" is actually rather strong.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>"Should provide" is not conditional language. It is the standard conservative language of all science. Other stock phrases include "the data suggests," or "we can draw the inference." When scientists are speculating, they say things like "we might suppose," or "one can speculate." In this conservative language, "should provide" is actually rather strong..


In this case the phrase "should provide" is a leap in logic -- a conjecture based only on "preliminary" studies indicating the what is loosely called a "cross-reaction" of anti-bodies in ferrets.

-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

If it proivided zero protection, that would cover the conditional verb "should" (but perhaps not). Fact is, CDC does not know and neither do you. If "should provide" translates into one percent or 10 percent or 25 percent or more, that also covers the conditional verb "should". But as to actual studies, there are none. This is all conjecture -- like i said, Modern Medical Quackery.

Once again, your attempt to take literal translation of common scientific language and your ignorance of immunology are no defense. The viruses in question have been isolated and characterized from humans. Animal model studies confirm that antibodies to the vaccine strain cross-react with the predominant A strain. This confirms some protection. The only conjecture here is yours - which is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Rouser2

Let us also be mindful that a human being is not a ferret.


-- Rouser

Let's be mindful that you cannot comprehend immunology. Antibodies are produced based on antigens present on the virus coat. Similarity of the antigens on the vaccine strain vs current predominant strain result in cross-reaction - irregardless of species.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

Of course that alleged "quote" is a thorough mis-representation lifted out of context. Of course what I refer to is the fact that there is no evidence of protection against the current new strain, the A/Fujian strain that is allegedly making most flu-stricken people sick. The entire quote reads:

"The evidence is pretty strong that the current vaccination panic concerning the current flu strain is unwarrented as most people in good health will not get the flu, of those that do, almost all will survive, and there is no evidence that the current vaccine will provide any protection for anyone."

Meaning any protection from the current flu strain. Your allegation that my allegation is completely and totally false is completely and totally false.

-- Rouser

Meaning protection from the current flu strain? You never specified that! You try to take literal meaning in the CDC articles, all we can do is take literal meaning of your claims. But nonetheless, since there is strong evidence that the vaccine provides some protection against the new A strain in question, your claim continues to be completely and totally false.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Concede? As far as the Fugian strain is concerned, the operative phrase is "no evidence".


-- Rouser

Flat out, 100% wrong. Sheesh, you just don't get it!

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

In this case the phrase "should provide" is a leap in logic -- a conjecture based only on "preliminary" studies indicating the what is loosely called a "cross-reaction" of anti-bodies in ferrets.

-- Rouser

Hmm... first you say there is "no evidence", now you admit there are "preliminary" studies. Now we're getting somewhere!

Oh, and "loosely called"? Again, that is only your interpretation from total ignorance of the topic.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox


Meaning protection from the current flu strain? You never specified that! You try to take literal meaning in the CDC articles, all we can do is take literal meaning of your claims. But nonetheless, since there is strong evidence that the vaccine provides some protection against the new A strain in question, your claim continues to be completely and totally false.

The phrase "concerning the current flu strain" is right there in the actual post. Perhaps remedial reading and comprehension is what you should be studying.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Flu Epidemic Q & A & I-- Answers and Inferences

Q. How many people will catch the Flu?

A. Nobody really knows.

Q. How many will die from it?

A. Nobody really knows; perhaps tens of thousands

Q. How do we know such estimates are even close to correct?

A. We don't. Most people who get the Flu never see a doctor. Of those who die, their deaths are not reported as Flu deaths and it would be impossible to really know since by the time of death all traces of Flu have disappeared.

Q. How many people are being protected by the current vaccine?

I. Nobody really knows.

Q. How many people are contracting the Flu from the vaccine itself?

I. Nobody really knows.

Q. How many people are contracting GBS from the vaccine?

I. Nobody really knows.

Q. How many people are dying as a result of the vaccine?

I. Nobody really knows.


Answers and logical inferences based on AP story by Danie Q. Haney, Dec. 18, 2003

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/thrive/2003/dec/18/121808665.html

[Prester John]

what is loosely called a "cross-reaction" of anti-bodies in ferrets.

Now you really show your ignorance here, cross reaction occurs because the antigen 1 is very similar to antigen 2. Now the body has already encountered antigen 2, so has produced antibody to it. Thus the antibody to antigen 2 will react or "cross-react" with antigen 1. "Cross-reaction" is not at all a loose term.

As to the ferrets, they are a proven model for influenza study, they produce specific antibodies to Influenza. That the cross reaction occurs in the ferret model leads to the reasonable extrapolation that cross reaction will occur in humans.

This means that whilst the vaccine does not contain the Fujian strain it is similar enough to the Panama strain that cross reaction will occur, ie antibody to panama will protect against Fijian Influenza. The level of protection will not be as good as if the Fujian strain was included, but the vaccine will provide some protection.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2


The phrase "concerning the current flu strain" is right there in the actual post. Perhaps remedial reading and comprehension is what you should be studying.


-- Rouser

None. Nor do I have any evidence that tonight the cow will jump over the moon. Now then, what evidence do you have that this particular vaccince will save any lives or will save more lives than kills??? Not hopes, not dreams, not guesses, not fallacious extrapolations, but EVIDENCE????

No specificity in this quote, is there? In any event, it is a moot point, as you deperately try to cling to a shred of credibility. The fact is, even taking your assertion that you are only talking about the predominant A virus strain, you said there is NO EVIDENCE that the current vaccine offers any protection. You did not say there is NO PROOF, you said NO EVIDENCE. NO means NONE, no in vitro evidence, no in vivo evidence, NONE whatsoever. THAT claim is completely and totally false. Case closed.

[Prester John]

"Q. How many people are contracting GBS from the vaccine?

I. Nobody really knows.

Q. How many people are dying as a result of the vaccine?

I. Nobody really knows."

Thats a whopper, the article doesn't mention these at all, just your fevered imagination. No GBS from flu vaccine apart from the swine fever episode. No deaths from flu vaccine.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Flu Epidemic Q & A & I-- Answers and Inferences

Q. How many people will catch the Flu?

A. Nobody really knows....


Q. What is a true sign of desperation in an argument?

A. When one quotes an AP article and concocts absurd inferences from said article to counter iron-clad data from CDC.

Q. What does Rouser truly know about influenza and the flu vaccine generally and immunology specifically?

A. There is no evidence that he knows anything at all.

[Prester John]

Rouser, Influenza will kill at least 10,000 people in the US this year. Vaccination has been shown to save lives, how many will depend on a number of factors including the closeness of the vaccine strains to the circulating strains. You agree with this. So why do you cling with what can only be described as faith to your assertions that the current vaccine is of No use?

The article doesn't say anything in support of your position.
Straws, grasping at.

http://www.eswi.org/Routine_influenza_vaccination_at_age_50_years___US _recommendations_.cfm

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Are the nostrums of Modern Medicine also eligble for the JREF Challenge???Oh, what the hell.

No, because their effects, good or bad, are perfectly explicable by ordinary, rational, physical mechanisms.

There is no rational mechanism for homoeopathy. If there is any effect there (which it appears that there isn't, BTW), it must be a supernatural one.

This is the way in which it is different from vaccination.

Rolfe.

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


>>This means that whilst the vaccine does not contain the Fujian strain it is similar enough to the Panama strain that cross reaction will occur, ie antibody to panama will protect against Fijian Influenza. The level of protection will not be as good as if the Fujian strain was included, but the vaccine will provide some protection.

Careful. The phrase "antibody to panama will protect" is a conclusionary assertion that not even the CDC has made. Better "may", "could", "should" which maintains the safe but logical mental reservation that it may not protect at all.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

]Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


>>. No GBS from flu vaccine apart from the swine fever episode. No deaths from flu vaccine.

How do you know that?


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]

>>A. When one quotes an AP article and concocts absurd inferences from said article to counter iron-clad data from CDC.

>>Q. What does Rouser truly know about influenza and the flu vaccine generally and immunology specifically?

>>A. There is no evidence that he knows anything at all.


Iron-clad data from the CDC, eh?

Well here's one epidemiolgist from the CDC that just doesn't think so:

""With a vaccine with a less optimal match, you have to say it might not work at all," said Dr. Scott Harper, a CDC epidemiologist." --

http://newsobserver.com/24hour/science/story/1083693p-7567866c.html

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Well here's one epidemiolgist from the CDC that just doesn't think so:

""With a vaccine with a less optimal match, you have to say it might not work at all," said Dr. Scott Harper, a CDC epidemiologist." --

http://newsobserver.com/24hour/science/story/1083693p-7567866c.html

Why on earth did you chop off the rest of the quote, Rouser2? Here is the whole magilla:

""With a vaccine with a less optimal match, you have to say it might not work at all," said Dr. Scott Harper, a CDC epidemiologist. "That's very unlikely. Probably it will not be 90 percent effective. But we just have no good sense of how it will work in humans. Biology is messy."

[Empahasis mine]

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


>>Rouser, Influenza will kill at least 10,000 people in the US this year.

How do you know that?

>>Vaccination has been shown to save lives,

And to kill, as well.

>> how many will depend on a number of factors including the closeness of the vaccine strains to the circulating strains. You agree with this. So why do you cling with what can only be described as faith to your assertions that the current vaccine is of No use?


Don't put words in my mouth. Never said "no use". But "no evidence" of any use against the current strain.

-- Rouser

[Prester John]

Rather selective quoting there Rouser old chap, or do you only see the bits that conform to your world view.

Most agree the vaccine will do at least some good

With a vaccine with a less optimal match, you have to say it might not work at all," said Dr. Scott Harper, a CDC epidemiologist. "That's very unlikely. Probably it will not be 90 percent effective.

The data indicate that the vaccine in use does protect to a good extent against the currently circulating strain," Stohr said.

"Of the people we are seeing who were vaccinated and have flu-like symptoms, it is much milder than if they had not been vaccinated at all,"

etc etc

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Oh, what the hell.

No, because their effects, good or bad, are perfectly explicable by ordinary, rational, physical mechanisms.

There is no rational mechanism for homoeopathy. If there is any effect there (which it appears that there isn't, BTW), it must be a supernatural one.

This is the way in which it is different from vaccination.

Rolfe.

Isnt' the JREF challenge based on claims versus results??? On that basis, many, if not most of the nostrums of Modern Medicine would fail. As for rationality, who's to say what is rational? Was blood-letting "rational"??? Leaching, "rational"??? "Poudrage, "rational" ??? Thalidimide, "rational"??? Yet these are just a few examples of demonstrated quackery which Modern Medicine has promulgated. which, at the time seemed perfectly "rational".


-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

Iron-clad data from the CDC, eh?

Well here's one epidemiolgist from the CDC that just doesn't think so:

""With a vaccine with a less optimal match, you have to say it might not work at all," said Dr. Scott Harper, a CDC epidemiologist." --



Too bad you did not take the entire quote:

The last time the vaccine missed the mark was in 1997, when a strain called A-Sydney appeared that was significantly different from the strain included in the flu shot. Doctors are still uncertain about how much good the shot did that season, although the CDC estimates it was 30 percent to 50 percent protective.

Scientists say this year's mismatch does not seem to be as great as it was six years ago, but they cannot say with certainty how well the flu shot will work, or even whether it will.

"With a vaccine with a less optimal match, you have to say it might not work at all," said Dr. Scott Harper, a CDC epidemiologist. "That's very unlikely. Probably it will not be 90 percent effective. But we just have no good sense of how it will work in humans. Biology is messy."



So, they estimated that a greater mismatch as in 1997 was still 30-50% protective. Funny how you left off the very next statement: "that's very unlikely". Keep searching those AP articles!

[Rouser2]

Flu Vaccine Likely to be Less Potent than Usual


By DANIEL Q. HANEY, AP MEDICAL EDITOR

Excerpts follow:

"Scientists say this year's mismatch does not seem to be as great as it was six years ago, but they cannot say with certainty how well the flu shot will work, or even whether it will.
"With a vaccine with a less optimal match, you have to say it might not work at all," said Dr. Scott Harper, a CDC epidemiologist. "That's very unlikely. Probably it will not be 90 percent effective. But we just have no good sense of how it will work in humans. Biology is messy"


..."However, Harper said human blood samples and ferret experiments cannot be reliably used to predict how well a vaccine will work. The CDC is doing several studies to estimate how well people are protected in areas where the flu is circulating, but the answer probably will not be known until the end of the flu season."


Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated Press.


http://newsobserver.com/24hour/science/story/1083693p-7567866c.html


Thus, what we have here is the blind leading the blind. And that is why the general public is asked to have "faith" in their doctors. "Faith"is, after all, an absence of reason, and a necesary requirement for all religions -- including the Religion of Modern Medicine.


-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Prester John [/i]


>>Rouser, Influenza will kill at least 10,000 people in the US this year.

How do you know that?

CDC tracks deaths from all major causes. Influenza is one of them.


Originally posted by Rouser2

>>Vaccination has been shown to save lives,

And to kill, as well.


Since the swine flu incident 30 years ago? How do you know that?

Originally posted by Rouser2

Don't put words in my mouth. Never said "no use". But "no evidence" of any use against the current strain.

-- Rouser

Which continues to be completely and totally false!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Flu Vaccine Likely to be Less Potent than Usual


By DANIEL Q. HANEY, AP MEDICAL EDITOR

Excerpts follow:

"Scientists say this year's mismatch does not seem to be as great as it was six years ago, but they cannot say with certainty how well the flu shot will work, or even whether it will.
"With a vaccine with a less optimal match, you have to say it might not work at all," said Dr. Scott Harper, a CDC epidemiologist. "That's very unlikely. Probably it will not be 90 percent effective. But we just have no good sense of how it will work in humans. Biology is messy"


..."However, Harper said human blood samples and ferret experiments cannot be reliably used to predict how well a vaccine will work. The CDC is doing several studies to estimate how well people are protected in areas where the flu is circulating, but the answer probably will not be known until the end of the flu season."


Medical Editor Daniel Q. Haney is a special correspondent for The Associated Press.


http://newsobserver.com/24hour/science/story/1083693p-7567866c.html


Thus, what we have here is the blind leading the blind. And that is why the general public is asked to have "faith" in their doctors. "Faith"is, after all, an absence of reason, and a necesary requirement for all religions -- including the Religion of Modern Medicine.


-- Rouser

Rouser,

You're a nitwit. You selectively quote, spin it to your conclusion. Then, you refuse to acknowledge when you were called on it, and simply post the quote, finally in full context. Then you go with the same spin, even though the quote utterly refutes it. You're a nitwit.

[Prester John]

PJ : Influenza will kill at least 10,000 people in the US this year.

Rouser:
How do you know that?

French study on effectiveness of vaccines in reducing Influenza deaths (France that well known US ally btw):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7650467&dopt=Abstract

here:

http://www.eswi.org/Routine_influenza_vaccination_at_age_50_years___US _recommendations_.cfm

Theres plenty more out there relating to the mortality rate of Inlfluenza.




Careful. The phrase "antibody to panama will protect" is a conclusionary assertion that not even the CDC has made. Better "may", "could", "should" which maintains the safe but logical mental reservation that it may not protect at all.

Semantics, everything in life could or should happen.

And to kill, as well.
A definate statement Rouser, i suppose it would be imposing too much too ask you for evidence, you know scientific papers and all that, even better if they show that the risk of a vaccination outweighs the benefits, coz thats whats kinda important.

PJ over and out, btw feel free to only respond to selective parts and partially quote at will.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Flu Vaccine Likely to be Less Potent than Usual


By DANIEL Q. HANEY, AP MEDICAL EDITOR



Once again, you leave out a key section:

Dr. Klaus Stohr said blood taken from people who got this year's shot shows they have 41 percent fewer antibodies against A-Fujian than they do against A-Panama, and three-quarters of vaccinated adults have enough antibodies to protect against A-Fujian.

"The data indicate that the vaccine in use does protect to a good extent against the currently circulating strain," Stohr said.

Thank you very much. So now not only do we have animal model EVIDENCE that the vaccine is protective against the current A-Fujian strain, we also have human serological EVIDENCE from vaccinated subjects that that the vaccine provides protection. So much for your ludicrous claim that there is NO EVIDENCE that the current vaccine protects against the current predominat A strain.


Originally posted by Rouser2

Thus, what we have here is the blind leading the blind. And that is why the general public is asked to have "faith" in their doctors. "Faith"is, after all, an absence of reason, and a necesary requirement for all religions -- including the Religion of Modern Medicine.


-- Rouser

No, the only thing we have here is the blind, deaf and dumb, i.e. Rouser.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2


Isnt' the JREF challenge based on claims versus results??? On that basis, many, if not most of the nostrums of Modern Medicine would fail. As for rationality, who's to say what is rational? Was blood-letting "rational"??? Leaching, "rational"??? "Poudrage, "rational" ??? Thalidimide, "rational"??? Yet these are just a few examples of demonstrated quackery which Modern Medicine has promulgated. which, at the time seemed perfectly "rational".


-- Rouser

This one is a howl. Blood-letting is modern medicine? Poudrage (never heard of it!). So you don't even know what modern medicine is? :D

Actually, leaches are now sometimes used to enhance circulation in extremeties, and are of value for re-attachment of severed fingers and such.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Prester John
A definate statement Rouser, i suppose it would be imposing too much too ask you for evidence, you know scientific papers and all that, even better if they show that the risk of a vaccination outweighs the benefits, coz thats whats kinda important.

PJ over and out, btw feel free to only respond to selective parts and partially quote at will.

Rouser's evidence? -He's scouring the national enquirer for some right now. :p

[BTox]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Rouser,

You're a nitwit.

C'mon, Bill, don't candy-coat it! ;)

[Prester John]

Rouser's evidence? -He's scouring the national enquirer for some right now.

:D

Thalidomide, was rational actually, it was used in the wrong patient group with catastrophic results, Guess that invalidates medicine then. Damn back to the middle ages we go.

[BTox]

Some Q&As from FDA:


Q: What kinds of adverse events are most common after administration of inactivated influenza vaccine?

A: Most adverse reactions to inactivated influenza vaccine are related to the body’s response to the vaccine components at the site of injection. Most commonly, there is inflammation at the injection site, which may result in redness, swelling or pain. Less frequently, more general reactions occur including fever, malaise (a vague feeling of being ill), and muscle aches.

Q: Are serious immediate allergic reactions to inactivated influenza vaccines common?

A: No, but a few such reactions are reported with inactivated influenza vaccine use every year. Serious immediate reactions can occur within a few minutes to a few hours in people who likely have allergies to components of the vaccines, which may contain very small amounts of residual egg protein. Immediate allergic reactions can appear in a mild form as itching and hives; however, in the severest form, allergic reactions can result in difficulty breathing, loss of blood pressure, and, while prompt medical treatment is usually effective, even death.

Q: What can be done to prevent or treat severe immediate allergic reactions?

A: First, the vaccine is contraindicated for people with a history of hypersensitivity to eggs or egg products or other components of influenza vaccines. Additionally, as with all vaccines, it is prudent that recipients remain under observation for the first 15-30 minutes after the vaccine is injected to detect and treat any rare, serious allergic reactions and that medications, such as epinephrine and benadryl, used to treat such reactions, be available for immediate use.

Q: What are the benefits of influenza vaccine?

A: Influenza (flu) is a highly infectious disease of the lungs, and it can lead to pneumonia. Each year about 114,000 people in the U.S. are hospitalized and about 36,000 people die because of influenza. Most who die are 65 years and older. But children younger than 2 years old are as likely as those over 65 to have to go to the hospital because of influenza. The influenza vaccine is highly effective in preventing disease and thus saving lives.



Source: fda flu vaccine 2003-2004 (http://www.fda.gov/cber/flu/flurclqa.htm)

[BTox]

Interesting post-vaccination analysis of the 2001-2002 flu vaccine from Canada's PPHB.


During the 2001-2002 influenza season, a total number of 9,842,601 doses of influenza vaccine were distributed to health care providers in Canada, although the exact number of doses administered is unknown. Health Canada received 1,800 reports of people experiencing adverse events following influenza vaccine, for a rate of 183 reports per 1 million doses distributed.


This is similar to the VAERS system in the U.S. conducted by CDC. It reports all adverse reactions, whether due to the vaccine or coincidental. For the entire season, there were only 2 deaths reported, both apparently coincidental:

There were two deaths among the reported cases of influenza VAAEs, the first being a male in his 70s known to have Alzheimer's disease, type II diabetes, and congenital heart disease. The second was a male in his 60s with a history of chronic atrial fibrillation with a possible diagnosis of thrombolytic thrombocytopenic purpura/disseminated intravascular coagulation, presumably secondary to an infection. In both cases, the cause of death is not known.

Source: ccdr flu adverse reactions (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/02vol28/dr2823ea.html)


Let's see what Rouser makes of this - should be amusing

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Isnt' the JREF challenge based on claims versus results??? On that basis, many, if not most of the nostrums of Modern Medicine would fail. As for rationality, who's to say what is rational? Was blood-letting "rational"??? Leaching, "rational"??? "Poudrage, "rational" ??? Thalidimide, "rational"??? Yet these are just a few examples of demonstrated quackery which Modern Medicine has promulgated. which, at the time seemed perfectly "rational".Having problems understanding the usage of the word "rational", I see. OK, let's try this in different words.

The JREF Challenge is not about "claims versus results". You can't claim you can ride a bicycle, or wiggle your ears, or whistle "Dixie", then on demonstrating that you can do these things, walk off with the million bucks. Why not? Because all these things are natural abilities.

In the same way, the effects of blood-letting (quite effective even today as a treatment for polycythaemia vera, actually), leeches (some limited uses being re-examined, as it happens) and thalidomide (also with legitimate, if restricted uses) are quite natural. (I've no idea what "poudrage" is, so I'll leave that aside for now.) Whether the effects are good or bad doesn't matter either - whichever way it goes, it's still a natural event.

The Challenge is about "paranormal" events or abilities - like dowsing, or astrology, or precognition, or telepathy. Things which can only be explained by the supernatural. As homoeopathic remedies are content-free, any effect they have is not natural but supernatural, and is hence eligible for the Challenge. Randi has confirmed this many times.

Funny the homoeopaths aren't queueing up for the money, isn't it?

Rolfe.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]


>>Rouser,

>>You're a nitwit. You selectively quote, spin it to your conclusion. Then, you refuse to acknowledge when you were called on it, and simply post the quote, finally in full context. Then you go with the same spin, even though the quote utterly refutes it. You're a nitwit.

No sir. It is you who is the nitwit. When I post, unlike others I provide a link. The entire article is instantly available at a click. When I am making a point, I save time and space by making it, and citing the appropriate source, and then the link. Then by later posting more of the article, I merely do what I intended to do in the first place, before tripping across more previously posted nitwittery inviting a response.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>Having The Challenge is about "paranormal" events or abilities - like dowsing, or astrology, or precognition, or telepathy. Things which can only be explained by the supernatural.

Well, right there is an assumed premise without proof. I can imagine where telepathy, for example, may well be one day proven as within the range of the "normal". And once proven "normal", no longer eligible for JREF challenge.

>> As homoeopathic remedies are content-free, any effect they have is not natural but supernatural, and is hence eligible for the Challenge. Randi has confirmed this many times.

Homeopathic remedies "content-free"?? I don't think so.

>>Funny the homoeopaths aren't queueing up for the money, isn't it?

Perhaps they believe in making their money the old fashioned way. Don't get me wrong. I think Randi is a great man and he has greatly influenced my thinking about a lot of things. I just think he also has a blind spot in certain areas -- Modern Medicine versus Alternative Mediciine for one. And I suspect that his alleged JREF challenge offer is filled with weasel clauses.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox [/i]


>>This one is a howl. Blood-letting is modern medicine? Poudrage (never heard of it!). So you don't even know what modern medicine is?

Modern Medicine has a long history, son. From blood-letting and leaches to poudrage to thalidmide, to radiation "therapy" to, etc., etc., etc. Poudrage was, half a century ago, an open heart surgical treatment for heart disease which consisted of sprinkling talcum powder on the open heart -- thought to stimulate the capillaries or some such. Patients would have done much better with a voodoo priest.

-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BTox
Interesting post-vaccination analysis of the 2001-2002 flu vaccine from Canada's PPHB.



This is similar to the VAERS system in the U.S. conducted by CDC. It reports all adverse reactions, whether due to the vaccine or coincidental. For the entire season, there were only 2 deaths reported, both apparently coincidental:



Source: ccdr flu adverse reactions (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/02vol28/dr2823ea.html)


Let's see what Rouser makes of this - should be amusing


What I make of it is that it is another instance of your posting a bunch of stuff without any apparent reason. Here's an idea: when making a post, try to have POINT! It makes it so much more interesting that way.


-- Rouser

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Rouser2
When I post, unlike others I provide a link. The entire article is instantly available at a click. When I am making a point, I save time and space by making it, and citing the appropriate source, and then the link. Then by later posting more of the article, I merely do what I intended to do in the first place, before tripping across more previously posted nitwittery inviting a response.

-- Rouser
An absolute crock. You very selectively quoted the article after spiinning the out-of-context quote so that it looked like the CDC epidemiologist supported your claim. Here it is again:

Iron-clad data from the CDC, eh?

Well here's one epidemiolgist from the CDC that just doesn't think so:

""With a vaccine with a less optimal match, you have to say it might not work at all," said Dr. Scott Harper, a CDC epidemiologist." --

What Dr. Harper said was diametrically opposed to your claim. To wit, the entire quote included this...
"That's very unlikely."

... on the very next line. You waited until you were called on the out-of-context quoting. We have not yet begun to plumb the full depths of deception to which you will stoop.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]

>>An absolute crock. You very selectively quoted the article after spiinning the out-of-context quote so that it looked like the CDC epidemiologist supported your claim. Here it is again:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iron-clad data from the CDC, eh?

Well here's one epidemiolgist from the CDC that just doesn't think so:

""With a vaccine with a less optimal match, you have to say it might not work at all," said Dr. Scott Harper, a CDC epidemiologist." --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>What Dr. Harper said was diametrically opposed to your claim. To wit, the entire quote included this...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"That's very unlikely."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, but now you are guilty of doing the very thing you accuse me of. For now you have left out what Dr. Harper said after the "That's very unlikely" sentence, namely

" Probably it will not be 90 percent effective. But we just have no good sense of how it will work in humans. Biology is messy."

Far from disagreeing with my point, it supports it, that point being, all along, that there is no certitude that the new vaccine will provide any protection to the new strain. When one posts a link to one's excerpted quote, one cannot be validly accused of quoting out of context. You have the entire context at at click of the finger. Talk about nit-picking minutia!!! Sheesh!!!

-- Rouser

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2



What I make of it is that it is another instance of your posting a bunch of stuff without any apparent reason. Here's an idea: when making a post, try to have POINT! It makes it so much more interesting that way.


-- Rouser

Sorry, didn't realize you had to be spoon-fed this stuff. Remember you kept yammering about how many were going to die from the vaccine? Here's data from Canada showing, out of 8-9 million doses of flu vaccine dispensed, only two deaths were noted associated with it - and both are pretty clear to be coincidental. U.S. data to follow...

[BTox]

Originally posted by Rouser2

Far from disagreeing with my point, it supports it, that point being, all along, that there is no certitude that the new vaccine will provide any protection to the new strain.

-- Rouser

Weaseling and squirming continues. First it was "there is NO EVIDENCE that the vaccine offers ANY protection", now we finally have the admission that there is "NO CERTITUDE". At least you finally admit that your original position was totally and completely false!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Prester John
Rouser, Influenza will kill at least 10,000 people in the US this year. Vaccination has been shown to save lives, how many will depend on a number of factors including the closeness of the vaccine strains to the circulating strains. You agree with this. So why do you cling with what can only be described as faith to your assertions that the current vaccine is of No use?

The article doesn't say anything in support of your position.
Straws, grasping at.

http://www.eswi.org/Routine_influenza_vaccination_at_age_50_years___US _recommendations_.cfm


Want to try that link again? Sieg Heil!


-- Rouser