Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[Obelix]

The part in bold is clearly, clearly, not true

 

Really? Why would that be then?

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 10:21 ----------

 

Having looked at it, and read it, this part stood out-

 

 

 

If the NHS wishes to push vaccination on people who don't want it, perhaps they should ensure that those who do want to get their older children vaccinated, can do so, without requiring them to pay privately?

 

The NHS seems to be in a bizarre position of, on one hand, compelling patients to have treatments (MMR etc), whilst simultaneously denying it to others, eg the above mentioned meningitis B vaccine.

 

They're also currently denying B12 injections to pernicious anaemia sufferers-

 

https://www.change.org/p/ian-hudson-please-make-our-life-saving-injectable-vitamin-b12-hydroxocobalamin-available-over-the-counter

 

So? So what?

 

The NHS concentrates its finite resources where they do the most good and you think this is odd? Wow.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 10:25 ----------

 

It's not a theory, it's a fact.

 

The graphs you linked show massive drops before vaccinations were brought in.

 

Clearly vaccinations cannot be responsible for drops in polio before the vaccines were administered.

 

Therefore, other factors must have caused those drops.

 

Go look at the graphs again- they show massive drops starting before vaccination.

 

No you are theorising that there are other cases other than normal randum flucuations at work here.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 10:30 ----------

 

No, I think he's right. There is a clear drop starting from 1952 when the vaccine was only released in 1955. I'm saying to find out what caused that drop. It might well be just a blip as indeed the trend was upwards prior to that and clearly so. Still it's interesting to find out if there was something else at play as that drop cannot be based on a vaccine that doesn't yet exist. We can be equally blinkered when we think we are right as well. I'm not saying it's magic or that a vaccine doesn't work (clearly I'm not saying that!) but I'm still curious. And that's a good thing to be. It means hopefully we don't just believe the hype and we challenge assumptions for the better.

 

However, I can show other graphs showing the increased rates of polio infection in Pakistan since the Taliban effectively outlawed polio infections. So unless you can think of other reasons why polio infections have increased there unless it's directly down to a lack of a vaccination population then we have all the correlation we need.

 

Almost everyone gets poliovirus it's just a few that dont get it as an infant and then have problems when it hits them in later life that have the real problems. Why does this happen? Better sanitation. The polio outbreaks in the USA that started Salk to look for vaccines were caused ironically by people washing thier hands and infants not getting polio as a small baby.

 

Hence you see the spikiness in the graphs that occurs, which I think ties in with the weather during those summers.

[Cyclone]

 

I'm playing devil's advocate if I'm honest. The trend is clearly upwards prior to the vaccine, but downwards after. However on both the first 2 graphs, there is a dip in around 1953 which then rises again after 1954 until 1955 when it clearly drops again. I'm curious (that's all, just curious) if there is a specific reason for the drop in 1953 or if it's just an outlier.

 

I don't think it's even an outlier, it's within the normal variability in the rate of the disease seen previous to that. Rates of infection bounced up and down considerably, but overall were rising.

Death rates quite clearly follow from infection rates, although as medicine improved we should have seen them not rising quite as fast each time infections increased.

[Annie Bynnol]

One easy test of this "regression into autism" idea is to investigate at what age it "appears".

All you have to do is match vaccination dates with "regression" dates:

1)in different countries

2)within countries that have changed the vaccination date.

 

This information is publicly available to you and your fellow researchers so that you can publish your findings and have them peer reviewed.

 

You should do this as quickly as possible as the danger to children is real.

 

Of course good research will be about establishing and testing a hypothesis without bias which means a literature search amongst thousands of web opinions of unknown quality cannot be the basis for the hypothesis.

 

In the meantime a good researcher would avoid the dangers of the consequences of an error in the hypothesis which would be in this case guilt, uncertainty and death.

[sgtkate]

Sgtkate.....you missed reading my earlier post... No studies are done!

 

 

 

“No studies have compared the incidence of autism in vaccinated, unvaccinated, or alternatively vaccinated children (i.e., schedules that spread out vaccines, avoid combination vaccines, or include only select vaccines). These studies would be difficult to perform because of the likely differences among these 3 groups in health care seeking behavior and the ethics of experimentally studying children who have not received vaccines.”

 

Health care seeking behavior? Ethics of studying kids who haven’t gotten vaccines?

 

Let me get this straight: we have the most complex and raging health epidemic amongst our kids in modern times, and no plausible explanation for cause from the mainstream authorities. Meanwhile, we have tens of thousands of case reports of kids regressing into autism after vaccination, but it’s just too complicated and unethical to study unvaccinated kids?

 

 

http://healthimpactnews.com/2012/vac...hy-no-studies/

 

Yet here is one such study:

https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/no-mmr-autism-link-large-study-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-kids

 

So what was that you were saying? The website you link from is not independent like the ones I've linked from, unless you want to accuse the largest autism awareness charity of hiding facts?

 

Unfortunately you will only look for evidence that supports your viewpoint, even when it is provable wrong as the fact that one quick Google search found me a large scale (95,000 children!) study that showed absolutely no correlation between rates of autism in vaccinated kids compared to unvaccinated ones. Now please, please stop with your mindless belief that vaccinations are somehow evil.

[onewheeldave]

No, I think he's right. There is a clear drop starting from 1952 when the vaccine was only released in 1955. I'm saying to find out what caused that drop. It might well be just a blip as indeed the trend was upwards prior to that and clearly so. Still it's interesting to find out if there was something else at play as that drop cannot be based on a vaccine that doesn't yet exist. We can be equally blinkered when we think we are right as well. I'm not saying it's magic or that a vaccine doesn't work (clearly I'm not saying that!) but I'm still curious. And that's a good thing to be. It means hopefully we don't just believe the hype and we challenge assumptions for the better.

I applaud your open-mindedness.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 10:49 ----------

 

 

The NHS concentrates its finite resources where they do the most good and you think this is odd? Wow..

 

In the case of B12, they're denying sufferers a medicine that is very cheap, and, known to be one of the most harmless substances out there. I do think that's odd, yes.

[sgtkate]

I applaud your open-mindedness.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 10:49 ----------

 

 

In the case of B12, they're denying sufferers a medicine that is very cheap, and, known to be one of the most harmless substances out there. I do think that's odd, yes.

 

It's not open-mindedness as being able to see. There is a clear dip in that graph prior to 1955 and it would be interesting to know why that's all. It's likely to be normal statistical variance, but there could be another reason. However, the focus should be the right handside of that graph showing a HUGE dip after the vaccine was released and the rates at nearly zero ever since.

[onewheeldave]

 

Then I suggest you look at the numbers and find out what the infection rates in unvaccinated cohorts was, and for chickenpox and polio you will find it's so near 100% that it makes no difference.

 

And that will assist with this, how exactly?-

 

 

If you do not get them vaccinated you will catch these diseases]

The part in bold is clearly, clearly, not true

Really? Why would that be then?.

a. "if you do not get them vaccinated, you will catch these diseases"

 

b. assuming the above subject discrepancy was a slip of the keyboard, and you meant they will catch these diseases- failing to get vaccinated does not mean the individual in question will get the disease.

 

There comes a time, Obelix, where it's just best to admit you messed up (just like I did on the trailer master switch issue). If you're wrong, and you know you're wrong, it's not actually painfull to own up to it. You should try it.

 

Strawmaning from those claiming to be rationalists, is not pleasant to see.

Edited February 18, 2016 by onewheeldave

[Obelix]

I applaud your open-mindedness.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 10:49 ----------

 

 

In the case of B12, they're denying sufferers a medicine that is very cheap, and, known to be one of the most harmless substances out there. I do think that's odd, yes.

 

They are not denying it. As I'm sure you know.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 11:02 ----------

 

a. "if you do not get them vaccinated, you will catch these diseases"

 

b. assuming the above subject discrepancy was a slip of the keyboard, and you meant they will catch these diseases- failing to get vaccinated does not mean the individual in question will get the disease.

 

Then I suggest you look at the numbers and find out what the infection rates in unvaccinated cohorts was, and for chickenpox and polio you will find it's so near 100% that it makes no difference.

[onewheeldave]

 

No you are theorising that there are other cases other than normal randum flucuations at work here.

 

 

No I'm not. I was pointing out that, as the numbers dropped before vaccinations, then other factors than vaccination must be responsible.

 

Normal random fluctuations are clearly a factor other than vaccinations so I'm theorizing nothing there.

[Cyclone]

You can see that previous to the vaccination the infection level jumped up and down considerably.

You are trying to say that one such random fluctuation was NOT in fact down to the normal variability...