Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[onewheeldave]

 

Scepticism of studies performed by those who have a vested interest in a particular result is perfectly reasonable.

Absolutely. And the pharmaceutical companies clearly have an vested interest in selling more of their products, one of which is vaccines.

 

 

When the number and size of such studies reaches a certain critical mass, then it becomes implausible that their results are not broadly correct.

If every study is corrupted in a similar way, as we'd expect, given that such large, unwieldy systems as the pharmas and the national health services depend heavily on very robust and rigid procedures to even operate, then it remains entirely plausible that their results are not broadly correct.

 

 

Don't forget that the pharmaceutical companies are in heavy competition with each other. If one pharmaceutical company was pulling a serious fast one, surely one of the others would like nothing better than to show that.

It's very much in all their interests, that the corruption is kept hidden as long as possible.

 

During the decades it took for some scientists to take down the tobacco companies and their lies, it was not the case that one of the competing tobacco companies exposed the lies of another company, because, it was in all their interests to not expose the routine lies and corruption they were all partaking in.

 

Same with cycling and the PED/steroid scandal. For an entire decade, all partaking industries conspired to issue a solid front claiming that doping was not taking place.

 

Deep systemic corruption= closed ranks.

 

And bear in mind, that a lot of the people involved, did not realise they were perpetuating lies, because they had faith in their particular part of the system, and believed what the experts were claiming

[Cyclone]

The placebo effect is a powerful thing.

 

H&B are a retailer, they don't produce the nonsense you're buying. But by all means, tell them that what they're selling has little evidence to support its efficacy.

 

$$$ is more traditional IMO.

 

Weird how people get all defensive when you tell them that what they've bought into isn't proven to work (and probably doesn't).

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 12:17 ----------

 

OOD - fortunately the peer review process and the scientific method in general make it difficult to commit fraud or to corrupt clinical trials.

[onewheeldave]

You keep banging on about the flu, despite me showing you the figures for how many <5's would die... The jab is less harmful than dying from the flu.

 

I dispute the figures and their sources due to the corruption of the pharmaceutical companies interests.

 

I also notice that a major reason given for under 5 flu jabs is, protection of the elderly.

 

Yet guidelines advise keeping newly vaccinated children away from the elderly, as their is a chance they could catch flu from a newly vaccinated child. It doesn't add up.

 

I prefer the old days, when people got flu etc, the vast majority recovered completely, and a measure of immunity was instilled, as nature intended (by which I mean, as humans and animals had evolved to deal with such diseases).

 

Is no one concerned that that natural protective factor is disabled by mass vaccination programs?

[unbeliever]

It's probably all the placebo effect, I think I'm going to be protected, and therefore I am protected.

 

Actually you think you're going to be protected therefore you feel better.

Until that is you catch something nasty and die unnecessarily.

 

I actually would like you and the other anti-vac folk on here to get it. You've misunderstood the relative value of different kinds of evidence, and you're being conned. You would be better of financially and medically if we were able to convince you of that.

 

Failing that, say hi to Steve Jobs for me.

[onewheeldave]

Yes, I dismiss anything on youtube as worthless if we're having a serious discussion and someone tries to use it to present evidence.

 

 

 

 

You can't trust it (youtube). Very easy to fake. And anecdotal so not subject to proper statistical analysis.

If it were real it would also (or only) be published in academic journals so that the data and methods could be critically evaluated by other experts.

That's how we separate useful information from bovine excrement.

 

Does that extend to TED talks- are they worthless and not to be trusted?

 

If a scientist you had high regard for did a lecture and it was put on youtube- is that also worthless?

[natjack]

Give yourself a day off, mate. You're like a dog with a bone about so much you have no real knowledge of. It gets really boring after a time.

 

I was being sarky about the placebo effect, btw. Just pre-empting what I thought would be your next line of attack.

 

You're a computer programmer, not a doctor or a herbalist - stick to your field of expertise?

 

The placebo effect is a powerful thing.

 

H&B are a retailer, they don't produce the nonsense you're buying. But by all means, tell them that what they're selling has little evidence to support its efficacy.

 

$$$ is more traditional IMO.

 

Weird how people get all defensive when you tell them that what they've bought into isn't proven to work (and probably doesn't).

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 12:17 ----------

 

OOD - fortunately the peer review process and the scientific method in general make it difficult to commit fraud or to corrupt clinical trials.

[Cyclone]

The elderly are normally also vaccinated. The young and the elderly are the two groups most likely to die if they do catch the flu.

 

You're disputing figures that come from multiple different agencies, many of them government, in multiple different countries, all of which show the same result.

You might as well dispute that the sky is blue, because you've decided that you want it to be yellow.

 

The vast majority DO recover yes. 15 in 100,000 <5's do not though. And you prefer that do you. I don't know why you'd prefer 15 dead children to 1 having a bad reaction to the vaccine... I really don't.

 

How was the natural protective factor working out with smallpox?

[unbeliever]

I dispute the figures and their sources due to the corruption of the pharmaceutical companies interests.

 

I also notice that a major reason given for under 5 flu jabs is, protection of the elderly.

 

Yet guidelines advise keeping newly vaccinated children away from the elderly, as their is a chance they could catch flu from a newly vaccinated child. It doesn't add up.

 

I prefer the old days, when people got flu etc, the vast majority recovered completely, and a measure of immunity was instilled, as nature intended (by which I mean, as humans and animals had evolved to deal with such diseases).

 

Is no one concerned that that natural protective factor is disabled by mass vaccination programs?

 

Vaccines work by training the immune system in advance to protect you from a virus that would otherwise also train your system but might seriously harm you in the process.

It's not the same thing as sterilising the hell out of everything, which might have an effect of weakening the immune system.

[onewheeldave]

 

Failing that, say hi to Steve Jobs for me.

 

What's your issue with Steve Jobs?

[unbeliever]

The elderly are normally also vaccinated. The young and the elderly are the two groups most likely to die if they do catch the flu.

 

You're disputing figures that come from multiple different agencies, many of them government, in multiple different countries, all of which show the same result.

You might as well dispute that the sky is blue, because you've decided that you want it to be yellow.

 

The vast majority DO recover yes. 15 in 100,000 <5's do not though. And you prefer that do you. I don't know why you'd prefer 15 dead children to 1 having a bad reaction to the vaccine... I really don't.

 

How was the natural protective factor working out with smallpox?

 

Maybe there's a video of it looking yellow on youtube.