Vaccines Effective?

[KBCraig]

Do some searching and find out where those Amish polio cases came from. 

They didn't come from vaccinations.

[kola]

Code Select Expand

They didn't come from vaccinations.

Is this your opinion or do you have proof? 

btw : you forgot to answer my question;
What happened to those children who acquired polio?

Kola

[kola]

MT,

I loved your video interview. This is a must see for everyone who has the desire to find the truth. Ingri and Dewey did a really good job of covering the issues.

Cheers!
Kola

[KBCraig]

Code Select Expand

They didn't come from vaccinations.

Is this your opinion or do you have proof?

I was responding to your mention of religious exemptions. The Amish are religiously exempt and don't take vaccinations. Thus, they didn't acquire polio from vaccines.

Why are you using "code" instead of "quote"?

btw : you forgot to answer my question;
What happened to those children who acquired polio?

I didn't forget, I just found it irrelevant. Having no reason to suspect otherwise, I would assume their distribution of symptoms was the same as the general population; i.e., that only a small number had lasting damage.

[kola]

sorry about "coding". I hit the wrong tab. 

KB:They didn't come from vaccinations. 
Kola:Is this your opinion or do you have proof?
KB:I was responding to your mention of religious exemptions. The Amish are religiously exempt and don't take vaccinations. Thus, they didn't acquire polio from vaccines.

KB, you did not answer my question.

Do you know if all Amish file a religous exemption?
Have they or have they not been exposed to vaccinations?
How do you know theses Amish kids didn't acquire polio from vaccines?

If you are just stating opinions I respect that. If you want to substantiate your claims then it would beneficial to provide legitimate sources.

Thanks, Kola 
 

[kola]

Quote
kola: btw: you forgot to answer my question;
What happened to those children who acquired polio?

KB:I didn't forget, I just found it irrelevant. Having no reason to suspect otherwise, I would assume their distribution of symptoms was the same as the general population; i.e., that only a small number had lasting damage.

You found it irrelevant? and then you state you are comfortable with "assuming"?
Why not dig further into the CDC report you posted and find the truth. I think it is VERY relevant whether these kids died or fully recovered. Or is easier for you to just "cherry pick" items, speak half-truths and attempt to stoke the false fires to keep the "dreaded fear of polio" burning?

I think it is HIGHLY important as to what happen to the kids with polio, especially when I have provided information showing less than 1% of polio cases end in permanent paralysis.

What point are you trying to make?

Kola

[Braddogg]

A case control study has shown that 41% of meningitis occurred in children vaccinated against the disease. The vaccines protective efficacy was rated as minus 58%. This means that kids are much more likely to get the disease if they are vaccinated. (JAMA 1988 Osterholm etal 260;1423-1428)

What does "protective efficacy" mean in this instance?  How was it determined?

I think most of your statistics are misleading.  They aren't taking into account the numbers.  100 people are vaccinated, and 20 aren't.  Then 20 people catch the disease.  10 of them are vaccinated, 10 of them are not.  The misleading statistic: 50% of those with the disease were vaccinated.  The more pertinent statistic: 10% of those vaccinated caught the disease, while 50% of those not vaccinated caught the disease.  Do you have any statistics of that more pertinent kind?

Among school age children, measles outbreaks have occurred in schools with vaccination levels of gretaer than 98%. These outbreaks have occurred on all parts of the US. (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report MMWR (CDC) Dec29, 1989

Didn't you later refer to the CDC as unreliable psuedo-science . . . . ?

A measles outbreak in Texas even though vaccination requirements for scholl attendance had been thoroughly enforced. (New England Jorn of Med Vol 316 pp771-774)

How do the frequency, intensity, and morbidity of these outbreaks compare to times before the vaccine?

A 1998 report stated Pertussis is at its highest levels since 1967. (US Dept of Human Health and Services).

What, you're going to trust government reporting scare tactic crap?   

In 1978 in the US they mandated vaccination and it it resulted in a three fold increase in reports of pertussis (graph data from Tokai Journ of Experimental Biology and Medicine 1988).

I can find no such journal.  The only reference to this journal was on a "vaccine liberation" website.  You have obviously never read this study, and are only passing it on as hearsay.  I wonder how many other studies you've done this for . . . .  If you're going to reference something second hand, be up front about it; I certainly have been.  It's good debating ethics . . . .  BTW, the journal's name might be the Tokai Journal of Experimental & Clinical Medicine.

Do I need to list all the flu outbreaks amongst all the people who had their yearly flu shots? Even the CDC has admitted when their flu vaccines were ineffective and when the pharm company had contaminated products. So now what do they recommend? Two shots or more per year!

Do you understand the scientific rationale behind the limited effectiveness of the flu vaccine?

[kola]

Braddog,

First tell me Braddog, what is your position on vaccines?

Kola

[kola]

Bradogg,
Weren't you the person who stated that you rely on Quackwatch.com for a source of reliable information regarding medical issues?

If this is true, my efforts will be a total waste of time. We could have a separate thread on fraudulent acts of Mister Stephen Barrett and his snakeoil website called Quackwatch.

Kola

[Braddogg]

Right.  I did reference quackwatch once, to discredit a study someone was using.  I think I may have also referenced the smoking gun website to back that claim, but I might be mixing up my conversations.  I fully admit that I don't read medical journals for funsies.  And I've been upfront about my sourcing, and that I am an amateur when it comes to medicine topics like this.  But what I'm good at is dissecting and analyzing sources in the context of the study of history (my field of training), and I apply that to other aspects of my life.  You, though, haven't been upfront at all.  You haven't read the studies; instead, you've read a bunch of secondary sources.  Which is fine, of course, because that's what I've done too.  But I admit it.  I don't try and pass off what I heard from a secondary source, giving the impression that this is what the literature says and that I can personally vouch for it.  I've said, "This is from quackwatch.  This is what I read in a BBC story.  This is what an abstract of a paper said."  Good sourcing is essential in any investigation and evidence-based discussion.  Can you agree with what I've said in this post so far?

I first heard of quackwatch from listening to a few podcasts put out by doctors involved in medical practice and training (a neurologist and professor who runs The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe and an infectious disease doctor who runs QuackCast and another CME-accredited podcast).  So there are, apparently, at least a handful of professionally and academically trained medical folks, not to mention top-rate skeptics, who think he's trustworthy . . . .

My position on vaccines?  I think that's clear.  I'm for them.  I don't get the flu vaccine because it isn't terribly effective and I do fine without it (and if I get the flu, I'm going to be out for three days, max).  When I get old, I may consider taking it.  I plan on having my as-yet hypothetical kids vaccinated.  This is all, of course, contingent on new evidence (or evidence new to me).  I'm a rationalist.

[kola]

I have sat down and filed through over 15,000 pieces of information from JAMA to historical reports to the fine print on the vaccine package inserts (which are the manufacturers list of do's and don'ts and and a complete listing of the ingredients). I have not just skimmed over a topic and slapped up a copy and paste article. In 2003, I complied a booklet on vaccine information. I did not publish it nor do I care to OR do I care to derive money from it. Most people (and my patients) pay me for the copying costs. I lecture on the topic here in Colorado and my information is supported by the Colorado Chiropractic Association. I am not a glamor guy nor money driven. I researched (in detail) and compiled information to find the truth. It was a personal journey. The more I looked the more I found. And the more I found, the more I was blown away by the corruptive nature of the topic.

Whenever I provide information to the "Doubting Thomas's" the first thing they do to strip my credibility is to question the research I present. They make the exact same claims that you have made. i.e "that study is bogus", that study is full of holes etc.etc and/or they will ask me intricate question and expect me to give an immediate recollection.(ie. In JAMA 2003 Vol 4 page 223 what was the amount (mL) of thimerosal in the control group). Now that is all fine and dandy to me if the request is sincere...BUT what I have found (and I sense you will do the same) is these requests usually have a hidden agenda and will make me jump through a mirage of hoops to fullfill their every request. I used to go and pull up the article, refresh my memory and supply all the requests only to be revoked by the "requester". Then I am asked to jump through the next hoop to prove my worthiness..and on and on and on. All the while, the insincere requester enjoys the game of watching me jump when he has no real intention of giving recognition to my work. I have stated this before, this is a well-traveled road for me and I have a knack for smelling folks out. As I am now older and wiser, I have chosen to choose my battles carefully. That is why I enjoy speaking to groups that already have an interest in learning. And I have little interest in speaking about this topic to someone who will never change their belief system on vaccines. Is that clear without being disrespectful?   

The bottom line is this: No matter how much evidence I produce some people will never accept it. They have two tactics that they use. One, is to spin me into a continual maze of hoop-jumping explorations and two, to attack me on a personal level. So far you have done both, with your false accusations abut me and the dismissal of the literature I have presented.   

upfront and peaceful,
Kola   

[Tom Sawyer]

My concern with vaccines is the government mandates.

One arm of the government was forcing parents to give more and more vaccines to tiny little infants. Meanwhile another arm of the government had established mercury levels which were greatly exceeded. One hand not knowing what the other was doing. One of the worst scandals in recent history, them forcing toxic levels on everyone's children. The government was also shielding the manufacturers from liabilty.

They have developed hundreds of vaccines that the industry would love to have a captive market for.

Some of the vaccines potential side effects are far worse than the diseases they are meant to prevent.

[Henry]

It's been posted before, but I found it riveting. Hour and a half long.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6890106663412840646&q=ayoub&total=684&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Braddogg]

My concern with vaccines is the government mandates.

One arm of the government was forcing parents to give more and more vaccines to tiny little infants. Meanwhile another arm of the government had established mercury levels which were greatly exceeded. One hand not knowing what the other was doing. One of the worst scandals in recent history, them forcing toxic levels on everyone's children. The government was also shielding the manufacturers from liabilty.

There are two kinds of mercury.  One is more toxic than the other.  The less toxic kind was used as a preservative in vaccines.  The levels you're referring to were established with regards to the more toxic kind of mercury.  But ditto -- government shouldn't be getting involved in the vaccination business.

Some of the vaccines potential side effects are far worse than the diseases they are meant to prevent.

Sure.  And the potential side effects for my heartburn medicine are far worse than the eroding of my esophagus . . . .  The side effects of ANY medicine can be worse than the disease.

[kola]

Henry, thanks for the posting of the vid. I have something to watch tonite. BTW I REALLY enjoy when MD's speak out about vaccine dangers. These folks are courageous as they risk their careers when they question the "sacred cow" of medicine, vaccines. It is one thing for us wacky chiros or natuopathic docs to speak out but when the MD"s do it, it takes the message to a whole different level.

the truth is out there.

Kola