2 of 6
2
Questions re Barbara Loe Fisher and Hurd Immunity
Posted: 01 June 2015 08:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4253
Joined  2014-06-20

Peacegorl said,“The question as to whether vaccines eliminated smallpox and polio is also being refuted.”

So, the fact that the incidence of smallpox and polio dropped like a stone after these vaccines started to be administered was just a coincidence and it was actually something else that was caiusing the drop off! I see.

Anything can be refuted, Peacegirl. Refutations have no bearing on the actual disappearance of a disease. You’ll have to come up with something better than that.

Meanwhile smallpox and polio remained rampant for years in countries where the vaccines were unavailable, then dropped off when the started becoming available. Can’t figure out why that happened, can you?


LL

[ Edited: 04 June 2015 10:52 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2015 05:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
LoisL - 01 June 2015 08:14 PM

Peacegorl said,“The question as to whether vaccines eliminated smallpox and polio is also being refuted.”

So, the fact that the incidence of smallpox and polio droped like a stone after thise vaccines started to be administered was just a coincidence and it was actually sometihng else that was caiusing the drop off! I see.

Anything can be refuted, Peacegirl. Refutations have no bearing on the actual disappearance of a sisease. You’ll have to come up with something better than that.

Meanwhile smallpox and polio remained rampant for years in countries where the vaccines were unavailable, then dropped off when the started becoming available. Can’t figure out why that happened, can you?


LL

I’ll definitely do more research on this.  Bottom line is I don’t think that the increase in the vaccine schedule is healthy.  Immune, neurological, and developmental abnormalities are showing up in a huge population of children.  I’m not saying that vaccines are the only contributor to these abnormalities (there are environmental toxins also) but considering that these adjuvants (there are so many) are being injected directly into the bloodstream, it would seem obvious that the correlation between 49 doses of vaccine before children are 6 years old is problematic.

 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2015 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4231
Joined  2006-11-28

it would seem obvious that the correlation between 49 doses of vaccine before children are 6 years old is problematic.

And yet all the evidence suggests it’s not. This is the core problem, which is that you can’t get over your intuitive sense of how things “should” be, and you simply filter all information you receive to be compatible with your expectations. Psychology calls this motivated reasoning.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2015 05:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
mckenzievmd - 02 June 2015 02:01 PM

it would seem obvious that the correlation between 49 doses of vaccine before children are 6 years old is problematic.

And yet all the evidence suggests it’s not. This is the core problem, which is that you can’t get over your intuitive sense of how things “should” be, and you simply filter all information you receive to be compatible with your expectations. Psychology calls this motivated reasoning.

The evidence shows otherwise.  This is not about filtering all information I receive to be compatible with my expectations.  You are in denial.  The bottom line comes down to the medical profession’s commitment to telling ALL FAMILIES that their children will do better when they get these shots than if they don’t.  You cannot support this.

 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2015 06:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4253
Joined  2014-06-20
peacegirl - 31 May 2015 10:39 AM
macgyver - 31 May 2015 09:00 AM

I am not going to take the time to look at this entire interview. I have already spent far too much time looking at the “research” and propaganda from antivaxxers. Dr Mercola is a well known antivaxxer and has a history of flagrantly altering some facts and exaggerating others.

Let me clarify one comment the two of you have been discussing. When counting victims of an outbreak the methods may vary depending on the disease, the available tests, and resources. Often times the diagnosis is indeed what we call a “clinical diagnosis”. In other words if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its most likely a duck and so we call it a duck without taking it to the lab and genetically sequencing it.

When I see a patient in the office who who has a high fever, cough, and body aches I usually dont do a flu test for several reasons. They are expensive, they are not always accurate ( there can be false negatives and occasionally false positives), my clinical judgement after 25 years is pretty accurate, many times the test results are going to come back too late to guide treatment, and the test results will not always change the treatment (most adults just need conservative management and should not be given Tamiflu).

You also have to remember that some studies are based on data from clinical practice and the clinic is not a court of law. We are not trying to prove things beyond any reasonable doubt. Antivaxxers and their infantile insistence on absolute proof are not our concern. We need to take a practical approach that keeps the cost of health care down and provides patients with the best treatment.

The people in this interview are trying to imply that because these diagnosis weren’t verified with a lab test the diagnosis is therefor suspect. I disagree. With the advent of shows like CSI and TV medical shows the public has come to believe that diagnostic technology has been the great advancement in medicine without which modern medicine would be back in the dark ages. It gives the public the incorrect impression that every diagnosis should be confirmed with a lab test and also that lab tests are infallible. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we try to teach our medical students, 95% of the diagnoses we make can and should be made with a tool that has been around for thousands of years. Its called the history. Its the knowing the right questions to ask and how to listen to the answers that are given. The physical exam augments that. If you dont know what is wrong with the patient after the history and physical the odds that any testing will reveal the problem go down dramatically. A good physician uses tests to confirm what he already knows or to narrow down the possibilities and only rarely finds something he didn’t already suspect.


Every communicable disease for which we have a vaccine was originally identified, defined, and diagnosed by doctors who did not have any lab tests to diagnose the illness because in most cases the only test you need is your eyes, ears, and hands.

This argument they are making in this interview is entirely a strawman argument.

What you are saying is misleading.  The bottom line is that this is a game of Russian Roulette.  No one knows which child will have a vulnerability to the vaccine, yet you are callously telling all parents to get the vaccine.  A parent based on your advice will give her child the vaccine and that child may have a serious reaction (a causal relationship to the shot).  I hope you feel good about this.  You, as a doctor, are placing yourself in a position of God.  I am shocked that you feel comfortable doing this.  The question as to whether vaccines eliminated smallpox and polio is also being refuted.  The vaccines may do what they were intended to do.  They may succeed in causing a certain immune reaction, but there much more to the story and you refuse to acknowledge it.  That is putting your head in the proverbial sand.  You, as someone who has researched vaccines, cannot put all children into a one size fits all category.  Every child has a unique imprint, and for you to say that vaccines work for all children is despicable and against what the Hippocratic Oath stands for.


  No one knows which child will die from a preventable disease, either. Is that not putting your head in the proverbial sand? Every child has a unique imprint, and for anyone to say that preventable diseases won’t kill a large number of children is also “despicable and against what the Hippocratic Oath stands for.”

LOis

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2015 02:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
LoisL - 02 June 2015 06:39 PM
peacegirl - 31 May 2015 10:39 AM
macgyver - 31 May 2015 09:00 AM

I am not going to take the time to look at this entire interview. I have already spent far too much time looking at the “research” and propaganda from antivaxxers. Dr Mercola is a well known antivaxxer and has a history of flagrantly altering some facts and exaggerating others.

Let me clarify one comment the two of you have been discussing. When counting victims of an outbreak the methods may vary depending on the disease, the available tests, and resources. Often times the diagnosis is indeed what we call a “clinical diagnosis”. In other words if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its most likely a duck and so we call it a duck without taking it to the lab and genetically sequencing it.

When I see a patient in the office who who has a high fever, cough, and body aches I usually dont do a flu test for several reasons. They are expensive, they are not always accurate ( there can be false negatives and occasionally false positives), my clinical judgement after 25 years is pretty accurate, many times the test results are going to come back too late to guide treatment, and the test results will not always change the treatment (most adults just need conservative management and should not be given Tamiflu).

You also have to remember that some studies are based on data from clinical practice and the clinic is not a court of law. We are not trying to prove things beyond any reasonable doubt. Antivaxxers and their infantile insistence on absolute proof are not our concern. We need to take a practical approach that keeps the cost of health care down and provides patients with the best treatment.

The people in this interview are trying to imply that because these diagnosis weren’t verified with a lab test the diagnosis is therefor suspect. I disagree. With the advent of shows like CSI and TV medical shows the public has come to believe that diagnostic technology has been the great advancement in medicine without which modern medicine would be back in the dark ages. It gives the public the incorrect impression that every diagnosis should be confirmed with a lab test and also that lab tests are infallible. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we try to teach our medical students, 95% of the diagnoses we make can and should be made with a tool that has been around for thousands of years. Its called the history. Its the knowing the right questions to ask and how to listen to the answers that are given. The physical exam augments that. If you dont know what is wrong with the patient after the history and physical the odds that any testing will reveal the problem go down dramatically. A good physician uses tests to confirm what he already knows or to narrow down the possibilities and only rarely finds something he didn’t already suspect.


Every communicable disease for which we have a vaccine was originally identified, defined, and diagnosed by doctors who did not have any lab tests to diagnose the illness because in most cases the only test you need is your eyes, ears, and hands.

This argument they are making in this interview is entirely a strawman argument.

What you are saying is misleading.  The bottom line is that this is a game of Russian Roulette.  No one knows which child will have a vulnerability to the vaccine, yet you are callously telling all parents to get the vaccine.  A parent based on your advice will give her child the vaccine and that child may have a serious reaction (a causal relationship to the shot).  I hope you feel good about this.  You, as a doctor, are placing yourself in a position of God.  I am shocked that you feel comfortable doing this.  The question as to whether vaccines eliminated smallpox and polio is also being refuted.  The vaccines may do what they were intended to do.  They may succeed in causing a certain immune reaction, but there much more to the story and you refuse to acknowledge it.  That is putting your head in the proverbial sand.  You, as someone who has researched vaccines, cannot put all children into a one size fits all category.  Every child has a unique imprint, and for you to say that vaccines work for all children is despicable and against what the Hippocratic Oath stands for.


  No one knows which child will die from a preventable disease, either. Is that not putting your head in the proverbial sand? Every child has a unique imprint, and for anyone to say that preventable diseases won’t kill a large number of children is also “despicable and against what the Hippocratic Oath stands for.”

LOis

I don’t see it that way.  First of all,  getting vaccinated does not guarantee a person will not get the disease.  This has been shown over and over again.  Sometimes a disease is spread from the shedding of a vaccinated individual.  Secondly, from what I have read the old diseases were on their way out, which you don’t seem to agree with.  I am not saying that during these scourges vaccinations didn’t help, but as they declined vaccinations became unnecessary (if these observations were correct on declining numbers).  Thirdly, to force someone to give their child a vaccine for the health of your child (the herd) by sacrificing their child is not ethical so your reasoning is incorrect.  The child that dies or is severely injured then becomes a sacrificial lamb.  As long as there are serious risks to vaccines, and no one knows which child is vulnerable, it has to be left up to the individual whether they want to take that risk or not.  I am also finding out that the diseases to be most concerned about are the mild ones.  Measles kills 1 in 10,000 children in developed countries, not 1 in 1,000, and only if they are immunocompromised.  Healthy children will recover from measles and go on to have lifelong immunity.  The same goes for chicken pox.  Now we have a problem because children are not being exposed to the chicken pox virus at a young age, which poses a greater risk for shingles later on since the natural immunity offers a protective effect.  Bottom line:  I, as a parent, am not obligated to accept the recommendations that are made by the AMA.  They are constantly changing, and as we have seen in earlier times, more and more and more is not necessarily better.  You also seem to be handwaving away that there is any correlation between vaccines and these chronic illnesses that have become commonplace.  I am more worried that in the effort to prevent all of these dreaded diseases which may never come back (even in an unvaccinated population) I may be creating something much worse, which is what I believe is going on today.

[ Edited: 03 June 2015 02:48 AM by peacegirl ]
 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2015 02:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09

Chicken pox vaccine associated with shingles epidemic
Published on September 1, 2005 at 5:52 PM · 24 Comments


New research published in the International Journal of Toxicology (IJT) by Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D., reveals high rates of shingles (herpes zoster) in Americans since the government’s 1995 recommendation that all children receive chicken pox vaccine.
Goldman’s research supports that shingles, which results in three times as many deaths and five times the number of hospitalizations as chicken pox, is suppressed naturally by occasional contact with chicken pox.

Dr. Goldman’s findings have corroborated other independent researchers who estimate that if chickenpox were to be nearly eradicated by vaccination, the higher number of shingles cases could continue in the U.S. for up to 50 years; and that while death rates from chickenpox are already very low, any deaths prevented by vaccination will be offset by deaths from increasing shingles disease. Another recent peer-reviewed article authored by Dr. Goldman and published in Vaccine presents a cost-benefit analysis of the universal chicken pox (varicella) vaccination program. Goldman points out that during a 50-year time span, there would be an estimated additional 14.6 million (42%) shingles cases among adults aged less than 50 years, presenting society with a substantial additional medical cost burden of $4.1 billion. This translates into $80 million annually, utilizing an estimated mean healthcare provider cost of $280 per shingles case.

After a child has had varicella (chickenpox), the virus becomes dormant and can reactivate later in adulthood in a closely related disease called shingles—both caused by the same varicella-zoster virus (VZV). It has long been known that adults receive natural boosting from contact with children infected with chicken pox that helps prevent the reactivation of shingles.

Based on Dr. Goldman’s earlier communications with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Goldman maintains that epidemiologists from the CDC are hoping “any possible shingles epidemic associated with the chickenpox vaccine can be offset by treating adults with a ‘shingles’ vaccine.” This intervention would substitute for the boosting adults previously received naturally, especially during seasonal outbreaks of the formerly common childhood disease.

Related Stories
ProBioGen initiates clinical trials of Ebola vaccine using AGE1.CR.pIX cell line
Asterias reports positive data from AST-VAC1 Phase 2 trial for intermediate, high risk AML
Findings suggest development of ‘post-infection’ vaccine to reduce TB rates in China
“Using a shingles vaccine to control shingles epidemics in adults would likely fail because adult vaccination programs have rarely proved successful,” said Goldman. “There appears to be no way to avoid a mass epidemic of shingles lasting as long as several generations among adults.”

Goldman’s analysis in IJT indicates that effectiveness of the chickenpox vaccine itself is also dependent on natural boosting, so that as chickenpox declines, so does the effectiveness of the vaccine. “The principal reason that vaccinees in Japan maintained high levels of immunity 20 years following vaccination was that only 1 in 5 (or 20%) of Japanese children were vaccinated,” he said. “So those vaccinated received immunologic boosting from contact with children with natural chickenpox. But the universal varicella vaccination program in the U.S. will nearly eradicate this natural boosting mechanism and will leave our population vulnerable to shingles epidemics.”

For decades it was thought shingles increased with age as older individuals’ immune systems declined. However, Goldman’s new research shows this phenomenon seemed primarily due to the fact that older people received fewer natural boosts to immunity as their contacts with young children declined.

Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D. served for eight years as a Research Analyst with the Varicella Active Surveillance Project conducted by the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LACDHS). The project was funded by the CDC.

About Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D.: Currently serves as Founder and Editor-in- Chief of the peer-reviewed medical journal Medical Veritas (http://www.MedicalVeritas.com). Has recently authored five manuscripts concerning varicella, herpes zoster, and capture-recapture published in the European journal called Vaccine.

Research published in the International Journal of Toxicology, 24(4):205-213, Universal Varicella Vaccination: Efficacy Trends and Effect on Herpes Zoster. Also, Vaccine, 23(25):3349-3355, Cost-benefit analysis of universal varicella vaccination in the U.S. taking into account the closely related herpes zoster epidemiology.

Source:
http://www.actox.org/

 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2015 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26
LoisL - 02 June 2015 06:39 PM

  No one knows which child will die from a preventable disease, either. Is that not putting your head in the proverbial sand? Every child has a unique imprint, and for anyone to say that preventable diseases won’t kill a large number of children is also “despicable and against what the Hippocratic Oath stands for.”

LOis

Lois your point is well taken and its the thing that antivaxxers miss or unwilling to accept. If vaccines saved millions of lives but several children died or were injured by the vaccines they would find this unacceptable. To get around this obvious inconsistency they make up things to change the equation like claiming that vaccines don’t really save so many lives and that the side effects are far worse than they are.

Maybe this analogy will shed more light on the discussion.

I was listening to a podcast about autonomous cars today and it occurred to me that a portion of the debate was analagous to what the antivaxxers do with the vaccine debate. It is becoming rapidly clear that autonomuosly driven vehicles will remove huge number of accidents, injuries, and deaths that occur when humans drive cars. The flip side is that they won’t eliminate all of them. Current estimates are that for every 10,000 accidents humans cause autonomous cars would cause one.

Obviously the person who is injured or killed in the autonomous car accident is not the same one who would have been among the 10,000 who would have been involved in the human piloted accident but that would be a poor argument for not switching to autonomously piloted vehicles especially for the 10,000 people who are now relegated to being in an accident they could have avoided.

The comparison is also relevant for another reason. Google autonomous cars just completed some real world testing during which they had about a dozen accidents. In every case the accident was caused by a human piloted vehicle. In comparison the vast majority of vaccine preventable diseases are caused by people who refuse to vaccinate. Some day when autonomous vehicles are the norm we may find ourselves in a situation where human piloted vehicles are forced to drive on special roads away from the rest of us because they will be a hazard and a nuisance to everyone else, not unlike what we are asking now of unvaccinated children..stay out of public schools where you are a danger to others.

When that happens I have no doubt that devotees of driving will swear that motor vehicle accidents were decreasing before autonomous vehicles were invented ( which is true) and the benefits of these vehicles is being overblown (which is untrue). They will claim that the handful of deaths in these vehicles prove that they are unsafe and that the 40,000 deaths a year from human piloted accidents in the year 2015 was a gross exaggeration. They will cloud the issue with false arguments and exagerations so they don’t have to face facts that they don’t like which should sound very familiar to everyone here.

[ Edited: 03 June 2015 10:59 AM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2015 10:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  468
Joined  2015-03-31

TRENDS IN PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE

Anti-Fooders Seek Ban on Food to Save Our Pwecious Widdle Chirrun

CENTER FOR INQUIRY (Internet News Service)—Anti-Fooders are seeking a ban on food to save the lives of our pwecious widdle chirrun, it was disclosed on Wednesday.

“To put food into your chirrun’s mouths, is to introduce foreign materials into our wigwums’ widdle bodies,” stated peacegirl, a spokeswoman for the burgeoning anti-food movement. “Sometimes, when a child is fed, it pukes—a terrible trauma to its widdle system. Also, when a child is fed, a few hours later, it has an accident at the other end, which is a real pain in the ass to parents.”

Peacegirl noted that there is not a single case on record of an adorable widdle rugrat acquiring autism after not being fed.

“Every instance of a child acquiring autism involved a child who had been fed prior to acquiring it,” peacegirl noted. “It should be obvious that food causes autism.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2015 10:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
macgyver - 03 June 2015 10:09 AM
LoisL - 02 June 2015 06:39 PM

  No one knows which child will die from a preventable disease, either. Is that not putting your head in the proverbial sand? Every child has a unique imprint, and for anyone to say that preventable diseases won’t kill a large number of children is also “despicable and against what the Hippocratic Oath stands for.”

LOis

Lois your point is well taken and it the thing that antivaxxers miss or unwilling to accept. If vaccines saved millions of lives but several children died or were injured by the vaccines they would find this unacceptable. To get around this obvious inconsistency they make up things to change the equation like claiming that vaccines don;t really save so many lives and that the side effects are far worse than they are.

Maybe this analogy will shed more light on the discussion.

I was listening to a podcast about autonomous cars today and it occurred to me that a portion of the debate was analagous to what the antivaxxers do with the vaccine debate. It is becoming rapidly clear that autonomuosly driven vehicles will remove huge number of accidents, injuries, and deaths that occur when humans drive cars. The flip side is that they won;t eliminate all of them. Current estimates are that for every 10,000 accidents humans cause and autonomous car would cause one.

Obviously the person who is injured or killed in the autonomous car accident is not the same one who would have been among the 10,000 who would have been involved in the human piloted accident but that would be a poor argument for not switching to autonomously piloted vehicles especially for the 10,000 people who are now relegated to being in an accident they could have avoided.

The comparison is also relevant for another reason. Google autonomous cars just completed some real world testing during which they had about a dozen accidents. In every case the accident was caused by a human piloted vehicle. In comparison the vast majority of vaccine preventable diseases are caused by people who refuse to vaccinate. Some day when autonomous vehicles are the norm we may find ourselves in a situation where human piloted vehicles are forced to drive on special roads away from the rest of us because they will be a hazard and a nuisance to everyone else. No unlike what we are asking now of unvaccinated children..stay out of public schools where you are a danger to others.

When that happens I have no doubt that devotees of driving will swear that motor vehicle accidents were decreasing before autonomous vehicles were invented ( which is true) and the benefits of these vehicles is being overblown (which is untrue). They will claim that the handful of deaths in these vehicles prove that they are unsafe and that the 40,000 deaths a year from human piloted accidents in the year 2015 was a gross exaggeration. They will cloud the issue with false arguments and exagerations so they don’t have to face facts that they don’t like which should sound very familiar to everyone here.

Vaccines are not only unsafe, they are ineffective.  You are blind!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MblZctrjOM

[ Edited: 03 June 2015 10:52 AM by peacegirl ]
 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2015 11:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
macgyver - 31 May 2015 09:00 AM

I am not going to take the time to look at this entire interview. I have already spent far too much time looking at the “research” and propaganda from antivaxxers. Dr Mercola is a well known antivaxxer and has a history of flagrantly altering some facts and exaggerating others.

Let me clarify one comment the two of you have been discussing. When counting victims of an outbreak the methods may vary depending on the disease, the available tests, and resources. Often times the diagnosis is indeed what we call a “clinical diagnosis”. In other words if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its most likely a duck and so we call it a duck without taking it to the lab and genetically sequencing it.

When I see a patient in the office who who has a high fever, cough, and body aches I usually dont do a flu test for several reasons. They are expensive, they are not always accurate ( there can be false negatives and occasionally false positives), my clinical judgement after 25 years is pretty accurate, many times the test results are going to come back too late to guide treatment, and the test results will not always change the treatment (most adults just need conservative management and should not be given Tamiflu).

You also have to remember that some studies are based on data from clinical practice and the clinic is not a court of law. We are not trying to prove things beyond any reasonable doubt. Antivaxxers and their infantile insistence on absolute proof are not our concern. We need to take a practical approach that keeps the cost of health care down and provides patients with the best treatment.

The people in this interview are trying to imply that because these diagnosis weren’t verified with a lab test the diagnosis is therefor suspect. I disagree. With the advent of shows like CSI and TV medical shows the public has come to believe that diagnostic technology has been the great advancement in medicine without which modern medicine would be back in the dark ages. It gives the public the incorrect impression that every diagnosis should be confirmed with a lab test and also that lab tests are infallible. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we try to teach our medical students, 95% of the diagnoses we make can and should be made with a tool that has been around for thousands of years. Its called the history. Its the knowing the right questions to ask and how to listen to the answers that are given. The physical exam augments that. If you dont know what is wrong with the patient after the history and physical the odds that any testing will reveal the problem go down dramatically. A good physician uses tests to confirm what he already knows or to narrow down the possibilities and only rarely finds something he didn’t already suspect.

Every communicable disease for which we have a vaccine was originally identified, defined, and diagnosed by doctors who did not have any lab tests to diagnose the illness because in most cases the only test you need is your eyes, ears, and hands.

This argument they are making in this interview is entirely a strawman argument.

When a parent sees a child go from being a normal healthy baby to regressing into a baby she does not recognize right after a vaccine, this IS clinical evidence.  She IS the one that is constantly observing her baby. She has correctly identified, defined, and diagnosed her own child correctly before any lab test.  All she needs is her eyes, ears, and hands.  For anyone to scoff at her ANECDOTAL account of what is going on should be litigated against.  I hope doctors are charged with negligence who don’t take a mother’s HISTORY with her child seriously.

 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2015 11:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26
peacegirl - 03 June 2015 10:50 AM

Vaccines are not only unsafe, they are ineffective.  You are blind!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MblZctrjOM

Please stop with the silly youtube videos. That’s not how you have a rational debate.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2015 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
citizenschallenge.pm - 31 May 2015 12:59 PM
Pec of Uliar - 31 May 2015 10:59 AM
peacegirl - 31 May 2015 10:39 AM

What you are saying is misleading.  The bottom line is that this is a game of Russian Roulette.  No one knows which child will have a vulnerability to the vaccine, yet you are callously telling all parents to get the vaccine.

LOL

I am pretty sure he is not saying that. But truth matters not a whit to the likes of you.

All 50 states allow exemptions to vaccines for medical reasons. Some states allow exemptions to vaccines for religious or personal belief reasons. These laws cater to morons like you.

My first impression to that comment was that living life is Russian Roulette, so what’s the point here?
Demanding guarantees???    smirk

Demanding vaccine choice!

 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2015 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4231
Joined  2006-11-28

The bottom line comes down to the medical profession’s commitment to telling ALL FAMILIES that their children will do better when they get these shots


Except, that’s not what scientists and healthcare professionals are saying. What we are saying is

1. The overwhelming majority of individuals will experience benefit rather than harm from following recommended vaccination guidelines
2. As a whole, there will be better health and less suffering in the population if everyone follows these guidelines.

Every intervention has risks as well as benefits. Though many of the risks cited for vaccines (such as autism) are not real, there are certainly risks. However, the evidence is clear that vaccination helps far, far more people than it harms, and there is no reliable way to identify most of the tiny minority whom it may harm. Perfectly effective and perfectly safe vaccines are no more realistic a possibility than any other kind of perfection, and it is a delusion to imagine that this is a real alternative to the current practice. Giving up on the most effective preventative healthcare intervention in human history and allowing thousands to become ill or to die in order to avoid unintended harm to a tiny minority is irrational.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 June 2015 11:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1380
Joined  2015-03-09
macgyver - 01 June 2015 11:02 AM
peacegirl - 31 May 2015 02:37 PM

I prefer naturopaths as they use natural methods of healing as a first line of defense

That says everything right there. Naturopaths do not use “natural methods of healing”. They use pseudoscience to pretend to heal. In most states naturopaths are not required to go through any training, they have no science background, and the treatments they give are generally not well studied or are not studied at all. The only reason more of their clients don’t suffer from the treatment itself is because most of the treatments have no effect at all, good or bad. That’s not to say they don;t do harm. Naturopaths often delay the time it takes for their patients to get real treatment which can lead to worse outcomes and even death.

The very fact that you patronize a naturopath shows your inability to understand what the scientific method is and why its the only way to determine what really works and what doesn’t.

I believe in the power of the body to heal itself if given the proper support.  Most drugs do not heal anything; they eliminate the symptom.  This may be needed until the cause of the disorder can be treated.  I am not against all medicine but many times it comes at a price.  Our allopathic medical system is based on disease prevention which is based on patented drugs and surgery (cut the disease out).  This is why I prefer to talk to a doctor who does not have this mindset.

[ Edited: 03 June 2015 11:19 AM by peacegirl ]
 Signature 

I think, therefore I don’t vaccinate.

“Vaccination is a barbarous practice and one of the most fatal of all the delusions current in our time.”  Mahatma Gandhi

Ever heard of the Golden Rule?... He who has the gold makes the rules!

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 6
2