News coverage of vaccine controversies drives down support for vaccines

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: RustyHook

You're trying to move it from a scientific issue to an ideological issue...

Technically, according to strict scientific standards, one would have to be able to duplicate the exact results under the exact same circumstances every time to be pure science, and given the individual nature of our physiological makeup, that would be impossible. We will never achieve the exact same results for everyone simply because we are not exactly the same. Period. Furthermore, the gold standard of medical testing -- random controlled trials -- have never been implemented on vaccines, therefore even by medical standards, the vaccinations are lacking in true scientific research and confirmation, leaving us with statistics which are subject to interpretation and manipulation.

(which, for anti vaxers, is actually the case).

Once it became an issue of forcing people to accept vaccinations under color of law, yes, it became ideological, and more important, political.

The tide of public opinion is turning against ignorant and dangerous anti vaxers.

Public opinion -- meh. That's not what worries me. People can and do and will think what they will -- with my blessing. It's natural law. We are endowed by our Creator with the ability to think and reason and make our own choices. It's only a problem when others force their will upon me.

As such, they are trying to play a semantics game. If to don't accept the efficacy and safty of vaccines or the scientific fact that there is no causal link between vaccines and autism then you are an anti vaxer (a subset of the broader category of science denier). No amount of semantic gymnastics will change that.

Semantics? No. If I refuse to eat fast food does that make me anti-food? If I refuse to eat at a certain Chinese restaurant because I know it failed its health inspection, does that make me anti-Chinese food? Or just anti-dirty restaurants? If I prefer to separate my laundry into similar colors before washing, does that make me anti-laundry? Or just anti-ruining-my-clothes?

a reply to: Boadicea

I have hopes that it is a good sign, especially with some whistle-blowers emerging.
I'm old enough to remember the industry's denials of the birth defects caused by thalidomide and their promises to improve their research protocols.
I'm old enough to remember Vioxx and have read their scientific experts' testimony in some of the lawsuits over the death and misery caused by that fine concoction.

originally posted by: RustyHook
a reply to: Pardon?

Sorry, I don't speak jabber.

But it seems like you have some sort of problem with the terminology.

What you don't like labels?

It's not me who has the problem.
Thanks for asking though.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: RustyHook

Because emperical facts are black and white. Vaccines work and are safe...

Vaccines are safe and work for most people most of the time... not all people and not every time, and certainly not on the current schedules as recommended.

That's the black and white empirical fact... whether you like it or not. The reality of the truth does not require your personal blessing.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Boadicea

I have hopes that it is a good sign, especially with some whistle-blowers emerging.
I'm old enough to remember the industry's denials of the birth defects caused by thalidomide and their promises to improve their research protocols.
I'm old enough to remember Vioxx and have read their scientific experts' testimony in some of the lawsuits over the death and misery caused by that fine concoction.

Wasn't it someone working at the FDA who discovered the issues with thalidomide and that was why it wasn't released in the US?
Wasn't it Merck who withdrew Vioxx after a study they started showed adverse events?

a reply to: GetHyped
Thanks, I must say you have done zero reading into the issues behind links between autism and vaccinations. Unlike you at least I will provide links for you www.activistpost.com...

Just because you have posted Countless times in this forum in the past does not make your statements true.

www.sciencedirect.com...
articles.mercola.com...
www.thelibertybeacon.com...
www.medscape.com...
www.naturalnews.com...
www.naturalnews.com...
www.naturalnews.com...

a reply to: Pardon?

The Godwin law.

Mike Godwin (2010) Godwin's Law (or Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage asserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"[2][3]—​ that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism. Despite being described as universal regarding the subject of the discussion, the Godwin's law is more likely to be applicable to social topics (including politics, law, religion, etc.).

Wow, that's logic you can't argue with.

Am I supposed to be surprised by this or does it change the meaning of the word that you had a problem with, or any such comparison, in any way?

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Boadicea

I have hopes that it is a good sign, especially with some whistle-blowers emerging.
I'm old enough to remember the industry's denials of the birth defects caused by thalidomide and their promises to improve their research protocols.
I'm old enough to remember Vioxx and have read their scientific experts' testimony in some of the lawsuits over the death and misery caused by that fine concoction.

And that phen-fen stuff (or whatever it's called)!

My mother took thalidomide when she was pregnant with one of my brothers... he was born with cancer, and she's always wondered if that was the cause. She refused to take any meds with the rest of her pregnancies because of that, tho it was never proven to be the cause of his cancer. He developed lymphoma when he was 5 or 6, which was treated with chemotherapy and almost killed him. And bone cancer finally got him when he was in his 40s. My mother still blames herself to a certain extent. It's horrible for a parent to think they've harmed their child -- even inadvertently. When my son had a severe allergic reaction to antibiotics, I hated myself for forcing him to take them. I totally empathize with parents whose children have adverse reactions to vaccinations.

Look at statins today, and all the horrible side effects people suffer from them -- and too often the patient/doc doesn't even realize it's a side effect of the statins... and now we're being told that cholesterol isn't the big bad boogy man they thought it was. Sheesh. How many people have sufferred and continue to suffer because of these statins? The saddest part is that a simple supplement of CoQ10 would go a long way toward correcting many of those side effects. But coQ10 can't be patented so there's no profit in studying and marketing it.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: diggindirt

Wasn't it someone working at the FDA who discovered the issues with thalidomide and that was why it wasn't released in the US?

It was used in the U.S. I know my mother took it and regrets it to this day.

Wasn't it Merck who withdrew Vioxx after a study they started showed adverse events?

I'm pretty sure Merck was forced to remove it from the market. I remember a huge brouhaha at the time about it, but I don't remember the details.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: GetHyped
Thanks, I must say you have done zero reading into the issues behind links between autism and vaccinations. Unlike you at least I will provide links for you www.activistpost.com...

Just because you have posted Countless times in this forum in the past does not make your statements true.

www.sciencedirect.com...
articles.mercola.com...
www.thelibertybeacon.com...
www.medscape.com...
www.naturalnews.com...
www.naturalnews.com...
www.naturalnews.com...

The link from Science Direct you posted shows the opposite of what you say.
Did you link to the wrong one?

The rest of the links do not show any real scientific evidence that vaccines cause autism at all.
lizditz.typepad.com...
Oh, the Liberty Beacon link has malware embedded in it.
What a surprise.
However the study they cite as "proof" has no mention of the MMR vaccine in it at all.
Or vaccines. Or measles.
Look for yourself.
journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0058058

And the obligatory YouTube video.
Congrats.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Pardon?


It was used in the U.S. I know my mother took it and regrets it to this day.


I'm pretty sure Merck was forced to remove it from the market. I remember a huge brouhaha at the time about it, but I don't remember the details.

I have a cousin who is a thalidomide victim.
She's only recently been compensated for it too so I'm not really a fan of it myself but the knock-on effect that had on the testing & release of drugs has been extremely significant.

As far as I know, it was only tested briefly in the States as part of a study, it was never released commercially.
Although it is used now for the treatment of some types of cancer.

As for Vioxx, Merck stopped the APPROVe study early but that was post-release and they were guilty of being "selective" with some of the information they had.
Quite rightly they've been censured and forced to compensate those who were harmed by it.

Does that mean we should be wary of Merck?
Yep, it certainly does and that's why loads of studies are performed independently of companies both pre and post marketing.
However, back to the subject of vaccines, they are probably THE most tested drugs on the planet, bar none due to the fact that they are given primarily to healthy people.
The overwhelming evidence shows without doubt that they are safe and effective.
Yes, there are the very rare (in fact tremely rare) adverse events but they are quite literally one in a million or less.

As for performing the "gold standard" of testing, the randomised, double-blind etc etc, when you think about the ethics of a study you then realise why this would never be approved nor performed.

edit on 19/2/15 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Pardon?

Yes I did link the wrong one for the science direct. I did not say I had scientific evidence to the contrary. I was only providing links. I do not see the malware that your referring to on liberty beacon. My apologies if there is. I will take a look at your links when I have more time. Thank you for providing me with them. I see you formed an opinion on the youtube video without watching it

a reply to: Pardon?
If you believe what msm tells you. There are stories behind both those issues that you might want to look into.
Look outside the US for facts you may not have been told by US media.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Pardon?

Yes I did link the wrong one for the science direct. I did not say I had scientific evidence to the contrary. I was only providing links. I do not see the malware that your referring to on liberty beacon. My apologies if there is. I will take a look at your links when I have more time. Thank you for providing me with them. I see you formed an opinion on the youtube video without watching it

Sorry about the YouTube video but my brain is allergic to anything from Infowars.
I did manage about 10 minutes when I saw this a while ago.
Where the commentator was going on about the Epilogue of the meta-study and hypes up the adverse event one of the doctor's children had with the vaccine.
That's when I turned off as a mild fever post-vac is a common event which is well-documented but was made out to be something almost life-threatening.
If that's all they have to debunk the study then they've failed.
Miserably.
And if you go to the actual video on YouTube itself, you can buy all of Alex Jones' "natural" alternatives.
It's little more than a commercial for the woo he sells.

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Pardon?
If you believe what msm tells you. There are stories behind both those issues that you might want to look into.
Look outside the US for facts you may not have been told by US media.

I don't live in the US.

a reply to: Boadicea

I made also a thread about Vaccine BS

Star and Flag OP

originally posted by: Pardon?

As far as I know, it was only tested briefly in the States as part of a study, it was never released commercially.
Although it is used now for the treatment of some types of cancer.

As soon as I read that, I think I do remember my mom saying something about being part of a study group. She had horrible nausea throughout all of her pregnancies, so that would make sense. The doc even induced my birth early because it was so severe and he was more worried about her getting dehydrated. And that was done lightly in those days!

Does that mean we should be wary of Merck?
Yep, it certainly does and that's why loads of studies are performed independently of companies both pre and post marketing.

Not to defend Merck or any corporation's bad behavior, but it is worth noting that Merck is required by corporate law to do what is in the best interests of the shareholders, which creates a huge conflict of interest between profits and people, and is therefore always a source of distrust to one extent or another. But their duty -- their fiduciary duty -- is to their shareholders, and they can be held civilly and criminally liable for not doing so. I'm pretty sure we can do better, but it would require complete reform of incorporation laws... fat chance that will happen.

However, back to the subject of vaccines...As for performing the "gold standard" of testing, the randomised, double-blind etc etc, when you think about the ethics of a study you then realise why this would never be approved nor performed.

Definitely understood! I wouldn't have it otherwise. But it does require that we realize and consider the limitations that imposes on our overall knowledge too.

a reply to: PizzaAnyday505

Thank you!

I'll check it out.

ETA: I don't see it on the New Topics page... can you please provide a link or point me in the right direction somehow? Thanks!

a reply to: gmoneystunt

You're citing what is a who's who of crackpot scaremongering. If this is your idea of credible evidence then no wonder you've come to the crazy conclusions you have.