Comments on: Smug, deceptive, and utterly reprehensible.

By: Young Aus Skeptic Admin

Young Aus Skeptic Admin — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:36:29 +0000

@Science of what…

Please use paragraphs and proper punctuation.

Also, I am closing this posts comments now. These large amount of comments, while lovely, absolutely smash our meager server CPU! If you would like to continue discussion please take it to the forums :).

By: Science of what.....

Science of what..... — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 08:25:45 +0000

The exmples are not cherry picked, they are widely known and accepted by the medical community and other authorities. They are just examples of what can go wrong and do. There are many more that could be used from other sources. I prefer to rely on information which is credible, and avoid any of the flaky claims that are made.
Herd immunity, interesting proposition, like sheep or cows. Animals have the same problem as people and they aren’t given any choice about vaccination. Animal vaccines have the same issues, lack of immunity, adverse reactions and unfortunatley for the animals no one cares if they suffer any other damage.
And if someone has a different approach to vaccination, it doesn’t make them ignorant or liars. Such minds are always at the forfront of research and development. They think outside the box. They challenge the accepted dogma and find an answer which does not forgoe all the evidence, or dismiss facts that do not suit their cause.
And I never said I was opposed outright to vaccination. Those are your words. Being able to see that a product has a fault and that more work, proper scientific research and studies are needed, for improvements to be made, or another approach altogether developed, is simply logical.
As I stated previously I have and do vaccinate, I also see the problems of vaccination and the lack of intelligent argument in the vaccination debate.

By: Cerca Trova

Cerca Trova — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:56:35 +0000

I doubt most people who deny a vaccination are doing so with ‘adequate assessment’. That’s the issue at hand; groups such as the AVN promote blatant falsehoods and misinformation about vaccinations which causes people to be scared of vaccination for reasons they need not be. There are risks of course, I doubt anyone here is denying that, and any person interested enough can find out all the information from the various vaccination bodies or indeed their doctors.

Also, it is not good enough to simply get ourselves vaccinated and then be content. If a significant percentage of the population are not vaccinated, then it puts the entire population at risk due to the lack of herd immunity. We have seen recent outbreaks of pertussis in NSW and Measles in Queensland as well as in the US, not to mention the return of polio in Nigeria and subsequently some of its neighbours. We can’t hope to provide 100% protection, but that hardly means we should give up trying to secure as much protection as is possible.

Well done on cherry-picking some examples too. If the WHO is so knowledgable as you suggest, and they promote and support vaccination, then why don’t you?

By: Science of what.....

Science of what..... — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:49:31 +0000

Thankyou, yes I could have trotted out those obvious pharmaceuticals with very well known, accepted and publicised “side effects”, but I thought we were talking about vaccines.
And thankyou again you have made another point for me in that medical history is full of good ideas until proven and accepted as wrong.
And yes countries do have funds to help the victims of vaccination, which is in admission in itself that there is a problem. We do not have funds for sufferers of other pahrmaceutical errors. There is no fund for those who suffered damage as as a result of Vioxx! And these very funds are notoriously difficult to make a claim and receive funding from. And it is little compensation for the injuries suffered as a result of vaccination.
And no, I had made no such claims as to types of “side affects” or “complications” or “adverse reactions”, but again you make the point for me. If anyone suggests there is anything wrong with vaccination, the standard reaction is typical, they must all be “imaginary injuries”.

Here are some imaginary injuries for you, they are well known cases and this information is from an organisation that might just know a little more than us about it. You may have heard of them, WHO (that’s World Health Organisation)

“In 1930, in the German town of Luebeck, 256 newborn children were vaccinated with an oral bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine. Within the following months, 130 developed tuberculosis and 77 died, subsequent investigations suggested that the BCG lot had been contaminated with a virulent strain of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.”

“An incident in 1955, which involved an inadequately inactivated poliovirus vaccine in the USA, resulted in 51 cases of paralytic poliomyelitis and five deaths among vaccine recipients, as well as another 113 cases of paralysis and five deaths among contacts of the vaccine recipients”

“Among other examples of vaccine safety issues related to unacceptable high occurrence of specific AEFI’s, the experience with the swine flu vaccine remains of historic importance. In 1976, the US government launched a mass influenza vaccination campaign in response to the possible emergence of a virulent H1N1 virus strain. The vaccination program was suspended after approximately a fifth of the US population had received a dose vaccine and some 500 cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome attributable to the vaccine had been diagnosed, at least 25 of which were fatal.”

“Similarly, the withdrawal of the first licensed rotavirus vaccine followed the detection of excess rates of intussusceptions”

“The more recent example from Switzerland, where a nasal influenza vaccine was withdrawn owing to the ongoing occurrence of Bell’s palsy following its administration”

These are just a few well medically reported and accepted “incidents” and there are many more.

The problems of vaccination are many
1 To vaccinate or not
2 Vaccination is not immunity
3 Lack of assessment of recipients suitable for vaccination
4 Lack of information supplied to recipients before vaccination
5 Is “this” vaccine safe, ie not contaminated corrupt or otherwise unsuitable (no one knows until there is a problem)
6 Risk of individual complications or adverse reactions, including death
7 What measures should be (but aren’t) taken to support the body through the vaccination process

No one truly knows how “their body” will react to a vaccine, and on the whole we do little to help it. Vaccination is a choice for individuals, just as choosing any other medical treatment should be, but we do not respect the rights of individuals to choose or their right to be adequately informed about their choices.
Yet no other medical intervention is so vehemently argued for than vaccination. And again I ask why, for surely if vaccines are so effective and you yourself are vaccinated, what difference does it make if someone else chooses not to be based on an adequate assessment of their individual situation. This idea that mass vaccination will protect us is naive, for as already acknowledged in this forum,
vaccination does not always produce immunity and certain persons are not recommended to be vaccinated, even by the manufacturers.
We will never have 100% protection in the population against any disease. There are always those who are susceptible regardless of vaccination.
Why do we protest so loudly about the merits of vaccination and yet do so little to inform people honestly of both the pros and cons of vaccination. That is all any reasonable person would do for any other decisiuon or health issue.

By: Richard Hughes

Richard Hughes — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:18:46 +0000

Really? No accountability? I take it you've never heard of thalidomide, then? Or Vioxx? Or just this year, the blowup of the Zicam fiasco? That's just general pharmaceutical responsibility - if you want a vaccine specific issue, let's not forget that there are, in fact, rare serious side effects of vaccination that many countries do have a compensatory fund set up for. But of course, that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about companies or governments taking responsibility for 'vaccine damage' that doesn't actually exist - supposed links between vaccines and autism or ADHD that, time and time again, have been shown up as utter crap. Oddly enough, people tend not to like being held accountable for imaginary injuries. I wonder why that it?

By: Science of what.....

Science of what..... — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:35:29 +0000

No you seem to hold vaccination to a completely different standard, and again you prove the point.
Yes you are right, and I concur, ropes, cars, computers, buildings, and people all fail. And all are held accountable by society, the law, the underwriter, the union, the list goes on and on.……and all are required to be accountable..
Who is accountable if vaccinations fail?.… Do I hear the sound of shareholders scurrying.…, do I hear pharmaceuticals companies accepting responsibility, certainly not. Do I hear politicians argueing for accountability and justice for those who have suffered.….mmmm
Thankyou.
And it should not be given if it can not be taken.…..

By: Bastard Sheep

Bastard Sheep — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:55:24 +0000

You seem to hold vaccines to a completely different standard to anything else in life.

I get the impression that for you, any risk at all in vaccines is too much, yet eating, breathing, transport, clothes and other things would not go through such high scrutiny and requirement for risk. I get the impression that for you, any failure at all is too much, yet computers fail, cars fail, ropes fail, bricks fail, and other things also fail occasionally yet you still consider them a success and worth continueing with.

I have read the data that is where I form my opinion from. I would suggest you shy away a little from the misinformation and lies put out by the AVN and jenny mccarthy, and rather look at the data put out by the medical industry and the groups who actually have a sense of responsibility.

Tell me you say “many vaccines have been PROVEN to be dangerous”, could you list them (with sources)? Again you seem to be applying a completely different level of required “proof”, a little consistency wouldn’t go astray, unless you are including vaccines which didn’t even make it past the preliminary trials.

I would also like to thank you for your ad hominem attack at the end there. It definitely shows a level of maturity and what to expect from further discussions.

By: Science of what.....

Science of what..... — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 01:14:16 +0000

It is easy to be supportive of somthing until you experience something different yourself. Strawman mmm, interesting.…yes you prove my point, medical staff (like me) are very aware of the fact that vaccines are not a once in a lifetime shot, but the rest of the known world is largely unaware to this fact. As you stated to make your point too. But when you try to educate anyone otherwise you get.… mmm Strawman.
I never said anything was 100% — reread my comments, that comment was not made by me. In fact that was my point, if vaccines are not completely safe and effective then there will always be dangers and risks, to both those being vaccinated and those who, for certain factors should not be vaccinated. It is a false premise that vacinations will keep us safe.
And like the “flu vaccines” for instance, it is widely known and understood that as fast as we produce a vaccine the virus mutates and the new vaccine is ineffective. We are breeding stronger more prevalent strains in our attempt to stop them.
As for the comment I made regarding a “fix-all” that was not a reference to a “one for all” vaccine, it was a refeernce to individual vaccines which are widely promoted to “fix all” (guard/immunise) the entire population against a particalr disease. My apologies if I was not descriptive enough.
And there are many factors which are not considered, for instance many common diseases of previous centuries, even this century in some countries, “feared killers diseases”, like “scarlet fever” to name an obvious one, have no vaccines and yet the prevalence/occurance of these infections have decreased at the same rate amoungst the population as those diseases for which we are vaccinated. The common factor is not vaccination but improved health standards in general.
As for the risks being ‘minuscule’, that is an arrogant statement, that is to assert that one life has more value than another, and we play roulette with peoples lives without informing them of the dangers. You will rarely meet a doctor who actually informs patients of the known dangers of vaccines before happily jabbing them. In fact doctors are actually discouraged from making such statements because of liabiity issues.
And an adverse reaction is exactly what makes vaccines dangerous, as you state, patients do suffer such reactions, damage, including death as a result of vaccination, the degree and volume of such reactions is not minuscule. Read the data readily available it is easy to find even for non medicos. As for it being compared to reactions like food, yes peanuts do occur in our natural enviornment, it is easier to avoid them if we know we are reactive to them, and there are great lengths gone to, to understand and help those who suffer such reactions. Whole departmetns of hospitals have been dedicated to them. But no one knows if they will react to vaccine until the damage is done, and very few are warned of the dangers. Parents are asked to submit their children, their babies with developing brains, to a process which is a crabshoot. We do not assess the individual first to ascertain if this particular individual is at a greater risk than others. We also do nothing to assist the body through the process of vaccination.
There have been many vaccines which have been PROVEN to be dangerous, the medical data is also readily available. That is why the pharmaceutical companies and governments have required them to be destroyed. This information is also available, and it has occurred in many countries.
Vaccination is not a decision that should be made by the masses for the masses, or legislated, it is individual and people should be given all the facts and be able to make an informed choice unpressured by those who have the loudest voices. Instead we vilify those who choose not to be vaccinated and I have to wonder why, for surely if you yourself are vaccinated you have nothing to fear. Or do you!!??
It is wrong to latch onto peoples fears and scaremonger, just as wrong as it is to not consider all the facts and give people the right to an informed individual choice.
Remember the hypocratic oath “I will never do harm to anyone”, I doubt many doctors could recite that oath, hand on heart and then vaccinate. many of our colleagues excuse themselves of responsibilty by saying it is what the patient wanted, but they do not inform the patient of all their choices and all the risks on both sides of the vaccinatin issue.
And as you state “If you wish to respond again then please make sure it is to things people have actually said, not things we haven’t (as you just did here).“
“Bastard Sheep” sounds right to me.….….
I prefer the company of those who can reason, not just blindly follow.

By: Bastard Sheep

Bastard Sheep — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 22:05:11 +0000

Saying something is “proven to work” does not mean it is 100% effective. In fact, stating that anything can be 100% in this world is nothing more than pure ignorance and arrogance on your part.

You’ve already given one of the answers to your questions, some vaccines are only affective for certain periods of time. This is known amongst medical staff and those of us trying to raise factual awareness of vaccines, but it is not widely known amongst the general public.

Vaccines are very well proven to work, but as already stated this is not a 100% statement. Any 100% claim are nothing more than ignorance and arrogance. Like everything in this world there is an error rate. For vaccines that error rate is minuscule, but it’s still there. The error rate results sometimes in people for whom the vaccine is ineffective.

Other times the error rate results in something much worse, an adverse reaction. The adverse reaction doesn’t make vaccines dangerous. It is similar to reactions had by people to peanuts, sunlight, pollen etc. What makes it seem worse is the fact that vaccines are man made, as well as the lies and pure fiction spread by the anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists. They latch on to people when they are vulnerable and have just had a horrific event happen to someone they love, and fill their heads with misinformation and lies.

Science of what.…. — We have learnt about it. I would thank you not to strawman any further. If you wish to respond again then please make sure it is to things people have actually said, not things we haven’t (as you just did here).

By: Science of what.....

Science of what..... — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:20:31 +0000

If vaccines are proven to work and are such a great cure why do all the medical staff of hospitals have to constantly be revaccinated to work there. If vaccines really worked as we are led to believe, why is it that people who have been vaccinated later find out they have no immunity to the very thing they were vaccinated to be protected from.
I have been fully vacinated, as all children have tradtionally been in Australia, and yet with every pregnancy it is noted that I have no immunity to ‘xyz” and it recommended I be vaccinated,…so much for vaccines. I know many people who have this same issue. And most people once vaccinated never are checked for efficasy of the vaccine. Oh and they do “wear off” according to the maufactureers, for instance whooping cough vaccine is recommended every seven years. When do you have your last vaccine? If you are like the majority who believe they are safe, think again. At least learn something about it.…..BTW my child who recently had whooping cough was in a hospital ward with several other children with whooping cough, Oh and they had all been fully vaccinated. How can that be if vaccines are so PROVEN to work.