Post: #1

I don't know much about the anti-vaccine movement, but recently the anti-antivaccine (or rather, pro-vaccine) movement has been gaining a lot of traction. This makes me wonder if the anti-vaccine movement has any credibility?

The pro-vaccine movement is getting a lot of headlines mocking Jenny McCarthy and her stance. Of course, Jenny is easy to mock, not least because she is female. But these are all ad hominem arguements against her and always end up saying, "well because doctors say it's safe then it must be safe."

On the flip side, anyone who has ever criticized the status quo and standard practice of the medical establishment gets shamed for even questioning the medical authority because of course "doctors know best." This position is equally ridiculous and I know in my own case if I want to find out what's wrong with me I do my own research based on my hormonal panels, bloodwork etc and rarely listen to a doctor. I know others on here feel the same. Just because a bunch of people go to med school doesn't make them experts on everything and doesn't mean we shouldn't question Big Pharma.

So has anyone looked into the anti-vaccine movement and found it to be credible?

Post: #2

No. Next question.

Post: #3

This movement came along because stupid people who know nothing about a subject are allowed to have strong opinions about said subject. Diseases that were extinct because of vaccines are now coming back. So answer is NO.

Post: #4

Anti vaccine people are retards, so, no.

Post: #5

(03-18-2014 07:45 PM)zigZag Wrote:  This movement came along because stupid people who know nothing about a subject are allowed to have strong opinions about said subject. Diseases that were extinct because of vaccines are now coming back. So answer is NO.

The one percent screwed with your money and your jobs! Now they're screwing with your health!

I'd go beyond the above statement. I don't think it's a coincidence that one of the most outspoken anti-vaccine advocates, Jenny McCarthy, was picked to be on one of the most popular talk shows, "The View."

My theory is the people that run this country want those old diseases like polio and measles to come back. McCarthy and others like her are not given a voice in the media by accident.

The people who run this country have almost succeeded in eliminating the middle class through their banking chicanery and outsourcing of jobs. The anti-vaccine movement, IMO, is a way they can make the United States a two-tier, rich/poor Third World country by toying with our health.

Post: #6

The irony is that the present overuse of antibiotics (especially in the meat and dairy industries) poses a massive long-term health dilemma because it's gradually decreasing the treatment's effectiveness...yet this gets overlooked while vaccinations are rather prominently discouraged by people who have no earthly idea what they're talking about.

Post: #7

There's nothing credible about the anti-vaccine movement. Jenny McCrathy's kid is a retard because it gestated in a rancid, toxic womb that spent over a decade getting strange loads dumped in it.

Post: #8

Ask the generation of Canadians and Americans (most are in their 90s now) that went through Polio about the anti-vaccine movement/if vaccines are worth the risk. (Hint: After watching their friends die and get crippled while waiting for a vaccine, my guess is they also think its bullshit)

If there is any risk, it is well outweighed by the rewards. Autism or whatever is claimed to be the effects are non transmissible whereas the diseases they prevent are.

Post: #9

Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism

Quote:Government lawyers insisted that Emily had suffered neither a vaccine injury nor encephalopathy. But every alternative cause they suggested "made no sense, because she showed no signs of those things before that vaccination," Moller said.

Article here

Why a "vaccine court?" Vaccines are scary shit, and can fuck a kid up.

Post: #10

(03-18-2014 08:14 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism

Quote:Government lawyers insisted that Emily had suffered neither a vaccine injury nor encephalopathy. But every alternative cause they suggested "made no sense, because she showed no signs of those things before that vaccination," Moller said.

Article here

Why a "vaccine court?" Vaccines are scary shit, and can fuck a kid up.

This is my point exactly.

Vaccines are scary shit, and can fuck A kid up

vs.

Small pox is scary shit, and can fuck an entire population up

A couple of disabled kids is worth not having a decimated population. If I were levied a tax for the 'victims of vaccines' fund/disability program I would happily pay.

Post: #11

I thought the anti-vaccine movement had died. What's next? Carbs, protein and fat all cause disease. So let's bam food. That way, we will all starve to death before we get cancer.

Post: #12

I like to think the RVF is an educated bunch that knows about science, health, play a manly musical instrument like trombone, study law, how to fix a car, can bench press 425 x 20, and, of course, bang women left and right. But it's unlikely we're all such well-rounded, perfect men. This will be a more 'public service' post for those that are legitimately wondering about this anti-vaccine shit. For the OP, and anyone else on this boat, a very crude primer on the immune system and the extreme arrogance and ignorance of the anti-vaccine nuts.

I don't feel very emotionally invested in many topics, if any at all. I don't really care about religion, politics, w/e, even though those two big ones really do affect our lives. I guess I don't care about them because they're mostly ideologies and opinions subject to change.

Vaccinations were developed based on INDISPUTABLE FACTS. This is not some ideological topic like 'gay marriage,' 'gender disparity' or 'which supreme being do you worship.' Vaccines were developed because we learned how the immune system works. The concept is simple. Through millions of years of evolution, our immune system developed in such a way that when a new intruder comes in, our 'first response team' (innate) immune system breaks that intruder down into pieces, presents it to the 'adaptive' immune system, and this latter system 'remembers' what the intruder looked like so that it mounts a quicker response when the intruder decides to make a visit later on down the line.

Many vaccinations follow this simple logic… present the person with an attenuated or otherwise lesser, weaker, non-dangerous version of the corresponding pathogen, so the immune system sees it for that first time, but is not overwhelmed by it. Any other time that pathogen gets found in the wild, it's squashed by the powerful adaptive immune system that REMEMBERS the pathogen thanks to that evil doctor that injected you with that scary needle once upon a time.

Penn and Teller are not my favorite, and their argument is more based on statistics. But the theatrics are useful. If anyone would like a link to more of the science, just let me know.

(03-18-2014 08:02 PM)Saga Wrote:  The irony is that the present overuse of antibiotics (especially in the meat and dairy industries) poses a massive long-term health dilemma because it's gradually decreasing the treatment's effectiveness...yet this gets overlooked while vaccinations are rather prominently discouraged by people who have no earthly idea what they're talking about.

This is indeed more worrisome, as bacteria evolve much faster than we produce new antibiotics.



(That's right, from 2008-2012, we came up with a grand total of 2 new antibiotics, according to the CDC.)

I guess I should say this here… if you get prescribed antibiotics, FINISH THE TREATMENT. A common occurrence of bacteria evolving resistance is because a patient has not finished their complete antibiotic treatment because the patient feels better. However, this does not mean all bacteria have died or have been expelled. The more bacteria remain, the more likely they are to survive and potentially pick up genes, or mutate, in such a way that they'll be resistant to the now low, or non-existent, antibiotic. Many bacteria, including pathogens, have 'emergency response' systems where, under attack, they become promiscuous and just let any DNA into their system in the last ditch hopes of picking up a favorable chunk of DNA that will help them survive. Unfortunately, these desperate bacteria on the verge of death are the ones that are left over if an antibiotic treatment is not taken to completion, making it more likely they become resistant.

Just because a person feels better does not mean that person is fine. If a patient doesn't finish the treatment, they can become a public health hazard and inadvertently be responsible for many unnecessary deaths.

End of public service announcement.

Post: #13

(03-18-2014 08:26 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 08:14 PM)Sawyer Wrote:  Vaccine Court Awards Millions to Two Children With Autism

Quote:Government lawyers insisted that Emily had suffered neither a vaccine injury nor encephalopathy. But every alternative cause they suggested "made no sense, because she showed no signs of those things before that vaccination," Moller said.

Article here

Why a "vaccine court?" Vaccines are scary shit, and can fuck a kid up.

This is my point exactly.

Vaccines are scary shit, and can fuck A kid up

vs.

Small pox is scary shit, and can fuck an entire population up

A couple of disabled kids is worth not having a decimated population. If I were levied a tax for the 'victims of vaccines' fund/disability program I would happily pay.

Excellent reply. Penn and Teller made the same point in their TV show. They've demonstrated quite well (I can't speak for the figures though).

Post: #14

A friend of mine turned out to be extremely allergic to eggs and a vaccine would have given him serious and lifelong cognitive damages. His parents delayed vaccination until he was older and they then found out about his allergy, so it ended up working out for the best. It was a matter of complete luck.

Which makes me ask, is there any advantage to delaying vaccinations, or do advantages only exist to a few individuals when there is already herd immunity?

Post: #15

Vaccines are made by drug companies.
Pediatricians makes most of their money by vaccinating.

So the TV/mainstream media will not cover anything negative that happens as a result of the vaccines.

12 girls dropped dead in Texas after receiving the HPV vaccine that Governor Rick Perry ordered but you don't hear about it on the nightly news.

When someone gets the disease that they were vaccinated for...the news will not report it...but if an unvaccinated kid picks up whooping cough from a vaccinated kid, the media goes crazy and wants to vaccinate everyone.

In the 70s, Jonas Salk, inventor of the polio vaccine, testified before Congress that the only reason polio was still around was because of the vaccine.

Quote:Vaccinations were developed based on INDISPUTABLE FACTS

No, not all of them.

A lot of indisputable "medical science" is based on theories that that the public believe are facts because they are stated by authority figures like doctors (who did commercials in the 50s saying that cigarettes were not harmful in any way).

Most of the public believes that it is a FACT that "depression" is caused because some people can't make certain brain chemicals and they need to drug to help their body make those certain chemicals.

This is just theory...not a fact. But it sells a lot of drugs.

Measles.
Measles is generally a non-lethal disease. When the true causes of measles was discovered (a lack of Vitamin A and poor sanitation), measles all but disappeared. Then the drug companies made a measles "vaccine" and they took credit for eliminating measles.

So when ever someone gets measles...the cries out for more vaccinations and so the drug companies continually profit. Vaccines keep measles alive. The drug companies force governments to vaccines schools kids and the money keeps rolling in!

HPV
Because of pap smears, cervical cancer is not a major concern.
But the drug companies invent the HPV virus and a THEORY (not scientific proof) that HPV causes cervical cancer. I'm sure the drug companies will soon take credit for the reduction in cervical cancer...when they had nothing to do with it like measles.

I used to worship vaccinations (and many other 'truths') when I was a kid but I've overcome my government school indoctrination...at least I hope so.

There's a lot of BS that passes as INDISPUTABLE FACTS that the TV/Government Schools teach us...that aren't really true.

But everything I wrote is wrong because it wasn't on CNN and Fox News.

Post: #16

Glad to see people on this forum coming out strongly against this anti-vaccine bullshit.

Vaccines aren't perfect and there are certainly risks but they are vastly outweighed by the benefits. It's not even close.

Post: #17

Bringing this around to the concept of game, has anyone seen the biography of Ian Dury, "Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll?"

Dury, for those of you who don't know, was a UK punk rocker whose body was ravaged by polio when he was a kid growing up in the '40s (pre-vaccine). He couldn't use one of his arms and one of his legs and grew to be only 5 feet tall.

But...according to his biographers, the dude had serious game going on before he was even famous, which put off reviewers, but to me was the best part of his story (more here on all this).

If it's not on Netflix and you want to see it, message me and I'll send a link.

Post: #18

How many of you in the military take every shot they try to give you?

There are 49 doses of 14 vaccines recommended by age 6. Almost 50 shots by age 6. Is there a number any of you pro-vaccination people think would be too high? If it went to 100, would you ask any questions?

Post: #19

I personally distrust vaccines which are all too enthusiastically pushed on the populace by the government and pharmaceutical companies. I don't get a flu shot every year and I opt out of every most vaccinations.

I can't be 100% certain to know what's inside of them without making them myself. I acknowledge that the theory is sound - but I don't like putting extra microbes or bacteria in my body on purpose. Since trusting the government and society on how to get girls didn't work out for me, I'm wary of trusting them with vaccines.

I accept that I could be wrong and one day succumb to some disease for which there is a vaccine. But that is my cross to bear.

Wald

Post: #20

(03-18-2014 08:44 PM)Rotisserie Wrote:  I like to think the RVF is an educated bunch that knows about science,

....

End of public service announcement.

I think you just wrote and ROK article.

Post: #21

The fact that the public is even debating the utility of vaccines is a testament to the declining educational standards in the US, and the slow but steady corrosion of reason in the face of emotion.

And the sad thing is that, for the most part, the abandonment of education and embrace of ignorance and superstition is voluntary.

As I've said, the New Age of Barbarism dawns.

Post: #22

(03-18-2014 09:41 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  I personally distrust vaccines which are all too enthusiastically pushed on the populace by the government and pharmaceutical companies. I don't get a flu shot every year and I opt out of every most vaccinations.

I can't be 100% certain to know what's inside of them without making them myself. I acknowledge that the theory is sound - but I don't like putting extra microbes or bacteria in my body on purpose. Since trusting the government and society on how to get girls didn't work out for me, I'm wary of trusting them with vaccines.

I accept that I could be wrong and one day succumb to some disease for which there is a vaccine. But that is my cross to bear.

Wald

Except you also serve as a vector for that disease until you die, potentially infecting other non vaccinators, children not yet vaccinated and those not able to be vaccinated due to allergies.

Yes this is hyperbole, but you could make the argument that you feel like you'll take your chances drinking and driving and not using turn signals...and if you crash and die that is your own cross to bear. Well what if your drunken no signal crash kills me, is that my cross to bear?

Post: #23

(03-18-2014 09:54 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Except you also serve as a vector for that disease until you die, potentially infecting other non vaccinators, children not yet vaccinated and those not able to be vaccinated due to allergies.

Yes this is hyperbole, but you could make the argument that you feel like you'll take your chances drinking and driving and not using turn signals...and if you crash and die that is your own cross to bear. Well what if your drunken no signal crash kills me, is that my cross to bear?

True. If you put it that way, it sounds like a selfish decision on my part. But I don't think your drinking and driving analogy is so apt. As far as I know, it is against the law to drink and drive, and required by law to use turn signals. It is not required by law to take all vaccines.

Secondly, there is no risk to my person by choosing to not drink and drive and choosing to use turn signals.

If people were so concerned about people who don't take vaccines acting as disease vectors, do you think they might have made some laws about that by now? I know of no laws or attempts to enact them, at the moment.

Wald

Post: #24

(03-18-2014 09:18 PM)buja Wrote:  Vaccines are made by drug companies.
Pediatricians makes most of their money by vaccinating.

Quite a stretch on the pediatricians bit. Pharmaceuticals certainly make a lot on vaccines, but not relative to other drugs. Want to know part of the reason we haven't found or made new antibiotics? Because the financial incentives are so low. Usually, when a person goes to the hospital with an infection, they normally get antibiotic treatment, and that's that for the rest of their life. Drug companies make more money on chronic conditions such as chemotherapy and AIDS medications than anything else… patients have to keep coming in for extended periods, or even better, their entire lives to get their fix so they don't drop dead. THOSE are the drugs pharmaceuticals love. By this logic, vaccines, which are a one-off for the most part, do not represent their biggest boon, by any means.

(03-18-2014 09:18 PM)buja Wrote:  12 girls dropped dead in Texas after receiving the HPV vaccine that Governor Rick Perry ordered but you don't hear about it on the nightly news.

I will be the first to admit that I don't know much about HPV, except that it's very early on with this vaccine, and they definitely don't have it right.

However, I have to roast you for this:

(03-18-2014 09:18 PM)buja Wrote:  In the 70s, Jonas Salk, inventor of the polio vaccine, testified before Congress that the only reason polio was still around was because of the vaccine.

Insinuating that Salk's developing the polio vaccine was anything other than a smashing success is irresponsible and really just grasping for straws. Produce the quote, and I'll refute it with his countless papers on the topic.

(03-18-2014 09:18 PM)buja Wrote:  

Quote:Vaccinations were developed based on INDISPUTABLE FACTS

No, not all of them.

A lot of indisputable "medical science" is based on theories that that the public believe are facts because they are stated by authority figures like doctors (who did commercials in the 50s saying that cigarettes were not harmful in any way).

Not all doctors are honorable people. That is why I didn't go out of my way to give doctors credit, but more the scientists who come up with great ideas like Salk. You really chose a bad example there, as the polio vaccine is one of the biggest successes ever. But you're right not all vaccines are created equal. For example, I do not get flu shots. The flu is a virus that mutates extremely rapidly in a variety of hosts, which is why we hear of avian flu, swine flu, etc. Every year, the flu strain that's responsible for the common cold is genetically, and therefore proteomically, distinct from the previous years. By proteomically, I mean the proteins the virus produces are different, therefore the antibodies that were produced due to the prior vaccine will no longer recognize the proteins of the virus. Therefore, developing a vaccine against a rapidly mutating flu strain is often a futile exercise. I don't know the numbers here, but sure, the flu shot may protect you against the cold this season. But the probability you'll see that cold again in the future is much slimmer, because the virus that causes the common cold mutates so rapidly.

(03-18-2014 09:18 PM)buja Wrote:  Measles.
Measles is generally a non-lethal disease. When the true causes of measles was discovered (a lack of Vitamin A and poor sanitation), measles all but disappeared. Then the drug companies made a measles "vaccine" and they took credit for eliminating measles.

So when ever someone gets measles...the cries out for more vaccinations and so the drug companies continually profit. Vaccines keep measles alive. The drug companies force governments to vaccines schools kids and the money keeps rolling in!

Don't know much about measles.

(03-18-2014 09:18 PM)buja Wrote:  There's a lot of BS that passes as INDISPUTABLE FACTS that the TV/Government Schools teach us...that aren't really true.

But everything I wrote is wrong because it wasn't on CNN and Fox News.

You got a little angry about the INDISPUTABLE FACTS I used. No need to get defensive. The truth is, by and large, anyone who believes vaccines were not a huge boon to public health is kidding themselves. I'm not lumping you in there, because it seems like you know a little about vaccines, except I'm worried that you focus on the negative stories. Pharmaceuticals and doctors certainly have questionable agendas. But delve into the science, and many vaccines have dramatically improved the quality of life and life expectancy of countries who implement them.

(03-18-2014 09:41 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  I personally distrust vaccines which are all too enthusiastically pushed on the populace by the government and pharmaceutical companies. I don't get a flu shot every year and I opt out of every most vaccinations.

I can't be 100% certain to know what's inside of them without making them myself. I acknowledge that the theory is sound - but I don't like putting extra microbes or bacteria in my body on purpose. Since trusting the government and society on how to get girls didn't work out for me, I'm wary of trusting them with vaccines.

I accept that I could be wrong and one day succumb to some disease for which there is a vaccine. But that is my cross to bear.

Wald

This is where we're going wrong… we're letting paranoia and emotions cloud reason. As someone else pointed out, you become a public health hazard if you do succumb. You are not alone in this world. Most antibiotic-resistant infections occur in hospitals through contact with other individuals. If you are unlucky enough to catch that disease, there's a good chance you'll be taking other people with you… and that's not right.

Look, I know several people working on developing vaccines for a number of important diseases, including HIV and even cancer. Their intentions are on point. Whether they will be successful or not remains to be seen, depends on the science. But your paranoia is directed at the wrong people. Seek out sources to inform yourselves on which vaccines are truly worth it and which are not. What I would advise is to, yes, be wary of new vaccines and wait for results to come out. Don't rush to the line to get a completely new vaccine where the science hasn't been proven. But, barring a severe allergic reaction or some other extremely rare occurrence, if I see anyone rejecting proven vaccines such as tuberculosis, polio, or smallpox, I will jump down their throat.

Post: #25

Any vaccine which has been around 20+ years is probably made to a standardised recipe and is likely to be safe. Stuff like the measles vaccine (which has been more or less proven to have no associated with autism whatsoever in several huge population studies).

Vaccines that are newer, like the HPV, can only be truly considered safe with the test of time. It's up to people to decide for themselves whether unknown risk outweighs known benefit. Generally it takes about 20 years on the market before a product's full safety profile is known.

Vaccines that are made up newly every year, such as the yearly influenza vaccine (which is a brand new concoction every year) - now this stuff keeps me awake at night with cold sweats. If you're mixing up new ingredients every year, how do you really know it's safe? Pharmaceutical companies accidentally caused a narcolepsy epidemic in Europe when they started using shark-origin proteins to boost their vaccines (see Pandemrix).

I don't get flu shots, nor do I advise my patients to get flu shots. I believe the risks of flu are greatly overstated and the benefits unclear (see thisCochrane review, which basically states that the vaccine has only a 'modest' effect on days off work, but hospitalisations/deaths from influenza remain the same).

So I happily encourage the use of the older vaccines, am cautious with the HPV vaccine (it's not been on the market long enough to expose its hidden risks well enough) and I'm reluctant to recommend any vaccine that requires a new setup every year (such as the influenza vaccine). Of course, this a controversial opinion to have as a doctor and I try to keep my mouth shut about it, because most doctors don't understand the data and I'm not really keen to get into fights with my colleagues.