Y’know, people. It does me absolutely no good to put curlcoat on my “ignore” list if so many of you insist on engaging her idiocy on any topic and turning a valid thread into the curlcoat show.
Please stop.
That is all.
…probably because you were too busy seizing on one line you mistakenly think supports your claims, and missed the rest (including that “available epidemiologic data are reassuring” (about the very low risk of any autoimmune reactions secondary to vaccination), as well as missing the “gist” of the concluding remarks in the paper, i.e.:
“There is little doubt that laboratory measurable signs of autoimmunity can associate with infection and might occasionally appear after vaccination. It is comforting to appreciate that the immune system has evolved sufficient fail-safe mechanisms to ensure that these signs rarely develop into clinical disease.”
Yes, you’re Just Asking Questions. No agenda at all. :dubious:
I only underestimate those vets who prove their incompetence. As for the rest, since Dr Dodds gets all the press, it is easy to assume that she was the one to spearhead the studies on vaccine protocols. Apparently, all the credit she should get should be for bringing it to the attention of the public.
Which is all beside the point - it doesn’t matter who figured it out, my point was that we followed the “vaccinate puppies five times and once a year there after” for decades until it was shown to be a bad idea.
That one I’ve never believed in because a titer test only shows the level for right then, and not for tomorrow or six months from now.
Only if you are paranoid. Why would you assume I’m anti-vax when you know I give my pets vaccinations?
Well, that doesn’t address concerns about long term affects, which is what I have been addressing this whole time.
No, I am not asking questions. I made one observation and you guys jumped to stupid conclusions. And the very first stupid conclusion would be that I would even care to Ask Questions about vaccinations for kids.
She gets the publicity… but not from her own profession. Dr. Schultz, who participated in task forces and co-authored many of the papers, does.
And yes, there are many things even in human medicine that were followed for years until proven wrong. Proven wrong by evidence-based, peer-reviewed research.
And I think, in the case of human medicine, cites have been provided now and before, from multiple credible sources, that the consensus has been so far that vaccine schedule so far is not causing major problems to humans.
I dropped by to mention that I’m reading Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science and note the extent to which the UK has jumped off the bad science cliff, possibly more even than the US, and how it could help explain the events in the OP, but I see that the discussion has gone to the dogs.
Your link is a troll. Actual link: Bad Science.
Getting publicity within one’s peer group isn’t going to spread it very far, eh?
Research that was initiated by noting something is going wrong and wondering what might be causing it. Certainly not be just believing that things must be OK because past research says so.
I do not recall seeing one that had anything to do with long term effects.
One doesn’t seek publicity within one’s peer/professional group for fame & fortune, but more recognition that one’s research is valid and useful for members of said group.
And there we have it. Why should we believe ANYTHING just because “research” tells us it’s true?
Certainly we should believe any research publication if it confirms our own biases. And research is especially believable if you can use it to show that we can’t trust research (i.e. any paper demonstrating biases or misconduct in research).
Preach, sista. It’s certainly predictable, and wearyingly tedious, since both LavenderBlue and I have both had these exact same conversation with disingenuous anti-vaccine idiots over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Since that particular information is highly useful to the public, why did we need to wait until Dr Dodds made it common knowledge?
Are you really that stupid?
If you didn’t automatically ass-ume that anyone who doesn’t fall into step right away has to be a “disingenuous anti-vaccine idiot”, you’d most likely have that conversation far less often. That is your whole problem - paranoia, not anti-vaxers.
Well, no.
At this point, the problem is your, quite frankly, baffling lack of intellectual curiosity.
You’ve been shown repeatedly that many of your assertions are just flat out false
and that many of the conclusions you draw from them are suspect.
It’s not paranoia when you yourself have shown that there are non-anti-vaxxers (at least you claim to be one) who are willing to repeat and promote the most asinine falsehoods and easily refuted claims as established research and honest questions. Paranoia implies a view of reality that doesn’t exist. Your own behavior gives lie to this accusation.
Yet instead of going back and checking on the data or research or maybe conceding that maybe you could stand to learn a bit more about them (or at least shut the hell up about stuff you clearly know little to nothing about), you press on, oblivious to your own obvious ignorance and wallowing in your fatuous and ridiculous stupidity.
Given your posting history, this is no surprise, but it’s disappointing to observe in a human with what I can only assume is functional intelligence.
Academic publishing =/ mass media. Requirements and audience are completely different.
Of course, this bit of knowledge would require you to have some sort of intellectual curiosity and common sense, which I believe the Great Antibob has just proven you do not possess.
Umm. No.
Nobody had to fall out of step, the only person or persons on this thread showed a whole shitload of disingenuous arguments and complains that are pretty much right out of anti-vaxxer playbook.
If you don’t like being tackled, don’t run out on the field wearing the other team’s jersey.
Since I’ve made no assertions or conclusions, you are going to need to provide a cite.
Really? Making one simple observation translates to you as “asinine falsehoods and easily refuted claims”? If that isn’t paranoia, what is it then?
If I was pressing on, I’d be trying to convince people I’m right. I’ve done no such thing. And the bit about data and research is funny since when I did it, and posted the cites, nobody responded to them.
:rolleyes: Does it ever occur to you that your preconceived assumptions are getting in the way of understanding anything?
Uh, you are expecting me to find out something that was apparently only released in peer to peer academic publications? How am I to get a hold of information like that when I don’t even know it exists, and don’t have access to where it is?
And, you didn’t bother to answer my question. If it was known long before Dr Dodds started writing about it, why didn’t anyone else let the public know that the old vaccination schedules were harmful?
That’s the paranoia right there. The assumption that I must be anti-vax because I said one thing that might be interpreted as something an anti-vaxxer might say. Instead of “no, this is why that observation doesn’t work in kids” I get “YOU AWFUL CHILD HATING DISEASE RIDDEN ANTI-VAXXER, GO JUMP IN A VAT OF GERMS”.
You should go back and read the first couple of pages of this thread and see the number of times someone asks an innocent question, and the response is as above. Those here who (I guess) are trying to get people to understand that vaccinations are safe and necessary are doing a very poor job.
Meh, the “I was totally open to changing my opinion but you’re all so mean” tactic is pretty played out in my opinion.
Says you.
I know quite a few children who claim they didn’t finish their vegetables, clean their rooms, brush their teeth, or go to bed for much the same reason.
If I’d said that, sure. But of course, I didn’t - what I did say is the paranoids only get “mean”, rather than attempting at all to find out what the actual question is. Jumping all over someone who doesn’t know everything you do is hardly educational.
The vaccination task force and the schedules pointed by AVMA and other organizations date to ten years ago, when solid data started coming out in peer-reviewed journals a few years before.
The longest, biggest, comprehensive paper on dog and cat immunology, including long-term immunity with vaccines was published within the last five years. I had to read it for my boards (though by now I barely remember it).
Again, Dr. Dodds had no data, no academic standing, to talk about the vaccine schedule and be heard within the veterinary community. Her previous research work was in a different area.
You expect medicine types (of any field) to change their whole set of recommendations and treatment options just because someone said “my words are my cite”? That is not evidenced-based medicine.
And the old vaccination schedules were not very harmful (except in cats). They were just not needed.
Annual vaccines for Bordatella, Lepto, Lyme, and others are still recommended (if they’re going to be used) because research has shown these don’t develop good multi-year immunity with vaccines.