It’s not a mindset. It’s not an opinion. It’s you’re right and we’re wrong. We’ve shown you where you’re wrong so STFU and go away.
Help me point a finger at this part, which the blogger in question stated in the comments section in response to a commenter who mentioned having been one of the last pre-vaccine polio sufferers:
That seems to make no sense at all. Is there anything approaching a coherent antivax interpretation of why the alleged “related viruses” stopped killing kids right around the time the polio vaccine was introduced? (Note that I’m not asking for a convincing antivax interpretation, since I don’t think there is one, but do they have some kind of argument that’s at least superficially plausible?)
Any wink wink nudge nudge is all in your head.
And, once again because you apparently cannot understand the written word - I am not “spreading” anything. The sum total of my input on the subject is here, and most of it is responding to stupidity like this when I’m bored. You jumping to the conclusion that I must be “spreading FUD” is an example of the paranoia I have been talking about - and the paranoia at that convention.
I am. It is you that isn’t understanding simple comparisons.
No one yet in this thread has proven that anything I’ve said is wrong, unless I missed a cite. Do you have one that shows that anyone has looked into the possibility of a connection between multiple vaccinations and long term problems with the immune system in humans? If not, then the one observation I had about vaccinations has not been shown to be wrong. Instead, people prefer to be paranoid and jump to wild conclusions that have zero to do with what I’ve posted, simply because it scares them when someone doesn’t automatically agree with everything they say without question.
Again, a wrong assumption. I specified what part of the two situations I felt were similar. If you didn’t understand that let me know and I’ll use smaller words.
Uh, moron? Do you not get that when people mock ideas they fear or don’t understand, those ideas are being suppressed? This thread is a perfect example - as far as I can tell, no one has thought to look into the possibility of a connection between multiple vaccinations and long term problems with the immune system in humans. Instead of getting a simple answer to that, what I got was paranoia, mockery and lies. Despite the fact I have zero stake in the situation - way back in the dark ages when I first mentioned the observation, it was simply a passing comment. Now, months later, there is still no answer. So much for fighting ignorance.
IIRC, I think the claim is “better hygiene.” No cites, though, but that’s my recollection.
No, they’re not. Mockery is not the same thing as suppression.
Moreover, when people mock ideas they don’t fear and do understand (which is a more accurate description of what’s been going on here), that’s not suppression either.
Sorry, You are already on record as spreading bullshit. I am not going to bother going back to it. I am not paranoid for seeing you placing nonsense and scare tactics on this thread. You just don’t like having it pointed out.
You haven’t shown anything because you haven’t addressed what I’ve said, which is proven in you saying “It’s you’re right and we’re wrong.” I am not right or wrong about this because all I did was ask if anyone has bothered to look into long term effects.
And I have STFU and gone away, such as right now because I am off to do more interesting things, but you need to realize that in all of your assholishness, you still haven’t addressed my one observation.
Really? So why is it then that no one has ever bothered to answer the one simple question if it isn’t because they want it to, ahem STFU and go away? You don’t feel that the use of mockery is an attempt to suppress “wrong thinkers”?
Well the part about vaccines having no effect on disease is purely imaginary. There is just no doubt about it. Every now and then you find some mouth-breating whale-to’er who posts a graph of fatalities from disease and points to how the number is dropping before vaccines were introduced - ignoring that fatalities were reduced to new things like the iron lung. Sometimes they truncate the graph to make it look like incidents of polio were going down before the vaccine came along - which was true since the vaccine came out as polio epidemic was ending. Move back the timeline, however, and you’ll see that the graph line goes up and down as one would expect with outbreaks and remissions. Once the vaccine comes along the incidence lines goes down and never comes back.
Furthermore, to claim ‘there are no studies’ is utterly untrue.
I might have more later.
Correct.
The quoted paragraph is a series of bogus antivax tropes. The first one is a variation on the common theme of “vaccines didn’t eliminate diseases, they stuck around and we are calling them something else now”. There is no basis for claiming that polio epidemics weren’t polio but were something else entirely (and by wild coincidence, were halted soon after polio vaccine was introduced). You could similarly argue that smallpox wasn’t really smallpox and vaccination didn’t eradicate it, but you’d similarly sound like a moron.
“I was pro-vaccine until I did my own research” is like saying “I was skeptical until I began researching ear candling/coffee enemas/the Great 9/11 Conspiracy”. Such people rarely if ever had an evidence-based opinion to start with - they were credulous ninnies from the beginning.
Anyone who’s taken an honest look at the epidemiology of infectious disease and reviewed the consistent and dramatic drop in incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases after immunization became available, would never say something as stupid as “Vaccines were not a major player in the reduction of diseases.”
There have been reams of studies that look at adverse effects of vaccination. The VAERS database is not evidence of vaccine reactions. It’s a passive reporting system for anyone (not just physicians) who thinks there was a link between some condition and a vaccination. It’s only a starting point for investigation (correlation does not equal causation).
“Many years prior to vaccines childhood deaths were common - but not at the time that vaccines were implemented. Your claim that they were is utterly wrong.”
Another classic from the antivax playbook. Since deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases were declining prior to vaccine introduction (due to factors like better intensive care, antibiotics etc.), antivaxers claim that vaccines had no effect.
This ignores continuing declines in death rates following vaccination, massive drops in disease incidence and similar reductions in hospitalizations, serious complications, permanent disability and general misery due to these diseases.
Focusing only on death rates allows one to overlook vaccination benefits like not having lots of birth defects due to rubella infection in pregnant women.
Hope that helps.
Well, that’s not quite true: you have also expressed distinct reservations about childhood vaccines, even though you say you know nothing about the subject and have no stake in the matter. Expressing reluctance to vaccinate despite lack of knowledge does put one pretty squarely in the “antivaxer” category.
In other words, you keep reasserting your uninformed suspicions about vaccination policies, based on nothing but your uninformed (and in some cases misinformed) speculations. You also declare that you wouldn’t approve science-based vaccination schedules until you had “researched” the subject and “had a serious look at it”—despite the fact that you don’t have the scientific training in the subject to tell good medical research from bad.
In short, you talk like an anti-vaxer and then complain that other people are being “too emotional” when they call you one.
You haven’t asked “one simple question”; you’ve expressed a bunch of vague suspicions about vaccines, with occasional vague speculations about particular medical issues. The “simple questions” you have asked or implied have been answered, but you’ve been ignoring the answers.
To recap:
Q: Are children getting more vaccinations nowadays?
A: No. Per Inner Stickler’s explanation in post#267, although routine childhood immunization schedules nowadays involve more needle sticks than they used to, they deliver far fewer antigens.
Q: Are autoimmune disorders in children increasing nowadays?
A: Unknown. Autoimmune disorder diagnoses have been rising in recent decades, but that may be just because diagnostic procedures are getting better, or some unknown combination of the two phenomena.
Q: Has research been done on possible links between human autoimmune disorders and routine vaccinations?
A: Yes. Per Jackmannii’s cite in post#304, the research so far has concluded that autoimmune system risks from vaccine-preventable diseases far outweigh such risks from vaccines themselves.
Q: Has every possible research study on every conceivable long-term impact of vaccines on the human autoimmune system already been carried out?
A: No. Still working on that.
(And Jackmannii and Mr Miskatonic, thanks for answering my one simple question. :))
Here’s a nifty link that better describes what I was trying to say.
Good lord, really? The desire to find out if the long term effects could include life threatening diseases means one has to be anit-vax? It begins to sound like the definition of anti-vax really is “those who won’t shut up and follow orders”, rather than those who believe woo and give their kids bleach enemas, or whatever that was.
Did you bother to read the cites about the rise in auto-immune diseases in children? Or the ones that link over-vaccination with auto-immune disease in dogs? Or do you just assume that because you don’t agree with these researchers, they must be wrong?
One doesn’t have to have scientific training to research a subject to see what the newest information is, from the experts in the field - none of which are here. Yes, the current vaccination schedules are science-based I assume, but so were the old ones for dogs, the ones that created more problems than they prevented.
Science is not set in cement. Things viewed as fact get overturned by more research, so if I had a baby right now I’d want to find out what the latest research was saying.
I claim they are being too emotional because their response to any questioning of their “expertise” is an attack. Not information, no thoughtful responses, just war.
All of this arises to the responses to the original observation.
OK. Does that make a difference? I don’t know.
Well, one (or two? can’t remember now) of the cites I provided state that autoimmune disorders are increasing. Here is another one that states that asthma is on the rise; I rather doubt the diagnostic procedures for it have improved all that much.
That cite was about autoimmune disorders that appear right away (more or less) after the vaccination, not the long term effects, except for the small bit about diabetes.
Exactly. Seems to indicate that someone(s) out there feel there might be a link. Not that I’ve seen much in the way of cites here on such studies.
Chocolate is lethal to dogs and I just ate 4 brownies and have no intention of dying. Animals are good barometers for some things and not so good barometers for others. The trick is to figure out when which is true and not just blithely state, “Well, maybe!” You posted several links to various articles and none of the ones I’ve read have posited much less argued for the existence of a link between auto-immune disorders and vaccinations. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to seriously participate.
No. Saying “I’m interested in the topic of vaccine research and I would like to know more about current immunological studies of long-term health impacts of vaccinations” is a perfectly reasonable statement.
Saying “I would have a lot of trouble approving medical researchers’ recommendations on vaccinations until I had personally looked into the subject, even though I am completely ignorant and unqualified to judge the status of medical research on this topic”, on the other hand, reveals you as either a crank or an idiot, or possibly both.
And yes, someone who is either a crank or an idiot or both on the subject of distrusting vaccination research is justifiably called anti-vax.
The fact that you seem to believe that you would be better at “seeing what the newest information is” than researchers and doctors with scientific training, who use that very information to construct the routine vaccination schedules that you’re all suspicious of, is another thing that makes you sound like an anti-vaxer.
Exactly. You don’t know that or anything else about vaccines. And yet you still demand that other people should refrain from mocking your thoroughly ignorant opinion that the medical science on vaccines is somehow suspect.
Nobody here is “suppressing” you or trying to forbid you to disagree with them, or claiming that you’re not allowed to challenge authority. But if you insist on challenging a knowledgeable and highly qualified authority on a subject that you confessedly know nothing about, you need to accept that you’re going to look like a dunce, and you shouldn’t get all butthurt and defensive when people call you a dunce.
No, there have been plenty of thoughtful responses and other information in reply to your posts, but you don’t seem capable of processing them. If they say something you don’t want to hear, you just retreat into helpless ignorance and carry on as though you hadn’t heard.
Case in point: The point about modern-day vaccines delivering a lot less antigenic stimulation than older vaccines did, and consequently that children nowadays are not in fact “getting far more vaccinations” than they used to, has been explained to you at least half a dozen times in the course of this thread.
Yet when it’s brought to your attention yet again (see above), you just aimlessly derp on about not understanding whether that makes a difference or not.
If you can’t comprehend even the most basic issues involved, you can’t expect people not to laugh at your pretense of having a valid opinion.
Pharmacology researchers investigate all sorts of possible links all the time between medications and medical effects. That doesn’t mean that researchers consider the current state of science on vaccines to be untrustworthy.
Nor does it mean that your swaggering about how you’d need to roll up your sleeves and go “research the subject” yourself to “see what the newest information is” before you could put confidence in a doctor-approved vaccination schedule is anything but thoroughly risible.
Correcting one of curlcoat’s latest “errors”:
You overlooked the “small bit” in that article about a lack of linkage between hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis. So both relatively short and long-term effects have been studied, and there has been no connection demonstrated between immunization and development of the chronic autoimmune disorders that antivaxers like to blame on vaccines.
No, you festering ninny. It means that every conceivable research study has not been done, nor will that feat ever be accomplished given that we have limited research dollars which need to be applied to pressing real-world concerns and not to every fantasy entertained by dingbats such as yourself.
-
I want to point out that most of the autoimmune diseases reported in animals (which are once again side effects, not common) also occur in the immediate post-vaccination period, not long-term (and not all of them have been conclusively linked to vaccinations).
-
There is a good article regarding vaccines in companion animals from 2006:
Day MJ. Vaccine side effects: fact and fiction. Vet Microbiol. 2006 Oct
5;117(1):51-8. -
Humans are not animals. There are many things that occur in some species and not others. And going by what has been posted, most of the concerns have been addressed. Insisting otherwise seems to be splitting hairs or completely ignoring the cites.
Exactly. Some researcher notices there might be a connection and gets to researching. Has that happened? I don’t know and apparently no one else does either since no one has been able to provide any cites for yes or no except the one that stated something like “such a study would require massive amounts of work, time and money, and so isn’t likely to happen”.
It was really a simple question - has anyone looked into X. It still amazes me what some people can turn that into.
Sure it has. Like I said, the problem is that you just ignore information you don’t want to hear, even if it’s easy to find, and then pretend that other people are failing to respond to you.
For example, this review in The Lancet describes a study of possible connections between multiple sclerosis and hepatitis B vaccine in cohorts of women tracked since 1976 and 1989 respectively, as well as a 10-year followup to a study of possible links between childhood vaccination and incidence of Type I diabetes. Neither study found any statistically significant risk from the vaccine.
Of course, that doesn’t settle the question of whether there could possibly be any long-term impact of any vaccine on any disease incidence. It would take centuries of research to settle such a question with total comprehensiveness and complete certainty. But that doesn’t mean that such studies aren’t being done, piece by piece and over time: they are.
Which you could easily have realized at any point in this discussion if you had actually paid some attention and not just kept dreeping on with your wilfully obtuse “but nobody knooooooooows!” complaints.
No, it wasn’t. It was an ill-informed criticism of routine vaccination schedules and an idiotic claim that you would somehow be able to determine their reliability better than the researchers could, if you undertook to “have a serious look at it”.
Then it was a goalpost-shifting maneuver in which every time somebody answered a question you asked, you ignored the answer and proceeded to demand information about a slightly more general question. Until you finally wound up asking something as absurdly vague as “So has anybody studied whether there might be any unspecified side effect from any unspecified vaccine after any period of time post-immunization?”, and pretending that it was somehow significant for your “argument” that no such impossibly open-ended study exists.
In the intervals, it was also a lot of grousing and moaning that other posters were trying to “suppress” your views by pointing out how weak and factually unsupported they were.
Any “simple question” that you might have had in there somewhere was repeatedly overwhelmed by the turgid flow of your kvetching, loose speculation, imperviousness to facts, and smug conceit.
What the posters who responded to your ignorant whining turned it into was an extensive set of informative explanations and cites that you chose to keep on ignoring. We don’t expect you to say thank you, but you’re welcome anyway.
It’s like being in a college intro class with a home-schooled kid.