Measles and Mumps

[Lucca]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Not OP, you mean that Allen guy right? Still not sure if he was just trying to instigate an argument for kicks, or honestly believes the stuff he spouts. I want to believe that the latter type of person wouldn't be a premed. I mean, I read a couple of his posts and steam began shooting through my ears.
Too...much...misinformation....Can't....handle.....*head explodes*

Oops. I do mean allen, I got this thread confused with the other one lol. Sorry Lucius!

 

[TooMuchResearch]

Hey, TooLittleResearch, go read some studies and get a better understanding. You've questioned how vaccines can weaken our natural immune systems, which isn't really something hard to grasp.

Thanks, Anal1337. That's really useful trollformation.

 

[Lucca]

We're also not sure if the food everyone eat might be slowly killing us. Lets tell people to just starve.



http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/from-square-one-to-application-in-10-months.1027169/

Ahhh okay. I actually feel a lot better knowing this person knows very little science. It means the misinformation can still be healed with information!

 

[deleted407021]

That is not confirmed. Bad **** happens frequently due to vaccines. Even more bad **** happens that cannot be linked to vaccines, but are caused by them.

I don't even know what to call that.

 

[cbrons]

JAMA recently came out with an article that said PR efforts to push vaccinations are having the exact opposite effect. In other words, the more the CDC and other non-profit public health advocacy groups tell people to get themselves and their children vaccinated, the more turned off people are by the suggestion.

I lol'd at this but it actually makes good sense. Trust for the government and in American allopathic medicine are at an all-time low. In the former, this is well justified. The latter really is not, but exists at least in part due to the overall atmosphere of anti-intellectualism that has been spreading throughout Western nations slowly but surely for several decades.

Interestingly there is very good money to be made in this atmosphere. Just the other day I saw an advertisement for a Brita-like appliance that you could attach to your faucet to remove all the dangerous fluoride from your drinking water. On the radio the other day there was a "veterinary pathologist" who made the claim that certain vitamin formulations (i.e. the kind he sold on his website) could cure you of all sorts of illnesses, from Creutzfeld-Jacobs down to the common cold. And today we have former porn stars and other degenerates who have reinvented themselves as virtual immunobiologists -- and the masses trip all over themselves on the way down to their local Walmart to buy their books.

Like HL Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people."

 

[sourdoughllama]

'MURICAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

 

[deleted407021]

JAMA recently came out with an article that said PR efforts to push vaccinations are having the exact opposite effect. In other words, the more the CDC and other non-profit public health advocacy groups tell people to get themselves and their children vaccinated, the more turned off people are by the suggestion.

I lol'd at this but it actually makes good sense. Trust for the government and in American allopathic medicine are at an all-time low. In the former, this is well justified. The latter really is not, but exists at least in part due to the overall atmosphere of anti-intellectualism that has been spreading throughout Western nations slowly but surely for several decades.

Interestingly there is very good money to be made in this atmosphere. Just the other day I saw an advertisement for a Brita-like appliance that you could attach to your faucet to remove all the dangerous fluoride from your drinking water. On the radio the other day there was a "veterinary pathologist" who made the claim that certain vitamin formulations (i.e. the kind he sold on his website) could cure you of all sorts of illnesses, from Creutzfeld-Jacobs down to the common cold. And today we have former porn stars and other degenerates who have reinvented themselves as virtual immunobiologists -- and the masses trip all over themselves on the way down to their local Walmart to buy their books.

Like HL Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people."

So much truth.

My Lord, it's not cute to be ignorant. People at my family's church love to do this. Its infuriating to see people throw away their reason and natural curiosity. It's confounding that people will blindly follow the likes of Ken Ham and Jenny McCarthy, while proclaiming that educated and passionate scientists and physicians have it all wrong and are out to kill everyone in some vast conspiracy.

 

[Psai]

I don't know why any of you are bothering to respond to this joker. He obviously has no clue about what he's talking about.

 

[Lucca]

JAMA recently came out with an article that said PR efforts to push vaccinations are having the exact opposite effect. In other words, the more the CDC and other non-profit public health advocacy groups tell people to get themselves and their children vaccinated, the more turned off people are by the suggestion.

I lol'd at this but it actually makes good sense. Trust for the government and in American allopathic medicine are at an all-time low. In the former, this is well justified. The latter really is not, but exists at least in part due to the overall atmosphere of anti-intellectualism that has been spreading throughout Western nations slowly but surely for several decades.

Interestingly there is very good money to be made in this atmosphere. Just the other day I saw an advertisement for a Brita-like appliance that you could attach to your faucet to remove all the dangerous fluoride from your drinking water. On the radio the other day there was a "veterinary pathologist" who made the claim that certain vitamin formulations (i.e. the kind he sold on his website) could cure you of all sorts of illnesses, from Creutzfeld-Jacobs down to the common cold. And today we have former porn stars and other degenerates who have reinvented themselves as virtual immunobiologists -- and the masses trip all over themselves on the way down to their local Walmart to buy their books.

Like HL Mencken said, "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American people."

This is insanely and frighteningly accurate. I think the growing sentiments of anti-intellectualism in this country have a lot to do with the cheapening of value - and subsequent increase of cost - of an education.

It worries me like nothing else.

EDIT: Anti-Vaxxers actually worry me a lot more but anti-intellectualism is a lot more long-term.

 

[mehc012]

I don't know why any of you are bothering to respond to this joker. He obviously has no clue about what he's talking about.

We're just not as intelligent and world-wise as you. 🙄

 

[theseeker4]

Most of those people will tell you that diseases such as measles and the chickenpox were no big deal. They'd say everyone got them and most people wanted their kids to get it so it would be done and over with. Turn off the news for a little bit and you'll be a little less scared to be outside of your imaginary bubble.

Someone here is definitely living in an imaginary bubble....it isn't those who believe vaccinations save lives.......

 

[Psai]

We're just not as intelligent and world-wise as you. 🙄

Tell me something I don't know already.

 

[futuredoc331]

1. "Any respectable doctor" is bit of a stretch, yes? I won't pretend that I surveyed a hundred doctors on this opinion, so you don't pretend that either.
2. Babies don't lose their immunity because their mothers were vaccinated. On the contrary, the study is showing that the mother's antibodies (which are there BECAUSE of vaccines) are being passed on at lower rates. If the mother's weren't vaccinated, then NOTHING would be passed down.
3. As others have said, you have NOT read this article. Did you read the first sentence? In many industrialized countries, the introduction of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine into national immunization programs proved successful in reducing the incidence of these infectious diseases

Edit: OP is not a troll, just misinformed. Post edited for civility's sake.

Really guy?!?!? I'm the one misinformed? Did you read any of it? Mother's who are not vaccinated pass antibodies that last LONGER in the children. This study found the difference to be 2 months. Others have found it to be over a year.

Don't worry. I'll be the only one to call you out on this. No one else will point out that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[NickNaylor]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the argument that the potential harms of vaccines outweigh the benefits, but I do think it's important to retain a sense of skepticism about things. Complacency is how preventable problems become huge issues. To pretend that we understand fully how vaccines work and claim that there are no harms associated with them is intellectual arrogance. We don't. Does that mean that we shouldn't vaccine people? Of course not. Does that mean vaccines aren't pretty incredible pieces of technology? Nope. But it does illustrate the point that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In contrast to the things that vaccines have been shown to not be associated with, the number of things vaccines could cause - either directly or through an as-of-yet-unknown obfuscated way - is gigantic.

Again, the evidence is quite clear that vaccines are hugely effective and are almost certainly worth any potential harms they may or may not cause. But people talk about vaccines as if they're a ball in a clear plastic box that we can fully describe, understand, and manipulate. We pretend that we know how an immune response is generated and how that response can go awry. That really isn't the case, despite all of our scientific and technological progress. It's important to keep that in mind. Throughout history there have been tons of people that "know" things and doubt skeptics only to be proven wrong decades or centuries later. That's how science works. Don't get caught in the trap of presuming that you know things that you (or science) don't.

 

[futuredoc331]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the argument that the potential harms of vaccines outweigh the benefits, but I do think it's important to retain a sense of skepticism about things. Complacency is how preventable problems become huge issues. To pretend that we understand fully how vaccines work and claim that there are no harms associated with them is intellectual arrogance. We don't. Does that mean that we shouldn't vaccine people? Of course not. Does that mean vaccines aren't pretty incredible pieces of technology? Nope. But it does illustrate the point that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In contrast to the things that vaccines have been shown to not be associated with, the number of things vaccines could cause - either directly or through an as-of-yet-unknown obfuscated way - is gigantic.

Again, the evidence is quite clear that vaccines are hugely effective and are almost certainly worth any potential harms they may or may not cause. But people talk about vaccines as if they're a ball in a clear plastic box that we can fully describe and fully understand how an immune response is generated and how that response can go awry. That really isn't the case, despite all of our scientific and technological progress. It's important to keep that in mind.

Exactly what I've been trying to get across this entire thread. I appreciate the well thought and respectful post.

 

[futuredoc331]

Someone here is definitely living in an imaginary bubble....it isn't those who believe vaccinations save lives.......

I'm sure you won't bother reading this, but I'm going to post anyway. Turns out vaccines haven't saved as many lives as you think.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2...by-roman-bystrianyk-and-suzanne-humphries-md/

 

[darkjedi]

I think this is an excellent case of the Dunning Kruger effect, where antivax arguments are made from ignorance and misunderstanding of scientific evidence. Excess confidence stemming from a poor education about the matter or downright ignorance.

Cherry picking a couple lines in scientific articles while disregarding the scientific community as a whole does not prove antivaxers points. The lack of understanding of basic immunology or even scientific method is really evident and that is the reason no one takes these arguments seriously.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the argument that the potential harms of vaccines outweigh the benefits, but I do think it's important to retain a sense of skepticism about things. Complacency is how preventable problems become huge issues. To pretend that we understand fully how vaccines work and claim that there are no harms associated with them is intellectual arrogance. We don't. Does that mean that we shouldn't vaccine people? Of course not. Does that mean vaccines aren't pretty incredible pieces of technology? Nope. But it does illustrate the point that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In contrast to the things that vaccines have been shown to not be associated with, the number of things vaccines could cause - either directly or through an as-of-yet-unknown obfuscated way - is gigantic.

Again, the evidence is quite clear that vaccines are hugely effective and are almost certainly worth any potential harms they may or may not cause. But people talk about vaccines as if they're a ball in a clear plastic box that we can fully describe, understand, and manipulate. We pretend that we know how an immune response is generated and how that response can go awry. That really isn't the case, despite all of our scientific and technological progress. It's important to keep that in mind. Throughout history there have been tons of people that "know" things and doubt skeptics only to be proven wrong decades or centuries later. That's how science works. Don't get caught in the trap of presuming that you know things that you (or science) don't.

Here's how many patients (including @Allen18328) will interpret your statement: Vaccines are evil. We have no idea how they work. They cause autism. Don't get vaccinated.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

I'm sure you won't bother reading this, but I'm going to post anyway. Turns out vaccines haven't saved as many lives as you think.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2...by-roman-bystrianyk-and-suzanne-humphries-md/

The doctor who wrote that article (Suzanne Humphries, MD) has devoted her entire practice to promoting "natural immunity." http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-humphries-vaccines-vaccination/
http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-humphries-vaccines-vaccination/
Edit: Among other interesting viewpoints, she does not believe in using antibiotics to treat "the worst cases of staph infections."

 

[futuredoc331]

I think this is an excellent case of the Dunning Kruger effect, where antivax arguments are made from ignorance and misunderstanding of scientific evidence. Excess confidence stemming from a poor education about the matter or downright ignorance.

Cherry picking a couple lines in scientific articles while disregarding the scientific community as a whole does not prove antivaxers points. The lack of understanding of basic immunology or even scientific method is really evident and that is the reason no one takes these arguments seriously.

You have displayed neither of these traits. You have displayed nothing but arrogance and the belief that you know all there is about vaccinations and our immune systems. You fail to question what you think you know in order to grow and gain a better understanding. If you graduate medical school you will go on to be an average physician that adds nothing to his community. You'll have the title you crave, but you will perpetuate the ignorance that is taking of the profession.

Have fun with that. It probably won't matter what harm you cause though, right? As long as your ego is intact?

 

[Psai]

We're also not sure if the food everyone eat might be slowly killing us. Lets tell people to just starve.



http://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/from-square-one-to-application-in-10-months.1027169/

Well glucose does cause increased production of reactive oxygen species...

Allen, the difference between you and NickNaylor is that he's actually studied this and understands a lot of the current knowledge. His skepticism comes from knowledge. Yours comes from ignorance as evidenced by your assertions. We don't know everything. People who spend their entire lives studying immunology don't know everything. That doesn't put your absence of knowledge on the same footing as us.

 

[NickNaylor]

Here's how many patients (including @Allen18328) will interpret your statement: Vaccines are evil. We have no idea how they work. They cause autism. Don't get vaccinated.

Does fear of misinterpretation mean that we shouldn't be candid about what the information says? Isn't there a word for that kind of activity? People are going to believe whatever they want to believe, and they're going to find whatever evidence they can to support that belief. The advent of the internet has made creating an echo chamber of your beliefs extremely easy and can be difficult to avoid unless you're acutely aware of it.

Like I said, my position on vaccines is pretty clear, and I would strongly recommend them to anyone asking about them. I don't think that means we need to exaggerate the evidence supporting their use or simply make things up that aren't supported by evidence but that we think are true.

 

[futuredoc331]

The doctor who wrote that article (Suzanne Humphries, MD) has devoted her entire practice to promoting "natural immunity." http://drsuzanne.net/dr-suzanne-humphries-vaccines-vaccination/
Edit: Among other interesting viewpoints, she does not believe in using antibiotics to treat "the worst cases of staph infections."

And? Does that dispute the history? The CDC has spent billions of dollars promoting vaccines, yet you use them as the gold standard for all pro vaccine information. Do you not see the problem with that?

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

And? Does that dispute the history? The CDC has spent billions of dollars promoting vaccines, yet you use them as the gold standard for all pro vaccine information. Do you not see the problem with that?

You know what...go out and get yourself infected with measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, polio, influenza. Come back and let us know how it went.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

Does fear of misinterpretation mean that we shouldn't be candid about what the information says? Isn't there a word for that kind of activity? People are going to believe whatever they want to believe, and they're going to find whatever evidence they can to support that belief. The advent of the internet has made creating an echo chamber of your beliefs extremely easy and can be difficult to avoid unless you're acutely aware of it.

Like I said, my position on vaccines is pretty clear, and I would strongly recommend them to anyone asking about them. I don't think that means we need to exaggerate the evidence supporting their use or simply make things up that aren't supported by evidence but that we think are true.

Nobody on this thread has made anything up, with the exception of Allen18328.

There is NO evidence to support the notion that vaccines cause significant long-term harm. ALL of the evidence shows that the benefits of standard vaccines far outweigh the risks.

Honestly you sound like you drank the anti-vaccine kool aid yourself. Didn't you say in another thread that you were annoyed at your hospital for requiring flu shots?

 

[Deadlifts]

Exactly what I've been trying to get across this entire thread. I appreciate the well thought and respectful post.

Except you've been saying there's no need to keep using some vaccines in developed countries whereas Nick says the complete opposite and says vaccines are "hugely effective and are almost certainly worth any potential harms they may or may not cause."

You're cherrypicking here.

 

[plumazul]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the argument that the potential harms of vaccines outweigh the benefits, but I do think it's important to retain a sense of skepticism about things. Complacency is how preventable problems become huge issues. To pretend that we understand fully how vaccines work and claim that there are no harms associated with them is intellectual arrogance. We don't. Does that mean that we shouldn't vaccine people? Of course not. Does that mean vaccines aren't pretty incredible pieces of technology? Nope. But it does illustrate the point that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In contrast to the things that vaccines have been shown to not be associated with, the number of things vaccines could cause - either directly or through an as-of-yet-unknown obfuscated way - is gigantic.

Again, the evidence is quite clear that vaccines are hugely effective and are almost certainly worth any potential harms they may or may not cause. But people talk about vaccines as if they're a ball in a clear plastic box that we can fully describe, understand, and manipulate. We pretend that we know how an immune response is generated and how that response can go awry. That really isn't the case, despite all of our scientific and technological progress. It's important to keep that in mind. Throughout history there have been tons of people that "know" things and doubt skeptics only to be proven wrong decades or centuries later. That's how science works. Don't get caught in the trap of presuming that you know things that you (or science) don't.

Are you referring to something someone posted on this thread, or, ... what? And your reference to "history" and science, has me baffled. Are you somehow equating superstitions of the past with current scientific knowledge, thinking or methodology?

 

[futuredoc331]

We're also not sure if the food everyone eat might be slowly killing us. Lets tell people to just starve.

There are many foods that we believe may be killing us. Do you know what the responsible physicians tell us about that? They tell people to stop eating those foods and to eat other foods.

Same can be done with immunity. Vaccines might be dangerous? Let's take a closer look at them while improving other methods of boosting our immune systems.

That's not rocket science.

 

[plumazul]

I'm sure you won't bother reading this, but I'm going to post anyway. Turns out vaccines haven't saved as many lives as you think.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2...by-roman-bystrianyk-and-suzanne-humphries-md/

Have you had your serving of vinegar today?

 

[futuredoc331]

Except you've been saying there's no need to keep using some vaccines in developed countries whereas Nick says the complete opposite and says vaccines are "hugely effective and are almost certainly worth any potential harms they may or may not cause."

You're cherrypicking here.

Was it not clear by my making the text bold what I was referring to? See, unlike most of you, I can gather information and come to my own conclusions about it, without thinking exactly how someone else does.

Nick and I agree on a lot. We both understand that we don't know everything about vaccines or our immune system. We know that there is a possibility for tremendous problems down the road. We differ in that he believes we should keep using vaccines the same way we do today and I believe we should cut back and err on the side of caution.

His belief system does not make him an idiot nor does mine make me one. I'm sure he and I would have a great conversation about this topic. We'd probably both learn something and look at things a little differently.

The rest of you on the other hand, are closed-minded and arrogant. You think you understand things that you don't have the faintest clue about. Your arrogance is dangerous and you don't even realize it.

 

[chenzt]

There are many foods that we believe may be killing us. Do you know what the responsible physicians tell us about that? They tell people to stop eating those foods and to eat other foods.

Same can be done with immunity. Vaccines might be dangerous? Let's take a closer look at them while improving other methods of boosting our immune systems.

That's not rocket science.

That's true when we have solid proof that the food could cause harm. You are on shaky ground with vaccine.

Based on your vaccine logic, for all you know, whatever you had for dinner might not have been as healthy as you thought it was. As a responsible citizen, I'm forced to inform you that what you ate could be putting you at risk for deadly pathological and psychological disease, so please, you should just go live on a diet of sugar, fat, and protein pills. Oh wait, that might also kill you because we have not ruled out all of the possible downside risks. Oh well, looks like you are screwed.

Until there's some real evidence, screaming phantom risks based on few wacko doctors railing against vaccine versus thousands of published scientific research pointing to the contrary, I question your ability to judge. You are like people who believe global warming is a hoax based off of the few articles published.

 

[futuredoc331]

Have you had your serving of vinegar today?

Another example of my previous post. You display the inability to gather information and come to your own conclusions. You feel that you have to agree with 100% of what anyone says for any of their information to be valid.

You have no disputed the timelines presented on that website. Unless you can do that you have not succeeded in proving any point.

 

[futuredoc331]

And you know what they are? For all you know, whatever you had for dinner might not have been as healthy as you thought it was. As a responsible citizen, I'm forced to inform you that what you ate could be putting you at risk for deadly pathological and psychological disease, so please, you should just go live on a diet of sugar, fat, and protein pills. Oh wait, that might also kill you because we have not ruled out all of the possible downside risks. Oh well, looks like you are screwed.

Until there's some real evidence, screaming phantom risks based on few wacko doctors railing against vaccine versus thousands of published scientific research pointing to the contrary, I question your ability to judge.

Your gold standard, the CDC, has information on the large amount of adverse affects that can occur from vaccines. The data is there despite the fact that they tell you what to think about them. Vaccines are not completely safe.

If you were currently a physician you could be brought up on charges for depicting them as such.

 

[plumazul]

Another example of my previous post. You display the inability to gather information and come to your own conclusions. You feel that you have to agree with 100% of what anyone says for any of their information to be valid.

You have no disputed the timelines presented on that website. Unless you can do that you have not succeeded in proving any point.

I don't think you mean what you are saying. It's the vinegar talking.

 

[Chipster.]

His belief system does not make him an idiot nor does mine make me one. I'm sure he and I would have a great conversation about this topic. We'd probably both learn something and look at things a little differently.

The rest of you on the other hand, are closed-minded and arrogant. You think you understand things that you don't have the faintest clue about. Your arrogance is dangerous and you don't even realize it.

Oh but that's where you're wrong!

 

[sobored]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the argument that the potential harms of vaccines outweigh the benefits, but I do think it's important to retain a sense of skepticism about things. Complacency is how preventable problems become huge issues. To pretend that we understand fully how vaccines work and claim that there are no harms associated with them is intellectual arrogance. We don't. Does that mean that we shouldn't vaccine people? Of course not. Does that mean vaccines aren't pretty incredible pieces of technology? Nope. But it does illustrate the point that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In contrast to the things that vaccines have been shown to not be associated with, the number of things vaccines could cause - either directly or through an as-of-yet-unknown obfuscated way - is gigantic.

Again, the evidence is quite clear that vaccines are hugely effective and are almost certainly worth any potential harms they may or may not cause. But people talk about vaccines as if they're a ball in a clear plastic box that we can fully describe, understand, and manipulate. We pretend that we know how an immune response is generated and how that response can go awry. That really isn't the case, despite all of our scientific and technological progress. It's important to keep that in mind. Throughout history there have been tons of people that "know" things and doubt skeptics only to be proven wrong decades or centuries later. That's how science works. Don't get caught in the trap of presuming that you know things that you (or science) don't.

Perfectly summarizes the problem with anti-vaxers.

Frankly, your "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument is harmful. Nothing is ever certain and the understanding of scientific phenomena is constantly in flux. But lay people don't get that - they hear what they want to hear and turn that into an argument to not vaccinate, even when the overwhelming majority of the medical community accepts vaccines as not only essential, but probably as the single greatest invention in medical history (far more important than antibiotics). And this is backed by so many studies I can't even count them.

 

[QuinnTheEskimo]

Your gold standard, the CDC, has information on the large amount of adverse affects that can occur from vaccines. The data is there despite the fact that they tell you what to think about them. Vaccines are not completely safe.

If you were currently a physician you could be brought up on charges for depicting them as such.

All vaccines have potential side effects. The effects are usually mild. There is a ~1-in-a-million risk of having a severe adverse reaction. Contrast this with the 3/1000 risk of dying from measles, or the 2.5% chance of becoming infertile if you contract mumps as a teenager, or the 23-50% chance of your child having birth defects if you contract rubella during the first trimester of pregnancy.

 

[chenzt]

Your gold standard, the CDC, has information on the large amount of rarely occurring adverse effects that can occur from vaccines. The data is there despite the fact that they tell you what to think about them. Vaccines are not completely safe.

If you were currently a physician you could be brought up on charges for depicting them as such.

FTFY.

Show me where I said they were completely safe?

 

[NickNaylor]

Are you referring to something someone posted on this thread, or, ... what? And your reference to "history" and science, has me baffled. Are you somehow equating superstitions of the past with current scientific knowledge, thinking or methodology?

I'm not referring to anything in this thread. I'm referring to the gigantic question mark looming at the "cutting edge" of any field of science. People here seem to think that there's no possible way that vaccines could be harmful. There is certainly no evidence supporting that that is the case at present. But people seem to fail to understand that some aspect of biology that we have yet to describe may ultimately demonstrate that vaccines aren't quite as harmless as we think they are. People fail to consider the known unknowns and then, most importantly, the unknown unknowns. Important caveat: "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns" should not factor into one's decision to recommend or not recommend vaccination to your patients if there is very little to evidence supporting them (as in this case IMO). The possibility of as-of-yet-unknown evidence of harm clearly has no role in the discussion given how much evidence of benefit vaccines provide. In discussions like this, though - largely philosophical and in a debate format - I think it's important to keep that in mind. That's something that no one here seems to be remotely considering.

And I'm not equating "superstitions" of the past with current scientific knowledge, thinking, or methodology. There's a losing side to every theory, and there are many prominent scientists who argued for and believed in things that were ultimately demonstrated to be untrue. I'm not taking medieval witchcraft here. I'm talking about 20th and 21st century science. All it takes is one paradigm shift in understanding for an entire field of science to be turned on its head. I have no idea if immunobiology is in for such a change, but I'm at least willing to entertain the possibility. This is in contrast to, say, a knee-jerk rejection of a counterpoint without even for a second considering its possibility. I'm not arguing for some kind of intellectual relativism, but in this case I think the door of the "unknown" with respect to the human body is large enough such that we still have a few more "turns" in store for us as our understanding of the body increases. My only point in commenting on this thread is to encourage the people vehemently arguing for a position using what's "known" to consider, if only for a second, what all is unknown and how our future understanding of that unknown may lead to a more complete and factually correct picture than what we have today. In fact, I think that approach to science is absolutely critical to using science for what it really is - as a system that allows us to test, largely using artificially simplified models, our understanding of the world rather than a system that spits out absolute Truth (with a capital T) - and using the information it provides us effectively. In this specific instance, that future picture may be that vaccines are even less harmful and more beneficial than we thought. I happen to believe that that is the most likely result. But that doesn't mean that we know that for certain - at least not to the degree that people seem to be asserting that point.

In the present moment, the evidence surrounding vaccine administration is patently clear. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and seek out evidence demonstrating its harms or that no evidence that may point to harms is worth consideration.

 

[Lucca]

There are many foods that we believe may be killing us. Do you know what the responsible physicians tell us about that? They tell people to stop eating those foods and to eat other foods.

Same can be done with immunity. Vaccines might be dangerous? Let's take a closer look at them while improving other methods of boosting our immune systems.

That's not rocket science.

Im sure the people whose life's work is inventing and improving vaccines all just say "One and Done" when they are finished with a product. Im sure the FDA puts no effort into making sure these products are safe for the public. I'm sure the good folks abd statistics junkies at the CDC make no effort at all to change the status quo even though they are constantly campaigning to improve the status quo in other areas of public health. I am sure that the AAMC, medical students, and the preponderance of the scientific community are all conspiring to actively cause harm to the public they swore an oath to protect. I am sure that the same physicians that lobby and fight for higher taxes on tobacco and alcohol substances, tobacco prohibition, keeping sodas out of schools, using safer drugs, etc., are all conspiring with those physicians as well and that the people calling vaccines unsafe and irresponsible are all scientifically literate and respected members of their community with no alterior motives whatsoever bravely fighting against an entrenched, monolithic, hegemonic healthcare establishment.


You have not replied to any of the concerns or criticisms brought up with the "evidence" you cite for your arguments. You are cherrypicking hardcore, even NickNaylor's comment you cherrypicked and ignored the part where he endorsed vaccines. I respect NickNaylors temperate position on the subject and it is a reasonable and responsible position but, as others has said, his skepticism comes from knowledge and yours from ignorance. He supports vaccines because of his knowledge base and you are against them in spite of having no legitimate claim to being scientifically capable or involved in the sciences whatsoever at this point in your career.

Your criticism of darkjedi is unfounded and uncalled for, especially when you question his ability to succeed at his profession.

Last time I checked, darkjedi attends a very, very prestigious medical school, participated in research as an undergraduate, and you are a business grad trying to complete a post-bacc online. Please do not put forth ethos when you have very little on this forum.

 

[Patros]

Really guy?!?!? I'm the one misinformed? Did you read any of it? Mother's who are not vaccinated pass antibodies that last LONGER in the children. This study found the difference to be 2 months. Others have found it to be over a year.

Don't worry. I'll be the only one to call you out on this. No one else will point out that you don't know what you're talking about.

Ah I admit I didn't read the "methods" section in much detail, because I saw you made a couple of mistakes and stopped taking the argument seriously. Upon rereading it, they do mention what you said, namely that maternal antibodies last longer in children of unvaccinated mothers. I corrected my original post for fairness.

Ok, look. You take an extreme militant position saying all vaccinations are bad, so your opponents (including me) took a position saying vaccinations are good, which isn't entirely correct, but we believed it to be the easiest way to shut down your argument. The truth is closer to what @NickNaylor is saying: There are risks and benefits to vaccines, but the benefits far, far outweight the risks (just like any other therapeutic).

So why not do some reading yourself? You posted a clearly biased anti-vaccine article on the small pox vaccine. So I will now post a similarly biased pro-vaccine piece on smallpox as well. See here.

Also, keep in mind that few people today even consider variolation (deliberately infecting you with smallpox) to be a viable strategy. Also note that smallpox inoculation is not performed in the United States anymore, due to the risks. There is extremely strong evidence that the inoculation is effective, but since it has significant risks, and because smallpox has been eradicated (again, due to vaccination), it is not necessary. See here for a timeline.
Additionally, note that there is no treatment for smallpox. None! If it returns, people will die en masse.
The CDC maintains a stockpile of smallpox vaccine in case of an outbreak (a terrorist attack for example). They have been keeping this stockpile for years, and with good reason. The disease is highly contagious, lethal in 30% of cases, cannot be treated, and can only be prevented by vaccine. See here.

Now for a more fair representation of vaccines, a review on the efficacy and risks of the MMR vacine published in 2011. See here
The results: Prior to the MMR vaccine, nearly 100% of children were infected with measles. After the vaccination was rolled out, measles cases dropped by 99%.
The mumps has decreased by 99% also.
Note that in other countries were measles is endemic, the mortality rate for measles infection is around 25%. Source
The review article goes into great detail on the risks. For example, encephalitis was found at around 0.02% in one study, and another study reported 0.4% occurrence of febrile seizures weeks after vaccination.

Nobody is saying vaccination is perfect. However, it is one of those things that has been so effective in fighting diseases that some diseases have literally been eradicated. It is a major triumph of biomedical science, something that we who have an interest in biomedical science are proud of. You are worried about the risks reported by a tiny minority of cases, but forget that truly dangerous vaccines (smallpox and the oral Polio vaccine) are not carried out because doctors are not idiots and can recognize risks.

If you are saying we should be wary of the risks of vaccinations, they I agree wholeheartedly. However if you are saying that the few incidents of vaccine-related complications are enough to discredit vaccination in general, don't be surprised people think you are ignorant! Equivalent arguments would be "don't take blood-pressue medication because they have complications," "don't get surgery because it has risks," "don't see the doctor because the doctor might misdiagnose you." Basically, a militant stand against vaccination is a dangerous mentality that threatens all the progress we have made in biomedical science.

 

[Lucca]

Ah I admit I didn't read the "methods" section in much detail, because I saw you made a couple of mistakes and stopped taking the argument seriously. Upon rereading it, they do mention what you said, namely that maternal antibodies last longer in children of unvaccinated mothers. I corrected my original post for fairness.

Ok, look. You take an extreme militant position saying all vaccinations are bad, so your opponents (including me) took a position saying vaccinations are good, which isn't entirely correct, but we believed it to be the easiest way to shut down your argument. The truth is closer to what @NickNaylor is saying: There are risks and benefits to vaccines, but the benefits far, far outweight the risks (just like any other therapeutic).

So why not do some reading yourself? You posted a clearly biased anti-vaccine article on the small pox vaccine. So I will now post a similarly biased pro-vaccine piece on smallpox as well. See here.

Also, keep in mind that few people today even consider variolation (deliberately infecting you with smallpox) to be a viable strategy. Also note that smallpox inoculation is not performed in the United States anymore, due to the risks. There is extremely strong evidence that the inoculation is effective, but since it has significant risks, and because smallpox has been eradicated (again, due to vaccination), it is not necessary. See here for a timeline.
Additionally, note that there is no treatment for smallpox. None! If it returns, people will die en masse.
The CDC maintains a stockpile of smallpox vaccine in case of an outbreak (a terrorist attack for example). They have been keeping this stockpile for years, and with good reason. The disease is highly contagious, lethal in 30% of cases, cannot be treated, and can only be prevented by vaccine. See here.

Now for a more fair representation of vaccines, a review on the efficacy and risks of the MMR vacine published in 2011. See here
The results: Prior to the MMR vaccine, nearly 100% of children were infected with measles. After the vaccination was rolled out, measles cases dropped by 99%.
The mumps has decreased by 99% also.
Note that in other countries were measles is endemic, the mortality rate for measles infection is around 25%. Source
The review article goes into great detail on the risks. For example, encephalitis was found at around 0.02% in one study, and another study reported 0.4% occurrence of febrile seizures weeks after vaccination.

Nobody is saying vaccination is perfect. However, it is one of those things that has been so effective in fighting diseases that some diseases have literally been eradicated. It is a major triumph of biomedical science, something that we who have an interest in biomedical science are proud of. You are worried about the risks reported by a tiny minority of cases, but forget that truly dangerous vaccines (smallpox and the oral Polio vaccine) are not carried out because doctors are not idiots and can recognize risks.

If you are saying we should be wary of the risks of vaccinations, they I agree wholeheartedly. However if you are saying that the few incidents of vaccine-related complications are enough to discredit vaccination in general, don't be surprised people think you are ignorant! Equivalent arguments would be "don't take blood-pressue medication because they have complications," "don't get surgery because it has risks," "don't see the doctor because the doctor might misdiagnose you." Basically, a militant stand against vaccination is a dangerous mentality that threatens all the progress we have made in biomedical science.

You dont have to backpedal on your original comments on his bad evidence regarding the non vaccinated mothers. I covered this in a reply to that post and he did not reply to me or even acknowledge the comment.

The only reason immunity from maternal antibodies matter is because it affects the ideal time frame for vaccination because maternal antibodies risk neutralizing the live vaccine. The non-vaccinated communities used in that study are still experiencing outbreaks of MMR.

None of this is conjecture or outside knowledge, it was directly written in the article he cited. He was just cherry picking as usual.

 

[plumazul]

I'm not referring to anything in this thread. I'm referring to the gigantic question mark looming at the "cutting edge" of any field of science. People here seem to think that there's no possible way that vaccines could be harmful. There is certainly no evidence supporting that that is the case at present. But people seem to fail to understand that some aspect of biology that we have yet to describe may ultimately demonstrate that vaccines aren't quite as harmless as we think they are. People fail to consider the known unknowns and then, most importantly, the unknown unknowns. Important caveat: "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns" should not factor into one's decision to recommend or not recommend vaccination to your patients if there is very little to evidence supporting them (as in this case IMO). The possibility of as-of-yet-unknown evidence of harm clearly has no role in the discussion given how much evidence of benefit vaccines provide. In discussions like this, though - largely philosophical and in a debate format - I think it's important to keep that in mind. That's something that no one here seems to be remotely considering.

Really, that's what "we" think? And thanks for the tip about how science doesn't know everything. Next time I'm confronted with a radical extreme anti-science position related to current standards of practice, I will just throw up my hands and confess that science just doesn't know everything. 🙄

And I'm not equating "superstitions" of the past with current scientific knowledge, thinking, or methodology. There's a losing side to every theory, and there are many prominent scientists who argued for and believed in things that were ultimately demonstrated to be untrue. I'm not taking medieval witchcraft here. I'm talking about 20th and 21st century science. All it takes is one paradigm shift in understanding for an entire field of science to be turned on its head. I have no idea if immunobiology is in for such a change, but I'm at least willing to entertain the possibility. This is in contrast to, say, a knee-jerk rejection of a counterpoint without even for a second considering its possibility. I'm not arguing for some kind of intellectual relativism, but in this case I think the door of the "unknown" with respect to the human body is large enough such that we still have a few more "turns" in store for us as our understanding of the body increases. My only point in commenting on this thread is to encourage the people vehemently arguing for a position using what's "known" to consider, if only for a second, what all is unknown and how our future understanding of that unknown may lead to a more complete and factually correct picture than what we have today. In fact, I think that approach to science is absolutely critical to using science for what it really is - as a system that allows us to test, largely using artificially simplified models, our understanding of the world rather than a system that spits out absolute Truth (with a capital T) - and using the information it provides us effectively. In this specific instance, that future picture may be that vaccines are even less harmful and more beneficial than we thought. I happen to believe that that is the most likely result. But that doesn't mean that we know that for certain - at least not to the degree that people seem to be asserting that point.

In the present moment, the evidence surrounding vaccine administration is patently clear. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try and seek out evidence demonstrating its harms or that no evidence that may point to harms is worth consideration.

Are you sure?

 

[NickNaylor]

Perfectly summarizes the problem with anti-vaxers.

Frankly, your "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument is harmful. Nothing is ever certain and the understanding of scientific phenomena is constantly in flux. But lay people don't get that - they hear what they want to hear and turn that into an argument to not vaccinate, even when the overwhelming majority of the medical community accepts vaccines as not only essential, but probably as the single greatest invention in medical history (far more important than antibiotics). And this is backed by so many studies I can't even count them.

I see you missed the part where I essentially said "this portion of the argument has no place in the policy/healthcare arena." You know, the big bold part.

 

[NickNaylor]

Really, that's what "we" think? And thanks for the tip about how science doesn't know everything. Next time I'm confronted with a radical extreme anti-science position related to current standards of practice, I will just throw up my hands and confess that science just doesn't know everything. 🙄

Are you sure?

I'm not going to be roped into an argument. I don't need to justify the intent of what I say to you to win an e-argument. Read what you want into it. You're cherry-picking one aspect of my post and missing where I've said multiple times that I actually agree with and support your/our position. As with the other guy: the big, bolded words dun mean summin important.

 

[487806]

I'm not going to be roped into an argument. I don't need to justify the intent of what I say to you to win an e-argument. Read what you want into it. You're cherry-picking one aspect of my post and missing where I've said multiple times that I actually agree with and support your/our position. As with the other guy: the big, bolded words dun mean summin important.

You make your arguments too prone to strawman attacks from both sides of the debate

 

[Esmololdrip]

Jenny McCarthy is also jumping on the new anti brake pad campaign, along with Kristin Cavallari! This celebrity trash has got to stop! http://www.gomerblog.com/2014/01/vaccine/

 

[3838]

If you put us in a time machine and take us back 100 years my tune may be different. If we were in a 3rd world country, I'd probably tell you the rewards outweigh the risks. I don't see a time machine and I'm sitting in an air conditioned house, on the internet, with television playing in the other room. I don't think I'm in a third world country.

http://www.voicesforvaccines.org/growing-up-unvaccinated/
I know that this is anecdotal but so much of the arguments of those against vaccination tend to be anecdotal. Are there risks to getting vaccinated? Yes, of course. Will some people fall ill or die from being vaccinated for some disease? Yes of course. However, if people are NOT vaccinated, you don't have to be in a third world country for an outbreak to occur. And that will have far more casualties and side effects than a little vaccine. Take the fight against polio. Areas of the world in which polio was considered ERADICATED had eruptions of the disease, including China, Tajikstan, and an Amish community in Minnesota.

Read this: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm In the 1950's, more deaths from measles were reported than are ever reported because of vaccination. I really don't think you can REASONABLY argue that the US was a "third world" country in the 1950s.

Is it worth looking into vaccines to ensure that they are safe and find ways to limit side effects? Of course. But that you suggest that vaccination be stopped, even in the first world is implying that you do not realize how much of a risk these diseases POSED as recently as 60 or 70 years ago. Vaccinations and sanitation are probably two of the BIGGEST contributors to a movement away from infectious disease and into non-infectious, chronic disease in the global north. Infectious disease is re-surging in developed countries. This is the reason we need to ramp up vaccination and ensure that people don't fall into this trap.

 

[3838]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the argument that the potential harms of vaccines outweigh the benefits, but I do think it's important to retain a sense of skepticism about things. Complacency is how preventable problems become huge issues. To pretend that we understand fully how vaccines work and claim that there are no harms associated with them is intellectual arrogance. We don't. Does that mean that we shouldn't vaccine people? Of course not. Does that mean vaccines aren't pretty incredible pieces of technology? Nope. But it does illustrate the point that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In contrast to the things that vaccines have been shown to not be associated with, the number of things vaccines could cause - either directly or through an as-of-yet-unknown obfuscated way - is gigantic.

Again, the evidence is quite clear that vaccines are hugely effective and are almost certainly worth any potential harms they may or may not cause. But people talk about vaccines as if they're a ball in a clear plastic box that we can fully describe, understand, and manipulate. We pretend that we know how an immune response is generated and how that response can go awry. That really isn't the case, despite all of our scientific and technological progress. It's important to keep that in mind. Throughout history there have been tons of people that "know" things and doubt skeptics only to be proven wrong decades or centuries later. That's how science works. Don't get caught in the trap of presuming that you know things that you (or science) don't.

The problem, NickNaylor, is that when you make arguments expressing skepticism about the risk of vaccination to lay people, people don't take it as "let's look into and improve these vaccines. Yay!" Any doubt is greeted with, "****, let's be safe rather than sorry because we're scared of these unknown effects. We won't vaccinate our kids." But that's not safe rather than sorry. Safe rather than sorry is to vaccinate your kids and then pressure governmental agencies, the EPA to look into vaccinations more and improve upon them.

Also...we already do what you're suggesting that we do. The Institute of Medicine conducts reviews of vaccine or chemicals in vaccines when governmental agencies feel that it is necessary to look into them.

Example: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2001/Imm...accines-and-Neurodevelopmental-Disorders.aspx

If you look at the links on the bottom of the page, you'll see other vaccinations that have been reviewed.

There are many foods that we believe may be killing us. Do you know what the responsible physicians tell us about that? They tell people to stop eating those foods and to eat other foods.

Same can be done with immunity. Vaccines might be dangerous? Let's take a closer look at them while improving other methods of boosting our immune systems.

That's not rocket science.

See above. We do take closer looks at them. Does no one know about IOM reviews? Jeez...

 

[LuciusVorenus]

Jenny McCarthy is also jumping on the new anti brake pad campaign, along with Kristin Cavallari! This celebrity trash has got to stop! http://www.gomerblog.com/2014/01/vaccine/

Ugh. It says something that I actually thought this was real.