Anti-vaxxers

mickrock

Igotadose wrote: »

Here's the refutation: https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2013/07/10/comment-on-do-aluminum-vaccine-adjuvants-contribute-to-the-rising-prevalence-of-autism/

No, that site does not refute the paper I linked to.

Igotadose wrote: »

A bit more. The paper's been retracted. http://retractionwatch.com/2017/10/09/journal-retract-paper-called-anti-vaccine-pseudoscience/

No, the paper hasn't been retracted.

....................................

What about the "placebos" used in vaccine clinical trials that aren't inert placebos at all but contain aluminium whose safety has never been demonstrated?

mickrock

Igotadose wrote: »

Look to see if you can find the refutation, because if it's anti-vax, it's refuted

This attitude is very close-minded.

Even if someone is largely pro-vaccination but has some reservations about efficacy or safety you'll automatically label them as a crank or a quack.

jh79

mickrock wrote: »

No, that site does not refute the paper I linked to.



No, the paper hasn't been retracted.

....................................

What about the "placebos" used in vaccine clinical trials that aren't inert placebos at all but contain aluminium whose safety has never been demonstrated?

Here is the paper debunked;

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2011/12/08/and-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-decr/

mickrock

jh79 wrote: »

Here is the paper debunked;

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2011/12/08/and-global-warming-is-caused-by-the-decr/

Wrong. The paper I'm referring to is "Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?", which is not debunked.

Dr Brown

For Forks Sake wrote: »

So, in positive news, just over a decade after rolling out a national HPV programme, Australia is well en route to eliminate cervical cancer:

Read that again. Eliminate. Cervical. Cancer.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/cervical-cancer-set-to-be-eliminated-from-australia-in-global-first-20181002-p507dn.html

French oncologist, surgeon, and statistician, Dr. Gerard Delepine states: "...all countries that have achieved high HPV vaccination coverage, official cancer registries show an increase in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer, which appears 3 to 5 years after the onset of the cancer vaccination campaign and which exclusively affects the age groups that have been the most vaccinated." French article is below

https://mobile.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/effet-paradoxal-du-gardasil-206898

Dr Brown

VicMackey1 wrote: »

How safe do you want vaccines to be? 100%? Which vaccines do you consider to be safe?

Safe to the point were they are not causing any serious injures.

2018? It only took a couple of years for doctors and scientists to accept that there was a link between narcolepsy and the swine flu vaccine. Of course, they were not going to dismiss a vaccine because a small number of people had an issue with it. Once studies were completed and showed a casual relationship, it was widely accepted that there was a link. Why has this not happened with Gardasil? Because the studies showed that it is a safe vaccine!

The people damaged by the swine flu vaccine faced the same denials from the HSE when they went looking for help.

To quote a parent from the REGRET site " I have three daughters and I am convinced all three have had some type of reaction to this injection." REGRET is made up entirely of this nonsense where their feelings or any parents "medical degree" trumps science.

Whats strange about that ? the girls could be genetically predisposed to certain ingredients in the Vaccine.

batgoat

Dr Brown wrote: »

Safe to the point were they are not causing any serious injures.



The people damaged by the swine flu vaccine faced the same denials from the HSE when they went looking for help.



Whats strange about that ? the girls could be genetically predisposed to certain ingredients in the Vaccine.

Well you were earlier handed a study on safety of vaccines from Denmark. You claimed the author was convicted of fraud, they were not. The study is very much so legit but you haven't addressed that one... Just like you can't address the fact that Wakefield was trying to profit from his study...

Dr Brown

batgoat wrote: »

Well you were earlier handed a study on safety of vaccines from Denmark. You claimed the author was convicted of fraud, they were not. The study is very much so legit but you haven't addressed that one... Just like you can't address the fact that Wakefield was trying to profit from his study...

If Wakefield's motive was profit he could have just backed down and kept his job.

Dohnjoe

Dr Brown wrote: »

French oncologist, surgeon, and statistician, Dr. Gerard Delepine states: "...all countries that have achieved high HPV vaccination coverage, official cancer registries show an increase in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer, which appears 3 to 5 years after the onset of the cancer vaccination campaign and which exclusively affects the age groups that have been the most vaccinated." French article is below

https://mobile.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/effet-paradoxal-du-gardasil-206898

Uh, how come when I look this up it shows up on a bunch of anti-vaxx, crank and facebook sites?

Dr Brown

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Uh, how come when I look this up it shows up on a bunch of anti-vaxx, crank and facebook sites?

The truth is the truth no matter where it comes from.


People laughed at Jim Corr a few years ago when he warned people about the Swine Flu Vaccine but he has been proven to have been 100% right.


http://www.thejournal.ie/pandemrix-narcolepsy-link-study-1447040-May2014/

Dr Brown

batgoat wrote: »

Well you were earlier handed a study on safety of vaccines from Denmark. You claimed the author was convicted of fraud, they were not. The study is very much so legit but you haven't addressed that one... Just like you can't address the fact that Wakefield was trying to profit from his study...

The study you speak of was debunked by Dr Brian Hooker.

Properly including these data would have nullified the paper’s assertion that the “rates went up.” The appearance: These data were withheld with the full knowledge of the CDC to cover-up a downward trend in autism rates in Denmark since the phase out of Thimerosal.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/04/revisiting-denmark-more-rotten-than-ever.html

batgoat

Dr Brown wrote: »

If Wakefield's motive was profit he could have just backed down and kept his job.

He made millions out of it. He resigned from his role because he faked a study, can you show me a source that indicates an apology would have saved his career? He was finally struck off for "fraud, unethical behaviour and misconduct" in 2010, but an apology would have saved him?

Still ignoring that largescale vaccine study btw!

Dr Brown

batgoat wrote: »

He made millions out of it. He resigned from his role because he faked a study, can you show me a source that indicates an apology would have saved his career? He was finally struck off for "fraud, unethical behaviour and misconduct" in 2010, but an apology would have saved him?

Still ignoring that largescale vaccine study btw!

Nope he as never stuck off for "fraud" I think you have been reading too much Brian Deer.

All of Wakefields colleagues got to keep their jobs when they agreed to have their names removed from the paper.

The idea that he was only after money is laughable in the extreme.

ancapailldorcha

Dr Brown wrote: »

The truth is the truth no matter where it comes from.


People laughed at Jim Corr a few years ago when he warned people about the Swine Flu Vaccine but he has been proven to have been 100% right.


http://www.thejournal.ie/pandemrix-narcolepsy-link-study-1447040-May2014/

Link to a study proving it please.

Dohnjoe

Dr Brown wrote: »

The truth is the truth no matter where it comes from.

Nah. there's also a lot of bull****, twisted content, disinformation, truth taken out of context, singular expert claims vs the expert consensus

Anti-vaxxers traditionally dominate this end of the spectrum

Igotadose

mickrock wrote: »

Wrong. The paper I'm referring to is "Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?", which is not debunked.

As it was published in 2011 by "Bentham Science Publishers", (who also publish things about nanothermites in the 9/11 attacks, i.e, other conspiracy twaddle), they're at best dubious. Here's a bit on the publisher: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentham_Science_Publishers#Controversies_and_criticism

As there are not citations I can readily find for this article outside of anti-vax press (quell surprise!), that's dubious, too. And, as the authors have had 4 papers retracted and are, to the greater scientific community, a couple of disingenous cranks, I'd be skeptical of anything they've published. My guess is that this particular article is far back enough that it hasn't been noticed enough for others to put the energy into debunking it.

Plus it'd cost $63 for a copy.

mickrock

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Nah. there's also a lot of bull****, twisted content, disinformation, truth taken out of context, singular expert claims vs the expert consensus

Things don't look quite so rosy for the HPV vaccine as it did six months ago.

In May 2018 there was a major review of the HPV vaccine for cervical cancer prevention. Scientific expert reaction was generally very positive:

https://www.cochrane.org/news/scientific-expert-reaction-new-cochrane-review-hpv-vaccine-cervical-cancer-prevention-girls-and


However, the review was soon heavily criticised for missing nearly half of the eligible trials, being influenced by reporting bias and for biased trial designs:

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/23/5/165

ancapailldorcha

There's a hell of a chasm between pointing out the flaws in a study and the sort of nonsense the antivaxxers come out with. Not remotely the same thing.

mickrock

Igotadose wrote: »

My guess is that this particular article is far back enough that it hasn't been noticed enough for others to put the energy into debunking it.

Plus it'd cost $63 for a copy.

The article is from 2011, not 1911. Maybe it hasn't been debunked because no flaws could be found in it.

I've already posted a link to the full article:

http://www.academia.edu/6688207/Aluminum_Vaccine_Adjuvants_Are_they_Safe

jh79

mickrock wrote: »

Wrong. The paper I'm referring to is "Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are they Safe?", which is not debunked.

Here you go;

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/adjuvants/Jun_2012/en/

jh79

mickrock wrote: »

The article is from 2011, not 1911. Maybe it hasn't been debunked because no flaws could be found in it.

I've already posted a link to the full article:

http://www.academia.edu/6688207/Aluminum_Vaccine_Adjuvants_Are_they_Safe

By the looks of it both papers are essentially the same just published under different titles in different journals.

Edit:
Had a quick skim of that particular paper, it's just a general review of toxicity papers related to aluminium. Nothing specific on aluminium in vaccines.

The other paper expands on this to try and establish a link to autism but as you can see from the links provided fails miserably.

endacl

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Link to a study proving it please.

That people have been laughing at Jim Corr?

I don't think there's been one. Lots of anecdotal accounts though. I've laughed at him myself on many occasions.

ancapailldorcha

endacl wrote: »

That people have been laughing at Jim Corr?

I don't think there's been one. Lots of anecdotal accounts though. I've laughed at him myself on many occasions.

I meant his allegedly being right about the swine flu vaccine.

dexter_morgan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I meant his allegedly being right about the swine flu vaccine.

What was he claiming about the swine flu vaccine? I think there is a report by the hse on this thread concluding that it caused narcolepsy in a tiny amount of the receivers. WHO link somewhere too. Anyway why the hell should Jim Corr expect that people should take medical advise from him? Can't stand that tool!

ancapailldorcha

dexter_morgan wrote: »

What was he claiming about the swine flu vaccine? I think there is a report by the hse on this thread concluding that it caused narcolepsy in a tiny amount of the receivers. WHO link somewhere too. Anyway why the hell should Jim Corr expect that people should take medical advise from him? Can't stand that tool!

No idea. I didn't say he was right. I'll let whoever made the claim answer your question as I have better things to do than combing the inane ramblings of hateful morons.

dexter_morgan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No idea. I didn't say he was right. I'll let whoever made the claim answer your question as I have better things to do than combing the inane ramblings of hateful morons.

I'll post those links later when I get back to my laptop. From the studies I read some time ago I believe it was well established that the vaccine caused some sleep disorders but only in a tiny percentage. No vaccine is going to be 100% with side effects so these problems are to be expected.

Samsgirl

A 37 year old has died from cervical cancer. Vaccinate.

Dr Brown

Samsgirl wrote: »

A 37 year old has died from cervical cancer. Vaccinate.

She was no fan of the Vaccine.

ancapailldorcha

And?

Dr Brown

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And?

Please don't misquote her.


She refused to promote the Vaccine after she found out about the side effects.