Anti-vaxxers

Encephalopathy

mzungu wrote: »

Any comment on the fact that autism rates are similar across different places with high and low vaccination uptake rates?

Sorry thought I responded to that.
Too many conflicts of interest, Stanley plotkin is the first name I see, clicking the link to the study's , it wasn't to hard to see where the grants came from, stopped after the second one.

Provaxxers say here a link to a study that proves no link to asd.

Antivaxxers say here's a link to a study that shows a link to asd.
https://www.scribd(DOT)com/doc/220807175/157-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link

Provaxxers response, but there is no scientific proof.

Round and round we go.

ancapailldorcha

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Sorry thought I responded to that.
Too many conflicts of interest, Stanley plotkin is the first name I see, clicking the link to the study's , it wasn't to hard to see where the grants came from, stopped after the second one.

Provaxxers say here a link to a study that proves no link to asd.

Antivaxxers say here's a link to a study that shows a link to asd.
https://www.scribd(DOT)com/doc/220807175/157-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link

Provaxxers response, but there is no scientific proof.

Round and round we go.

Are you serious?

This is the first link:

http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/00mmdd_EISAbstractSubmission_IncreasedRiskOfDevelopmentalNeurologicImpairmentAfterHighExposureToThimerosal-containingVaccine_.pdf

Where to even begin. A one page PDF with dodgy formatting, no journal name and 271 words.

I smell fake science. Here's an article from NPR on the subject:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/10/03/228859954/some-online-journals-will-publish-fake-science-for-a-fee?t=1548774521543

That's the first paper. What sort of bin have you linked to, here?

ancapailldorcha

The second one is just a survey of Mums in the US.

Igotadose

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Sorry thought I responded to that.
Too many conflicts of interest, Stanley plotkin is the first name I see, clicking the link to the study's , it wasn't to hard to see where the grants came from, stopped after the second one.

Provaxxers say here a link to a study that proves no link to asd.

Antivaxxers say here's a link to a study that shows a link to asd.
https://www.scribd(DOT)com/doc/220807175/157-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link

Provaxxers response, but there is no scientific proof.

Round and round we go.

Uhh, Ginger Taylor? Really?

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/ginger-taylor-writes-letter-vaccines-will-interesting/

And this refutation of the (at the time) 80 cherry-picked papers by Ginger Taylor? https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/vaccines-and-autism-science-unrelated/

As pointed out, medical research is hard, someone with no science education like Ginger Taylor is best ignored.

FWIW I looked at one of the papers - well, I googled the Jackson State lead name on one of the papers. Q'uelle surprise, an anti-vax crank. The questionable journal he published in, has promised to retract the papers.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2017/05/10/the-mawson-vaxedunvaxed-study-retraction-the-antivaccine-movement-reacts-with-tears-of-unfathomable-sadness/

And another, the one about Hep-B and autism. More garbage:

https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/09/17/another-weak-study-proves-vaccines-cause-autism/


Here's a suggestion to you and your fellow anti-vax zealots. We *know* how to use google here. We do a bit more than cursory searching when we see some claim you make. So far, not one of your claims has stood up. So, do that first before just regurgitating bullsh1t you find on your anti-vax FB groups or web pages or whatever, because we will.

ancapailldorcha

Number 3.

An abstract with no raw numbers and the full text is unavailable.

This is borderline scatological. Did you even look at this, Encephalopathy or just squeeze out another load of ignorance because it suited your agenda?

mzungu

Encephalopathy wrote: »

I can't, just search " Stanley plotkin under oath", there's 9 hours I think of him being interviewed. Honestly I've only seen a couple of bits of him speaking about vaccines and autism and the use of aborted fetus in vaccine

Even the staunchly pro-life catholic church have said that there is no ethical issue in using vaccines and they back them fully. The whole foetus in vaccines malarky goes back in the 1960s when some vaccines were made with fetal embryo fibroblast cells (the WI-38 and MRC-5 cells) from cell lines that are derived (they can replicate infinitely) from two electively terminated pregnancies in the 1960s. However, this does not mean that vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue or baby parts. That is absolute twaddle and was a deliberate lie propagated by scaremongers. The original cells that were taken have been copied and now descendants are used as they have grown independently over time. Even at that, those cells are removed long before the final vaccine is administered.

Igotadose

Encephalopathy wrote: »

How do you know vaccines don't cause autism? The media? The pharmaceutical companies? I've unfortunately witnessed it first hand.
Stanley plotkin(vaccine creator) has just come out and said it hasn't been scientifically proven that vaccines don't cause autism.

Stanley Plotkin (who is in his late '80s now and been a vaccine developer since the 1950's) has this to say about Wakefield:
'SP: It so happened, when Wakefield came out with his paper, that I was working for Sanofi Pasteur and they asked me to read the legal briefs because there were legal cases coming up in the UK [United Kingdom], and I did. I am convinced from what I read, from the testimony of people in his laboratory, for example, that those results were all false. They were just made up essentially. So, I believe that what he has published is untrue and of course, the paper was retracted and he is still spreading false information. "

And this:
"SP: What the press does, and I can understand this, they always feel that they have to present both sides of the story and give them equal value. It means, no matter how crazy you are, you can get a hearing."

A nice short read and insight into Dr. Plotkin's thinking:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5930730/

So, Enceph... where is that quote from Dr. Plotkin? As you're an anti-vax zealot, I'm going to assume it's false and would like you to post it in its entirety. If in fact it's part of some video, please provide the link *and the offset* to it. My contention is that you're just making it up, or perhaps simply don't understand what Dr. Plotkin actually said.

mzungu

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Sorry thought I responded to that.
Too many conflicts of interest, Stanley plotkin is the first name I see, clicking the link to the study's , it wasn't to hard to see where the grants came from, stopped after the second one.

Provaxxers say here a link to a study that proves no link to asd.

Antivaxxers say here's a link to a study that shows a link to asd.
https://www.scribd(DOT)com/doc/220807175/157-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link

Provaxxers response, but there is no scientific proof.

Round and round we go.

Again though, you are not providing evidence. It's words on a screen with nothing to back it up. You (and those that came before you in this thread) have been provided with oodles of peer reviewed data whereas all you are offering in response is the musings of internet randomers on badly put together blog posts and a few anecdotes.

If you want things to stop going "round and round" then you need to step up and back up your arguments by providing proper and credible sources.

Igotadose

mzungu wrote: »

Even the staunchly pro-life catholic church have said that there is no ethical issue in using vaccines and they back them fully. The whole foetus in vaccines malarky goes back in the 1960s when some vaccines were made with fetal embryo fibroblast cells (the WI-38 and MRC-5 cells) from cell lines that are derived (they can replicate infinitely) from two electively terminated pregnancies in the 1960s. However, this does not mean that vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue or baby parts. That is absolute twaddle and was a deliberate lie propagated by scaremongers. The original cells that were taken have been copied and now descendants are used as they have grown independently over time. Even at that, those cells are removed long before the final vaccine is administered.

Plotkin's really a medical hero. He focused on rubella vaccine in the early 1960's to prevent birth defects and isolated it using cells from fetal kidney tissue. One of the (many) things the anti-vax crowd forget is how dangerous rubella is to foetuses. The resultant child might not die, but have serious lifelong defects.

Be interesting to see over time if there's a rise in birth defects in WA state due to the measles epidemic there.

I remember as a kid this was hammered home (1960's) as the vaccine became available that it's good to have it because young children are often around pregnant women and measles was such a big risk. People forget these things.

mzungu

Igotadose wrote: »

Stanley Plotkin (who is in his late '80s now and been a vaccine developer since the 1950's) has this to say about Wakefield:
'SP: It so happened, when Wakefield came out with his paper, that I was working for Sanofi Pasteur and they asked me to read the legal briefs because there were legal cases coming up in the UK [United Kingdom], and I did. I am convinced from what I read, from the testimony of people in his laboratory, for example, that those results were all false. They were just made up essentially. So, I believe that what he has published is untrue and of course, the paper was retracted and he is still spreading false information. "

And this:
"SP: What the press does, and I can understand this, they always feel that they have to present both sides of the story and give them equal value. It means, no matter how crazy you are, you can get a hearing."

A nice short read and insight into Dr. Plotkin's thinking:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5930730/

So, Enceph... where is that quote from Dr. Plotkin? As you're an anti-vax zealot, I'm going to assume it's false and would like you to post it in its entirety. If in fact it's part of some video, please provide the link *and the offset* to it. My contention is that you're just making it up, or perhaps simply don't understand what Dr. Plotkin actually said.

I have also been trying to find what he supposedly said. All it lead me to was anti-vaxx sites that were very scant on information (no shocks there!) but were throwing out buzzwords like "psychopathy" and "big-pharma" like confetti at a wedding. In other words, the usual crap.

My guess is that it's some kind of smear campaign against the man because they don't have anything in the line of constructive argument to back up their waffle. With all the lives that man has saved, it's awful to think that there are eejits trying to drag his name through the mud.

francois

Meanwhile in the real world

https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3596

batgoat

Bring this up intermittently but the references on the regret research page are hilarious... "Dr" Gary Null is cited 3 times. He's a naturopath rather than a doctor, he denies HIV causes AIDs and once poisoned a load of people with vitamin D, resulted in them being hospitalised.

Another is a BT young scientist's survey. Another is a Chamber of Commerce member.. Another was a doctor but left it to become a homeopath (Suzanne Humphries), she has no research in the area of vaccines but does have a youtube video. Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic have been published but they have had five of these studies retracted.

My citations are below but basic summary is that there doesn't seem to be a credible piece of research on their research page.(Exception being the occasional study that means something entirely different to what they claim)

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/christopher-shaw-and-lucija-tomljenovic-anti-vaccine/#Articles_about_Christopher_Shaw_and_Lucija_Tomljenovic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Null
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Suzanne_Humphries

Encephalopathy

mzungu wrote: »

Even the staunchly pro-life catholic church have said that there is no ethical issue in using vaccines and they back them fully. The whole foetus in vaccines malarky goes back in the 1960s when some vaccines were made with fetal embryo fibroblast cells (the WI-38 and MRC-5 cells) from cell lines that are derived (they can replicate infinitely) from two electively terminated pregnancies in the 1960s. However, this does not mean that vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue or baby parts. That is absolute twaddle and was a deliberate lie propagated by scaremongers. The original cells that were taken have been copied and now descendants are used as they have grown independently over time. Even at that, those cells are removed long before the final vaccine is administered.

https://m.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=NACBHtFMllA

Encephalopathy

mzungu wrote: »

I have also been trying to find what he supposedly said. All it lead me to was anti-vaxx sites that were very scant on information (no shocks there!) but were throwing out buzzwords like "psychopathy" and "big-pharma" like confetti at a wedding. In other words, the usual crap.

My guess is that it's some kind of smear campaign against the man because they don't have anything in the line of constructive argument to back up their waffle. With all the lives that man has saved, it's awful to think that there are eejits trying to drag his name through the mud.

https://m.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=LEWAPM9SAEY

Dohnjoe

Encephalopathy wrote: »

https://m.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=LEWAPM9SAEY

What is this exactly? (1 hour video)

batgoat

Encephalopathy wrote: »

I can't, just search " Stanley plotkin under oath", there's 9 hours I think of him being interviewed. Honestly I've only seen a couple of bits of him speaking about vaccines and autism and the use of aborted fetus in vaccine

You've worked out how to link to videos now. So provide the quotes of this supposed confession that autism are caused by vaccines or the time to start watching in his horrifying testimony...

I'm not watch 9 hours of pretty dull testimonies. Personally I don't care if aborted foetuses are used, something which would not have gone to use is gone to use to save probably billions at this point...

jh79

Encephalopathy wrote: »

https://m.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=LEWAPM9SAEY

Link doesn't work.

I looked at the video on youtube (part 6 of 9 about 30 min in), its just people who don't understand science misinterpreting what he is actually saying.

Paraphrasing here;
He can't say there is proof that it doesn't cause autism but he can say there is no evidence that it does cause autism.

He attempts to clarify by saying he can't prove a certain chemical doesn't cause lepresy but he can say there is no evidence that it does.

It's just lay people not understanding what conclusions the methodologies and design of clinical studies allow you to make.

mzungu

Encephalopathy wrote: »

https://m.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=NACBHtFMllA

Ok, I watched all four minutes of it and Dr. Plotkin outlines his position and confirms that when vaccines were developed they used aborted fetal tissue in the process and that the catholic church have no problem with it. Everybody is aware of this and it's common knowledge. I have no idea why you posted it. It merely confirms what I said already.

I presume that the cut edits done on the video were supposed to paint him in some kind of bad light. They didn't. Dr. Plotkin outlined the truth (and what was already common knowledge) and it would come as no shock to anybody that is in any way informed on these matters.

Encephalopathy wrote: »

https://m.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=LEWAPM9SAEY

Ok, this video is an hour long. I am not prepared to go on a wild goose chase, I watched the four minutes of the last video and there was absolutely nothing in it. I certainly won't be wasting an hour on this one.

You are being vague and to top it off you are outsourcing your rebuttals to YouTube.

Please provide proper evidence or peer reviewed journal articles.

banie01

I was going to suggest that we just take the warning labels off everything and that the problem of anti-vaxxers and their ilk would sort itself out even quicker than an epidemic!

But after wasting a little of my life watching those videos linked by Encephalopathy...
And the fact that the grasp of even simple science and English comprehension seems a stretch too far for the "theories" proponents!

I say leave the labels on everything and just leave them out there...
This is one of those problems that will eventually resolve itself.

bingobars

Both grandparents died within 12 months of receiving the flu jab. They got it every year and we’re both in their 90s but that’s not the point...

skepticalme

This is part of the Plotkins deposition. This part is around page 320.
Plotkins failed to keep his deposition private. He pulled out of the case the morning after this deposition. The case was between 2 parents and the vaccination of their child.

This is part of discussion about vaccine ingredients.


Okay. The vaccines that contain human 7 material in them, they also contain human DNA and 8 protein, correct?

A They may, yes.

Q Isn't it true that human DNA in vaccines is typically purposefully fragmented to below 500 base pairs in length?


A Yes. One doesn't, you know, I would say mostly for theoretical reasons, doesn't want to put DNA into, attacked DNA into vaccines. I think the actual risk is zero, but that's my opinion.


Q Isn't it true that MMR II contains approximately 150 nanograms cells substrate double-strand DNA and single-strand DNA per dose
purposefully fragmented to approximately 215 baste base pairs in length?

 A Yeah, that's probably correct, yes.

Q  is it true that VARIVAX, vaccine for chicken pox, is manufactured using WI-38 and MRC-5 --

A Yes.

 Q -- and contains approximately two 4 micrograms of cell substrate double-strand DNA or approximately 1 trillion fragments of human DNA?

A It may be true.

Q Isn't it true that the Havrix, the hepatitis A vaccine, also contains millions of fragments of human DNA?

 A Likely.

Q Do you know whether strands of DNA below 500 base pairs are now known to insert themselves into living cells with which they come into contact?


A I do not have that information, but the likelihood that they would be genetically included in the genome of vaccinees, in my view, is zero.

Q Do you have a study to support that view?

A I do not have a study that supports that view. But it is, to me, unlikely  that the DNA would travel from the site of injection to the semen or the ovaries.

Q Could it insert into itself DNA even in the muscle tissue or if it gets into the blood into --

A Theoretically. But that's not going to mean that it's going to have any impact on the individual.


Q Are you familiar with the insertional 5 mutagenesis?


A Yes.


 Q Do you have any study to show that injecting millions of pieces of human DNA into babies and children is safe?

A The only studies are all the safety studies that have been done on vaccines.

Q And you can produce those studies, right?

 A Well, those studies are available fromthe manufacturers and fromCDC, and I'm not aware of any data showing that the inheritable characteristic was transmitted by a vaccine.

Q So you don't, you don't personally don't know of any study that shows the safety of injecting human, millions pieces of human DNA into babies?


ASuch studies are general safety studies and I haven't yet seen the vaccinee develop a new genetic trait as a result of vaccination.

 Q Is it possible it can cause cancer?

 A Anything is possible, but there are no 25 data to support that.


Q Is there data to show that it doesn't do that?


A Yes. Observations made over millions of  vaccinees.


 Q Okay. And you have the studies to show that, right?


A The studies are easily available in terms of vaccine safety studies that have been done by many, many people.

 Q Excellent. Then it should be very easy for you to direct me to those and can provide copies?

A Yes.

Q Wonderful.

A You can read the chapter on vaccine safety.


Q Vaccines contain dead or weakened polio 19 virus, correct?

A IPV does, yes.

Q Beginning in the 1950s, polio vaccines 22were routinely grown on nonhuman primate kidney 23cells, correct?

 A Correct.

Q Are you aware of any simian monkey



It is 9 hours of video but is transcribed here.

https://www.scribd.com/document/389327361/1-11-18-Matheson-Plotkin

ohnonotgmail

And what do you glean from that testimony?

jh79

So in summary after 9 hours of testimony he said nothing controversial at all.

Igotadose

jh79 wrote: »

So in summary after 9 hours of testimony he said nothing controversial at all.

Oh, "You can read the chapter on vaccine safety" was Doctor for "Mr. lawyer, stop wasting my time."

This quote from Dr. Plotkin's applicable: "What the press does, and I can understand this, they always feel that they have to present both sides of the story and give them equal value. It means, no matter how crazy you are, you can get a hearing."

If you're crazy enough, you can get a lawyer and bring a suit.

ohnonotgmail

I thought this part of the cross examination was particularly stupid

...
Q Do you have any study to show that injecting millions of pieces of human DNA into babies and children is safe?

A The only studies are all the safety studies that have been done on vaccines.

Q And you can produce those studies, right?

A Well, those studies are available fromthe manufacturers and fromCDC, and I'm not aware of any data showing that the inheritable characteristic was transmitted by a vaccine.

Q So you don't, you don't personally don't know of any study that shows the safety of injecting human, millions pieces of human DNA into babies?
...

Igotadose

Found this amusing, in an awful way:

batgoat

So there is nothing horrifying in his testimony, plus he didn't claim that vaccines cause autism. Impressively dull.

Encephalopathy

Would be curious to know to know if anyone has actually met an "antivaxxer"?(in the real world)
If so, have they said to you, you shouldn't vaccinate? Bet they didn't.

All they we want is safer vaccines and the right to choose.

https://m.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=RfkkdCg2830

Great speech start to finish, how the pro vaccine folk are against this is beyond me.

sullivlo

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Would be curious to know to know if anyone has actually met an "antivaxxer"?(in the real world)
If so, have they said to you, you shouldn't vaccinate? Bet they didn't.

All they we want is safer vaccines and the right to choose.

https://m.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=RfkkdCg2830

Great speech start to finish, how the pro vaccine folk are against this is beyond me.

I have.

They said that I should be ashamed of myself for working in vaccine development. So not exactly “you shouldn’t vaccinate” but still not a nice sentiment.

Flange/Flanders

Encephalopathy wrote: »

Would be curious to know to know if anyone has actually met an "antivaxxer"?(in the real world)
If so, have they said to you, you shouldn't vaccinate? Bet they didn't.

All they we want is safer vaccines and the right to choose.

https://m.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=RfkkdCg2830

Great speech start to finish, how the pro vaccine folk are against this is beyond me.

I knew it was going to be horsesh1t when the name of the conference is "The truth about Cancer"