64 replies to this topic

[sthira]

And so the way this conversation has moved is a good example of why I'm wary of the Health Ranger. His voice increases the befuddlement about vaccinations -- are they good or evil? Like Jenny McCarthy, he's adding unneccessary public confusion to solid medicine. And not just on the concern of vaccinations, but also on the usefulness of doctors, hospitals, drugs, the progress of modernity -- some of which may even affect research funding for the life extension movement.

I love investigative journalism -- it's the shouting and the sensationalism that give me a headache. So I'm the opposite of many here. I enjoy his harmless dietary advice of raw vegetarianism -- it's good for you and it's good for the planet -- but I'm shy on love for his medical advice. He seems like a great guy, though, very genuine and sincere, and I'm sure we'd be friends in person.

[Shoe]

as well as not trusting the mainstream medicine are hardly disputable.

You mean the medicine that is responsible for the near-eradication of diseases like polio and measels, and further, declining death rates of several -- if not all -- types of cancers, heart disease, HIV, influenza and a whole host of other diseases? That medicine?

It's far from perfect, but all in all, "mainstream" medicine, i.e. real medicince, is a success story. That is hardly disputable.

As about vaccinations I fully support him on the case of H1N1 besides vaccinations should never be mandatory.

IIRC he peddled the myth that squalene and thimerosal are dangerous (in the amounts found in the vaccines), a myth debunked by science many times over. That's one good reason why he should call himself "The Health Danger".

Edited by Shoe, 11 January 2010 - 07:12 PM.

[nowayout]

Once herd immunity kicks in (at something like 40% vaccination rate for the flu), the risks of vaccination starts to outweigh the benefits.

This fact is not usually taken into account in public health directives.

I am one of those who hope enough other people will be scared into getting vaccinated so I don't have to be. This position is scientifically very defensible, though perhaps less so from a moral standpoint.

[Skötkonung]

Once herd immunity kicks in (at something like 40% vaccination rate for the flu), the risks of vaccination starts to outweigh the benefits.

Interesting statement on Wikipedia regarding herd immunity:

"It is the general aim of those involved in public health to establish herd immunity in most populations. Complications arise when widespread vaccination is not possible or when vaccines are rejected by a part of the population. As of 2009, herd immunity is compromised in some areas for some vaccine-preventable diseases, including pertussis and measles and mumps, in part because of parental refusal of vaccination."

I don't know where you are getting this 40% number, as it doesn't appear in any of the literature I have read. Wikipedia states that 85% is the lowest vaccination rate threshold to establish herd immunity.

Sadly, all of these morally bankrupt (such as yourself) and or ignorant individuals refusing to become vaccinated are degrading the herd immunity against common diseases. If vaccinations did fall to 40%, I believe we would be seeing much larger (epidemic) size disease outbreaks characteristic of third world nations or previous generations. Especially since existing herd immunity is already failing as vaccination levels fall below the 85% mark.

In the UK the effect of the MMR scare was much more profound. MMR vaccination rates plummeted to only 83%, well below the 95% rate needed for herd immunity (where enough people are vaccinated to prevent an infection from spreading through a population). At the same time the number of measles cases increased dramatically, with 971 cases in 2007.

I'm all for improving the quality and efficacy of vaccinations, but it is sad to see a resurgence of these virulent diseases. It is critically important that accurate an unbiased information about vaccines be given to the public. While the internet is a boon to the free flow of information, it also provides a venue for ideologically driven misinformation – and its effects are likely surpassing that of the mainstream media, especially for certain kinds of information, like health information. This highlights the importance of scientists and the medical community taking the time to provide accurate and authoritative information on the internet.

Edited by Skotkonung, 11 January 2010 - 09:43 PM.

[nowayout]

I don't know where you are getting this 40% number, as it doesn't appear in any of the literature I have read. Wikipedia states that 85% is the lowest vaccination rate threshold to establish herd immunity.

That's nonsensical without stating the disease. The number is different for different diseases. The 40% was an estimate I saw recently for H1N1 (I think it was a little less, and I'm probably rounding up).

I am interested in your definition of moral bankruptcy. In a population that has herd immunity already, would you force the remaining unvaccinated individuals to get vaccinated unnecessarily just for the sake of fairness, knowing that statistically some of these will have life-altering complications?

Edited by viveutvivas, 11 January 2010 - 10:20 PM.

[Skötkonung]

I don't know where you are getting this 40% number, as it doesn't appear in any of the literature I have read. Wikipedia states that 85% is the lowest vaccination rate threshold to establish herd immunity.

That's nonsensical without stating the disease. The number is different for different diseases. The 40% was an estimate I saw recently for H1N1 (I think it was a little less, and I'm probably rounding up).

I am interested in your definition of moral bankruptcy. In a population that has herd immunity already, would you force the remaining unvaccinated individuals to get vaccinated unnecessarily just for the sake of fairness, knowing that statistically some of these will have life-altering complications?

Given the high rates of vaccination for practically every other contagion in order to establish herd immunity, I have extreme doubts that H1N1 needs only 40%.

For instance:
Herd immunity in adults against influenza-related illnesses with use of the trivalent-live attenuated influenza vaccine (CAIV-T) in children.

Does not indicate to me that the efficacy of the influenza vaccine is such that a 40% vaccination threshold is required to establish herd immunity. Do you have sources for your assertion?

[Skötkonung]

I am interested in your definition of moral bankruptcy. In a population that has herd immunity already, would you force the remaining unvaccinated individuals to get vaccinated unnecessarily just for the sake of fairness, knowing that statistically some of these will have life-altering complications?

I would identify risk markers for those who will have complications from vaccines and increase research into developing safer vaccines.

In the absence of relevant data, we can't pick and choose who gets vaccinations and who doesn't. Everyone should get vaccination unless information such as increased risk markers for complications disqualifies them.

Edited by Skotkonung, 11 January 2010 - 10:44 PM.

[TheFountain]

You're missing the point. People are now co-dependent on a series of vaccinations that do nothing but make influenza angry enough to mutate into a stronger strand each season. Hence why people have to get re-vaccinated. Vaccinations might be good for certain punctual diseases (like TB), but I really do not find it necessary for the common cold unless you are a really old person with low immunity. Megadoses of Vitamin C, Zinc, hot tea and proper nutrition will ward away the flu.

[Skötkonung]

You're missing the point. People are now co-dependent on a series of vaccinations that do nothing but make influenza angry enough to mutate into a stronger strand each season. Hence why people have to get re-vaccinated. Vaccinations might be good for certain punctual diseases (like TB), but I really do not find it necessary for the common cold unless you are a really old person with low immunity. Megadoses of Vitamin C, Zinc, hot tea and proper nutrition will ward away the flu.

No, you're missing the point. Most DNA viral polymerases have an exonuclease domain which can check DNA for errors and then repair these errors (HSV). RNA viruses such as polio and influenza do not have this domain in their viral polymerase, and therefore do not proof-check their genome as other DNA viruses do. This leads to more mutations.... That is why people have to be re-vaccinated.

It is also why herd immunity is important. If infection rate goes up, so do mutations...resulting in a vulnerable population.

Edited by Skotkonung, 13 January 2010 - 03:53 AM.

[TheFountain]

You're missing the point. People are now co-dependent on a series of vaccinations that do nothing but make influenza angry enough to mutate into a stronger strand each season. Hence why people have to get re-vaccinated. Vaccinations might be good for certain punctual diseases (like TB), but I really do not find it necessary for the common cold unless you are a really old person with low immunity. Megadoses of Vitamin C, Zinc, hot tea and proper nutrition will ward away the flu.

No, you're missing the point. Most DNA viral polymerases have an exonuclease domain which can check DNA for errors and then repair these errors (HSV). RNA viruses such as polio and influenza do not have this domain in their viral polymerase, and therefore do not proof-check their genome as other DNA viruses do. This leads to more mutations.... That is why people have to be re-vaccinated.

It is also why herd immunity is important. If infection rate goes up, so do mutations...resulting in a vulnerable population.

I think vaccinations speed up the process by allowing the virus to alter the cellular surface receptors faster than the virus would have on its own. Giving the virus a 'boost' so to speak. Let me make something clear however. I am not for or against vaccines. I am for some and against some. Influenza being an example of the latter. Don't be so vaccine happy skot. You have no idea what path it leads the species down.

Edited by TheFountain, 13 January 2010 - 11:58 PM.

[Skötkonung]

You're missing the point. People are now co-dependent on a series of vaccinations that do nothing but make influenza angry enough to mutate into a stronger strand each season. Hence why people have to get re-vaccinated. Vaccinations might be good for certain punctual diseases (like TB), but I really do not find it necessary for the common cold unless you are a really old person with low immunity. Megadoses of Vitamin C, Zinc, hot tea and proper nutrition will ward away the flu.

No, you're missing the point. Most DNA viral polymerases have an exonuclease domain which can check DNA for errors and then repair these errors (HSV). RNA viruses such as polio and influenza do not have this domain in their viral polymerase, and therefore do not proof-check their genome as other DNA viruses do. This leads to more mutations.... That is why people have to be re-vaccinated.

It is also why herd immunity is important. If infection rate goes up, so do mutations...resulting in a vulnerable population.

I think vaccinations speed up the process by allowing the virus to alter the cellular surface receptors faster than the virus would have on its own. Giving the virus a 'boost' so to speak. Let me make something clear however. I am not for or against vaccines. I am for some and against some. Influenza being an example of the latter. Don't be so vaccine happy skot. You have no idea what path it leads the species down.

I don't like the speculatory nature of your statement. Vaccines DON"T boost mutation, they slow it down.

Exotic new strains of flu usually originate in regions where vaccination rates are low, such as Mexico or Southeast Asia. Virulent strains are more likely to arise from bad animal husbandry practices, in which the virus jumps species. Yearly flu shots strengthen the immune system, providing at least a slight edge against new strains, because your body might recognize parts of that new strain.

Consider the H1N1 virus. It is a mix of flu genes from avian, human and swine flu viruses. The H and N in the name H1N1 stand for hemagglutinin and neuraminidase, two kinds of proteins. Your vaccination in years past against something similar, perhaps H5N1, far from breeding mutations, could provide marginal protection. While scientists debate the degree of protection, the consensus is that yearly flu shots, particularly when started as a child, leaves the body better equipped to flight the flu in general.

Vaccinations and antibiotic regimes work differently. Vaccinations prime the immune system for the possible encounter with a virus in the weeks, months or years to come. Antibiotics kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria already infecting you.Whereas bacteria can evade an antibiotic and then pass along the genes of antibiotic resistance to offspring, viruses don't have direct contact with vaccines and thus aren't affected by them in this way.

"Influenza is a mutating virus, and this feature is related to its genome structure; it has nothing to do with vaccines," explained Mohammed Alsharifi of the Australian National University, lead author on the paper "Intranasal flu vaccine protective against seasonal and H5N1 avian influenza infections," recently posted on PLoS ONE, an online journal. "The concept of antibiotic resistant bacteria cannot be applied to viruses." [source]

Viral mutations, the sort that allow the flu to evolve, come about in two ways, through antigenic drift or antigenic shift. Drift former refers to random mutations in a virus' genes, often responsible for heavier-than-normal flu seasons. Antigenic shift refers to the troublesome mixture of two or more strains, as seen in H1N1. Here, pigs likely were infected simultaneously by at least two strains of flu, and the viruses combined inside infected host cells.

The human immune system has difficult recognizing such combo strains, which is partly why they spread so rapidly and mutate so easily. Vaccines make recognizing combo strains much easier. The human immune system has arguably never evolved to handle the onslaught of crowded animal and human populations. It's adaptability emphasizes the amazing capabilities of our physiology.

Get it?

Edited by Skotkonung, 14 January 2010 - 12:34 AM.

[NeverSayDie]

Speaking of vaccines...this is an interesting article.


FURY AT VACCINE SCANDAL

Sunday January 10,2010
By Lucy Johnston

HUNDREDS of public sector workers who claim their lives have been wrecked by vaccines say the Government has abandoned them.


Up to 200 doctors, nurses, firefighters, prison officers, police officers, forensic scientists and binmen say they have developed serious physical and mental health problems after injections essential for their work over the past 10 years. All have given up their jobs and some are now 60 per cent disabled.

Last night it emerged they are to miss out on payouts, prompting furor among campaigners. More than 150 MPs have lent their support to demands for a better deal for the victims.

Olivia Price, of the Vaccine Victim Support Group, said: "These people have given their lives in the service of looking after others and this is how they're repaid. They've lost their careers and are a burden to their families. It is very degrading."

Frontline health workers, social workers, prison officers and binmen have to be vaccinated against hepatitis B as a condition of their employment.

This is to protect them from contracting potentially fatal conditions from infected blood through needle injuries or physical assaults.

Although they are not legally forced to have the vaccinations, without them they are not allowed to work.

Experts believe the injections caused the health problems, which include chronic fatigue, muscle pain, weakness and cognitive problems, because illnesses developed soon after vaccination. In one case Steve Robinson, a previously fit 43-year-old father of three, was vaccinated six years ago against hepatitis A, B and polio, tetanus and diphtheria as part of his work as a forensic specialist.

Two days later he became ill and developed muscle weakness and chronic fatigue. Mr Robinson, from Morpeth, Northumberland, is now 60 per cent disabled, which an industrial injuries tribunal put down to the vaccinations.


He has also been diagnosed with macrophagic myofascitis, a disabling condition which may be caused by the aluminum in vaccines. He also suffers from problems that cause him to fall with no warning. He said: "Before I had the vaccinations I was very healthy, a keen mountain biker and enjoyed walking and keeping fit.

"Now I have very poor mobility and walk with sticks, I am constantly tired." In up to 10 of the 200 cases, Government officials have already ruled, on the balance of probabilities, that the vaccines caused the damage.

Campaigners say these victims should be entitled to payouts of up to £120,000 through the Government's Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme, like other people who have suffered side effects, but the hepatitis B vaccine is excluded so they get nothing.

Payouts are restricted to the industrial injuries scheme but this is a long and difficult process and, according to campaigners, results in "paltry" sums. So far, fewer than 10 have successfully claimed this money. Ian Stewart, Labour MP for Eccles, has tabled an Early Day Motion on the scandal which has been backed by more than 150 MPs of all political parties.

He said: "These casualties are completely innocent. Their lives, and those of their families, have been sadly diminished through no fault of their own.

"The difficult truth is that what we have in the UK is not fit for purpose."

A spokesman for the Payment Scheme, said: "Adults who suffer adverse reactions to vaccines given as a requirement of their employment can claim compensation through Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit or private schemes through their terms of employment."

http://www.express.c...vaccine-scandal

Edited by NeverSayDie, 14 January 2010 - 02:18 PM.

[DukeNukem]

I've said before that I will not use current vaccines because they are too risky. I'll let other willing people take the risk for me. It's been over 10 years since I've had anything more than a sinus infection. My fear of the flu and germs in general is non-existent.

As for vaccinating kids, it's my strong opinion that children get too many vaccines nowadays, and too soon in their early, crucial development. We used to wait until just before going to kindergarten before vaccinations, and back then it was 5-7 vaccines. Nowadays, vaccines start well before a child is two years old, and with some 20+ vaccines total. This is too much of an assault on a young child's immunity and body overall, and is just asking for trouble. Parents are absolutely foolish for allowing their babies, in effect, to get so many vaccines so early in life. I've coached all of my friends and family members to both delay the first vaccinations until 2+ years old, and to spread them out over a much longer time that their pediatrician foolishly recommends.

Vaccines are a HUGE revenue generator. Each vaccine they add to the list adds tens of millions to the bottom-line of the company that makes the vaccine. The profit motive is what's driving the dramatic increase in the number of vaccines, not preventative health.

The vaccine industry is just as profit driven as the statin industry. To think otherwise is proof of blind stupidity, IMO.

Edited by DukeNukem, 14 January 2010 - 02:41 PM.

[NeverSayDie]

Vaccines are a HUGE revenue generator. Each vaccine they add to the list adds tens of millions to the bottom-line of the company that makes the vaccine. The profit motive is what's driving the dramatic increase in the number of vaccines, not preventative health.
The vaccine industry is just as profit driven as the statin industry. To think otherwise is proof of blind stupidity, IMO.

I couldn't agree more, Duke. I have said the same thing, in a broader sense, in many of my posts, much to the chagrin of many imminst forum goers. You have to be really careful about speaking against the medical status quo on these forums. You will get attacked quicker than you can believe.

[Skötkonung]

I've said before that I will not use current vaccines because they are too risky. I'll let other willing people take the risk for me. It's been over 10 years since I've had anything more than a sinus infection. My fear of the flu and germs in general is non-existent.

Great, anecdotes are scientifically worthless.

As for vaccinating kids, it's my strong opinion that children get too many vaccines nowadays, and too soon in their early, crucial development. We used to wait until just before going to kindergarten before vaccinations, and back then it was 5-7 vaccines. Nowadays, vaccines start well before a child is two years old, and with some 20+ vaccines total. This is too much of an assault on a young child's immunity and body overall, and is just asking for trouble. Parents are absolutely foolish for allowing their babies, in effect, to get so many vaccines so early in life. I've coached all of my friends and family members to both delay the first vaccinations until 2+ years old, and to spread them out over a much longer time that their pediatrician foolishly recommends.

Did you ever stop to think that the reason why vaccines are offered earlier and in greater quantities than previous generations is because disease risk is higher and that improved vaccination schedules help reduce infant and child mortality rates?

Consider the rotavirus vaccine, one of the vaccines given prior to 6 weeks of age. Each year more than 500,000 children die from diarrhoeal disease caused by rotavirus,and another two million are hospitalized [source] [source]. Although the severity of rotavirus infections differs between children living in developed and developing countries, the rates of infection is similar in both settings. Clean water supplies and good hygiene have little effect on the transmission of infection, and further improvements are unlikely to prevent disease. Safe and effective vaccines are needed, especially in poorer countries where most deaths from the disease occur [source] [source].

A 2009 review estimated that vaccination against rotavirus would prevent about 45% of deaths due to rotavirus gastroenteritis, or about 228,000 deaths annually worldwide. At $5 per dose the estimated cost per life saved was $88, $291, and $329 in low-, lower-middle-, and upper-middle-income countries, respectively [source].

Vaccines are a HUGE revenue generator. Each vaccine they add to the list adds tens of millions to the bottom-line of the company that makes the vaccine. The profit motive is what's driving the dramatic increase in the number of vaccines, not preventative health.

The vaccine industry is just as profit driven as the statin industry. To think otherwise is proof of blind stupidity, IMO.

The only person here being periously ignorant is you. Saying you don't get sick and therefor vaccines aren't needed is a retarded statement. I rarely get sick, never severely ill, yet with or without vaccines that possibility still remains. No lifestyle is all-protective, especially when it concerns serious viral infection.

Regarding your alleged "corporate greed," I could just as easily argue that it is in the interest of pharmaceutical companies to let diseases progress to the point of serious infection because there is more money to be made in treatment than simply handing out a $5 vaccine. Vaccines, in my honest opinion, are one of the only instances where true preventative medicine is being practiced.

How can you, or anyone else, in the face of the overwhelming statistics on vaccine efficacy deny their usefulness? Sure there have been some controversies, but there have also been issues with seat-belts and airbags (other protective technologies), yet we still endorse those. The fact that some people react negatively to vaccinations just means the technology is need of some improvement, not that the method of action or model of deployment is totally flawed.

Don't be an idiot.

Edited by Skotkonung, 14 January 2010 - 05:03 PM.

[Skötkonung]

Vaccines are a HUGE revenue generator. Each vaccine they add to the list adds tens of millions to the bottom-line of the company that makes the vaccine. The profit motive is what's driving the dramatic increase in the number of vaccines, not preventative health.
The vaccine industry is just as profit driven as the statin industry. To think otherwise is proof of blind stupidity, IMO.

I couldn't agree more, Duke. I have said the same thing, in a broader sense, in many of my posts, much to the chagrin of many imminst forum goers. You have to be really careful about speaking against the medical status quo on these forums. You will get attacked quicker than you can believe.

Perhaps you could understand the status quo a little better if actually bothered to consult the scientific literature instead of browsing questionable media sources and blogs. In other words, stop being so intellectually lazy and actually review the research yourself.

You might then see that Health and Human Services efforts to promote and provide childhood immunizations have helped to increase immunization rates among children, with 90 percent or more of America's toddlers receiving the most critical doses of vaccines for children by age 2. With childhood vaccination levels in the United States at or near an all-time high, disease and death from preventable diseases are at or near record lows.

Then compare vaccine related deaths and ilnesses to previous amounts of vaccine preventable illnesses. Then tell me vaccines are worthless.

[DukeNukem]

Vaccines are a HUGE revenue generator. Each vaccine they add to the list adds tens of millions to the bottom-line of the company that makes the vaccine. The profit motive is what's driving the dramatic increase in the number of vaccines, not preventative health.
The vaccine industry is just as profit driven as the statin industry. To think otherwise is proof of blind stupidity, IMO.

I couldn't agree more, Duke. I have said the same thing, in a broader sense, in many of my posts, much to the chagrin of many imminst forum goers. You have to be really careful about speaking against the medical status quo on these forums. You will get attacked quicker than you can believe.

Perhaps you could understand the status quo a little better if actually bothered to consult the scientific literature instead of browsing questionable media sources and blogs. In other words, stop being so intellectually lazy and actually review the research yourself.

You might then see that Health and Human Services efforts to promote and provide childhood immunizations have helped to increase immunization rates among children, with 90 percent or more of America's toddlers receiving the most critical doses of vaccines for children by age 2. With childhood vaccination levels in the United States at or near an all-time high, disease and death from preventable diseases are at or near record lows.

Then compare vaccine related deaths and ilnesses to previous amounts of vaccine preventable illnesses. Then tell me vaccines are worthless.

A great many people believe that improved hygiene has played a bigger role in the disappearance of most vaccine related diseases.

In any case, feel free to vaccinate as you want. Luckily, it's a choice -- and I will always maintain that when vaccinating young kids, it's much smarter/safer to wait until they're older, and not rush through the many vaccines so fast. It's the precautionary principle. Smart parents will do it this way. Why increase the risk when we really just do not know for sure how safe these vaccinations really are?

When you have children, I'm certain you will remember my advice. I've found this to be true will practically ALL initial doubters.

BTW, I only mentioned my personal non-taking of vaccines to show I walk my own talk -- not sure why you got so completely hung up on the the idea that I was using it as evidence!?!?!? Sheesh. Talk about a big swing and a miss.

[kenj]

>>> BTW, I only mentioned my personal non-taking of vaccines to show I walk my own talk -- not sure why you got so completely hung up on the the idea that I was using it as evidence!?!?!? Sheesh. Talk about a big swing and a miss. <<<

O/T:

Duke,

it happens: sometimes the board thinks a little too much you can only add to the discussion if you eliminate all anecdotal evidence, - I for one think this is ALSO exactly why this board is versatile and interesting for a broader audience; - having real people talk about their own experiences. ;-)

[Skötkonung]

A great many people believe that improved hygiene has played a bigger role in the disappearance of most vaccine related diseases.

In any case, feel free to vaccinate as you want. Luckily, it's a choice -- and I will always maintain that when vaccinating young kids, it's much smarter/safer to wait until they're older, and not rush through the many vaccines so fast. It's the precautionary principle. Smart parents will do it this way. Why increase the risk when we really just do not know for sure how safe these vaccinations really are?

When you have children, I'm certain you will remember my advice. I've found this to be true will practically ALL initial doubters.

BTW, I only mentioned my personal non-taking of vaccines to show I walk my own talk -- not sure why you got so completely hung up on the the idea that I was using it as evidence!?!?!? Sheesh. Talk about a big swing and a miss.

Oh really? Improved hygene? That's funny, because I just posted (in my previous rebuttal to your post) a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that improved hygiene has little to do with spread of viral disease. In fact, the crowded and hyper-clean environments of the last 100 years probably cause some degree of immune dis-regulation (but that can be a topic for another day).

If you really wanted to prove you walk-the-walk, you would provide some actual published research to substantiate your claim instead of spouting off more worthless blog links and weak personal anecdotes. I for one am thankful that most parents actually have the common sense to vaccinate their children instead of succumbing to misinformation and ignorance.

*yawn* I'm still waiting for that peer reviewed research (not blogs)...

[SpawnMoreOverlords]

Speaking of vaccines...this is an interesting article.

FURY AT VACCINE SCANDAL

lol what a bunch of anectodes !! give corporate funded studies or I dont believe none of it !

Edit: trimmed quote

Edited by niner, 19 January 2010 - 04:55 AM.

[e Volution]

It's the precautionary principle ... Why increase the risk when we really just do not know for sure how safe these vaccinations really are?

If you really wanted to prove you walk-the-walk, you would provide some actual published research to substantiate your claim instead of spouting off more worthless blog links and weak personal anecdotes.

This has almost turned into an ideological argument, and whats best for the individual vs humanity as a whole...

Skotkonung I mostly agree with you, and I am definitely pro-vaccine, however the argument Duke is putting forward is not that sort of argument (can be backed up by any scientific study). There is certainly a lot of UNcertainty in regards to vaccines as a whole, so there is essentially no argument against using the precautionary principle as Duke said.

For humanity as a whole I think vaccination is clearly positive, however I think its not so clear cut for the individual. I imagine you could apply some Game Theory/Utility Maximisation to vaccination and if for example every human being on earth was already vaccinated except for you, then the potential risks of vaccination would outweigh the potential benefits of immunity. This greater risk from vaccination may hold all the way down to the herd immunity threshold for that particular disease, it may not I don't know, but the fact that the point exists is what is significant and IMO a hole in your argument.

Edited by icantgoforthat, 19 January 2010 - 04:58 AM.

[niner]

It's the precautionary principle ... Why increase the risk when we really just do not know for sure how safe these vaccinations really are?

If you really wanted to prove you walk-the-walk, you would provide some actual published research to substantiate your claim instead of spouting off more worthless blog links and weak personal anecdotes.

This has almost turned into an ideological argument, and whats best for the individual vs humanity as a whole...

Skotkonung I mostly agree with you, and I am definitely pro-vaccine, however the argument Duke is putting forward is not that sort of argument (can be backed up by any scientific study). There is certainly a lot of UNcertainty in regards to vaccines as a whole, so there is essentially no argument against using the precautionary principle as Duke said.

For humanity as a whole I think vaccination is clearly positive, however I think its not so clear cut for the individual. I imagine you could apply some Game Theory/Utility Maximisation to vaccination and if for example every human being on earth was already vaccinated except for you, then the potential risks of vaccination would outweigh the potential benefits of immunity. This greater risk from vaccination may hold all the way down to the herd immunity threshold for that particular disease, it may not I don't know, but the fact that the point exists is what is significant and IMO a hole in your argument.

And yet, if you ignore the red herring of herd immunity, then it all becomes clear. The advantages of vaccination can be determined by comparing vaccinated individuals to non-vaccinated controls. The dangers of vaccination can be known by the same comparison. Then it's a simple risk/reward tradeoff. I don't see what's so murky about this. The only hard part is determining who is providing the most accurate description of the risks and benefits. Is it the scientist-dupes in the employ of evil corporate greedmeisters salivating over the riches to be had from vaccines? (Though they be a lot less than what can be had from pharmaceuticals.) Or is it the pure-hearted raw vegan bloggers? (Who are only a few courses away from an art history degree, and have never taken a science class?) Obviously, I am not an anti-vaxxer. I suspect that even if they were presented with correct information regarding risk and benefit, many people would choose to do nothing even if it means more risk and less benefit. Something about human nature, and people being ruled more by their emotions than whatever logic they can muster up. I would like people to be presented with an accurate summary of risks and benefits of vaccines, then be allowed to choose without being pressured by ideologues on either side. There should be funds set up to care for the small fraction of people who are injured by vaccines. At present, I don't know if all vaccines have been adequately characterized with respect to risk and benefit. I suspect that some are lacking, and if so, this should be rectified.

Since insurance companies are in the business of computing risk vs. reward, perhaps we should let them do it, and have them provide a rate discount or surcharge determined by the statistical cost of the insured's vaccine choices.

[kismet]

Oh god, this thread was derailed into a discussion of vaccine denialism? And duke supports the anti-vaccine crank(s)?! Not vaccinating a good precautionary principle? Are you people frickin' fuckin' kidding?

Actually, I just wanted to contribute a lil' Schadenfreude to this thread, but now I admit I am a little depressed with imminst becoming such a strong bastion of pseudoscience. Those deaths are not just numbers. Real people are dying because of your foolish, childish behaviour and refusal to read the literature, the vaccine databases and study the biology of those diseases. Instead people resort to "precautionary principles", which are based on nothing but irrational fear.

Shotkung you shouldn't bother with them. The evidence is all over the net, repeated ad nauseam; anyone able to type 'wikipedia' could look it up if they wanted to (I am sure you can explain it well, but you're most likely wasting your time). Some people won't listen, they won't listen on purpose. Usually there is no way to debate with vaccine, holocaust, germ theory, science denialists, creationists, truthers, quacks and such ilk.

Edited by kismet, 24 January 2010 - 09:22 PM.

[Shoe]

Actually, I just wanted to contribute a lil' Schadenfreude to this thread

The Health Danger's list of things skeptics believe is just... bizarre. I'm not sure I've ever seen that many straw men next to each other before. Either the man has no shame whatsoever, or his reading comprehension is severely lacking.

Do not trust that man!

[frederickson]

lol what a bunch of anectodes !! give corporate funded studies or I dont believe none of it !

hilarious!

the second i see one of the pubmed junkies around here cite an industry-funded study as meaningful evidence of anything is the second i realize that they are both incredibly naive and have neither studied, experienced in their own work, nor most likely even thoughtfully considered the economic influences at play with such research.

though it is a sad commentary on their own intelligence, like duke, i am selfishly glad that there are so many fools that are so trusting of the medical industry and subject themselves and their loved ones to essentially self-regulated vaccines and drugs.

for instance, the fact that idiots were lining up en masse for untested h1n1 vaccines - for an illness that was overhyped to begin with - is probably one of the greatest recent testaments to the manipulation and inherent gullibility of the american people.

[Shepard]

Oh damn, it's the PubMed Junkies vs. the Blog Squad.

This is why I drink.

[DukeNukem]

Oh damn, it's the PubMed Junkies vs. the Blog Squad.

This is why I drink.

Except, the Blog Squad ARE PubMed Junkies.

[Shepard]

Oh damn, it's the PubMed Junkies vs. the Blog Squad.

This is why I drink.

Except, the Blog Squad ARE PubMed Junkies.

How can a blogger be considered a neutral source these days? The potential for profit is too large.

Anyway, even if a blogger is truthful, does his/her due diligence in looking at all sides of a topic, reads the full paper instead of just the abstract, and then interprets the data correctly....if you're not reviewing the primary sources yourself, you're just drinking the Kool-Aid. I won't even comment on Science Daily and science journalists in general, but it's just not good enough to make these broad, one-sided statements with an argument that basically amounts to "because this other guy says so and it makes sense to me".

[frederickson]

Oh damn, it's the PubMed Junkies vs. the Blog Squad.

This is why I drink.

Except, the Blog Squad ARE PubMed Junkies.

while some bloggers are pubmed junkies, what my colleagues and i disparagingly refer to as the pubmed junkie is a little different than simply a blogger!

a "pubmed junkie" is someone who thinks he has science all figured out because he knows how to search for studies on pubmed. in the eyes of the pubmed junkie, anything that has a pubmed id is unquestionably true, and anything that does not is quackery. this type of clown has a basic (at best) understanding of study design and interpretation and no formal education in research methods.

further, and more importantly, the pubmed junkie is completely oblivious to the most important considerations of interpreting research - the ways that politics dictates what research ideas are fundable, how corporate interests prevent some of the best ideas from being explored, "grantsmanship" and the conservative manner in which research careers are advanced, and how even the medical journals have to be careful not to step on their sponsors toes with challenging research.

pubmed junkies tend to be young - i was definitely one - and believe that medicine is guided by altruism and scientific integrity, not profit. it's a shame that medical research has been so bastardized, especially rct's and large, population based studies. in this epidemiologist's eyes, it seems the purest practical research we have available is bench science from which we have to extrapolate. the politics behind funding rct's and population based studies are just too strong, imo.

Edited by frederickson, 25 January 2010 - 11:37 PM.

[DukeNukem]

Oh damn, it's the PubMed Junkies vs. the Blog Squad.

This is why I drink.

Except, the Blog Squad ARE PubMed Junkies.

while some bloggers are pubmed junkies, what my colleagues and i disparagingly refer to as the pubmed junkie is a little different than simply a blogger!

a "pubmed junkie" is someone who thinks he has science all figured out because he knows how to search for studies on pubmed. in the eyes of the pubmed junkie, anything that has a pubmed id is unquestionably true, and anything that does not is quackery. this type of clown has a basic (at best) understanding of study design and interpretation and no formal education in research methods.

further, and more importantly, the pubmed junkie is completely oblivious to the most important considerations of interpreting research - the ways that politics dictates what research ideas are fundable, how corporate interests prevent some of the best ideas from being explored, "grantsmanship" and the conservative manner in which research careers are advanced, and how even the medical journals have to be careful not to step on their sponsors toes with challenging research.

pubmed junkies tend to be young - i was definitely one - and believe that medicine is guided by altruism and scientific integrity, not profit. it's a shame that medical research has been so bastardized, especially rct's and large, population based studies. in this epidemiologist's eyes, it seems the purest practical research we have available is bench science from which we have to extrapolate. the politics behind funding rct's and population based studies are just too strong, imo.

I'd never heard of pubmed junkie -- I assumed it was someone who referred to published research to develop their views.