Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 44
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?Page 5 of 5    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
In my second post I cited what was said about the removal of mecury and the reduction of thimerosal (www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ )

Even if things are stated that they were over stated at least the CDC listened, and took note...

So what do we know, there was the recommendation of one shot instead of two for children, apparently it worked well for those who took it, and those who didn't yes there were people who passed, BUT there were also people who dealt with it...

As stated as well, I had a flu from hell in 98', people were sick all over the place. Dr's wore masks to try and avoid the sickly...

Some things are hard to draw an absolute line from, as in the neurotoxins in vaccines, vs the rise in Autism...

My husband has Aspergers's syndrom, and off shot of Autism, however being born in Korea,they didn't vaccinate... I still have my huge small pox shot mark, he doesn't have anything like that...

Does that mean there is no corrolation??? it is hard to say.

If as one poster said well heavy metals are taken out of the system by the liver, perhaps having a nice spacing would be helpful...

No matter the side a person takes, it should be with education, and thought for why you have chosen what to do... I know that I didn't have the same knowledge when I raised my older kids, that I do now... Kind of sucks actually, because before I didn't have to think about it, now I do...
 Bluesman2008
Joined: 4/2/2008
Msg: 45
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/3/2010 12:13:49 AM
We'll still be able to debate. Only the sound will be a little muffled.
 CoolBreezez
Joined: 8/20/2006
Msg: 46
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/3/2010 5:41:06 PM
^^^^^^^

Here here! ( or is it Hear Hear!?)

And even worse is heart disease....


Estimates for the year 2006 are that 81,100,000 people in the United States have one or more forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD)......
Claimed 831,272 lives in 2006 (final mortality) (34.3 percent of all deaths or 1 of every 2.9 deaths)......

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4478

And


Male pattern baldness, hair in the ear canals, and creased earlobes are associated with a higher risk for heart disease in white males.

http://www.mamashealth.com/Heart_stat.asp

That's a tragedy! I say more government research grants should be given for unsightly ear conditions, The Hair Club for Men and the makers of Rogaine and Minoxidil. It's a matter of life and death!

These kind of numbers show us that the flu is small potatoes in a very large frying pan. We have bigger fish to fry!

PS- Hats off to SG for scooping me on last nights MMR newsflash- we must have been typing at the same time. Guess I have to buy
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 47
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/4/2010 11:27:59 AM
RE Msg: 81 by truetemp1:
Nice stuff Scorp and Dukky- but their been many studies world wide done on this over the last 10 years since Wakefields papers came up. They all pointed to the same thing- no correlation between autism and MMR. And Wakefield seems to have a been up to more than just suggesting to spread out the vaccine schedule as well.

Here's a nice piece- with citations and links- give it a read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy
I live in the UK, where the MMR vaccine controversy is well known, and reported on highly. The issue with the vaccine is twofold:

1) The evidence with the side-effects of Thalidomide was suppressed for several years. Those side-effects were so debilitating, that it made people worried that if this happened with any other drug, it just wasn't worth it to take the chance of ruining their children's lives. We HOPED that by the time of the MMR vaccine controversy, that such suppression of evidence was eliminated. Unfortunately, Seroxat proved this was not a once-only case. Autism ranks as somewhere between the side-effects of Thalidomide and Seroxat in how debilitating it is in the lives of children. Parents have a solid reason to not want to take the risk that in 20 years time, there will be a further admission that the evidence of the MMR vaccine will turn out to have been suppressed. So parents want to wait until we can personally see the results in our own eyes, not relying on trials that could be suppressed. But cases of autism and related problems, like high-functioning autism, and Aspergers, are still not things that doctors are keen to diagnose, and they aren't immediately apparent to all. So it might take 20-30 years for the public to fully see the results with their own eyes.

2) Some children have died due to not being vaccinated against measles, mumps and Rubella. But the MMR vaccine controversy did NOT cause those deaths. The government had the option of offering alternatives to the three-in-one. They could even have vaccinated children at 6, 9, and 12 months for each, which would have meant all the kids were MORE protected than currently offered under the current policy of the MMR vaccine. It might have meant a slightly higher cost. But since they are vaccinations that only have to be given 2-3 times in a lifetime, the costs run into millions, which is a level of finance that the government puts into all sorts of measures that only produce a tiny result, or even don't work at all. In terms of government budgets, it wasn't unreasonable. Even if the government wanted to push the MMR vaccine, it still could have offered 3 separate vaccines to those parents who refused giving their children the 3-in-1. There really was no need for any of these children at all.

These facts leave us with one problem: why on Earth would any government that cares about its people not at least offer the obvious alternative? The answer is not profits. It's not to save the lives of children. It's not even to prove anything to the people. It's just because certain drugs companies have established lucrative deals with certain politicians in return for backhanders behind the scenes. That's why there is a controversy. It's just a controversy, to help those who are corrupting the government for their own selfish desires. If not for that, it would NEVER have become the issue it did.

I'm all for vaccines, What I'm against is certain drugs companies and politicians using us to make them hefty profits, and not care about the lives of our children, and that is what drove the whole issue.

In a way, it's akin to the same problems with swine flu. When people were dying early on due to swine flu, the government was very keen to point out that they all had "underlying symptoms". No-one actually said what those symptoms were. It would have made total sense to, as initially, they were only reporting one or two cases a week in the UK. But they didn't. They hid the truth. So we were left wondering what those "underlying symptoms" were, and if this wasn't another cover-up like Thalidomide and Seroxat.

Then, AFTER the government had spent millions on Tamifu, right when we were being told that we'd have to put hundreds of billions into the banks, suddenly, the crisis mysteriously disappeared. Only then did scientists point out that it was no more infectious than ordinary cases of flu. But that must have been true before. So there wasn't really the need to buy Tamiflu, not at the point when Tamiflu was bought. Now, the UK had lots of expensive drugs that it had bought from drugs companies but wasn't going to use. Again, it seems that the government has handed cash to the drugs companies. It looks very much as if the whole crisis was manufactured to make huge profits for the drugs companies.

But, if the drugs companies wanted to be fair, given that it was supposed to be a serious pandemic that could have killed millions, they could have offered it on a sale-or-return basis. The drugs companies could even have offered to not demand that the government had to pay for the initial doses of Tamiflu, if it turned out to be a red herring, just to make people feel easier about the worry of spending plenty of money on drugs that we didn't need, when we didn't have the money to pay for it, and are in reality in a major national debt. Even from the government's view, the government has the right to confiscate patents and even property if there is a pressing need of the people. This pandemic would have counted. The governments of the world could have confiscated all the Tamiflu, and then promised to reimburse the drugs companies handsomely, if it turned out they had saved millions of lives. After all, what's money when you've saved the world?

But all this didn't happen. The system of making money was prioritised over people's lives. We've paid the price. Our governments are all in major debt, and we've just been persuaded to give money we don't have, for things we didn't need, to people who have far more money than they need. It al looks like a corruption of capitalism and a denial of decency and human rights.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 48
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/5/2010 12:59:18 PM
RE Msg: 89 by quietjohn2:

It's just because certain drugs companies have established lucrative deals with certain politicians in return for backhanders behind the scenes.
You seem to want us to take your statement at face value . yet hold others up to a different standard?..
No. You're allowed to question my views. I welcome it. That way I can be happy that you will correct me when I am wrong, which means I can afford to be more sure of my views.


When people were dying early on due to swine flu, the government was very keen to point out that they all had "underlying symptoms". No-one actually said what those symptoms were.
And I don't get why drug companies should give politicians 'backhanders' if there is no profit motive. Wouldn't drug companies have benefitted from preparing the MMR vaccines as 3 separate doses rather than just 1? You'd think they be paying to do that rather than paying to avoid it.
Yes. But then they'd have to re-negotiate the deal.

Look at it from your POV: if you needed to buy a car for you, your partner, and her daughter, then you might get a deal for all 3 from a sales rep. A friend of his might point out that he'd make a lot more money by selling you each car separately. But then, you took the deal, because it was a deal. If he breaks the deal, you might decide to buy only 1 car from him, and the 2 others from another dealer. So he'll end up with only 30-40% of the deal he made.

That's why so many companies sell with huge discounts, and why trade discounts are normal in business. Without it, you'd lose a lot of your business.

Then in your last paragraph you claim..
The system of making money was prioritised over people's lives.
.. which is it?
It's the same as before. Money was prioritised over people's lives. The system of making money, capitalism, was the motivating factor for that. If we weren't using a system that prioritised making money over everything else, then we could have required the drug company to sell at a price that was reasonable for the benefits accrued to the people, and not for the profits made for the company.

It seems like the decisions on MMR have been validated by recent reports that it isn't a factor in autism.
It seems that way. That's what we've been told. So I looked up the controversy in Wikipedia, and picked one of the results at random that says there is no correlation, the CDC study, because that one compared cases of autism to non-cases.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/113/2/259

The study stated that for autistic kids, 70.5% were vaccinated between 12 and 1 months, and for control children, 67.5% were vaccinated. So more kids who have autism have been vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. That "looks" like correlation. But, to be fair, I decided to run the numbers.

If we say A = event that kid has autism and M = event that kid was given the MMR vaccine, then we have P(M|A)=0.705 and P(M|^A)=0.675 from the study.
We also have P(A)=0.0116 from http://www.nas.org.uk/nas/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=235&a=3527. So P(^A)=1-P(A)=0.98884

We want P(A|M) and P(A|^M). To do this, we use: P(A|M)=P(A and M) / P(M) and P(A|^M)=P(A and ^M) / P(^M).

Now, we know: P(M|A)=P(M and A) | P(A) and P(M|^A)=P(M and ^A) | P(^A)
So P(A and M) = P(M and A) = P(M|A) * P(A) = 0.705 * 0.0116 = 0.008,178
Also, P(M and ^A) = P(M and ^A) * P(^A) = 0.675 * 0.98884 = 0.667,170
So P(M) = P(M and A) + P(M and ^A) = 0.008,178 + 0.667,170 = 0.675,348
So P(^M) = 1-P(M) = 1 - 0.675,348 = 0.324,652
Also, P(A and ^M) = P(A) - P(A and M) = 0.0116 - 0.008,178 = 0.003,422

So P(A|M)=P(A and M) / P(M) = 0.008,178 / 0.675,348 = approx 0.012,109,312,532,205,6
Also P(A|^M)=P(A and ^M) / P(^M) = 0.003,422 / 0.324,652 = approx 0.010,540,517,230,757,9

So, according to the stats of the study, we expect, that with 2 groups of kids, one group given the MMR vaccine, and one not, the one given the MMR should have more kids with autism, at about 1.5 more kids per thousand. That's an extra 1.5 kids per thousand, who we would expect to have autism, because they were given the MMR vaccine. That's not good.

Now, on a population the size of Denmark, that's about 8,624 more kids with autism. In Sweden, it's 14,465. In the UK, it's 96,322 more autistics.

Even if we drop the average number of autistics to the earlier figure of 9 in 10,000, we still expect to get 1.2 more kids per thousand, 12 kids per 10,000, instead of 15, and and Sweden, we expect to have have 6,708 more autistics and 11,251 more in Denmark. In the UK, it's 74,920 more autistics.

For USA, figures, take the UK figures, and multiply by 5, approximately 375,000 to 480,000 more kids with autism.

Now, let's look at the other side. How many people have suffered because of less people taking the MMR vaccine? Here is what a doctor wrote, one who believes the MMR vaccine is fine:
take, for example, in England and Wales there were nearly 1,350 cases (with two deaths) diagnosed in 2008 compared to just over 50 cases in 1998
http://www.dailystrength.org/experts/dr-jeremy/article/the-history-behind-the-mmr-vaccine-controversy

Now, I cannot quantify exactly how many deaths are due to autism and autistic tendencies. But these are kids who won't pay any attention to the road. They live in their own head. They don't see cars coming. They do crazy things like chewing carpets and just swallowing a whole bottle of pills because they are there. Parents are good. But they're not perfect, and they do their heads away for a second. These kids are likely to end up in A&E often. So it's not that hard to figure out, that out of 75,000-96,000 kids with autism, that a lot more than 2 are going to die due to them doing stupid things or not paying attention, due to their condition, that they wouldn't have done, if they hadn't been autistic.

The problem is, I'm being told that the MMR vaccine is perfectly safe. Yet when I'm examining the figures, they seem to suggest the very opposite. It's very difficult for me to justify a position, if the numbers that people are citing to prove their point, show the opposite.



So there wasn't really the need to buy Tamiflu
The only mention I heard of Tamiflu was that people shouldn't take it. I forget the reason. If you do a web search, you'll find articles from April and May of last year cautioning against taking anti-virals. Such as http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-04-swine-tamiflu_N.htm
I guess you don't know. The UK government had a first run of many thousands of people who they wanted to take Tamiflu, particularly those most at risk, like the elderly, the kids, and pregnant women. The plan was, that if the epidemic had continued, that everyone would take Tamiflu. However, demand was not met by the drugs companies. So they started prioritising the most-at-risk cases first.

FYI, the UK had a few hundred die, not 1 Mexican infant who died in Houston.

So you might be saying that one shouldn't take Tamiflu. But to be honest, you are sounding exactly like the people who were worried about the MMR vaccine. So I'm sorry, but I think you're not being fair.

The pandemic panic was mostly caused by amateur hype. This is more of the same. Blame no-one but the people who got caught up on both sides of the debacle. Obviously, some have learned NOTHING.
Not in the UK. We have something called a media here. When the media doesn't report on the subject, and there is a controversy, that's called an amateur hype. When the media reports on the subject, and the experts all say that in order to not artificially make a controversy that was never there, certain things should not be done, and the media does them all, not once, but again and again and again, 10 times a day, every day, for several months, on all the major stations, and THEN there is a controversy, we call that a MEDIA HYPE. You can always stop an amateur hype. That's just driven by ignorance. But you can't stop a media hype that easily, as that is driven by the Law of Supply and Demand. The only thing that stops a media hype is greater incentive than the incentive for controversy, to fine the media for more money than it made from all the increased sales, over all those media outlets, over all those months. Now, if you're going to start fineing the media billions for every controversy they've hyped, then you've got a shot at stopping them do that. But let's be honest. The people who own the media are very rich people. They've spent billions investing in politics. Who is going to fine them that much, when the people in Parliament are there partially because of those owners of the media? You'd bite the hand that feeds you. So media hype will continue to be a great source of income, and the longer it continues to be allowed, the more it will be used.

The quickest way to corrupt and deny decency is to persuade people not to think.
That's right, and the quickest way to do that, is to tell people that their own opinions are wrong, and they should just shut up and listen to the person telling them what is true. First they listen to their teacher, and switch off their brain. Then they listen to their lecturer and turn off their brain. Then they listen to their docter and turn off their brain. Then they listen to their preacher and turn off their brain. And you wonder why Biblical Literalism, anti-abortionism, and anti-homosexuality is so prevalent in the one country in the world where the people are told to just shut up and accept what they are told?

I've been watching QI. Stephen Fry, the presenter, just said something amazing. He said that more than 1 in 100 American Adults are in Jail, and that they work for 26 cents an hour. He also said that all the battle helmets, and almost all the office furniture is produced there. He said that Mexico cannot compete, because the prisoners work for less than the Mexicans. However, he also said that if they don't work, they get solitary confinement. All this makes it basically slave labour. When you factor in how many of those convicts are black, if what he said was true, then you wouldn't need to be a genius to work out that America basically is able to compete in many industries because they still blacks as slaves. Now, I think that this really ought to be questioned and examined, at least by me.

But either way, either the BBC just said that America still uses African Americans as slaves, on a massive scale, or Americans have been told that slavery was banned, when it's still going on. Either way, you've got a serious media hype, or a serious indoctrination about America. Now do you really see why it's not quite as nice and straightforward as you made out?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 49
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/22/2010 8:29:18 AM
RE Msg: 91 by quietjohn2:
Had I simply looked at the statistics you present, I would have concluded that you didn't really know what you were talking about. From a self-professed 'expert' in such topics that isn't a good evaluation.
I never stated that I was an expert statistician. But you seem to think YOU are.

I never stated that my name is Andrew Wakefield. I never claimed that there is a 100% definite correlation between the MMR vaccine and Autism. I simply stated that there is enough of a concern to parents, that studies are warranted that show they are clearly disconnected, and that these studies do not clearly show to me they are disconnected. That is of great concern to me, as I can still recall that the UK government said that eating BSE-infected meat could not infect humans either, and then 10 years on, they admitted it did, and it shut down the UK meat industry for 10 years. I don't want to find that the government admits it wrong yet again, because if that happens, then there will be as extreme a reaction as having your meat banned from every country in Europe, which cost the UK billions.

Anyone with an inkling of statistics knows that a single number isn't representative of a population - or even the mean of the population. At least come up with a standard error. That gives you an estimate of the error in your mean. The two means differ by only 3%. What evidence do you have that the two means (representing immunization frequency in each population) accurately represent the true value, or how close they are. Had you known what you were doing, you could at least have made an estimate. What do you bet that the SEs would come out greater than 3%?
Fine. Add in +/-5%. You then have figures that could show an error. But you still have to apply the error equally on both sides. The difference could be an error, or the difference could be understated by an error on both sides, indictating a whopping 15% increase. At most, you could say that the study shows nothing. But that begs the question of why anyone would consider the study to suggest that the MMR vaccine is NOT connected with autism. One must conclude that those who use such studies to suggest that MMR is unrelated to autism, are using such studies are gobbledygook to propose their views, and not the views of science.

Reading the citation, I note that the sample for the non-autism population amounts to much less than 1% of the total population (987/.003)? You still want to argue that the 67.5% is absolutely accurate? I could do a Monte-Carlo for you, but it's clear it wouldn't be pretty.
By all means, do. But no-one wants to know if you can put up an argument to show that the studies COULD be gobbledygook. All we both want is clear figures that show the MMR vaccine is definitely not related to autism. If you can do that, you have a point to make. If not, then the concerns of parents for the health of their children is paramount.

It's good that you provide the citation, but it doesn't put your interpretation in a good light. The study states that over 200 of the autistic children had a diagnosed preexisting conditions before 12 months. It also states that only 8 were vaccinated before 12 months. That's at least 192 kids who had problems diagnosed BEFORE they received MMR. Did they get sick because they knew they were going to get MMR? You may be thinking, but I guess I should change my definition to CRITICAL thinking.
Good point. Let's examine your critical thinking.
How can anyone test if MMR can cause autism, by examining kids who already have autism?
How can any scientist possibly consider publishing any study to see if MMR can cause autism, by including kids who already have autism in the study?
How can any reputable scientific body not lambast and criticise studies on the subject that are claimed to prove that MMR does not cause autism, that includes kids who already have autism in those studies?
Your own points show me that you believe these scientific bodies to have not acted reputably and responsibly with regards to this issue, and that is my point.

The point relative to the OP is that it's easy to provide impressive looking/sounding gobbledygook and have it appear to be an 'expert' opinion. Sometimes that seemingly 'expert' opinion is just amateur, and I supect the media can't, or can't be bothered to make the distinction.
I am not discussing if MMR causes autism for sure, as I do not have the scientific data to prove it for myself one way or the other, and the matter is so fraught with controversy that it is extremely difficult to get any data that could prove it for sure.

I am discussing whether or not the government is trying to use impressive sounding gobbledygook and have it appear to be "expert" opinion, and whether the media is doing the same. Clearly you agree with me that such actions are detrimental to science, and that's what is going on.

You also need to update the numbers on US deaths due to H1N1.
I wasn't citing US deaths. I was talking about UK deaths. I suggest that you re-read my post.

All this shows, is that when it comes to pandemics, politics rules, and science is used to shore up political opinions. We should keep science separate from politics.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 50
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/22/2010 10:02:15 AM

The real reason why Andrew Wakefield is being vilified over this, is not because of his paper or his work. It's because it's a lot cheaper to give an MMR vaccine, rather than giving 3 separate vaccines in 3 separate times.
And the real reason people hate Hitler is not because of the millions of innocent lives he killed, its because of his silly moustache. Everybody hates the moustache.
As you can tell, I'm a graduate of the Scorpio School of Straw Man Arguments.


because if they really cared about the people, they would prosecute the people who caused the whole conflagration, the media stations and journalists who made a much bigger deal of it than even Wakefield did.
Ah yes, Wakefield is not to blame here, its the media's fault. How dare they report the news?! Its like they think that reporting the news is their job or something *gasp*.

Wakefield is really the innocent victim here. I mean all he did was accept a payout by 12 parents of autistic children who were trying to sue manufacturers of the MMR vaccine to make a research study to support their case. Just because that was a conflict of interest and professional misconduct it doesn't mean its a bad thing. And sure, when the study came out it resulted in a large drop in MMR immunizations which naturally led to increased incidence of illness - but hey, just because he was willing to accept money even though it caused many others to get sick and die...it doesn't mean he's a bad person. And yes, his study did involve some data fixing, falsifying data, and drawing faulty conclusions...but that doesn't mean he isn't honest - right? The important thing to remember here is to put the blame on the media...for some reason...and to downplay Wakefield's atrocities with claims like 'all Wakefield wanted to do was separate the injections apart' and ignore the part about him blaming the MMR vaccine for autism.
 Twilightslove
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 51
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/23/2010 1:00:43 PM
My view on the so called pandemic hasn't changed. I felt it to be overblown by the government, pharmaceutical companies, media, and unfortunately some of the public.

My experiences with flu vaccines have not been pleasant at all so I will not get one again.

One of my children was given access to the vaccine through her work and chose not to take it especially after she learned that her work and the pharmaceutical company both wanted her to sign separate waivers absolving them of any harm that might come to her after receiving this vaccine.

One question that I believe people should ask themselves is if this vaccine is so harmless then Why the need for waivers. After all, it is harmless or so they keep saying. If someone offered me dinner yet told me I had to sign a waiver stating I would not find them responsible if I got sick or died from it I WOULDN'T TRUST THEM. Why would anyone.


My question mark is still not working on my keyboard.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 52
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/23/2010 1:59:03 PM
RE Msg: 93 by rockondon:

The real reason why Andrew Wakefield is being vilified over this, is not because of his paper or his work. It's because it's a lot cheaper to give an MMR vaccine, rather than giving 3 separate vaccines in 3 separate times.
And the real reason people hate Hitler is not because of the millions of innocent lives he killed, its because of his silly moustache. Everybody hates the moustache.
Godwin's law being invoked again, I see.

As you can tell, I'm a graduate of the Scorpio School of Straw Man Arguments.
I would take it as a compliment if you were. But you seem to think that you've graduated, when you disagree with my entire method of thought. Effectively, you've dropped out.


because if they really cared about the people, they would prosecute the people who caused the whole conflagration, the media stations and journalists who made a much bigger deal of it than even Wakefield did.
Ah yes, Wakefield is not to blame here, its the media's fault. How dare they report the news?! Its like they think that reporting the news is their job or something *gasp*.
Charlie Brooker showed a very interesting clip from the FBI, about how the FBI have stated very clearly that whenever the media sensationalise serial killings, it just causes more such killings. Yet they still continue to sensationalise such stories.

The media is an industry. It has no responsibility to the truth. It's employees have no responsibility to the truth, or to the public. Its employees, journalists, have only one responsibility, and that is to fulfil the jobs they are asked to do by their employers, in the ways their employers specify, and their employers are responsible to their shareholders, to make as much money as possible. Nothing else.

Wakefield is really the innocent victim here. I mean all he did was accept a payout by 12 parents of autistic children who were trying to sue manufacturers of the MMR vaccine to make a research study to support their case. Just because that was a conflict of interest and professional misconduct it doesn't mean its a bad thing.
It would be a bad thing, certainly.

But if we are going to charge every doctor who gains from a company with interest, then we'd have to charge every doctor who prescribes drugs and accepts free products and free conventions that come from the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the drugs he prescribes. If we did that, we'd have to charge over 70% of doctors.

So even though he did not act properly, it's not like he's on the same level as Harold Shipman.

And sure, when the study came out it resulted in a large drop in MMR immunizations which naturally led to increased incidence of illness - but hey, just because he was willing to accept money even though it caused many others to get sick and die...it doesn't mean he's a bad person.
Well, it would not have led to a lower immunisation rate if there was an alternative, and the government had made that clear. There was an alternative. Give the vaccines separately. If the government chose to keep silent on the alternatives, that would have caused a problem.

And yes, his study did involve some data fixing, falsifying data, and drawing faulty conclusions...but that doesn't mean he isn't honest - right?
So far, the media has not mentioned that. I wonder why.

The important thing to remember here is to put the blame on the media...for some reason...and to downplay Wakefield's atrocities with claims like 'all Wakefield wanted to do was separate the injections apart' and ignore the part about him blaming the MMR vaccine for autism.
You make him sound like Harold Shipman. I'm sorry, but there was an equally reasonable alternative, that would have solved the problem.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 53
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/23/2010 4:23:57 PM

I'm sorry, but there was an equally reasonable alternative, that would have solved the problem.

You've neither shown a problem exists, nor that your alleged "equally reasonable alternative" would solve said problem if it DID exist.


You make him sound like Harold Shipman.

No, just like a dishonest "scientist" who reached a pre-ordained conclusion for money. Then you came along and hung your entire argument on his falsified work, as if it were actually valid. You *are* beginning to see the problem, no?
 Twilightslove
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 54
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/24/2010 6:00:33 AM

there is no equal alternative for any type of vaccine, unless you live in a germ free glass bubble.


You cannot live in a glass bubble if you want to enjoy life yet you can eat healthy foods that boost your immune system and fight off disease naturally.

Power Foods That Boost Your Immune System
September 6th, 2009 by admin Leave a reply »

Your grandma wasn’t far off when she said, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.” Certain foods, including apples, harbor potent nutrients, minerals and organic compounds that can supercharge your immune system and help fight off disease. Throw enough of them down your gullet and you might just be able to avoid the doctor’s office this flu season. The following foods can fuel your immune system, make you healthier and help your body fight infections.

Garlic

garlic1 Power Foods That Boost Your Immune SystemRoman soldiers used to gobble down chunks of garlic before battle. They believed the pungent plant infused them with courage and heroic strength. While chomping on raw garlic cloves won’t give you superhuman powers, it may help your immune system defeat bacterial, viral and even fungal infections.

Garlic contains allicin, ajoene and thiosulfinates — three powerful compounds that help the body prevent and fight infections. The compounds are so strong that consuming raw garlic juice is nearly as effective as Neosporin is for disinfecting minor wounds. When applied to the skin, garlic beats topical creams like Tinactin and other antifungal agents in fighting athlete’s foot. Evidence has been documented suggesting that people who consume large quantities of garlic on the onset of a cold will reduce the amount of time it takes them to heal.

How to eat it: Add some fresh garlic to your pasta sauce or your stir fry. Try to eat a few cloves a week, but keep it to a few — you don’t want to smell like garlic bread. A good thing to remember is that garlic is more potent (and has a stronger flavor) the more you mash it.

Allicin is produced when garlic cells are crushed, so using a garlic presser is the easiest way to squeeze the compound out of the clove. Also, allicin, ajoene and thiosulfinates are very unstable in that they degrade with time, so keep in mind that jarred-up, pre-chopped garlic contains less of the chemicals than freshly-crushed garlic.
Carrots

Power Foods That Boost Your Immune SystemBugs Bunny rarely came down with the flu, and for good reason. Carrots, his food of choice, contain loads of beta carotene, which is a powerful phytonutrient that boosts the immune system’s production of infection-fighting natural killer cells and T cells. These cells are healthy and attack and kill off disease-ridden microbes.

Carrots also contain falcarinol, a super compound that has shown great promise as an anti-cancer agent. Scientists at Newcastle University’s School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development recently found that rats that were fed raw carrots had a one-third lower risk of developing colorectal cancer. So the next time you’re in the supermarket, reach for that jumbo bag of baby carrots and you’ll never have to say, “What’s up Doc?” because you won’t be needing any doctors.

How to eat it: To take full advantage of the health effects provided by carrots, eat them fresh and raw. Cooked carrots are still good for you, but heat can destroy some of the beta carotene and falcarinol compounds in them. How many carrots should you eat to reap the benefits? Replace your daily snack of pretzels or chips with baby carrots. Try to munch about a half a cup of carrots a day, maybe a tad more.

Feeling a cold coming on? Consume these foods and feel better in no time…
Yogurt

yogurt1 Power Foods That Boost Your Immune SystemIngesting live bacteria might not seem like the best way to stay healthy, but, on the contrary, your body needs certain bacteria to function properly. Lactobacillus acidophilus is an example of good bacteria that your body needs, because it produces lactic acid in your gut, which helps you digest food and break down complex compounds into usable bits.

Without acidophilus and a few other friendly bacteria, we wouldn’t be able to absorb many nutrients at all and our immune systems would shut down. Additionally, acidophilus actively fights disease-causing bacteria like salmonella and shigella-caused dysentery, it helps rid various types of diarrhea and it even helps fight viral infections.

Another strain of friendly bacteria, Bifidobacterium lactis, has been shown to boost immune system response in the elderly. Researchers in New Zealand found that those who ate the bacteria had higher counts of immune T cells, helper cells and killer cells in their bloodstreams, which all help fight off sickly cells in the body.

How to eat it: Yogurt with live bacterial cultures in it is a fantastic source of acidophilus and bifidobacterium lactis. Try to eat some every day, preferably a low-fat variety with little sugar (mixed-fruit and vanilla yogurts are loaded with excess calories). A serving of yogurt is usually about one cup. When buying yogurt, read the container to make sure it contains live cultures, specifically, acidophilus.
Oysters

oysters Power Foods That Boost Your Immune SystemOysters aren’t just good for men’s libido. The gelatinous mollusks contain tons of zinc, which is one of the best immune system boosters out there. The element helps white blood cells and other antibodies reproduce more quickly, and it makes them more aggressive so they’re better at fighting off infections. Zinc is vital for general cell function and it stimulates about 100 different enzymes that promote chemical reactions in your body.

If that wasn’t enough to get you sucking back these slimy creatures, zinc also prevents bacterial and viral growth directly, either by poisoning the infectious agents or encouraging immune reaction at the site of infection.

Zinc deficiency, even when moderate, can depress immune system function. Severe deficiency can shut the immune system down completely, so if you’ve never tried oysters, there’s no better time to start than now.

How to eat it: One serving of oysters (about six medium oysters) contains approximately 76 milligrams of zinc. Doctors estimate that the average guy needs between 15 grams and 25 grams a day to stay healthy, but if you’re feeling a cold coming on, the oyster bar might not be such a bad idea. Consuming just a few oysters a week can drastically boost your levels of zinc. But be careful: Consuming too much zinc can be toxic. An excess of the element suppresses copper and iron absorption, which could make you anemic. Consult your doctor before drastically boosting your zinc consumption.

If you can’t stomach oysters, try crab, beef, dark turkey meat or beans. All contain moderate amounts of zinc — between 1.8 and 7 milligrams per serving.
http://www.healthyweightloss.tv/nutrition/power-foods-that-boost-your-immune-system/
 whothehellknows
Joined: 7/23/2006
Msg: 55
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/24/2010 7:39:01 AM

Now, people are questioning the truth of the information they were given by their governments and the World Health Organization. Many felt ill advised and even misled on this issue. Many resent the billions spent on these vaccinations when that same money could have been directed toward more pressing health concerns. And then some wonder if there possibly could have been collusion with Big Pharma.......


This reminds me of people's reaction to the whole Katrina situation. Decades spent warning of the dangers of a strong hurricane hitting New Orleans, but any hope of taking productive steps are almost impossible BEFORE the city gets flooded out. People accuse the city, state and federal government of wasting money and fear mongering beforehand, but once the storm hits they are all up in arms and want to know why more wasn't done. They demand to know why they were never told of the dangers, never mind the previous decades of warning.

The same applies to various flu viruses that are H1N1. The danger is very real, but when governments take steps for the common good and the pandemic fizzles out, then people demand to know why the money was wasted. The ignore basic science and demand answers.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 56
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/25/2010 10:15:31 AM


Wakefield is really the innocent victim here. I mean all he did was accept a payout by 12 parents of autistic children who were trying to sue manufacturers of the MMR vaccine to make a research study to support their case. Just because that was a conflict of interest and professional misconduct it doesn't mean its a bad thing.

It would be a bad thing, certainly.

But if we are going to charge every doctor who gains from a company with interest, then we'd have to charge every doctor who prescribes drugs and accepts free products and free conventions that come from the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the drugs he prescribes. If we did that, we'd have to charge over 70% of doctors.
It would be a bad thing if it happened - which it did - therefore it is a bad thing.

You're right - if we charged doctors who gain from a company we'd be charging most doctors. Equally stupid straw-man arguments to that could be - if we charge doctors who have two arms or two legs we would be charging most doctors, or if we charge doctors for wearing shoes we would be charging most doctors. None of these three straw-men have anything to do with the argument of course.

You seem to fail to understand that when a doctor is paid to lie and it results in people getting sick and dying....that's actually a bad thing. Making a strawman argument about "other doctors gain from companies" does not make it a good thing. Does that make sense to you now?

I'm sorry, but there was an equally reasonable alternative, that would have solved the problem.
Oh you mean the non-existent problem that he was paid to say was there? Gee, why didn't the gov't waste millions on this person's lies?
In addition to the obvious (ie, there was no reason to), giving the vaccine in separate doses would imply that Wakefield's claims were valid - which would result in panic about the vaccines, MMR vaccinations would drop further, more people would get sick and die - although you don't seem to realize that's a bad thing so perhaps none of this will resonate.
 GGarbo
Joined: 10/8/2007
Msg: 57
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 2/28/2010 2:32:36 AM
I have learned I'm more paranoid of the pharmaceutical industry than I am of the flu.

I'm not a naturally paranoid person so to me, it tells me that there is a danger there for a lot of people to spread a virus simply because they are not sure whether the threat is real or if its fear mongering.

Everyone I knew who got the swine flu, had the shot just prior to but it hadn't taken affect yet. It bothered me enough that I decided not to get the flu shot this year.
 indigo1357
Joined: 7/10/2009
Msg: 58
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 3/14/2010 9:39:26 PM
Dont take this information as accurate as I cant provide the cource offhand. I know I read somewhere that canada ordered 50 million doses for the vaccine.

We have 35 million people total in canada. Iguess they thought they were going to be vaccinating cats and dogs too or something
 AtomicGogol
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 59
view profile
History
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 4/7/2010 8:38:29 PM

The BEES....those KILLER BEES!!!


It's funny and all, but isn't it peculiar... isn't it just WACKY... that this issue hasn't been brought up for a while now? I think we know why that is. Hear me out.

The issue started to become major in the past 30 years ,and where did it do so, hmm? Hmm? Yeah, the US. That's right. Let's then look at H1N1. Where did the first cases get confirmed by the CDC? Oh, did you say the US? Oh yeah, you're RIGHT.
A highly qualified bad disease-ologist has recently spoken to me from his office in the CDC. Naturally, he wishes to remain anonymous because chemtrails can indeed kill a person inside their home if THEY want them to. I abide by his wishes. Anyway, he provided incontrovertible proof of this connection.
Since it's obviously not a coincidence, the only sensible conclusion is that the US government has been trying to develop an ethnic-specific nerve gas to eliminate Communist enemies for decades now. It was first tested on bees because hey, ya gotta start somewhere. And all those whales washing up on beaches dead? Yeah, that's right: NERVE GAS.
So now heeeeere we aaaaaare.... swine flu is over, huh? No need for vaccines or any other protection, huh? Mmhmm, that's right. It complicates the process of infection, so Big Pharma had to work with the US gov't to broker a deal in which Big Pharma gets monarchic control of the entire continent of Australia in exchange for allowing the US govt to proceed with its plans for a New World Order elsewhere.
In conclusion, there's no reason to panic because we're all gonna die.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 60
The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?
Posted: 4/7/2010 8:42:01 PM
OMG...Gogol, you're right! How could we have missed it!

Big Pharma wants Australia! It's all so clear now! They get control of the Foster's supply...and it's all over!!! We're DOOMED!
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Pandemic That Wasn't - What Have We learned ?