The Dangers of Vaccines - Autism - H1N1Thimerosal

Actually the answer is probably even simpler. The study population was healthy adults age 18-44 years. The real world is full elderly and otherwise immunocompromised who can't mount as powerful an immune response to the vaccine. Hence the importance of widespread vaccination among those who can to keep the flu from spreading to the vulnerable.

Find study that applies in real-life, where people actually don't get sick, not meaningless laboratory tests against some virus responses.[/quote]

Uhh...how about the fact that Measles, Mumps, Polio, H.Flu meningitis, Rubella, Diptheria, Tetanus, and vaccinated strains of pneumococcus are essentially eradicated in this country.

helper outer wrote:

Actually the answer is probably even simpler. The study population was healthy adults age 18-44 years. The real world is full elderly and otherwise immunocompromised who can't mount as powerful an immune response to the vaccine. Hence the importance of widespread vaccination among those who can to keep the flu from spreading to the vulnerable.

Well, two things

1. healthy people get sick just as well as elderly, as it was proved in few double-blind placebo-controlled trials. And since in these few performed vaccines didn't worked (in some cases they actually increased mortality), no further trials were founded.

2. Even when the vaccine works, it doesn't stop spreading the virus. Quite opposite - the person who develop full-size flu stay in home, while person after the (miraculously working) vaccination just go to work with mild symptoms and spread the virus.

So, once again - if you want to protect your elderly, do NOT trust doctors. Flu shots aren't the way to go. Use vitamin D, use other ways to strength immune system, correct others vitamins and minerals deficiency that almost every elderly person got. Some doctors call for such prevention, but it might eventually lead to the nation of healthy people, hence to financial loss of pharma corporations.

tomtom wrote:

1. healthy people get sick just as well as elderly, as it was proved in few double-blind placebo-controlled trials. And since in these few performed vaccines didn't worked (in some cases they actually increased mortality), no further trials were founded.

links?

2. Even when the vaccine works, it doesn't stop spreading the virus. Quite opposite - the person who develop full-size flu stay in home, while person after the (miraculously working) vaccination just go to work with mild symptoms and spread the virus.

Isn't the same thing true of vitamin D supplementation?

edumacator wrote:

It wouldn't make me too sad if you got small pox, JR.

Misery likes company.

helper outer wrote:

links?

for example:

As for simple lack of effectiveness, just check trials already done.

Isn't the same thing true of vitamin D supplementation?

It is, but it's not me who claimed "we can stop epidemic with vaccines".

Still, when you give vitamin D to elderly people (or others with immune system compromised) it would offer some real protection, while vaccination doesn't.

[quote]tomtom wrote:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/703235

[quote]

That's a cohort study limited to asthmatic children. Where are all the placebo-controlled double blinds you were talking about?

Also, the publication of that study in 2009 sort of contradicts your belief that all this research is being suppressed. The Mayo clinic is about as mainstream as it gets.

Please show me one study where vaccinated children were compared to unvaccinated children. It hasn't happened.

I Agree with you wrote:

Everyone I know who's gotten a vaccination has gotten sick from it.

I never get vaccinated and I never get sick.

Ever heard of herd immunization? You can thank all your vaccinated friends for not getting you sick.

someone else wrote:

Trollathon wrote:

5/10

A subject that still angers many, but the recent decisions and conclusions about the initial study have essentially ended the debate, and thus creating a limit as to how far you can carry the thread.

That's the way it is with everything. Even when there is evidence to the contrary, all it takes is advocates yelling "THE DEBATE IS OVER!!!" and all of a sudden they have the upper hand. The debate is not over in so many ways, and yet this claim can keep people from asking questions. Tomtom, I am really glad you know what you do, but seeing America like this really makes me sick. Blind patriots of big pharma and big government make me sick.

Alas, the Trollathon is biting a troll...

Your whole..."debate"...is based on a study that has been proven fraudlent and was soley motivated to profit from the scare. Selectively choosing patients for the study, then manipulating and FALSIFYING the results.

Ugh, I feel sick for biting the troll. Maybe it was from my vacination. I would say "believe what you want," but then I fear for your children/the children you may have.

tomtom - your facts are very wrong. First, mercury has never been shown to cause autism

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68C1CZ20100913

Second, the amount of mercury in thiomersal was TINY, and it was a kind of mercury that is naturally removed from the body.

Lastly, no vaccines contain mercury anymore.

You can't just say things are facts, when they arent.

The reason you f***s can even think about not getting vaccinated is because vaccines are so very effective. If people were still routinely looking like the two images above you'd be running, not walking to the doctor to get your ass vaccinated. But vaccines have basically made everyone forget how bad the diseases they've eradicated are. So now you can sit in your comfortable chair and think that vaccines are unsafe.

Autism affects boys four times as much as girls, yet they received the same vaccines.

bigger picture wrote:

someone else wrote:

It's not blind at all. In fact, the scientific evidence actually supports the genesis account in the Bible.

That's all we needed to know. Thanks for playing.

What's funny is I predicted you would do that in the very next sentence. It just goes to show how predictable you chaps are.

asdfas wrote:

tomtom - your facts are very wrong. First, mercury has never been shown to cause autism

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68C1CZ20100913

Second, the amount of mercury in thiomersal was TINY, and it was a kind of mercury that is naturally removed from the body.

Lastly, no vaccines contain mercury anymore.

You can't just say things are facts, when they arent.

1. Maybe no direct link was shown, but...

And mercury is well known as element able to cause many mental disorders.

2. Sure it was tiny. But considering fact that mercury salts are seven times more toxic than potassium cyanide and THOUSAND times more than arsenic - even tiny amounts can be dangerous. Sure it's usually removed from the body, but it doesn't always work this way.

3. Of course lots of vaccines contain mercury. Almost every vaccine in my country and I'm sure many of them in your.

tomtom wrote:

Find study that applies in real-life, where people actually don't get sick, not meaningless laboratory tests against some virus responses.

Here's one for you:

Effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals: a randomized trial. Wilde JA, McMillan JA, Serwint J, Butta J, O'Riordan MA, Steinhoff MC JAMA. 1999;281(10):908-13.

CONTEXT: Data are limited and conflicting regarding the effectiveness of influenza vaccine in health care professionals. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of trivalent influenza vaccine in reducing infection, illness, and absence from work in young, healthy health care professionals. DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, double-blind, controlled trial over 3 consecutive years, from 1992-1993 to 1994-1995. SETTING: Two large teaching hospitals in Baltimore, Md. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred sixty-four hospital-based health care professionals without chronic medical problems were recruited; 49 participated for 2 seasons; 24 participated for 3 seasons. The mean age was 28.4 years, 75% were resident physicians, and 57% were women. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either an influenza vaccine or a control (meningococcal vaccine, pneumococcal vaccine, or placebo). Serum samples for antibody assays were collected at the time of vaccination, 1 month after vaccination, and at the end of the influenza season. Active weekly surveillance for illness was conducted during each influenza epidemic period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serologically defined influenza infection (4-fold increase in hemagglutination-inhibiting antibodies), days of febrile respiratory illness, and days absent from work. RESULTS: We conducted 359 person-winters of serologic surveillance (99.4% follow-up) and 4746 person-weeks of illness surveillance (100% follow-up). Twenty-four(13.4%) of 179 control subjects and 3 (1.7%) of 180 influenza vaccine recipients had serologic evidence of influenza type A or B infection during the study period. Vaccine efficacy against serologically defined infection was 88% for influenza A (95% confidence interval [CI], 47%-97%; P=.001) and 89% for influenza B (95% CI, 14%-99%; P=.03). Among influenza vaccinees, cumulative days of reported febrile respiratory illness were 28.7 per 100 subjects compared with 40.6 per 100 subjects in controls (P=.57) and days of absence were 9.9 per 100 subjects vs 21.1 per 100 subjects in controls (P=.41). CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccine is effective in preventing infection by influenza A and B in health care professionals and may reduce reported days of work absence and febrile respiratory illness. These data support a policy of annual influenza vaccination of health care professionals.

Straight from the abstract:

Vaccine efficacy against serologically defined infection was 88% for influenza A (95% confidence interval [CI], 47%-97%; P=.001) and 89% for influenza B (95% CI, 14%-99%; P=.03)

If you want I can continue posting abstracts demonstrating the efficacy of BOTH inactivated and live-attenuated influenza vaccines until the Letsrun server's circuits fry.

oh cmon, study where 3 (three) persons are shown as statistical sample...

tomtom wrote:

oh cmon, study where 3 (three) persons are shown as statistical sample...

First of all: no, 264 people are the "statistical sample." (side note: people who actually know what they're talking about when arguing statistics would call this the "sample population")

If you knew what you were talking about and payed attention to the P-value and the 95% confidence intervals you would see that

1. Incidence of serologically-proven Influenza A was reduced by ~88% in this sample population, with a probability of only 0.1% chance that this reduction in incidence could be accounted for by random chance alone.

2. Using this sample population, the true reduction in incidence in Influenza A can be estimated (with 95% likelihood) to be between 47-97%.

Arguing that only 3 people in the intervention group got serologically-proven Influenza A or B invalidates the results in specious (and dumb) because you are conveniently neglecting the fact that 177/180 people in the intervention group DIDN'T get influenza. Whereas in the control group only 155/179 subjects DIDN'T get serology-proven influenza. It's all about statistical significance, not absolute numbers.

Honestly dude, if you want to play with the big kids when making medical arguments, provide some data to back yourself up. And I'm not talking Jenny McCarthy's web log, or something you read on wikipedia. I mean something that compares an intervention group with a control group, and actually has some statistical rigor - reports on p-values, CI's and the like. Otherwise, quit wasting people's time.