The Dangers of Vaccines - Autism - H1N1Thimerosal

Leave him alone.

God told him vaccines are bad, so that means you can't question him.

asdfas wrote:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Thanks to all the people who got vaccinated and got sick.

Are all of you people really this stupid? I mean at least tell me it's just the flu vaccine in particular that you have a problem with. Do you know how awesome it is that no one you have ever met has ever gotten small pox? Do you understand what the death rate from variola major was? Have you SEEN a picture of someone with small pox?

von Braun wrote:

First of all: no, 264 people are the "statistical sample."

No, science doesn't work this way.

We can take random 1000 people, one blond one - let's say - redhead. In one group 1 person develop eye cancer, in another - 4.

Now guess, we have 400% increased chance, or maybe we have 3 completely random people?

So, first - we need trials with at least ~100 people who developed disease symptoms, AND we need at least 10 such trials, then we can talk about vaccine efficiency.

von Braun wrote:

Seriously, it takes me less than 5 minutes to search pubmed and find these articles supporting my point. Can you find any?

Sure I can, taking one study out of context surely can prove anything. But:

"Authors of this review assessed all trials that compared vaccinated people with unvaccinated people. The combined results of these trials showed that under ideal conditions (vaccine completely matching circulating viral configuration) 33 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. In average conditions (partially matching vaccine) 100 people need to be vaccinated to avoid one set of influenza symptoms. Vaccine use did not affect the number of people hospitalised or working days lost but caused one case of Guillian-Barré syndrome (a major neurological condition leading to paralysis) for every one million vaccinations. Fifteen of the 36 trials were funded by vaccine companies and four had no funding declaration. Our results may be an optimistic estimate because company-sponsored influenza vaccines trials tend to produce results favorable to their products and some of the evidence comes from trials carried out in ideal viral circulation and matching conditions and because the harms evidence base is limited."

Let's do some calculations:

1. we need to vaccinate 100 people in order to avoid 1 case of influenza

2. once every million cases vaccine cause disease that turns into cripple (sorry for my English)

3. So, for every 10 000 cases of influenza we have one person sacrificed.

4. Influenza mortality is 1 out of 1000, so generally one person die (or turn into cripple) from vaccines to save 10, right?

WRONG

As vaccines doesn't decrease hospitalization nor pneumonia rates, no person is saved.

tomtom wrote:

von Braun wrote:

First of all: no, 264 people are the "statistical sample."

No, science doesn't work this way.

We can take random 1000 people, one blond one - let's say - redhead. In one group 1 person develop eye cancer, in another - 4.

Now guess, we have 400% increased chance, or maybe we have 3 completely random people?

So, first - we need trials with at least ~100 people who developed disease symptoms, AND we need at least 10 such trials, then we can talk about vaccine efficiency.

Read the damn abstract. It says that ~130 got the vaccine and 130 didn't (this was randomly assigned). Among those that got the vaccine 3 got the flu. In those that did not vaccinated, 24 got the flu.

Your statement about 100 people developing disease symptoms probably refers to epidemiological studies that try to retroactively link characteristics of diseased people. These studies are experimental studies and the statistical power is determined by the sample size. Your statements show that you really have little understanding of statistics.

Thanks for linking that study tomtom. The Cochrane Collaboration does important work. And it is a valid point that flu vaccines are still only partially effective, especially when poorly matched (although if you've been watching the news there's been a major breakthrough in that department recently).The only problem with your math is the relative risk reduction measures only individual risks. You can't extrapolate those individual risks to the population without accounting for the effects of "herd immunity" as others have mentioned. All these studies took place in populations with at least partial herd immunity, so all patients got the "benefits" of vaccination even if they weren't directly vaccinated.And I'm afraid I still don't follow you on the last part. Where did you come up with this information?

tomtom wrote:

As vaccines doesn't decrease hospitalization nor pneumonia rates, no person is saved.

Here's a story on the new antigen target if anyone's curious. It's cool news no matter which side of the debate you're on.

Too bad there isn't a vaccine for stupidity!

tomtom wrote:

von Braun wrote:

First of all: no, 264 people are the "statistical sample."

No, science doesn't work this way.

We can take random 1000 people, one blond one - let's say - redhead. In one group 1 person develop eye cancer, in another - 4.

Now guess, we have 400% increased chance, or maybe we have 3 completely random people?

So, first - we need trials with at least ~100 people who developed disease symptoms, AND we need at least 10 such trials, then we can talk about vaccine efficiency.

Yes, science DOES work this way. It's called statistics.

Who decided that we need at least "100" people to get "disease symptoms" (whatever that means, we don't look at "disease symptoms," we look at ANY “outcome” that we're interested in - be it influenza incidence, change in blood pressure levels, progression-free survival from cancer, etc) You? Why 100? Why not 1000, why not 10,000? There are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of randomized controlled clinical trials that involve less than 100 people – in this week’s edition of the New England Journal of Medicine, THREE out of the 4 original articles had study populations where LESS than 100 people had the outcome of interest in each group. Are these studies invalid because they don’t meet your arbitrary population cutoffs? No

The problems with your hypothetical argument are

(1) It’s contrived and has no basis in reality. Ocular cancers are pretty rare (the most common type is retinoblastoma which mostly in young kids and has a prevalence of about 1 per 17,000 live births), so expecting to see 4 cases of ANY ocular cancer in a randomly selected group of 2000 people from the general population stretches the imagination.

(2) (This one is way more important) you don’t mention anything about statistics. If I do a trial to look for a difference in frequency of some outcome (say, eye cancer) in two different populations (say, blonds and readheads) of equal size I have to consider things like the number of people in each study group, the baseline population frequency of ocular cancer, and what my statistical significance cutoff value (i.e. alpha value) and my statistical power (i.e. 1-beta) will be. Then, once I do the study and get all the data I have to plug this into a mathematical formula (dependent on the study type and the model I’m using to see whether the data meets my pre-specified cutoff value for statistical significance (usually an alpha value of 0.05 is used)

Finally, who decided that we need 10 trials? You? Why? Because it sounds like a good number? I’ve got news for you: the fact is there WAY more than 10 randomized controlled clinical trials about the efficacy of influenza vaccines.

Do yourself a favor – open any introductory stats textbook and look up null hypothesis, p-value, statistical significance, relative risk reduction, confidence intervals, and statistical power. When you’re done, come back and maybe you can talk without looking like you don’t have a clue.

tomtom wrote:

von Braun wrote:

Seriously, it takes me less than 5 minutes to search pubmed and find these articles supporting my point. Can you find any?

Sure I can, taking one study out of context surely can prove anything. But:

http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001269.html

Let's do some calculations:

1. we need to vaccinate 100 people in order to avoid 1 case of influenza

2. once every million cases vaccine cause disease that turns into cripple (sorry for my English)

3. So, for every 10 000 cases of influenza we have one person sacrificed.

4. Influenza mortality is 1 out of 1000, so generally one person die (or turn into cripple) from vaccines to save 10, right?

WRONG

As vaccines doesn't decrease hospitalization nor pneumonia rates, no person is saved.

No, not influenza. These studies look at reduction of INFLUENZA SYMPTOMS. Flu-like symptoms can be due to a wide variety of etiologies, URI (viral or bacterial), sinusitis (viral or bacterial), atypical pneumonias (particularly viral, Mycoplasma, or Leigonella), and acute gastroenteritis. Just for upper respiratory infections, it can be caused by viruses like parainfluenza, rhinovirus, coronavirus, adenovirus, RSV, or Influenza A or B, as well as due to bacteria like Hemophilus influenza, Strep penumonaie, or Mycoplasma pneumonia. AN INFLUENZA VACCINE WON’T DO ANYTHING FOR SOMEONE WITH FLU-LIKE SYMPTOMS THAT IS NOT DUE TO INFLUENZA.

Studies that look at INFLUENZA SYMPTOMS as their primary outcome will be subject to observation bias because parainfluenza, RSV, and rhinovirus are far more common causes of influenza symptoms than influenza itself. Because these studies didn’t assess for culture-proven or PCR-proven influenza A or B infection, the results you’re showing aren’t really impressive at all.

Here's another review of 9 studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19095024

Efficacy of live attenuated influenza vaccine in children: A meta-analysis of nine randomized clinical trials. Rhorer J, Ambrose CS, Dickinson S, Hamilton H, Oleka NA, Malinoski FJ, Wittes J. Vaccine. 2009 Feb 11;27(7):1101-10. Epub 2008 Dec 16.

Nine randomized clinical trials, including approximately 25,000 children aged 6-71 months and 2000 children aged 6-17 years, have evaluated the efficacy of live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) against culture-confirmed influenza as compared to placebo or trivalent inactivated vaccine (TIV). We conducted meta-analyses, based on Mantel-Haenszel relative risks from fixed effect models, to provide an estimate of vaccine efficacy (VE). Relative to placebo, year 1 VE for two doses in vaccine-naïve young children was 77% (95% CI: 72%, 80%; P<0.001) against antigenically similar strains and 72% against strains regardless of antigenic similarity. Efficacy was 85%, 76%, and 73% against antigenically similar A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B, respectively. Year 1 VE of one dose against antigenically similar strains in vaccine-naive children was 60%; efficacy of one dose in previously vaccinated children in year 2 of the various studies was 87%. In head-to-head trials comparing two doses of TIV and LAIV, vaccine-naïve children who received two doses of LAIV experienced 46% fewer cases of influenza illness caused by antigenically similar strains. Similarly, for studies including older children who had been previously vaccinated, those receiving one LAIV dose experienced 35% fewer cases of influenza illness than those receiving one TIV dose. LAIV showed high VE versus placebo with no evidence of difference by age or by circulating subtype. In these studies, LAIV was more effective than TIV.

Note that this meta-analysis only looks at studies that assess for CULTURE-PROVEN influenza, not "influenza symptoms".

Vaccine Dangers Exposed Part 1 Of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j9YY-uAekw&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Dr Andrew WakeField

tomtom wrote:

Let's do some calculations:

1. we need to vaccinate 100 people in order to avoid 1 case of influenza

2. once every million cases vaccine cause disease that turns into cripple (sorry for my English)

3. So, for every 10 000 cases of influenza we have one person sacrificed.

4. Influenza mortality is 1 out of 1000, so generally one person die (or turn into cripple) from vaccines to save 10, right?

WRONG

As vaccines doesn't decrease hospitalization nor pneumonia rates, no person is saved.

1. As I just pointed out in my lasts posts, INFLUENZA SYMPTOMS DOES NOT EQUAL THE ACTUAL "FLU". The number needed to treat is much less than 1 in 100. So you're wrong on 1 count.

2. You're implying that Guillian-Barré syndrome always makes people cripples - false. Most people who get Guillian-Barré syndrome get completely better. Here's a page out of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (GBS = Guillian-Barré syndrome):

PROGNOSIS AND RECOVERY

Approximately 85% of patients with GBS achieve a full functional recovery within several months to a year, although minor findings on examination (such as areflexia) may persist. The mortality rate is <5% in optimal settings; death usually results from secondary pulmonary complications. The outlook is worst in patients with severe proximal motor and sensory axonal damage. Such axonal damage may be either primary or secondary in nature (see "Pathophysiology," above), but in either case successful regeneration cannot occur. Other factors that worsen the outlook for recovery are advanced age, a fulminant or severe attack, and a delay in the onset of treatment. Between 5 and 10% of patients with typical GBS have one or more late relapses; such cases are then classified as chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP).

So you're wrong on count #2.

3. You're wrong on #1 and #2, ergo you are wrong on #3.

4. Here's one study that contradicts you:

Reduced risk of hospitalization associated with influenza vaccination in Canada. Chen Y, Wu J, Yi QL. Reduced risk of hospitalization associated with influenza vaccination in Canada.

To evaluate the effectiveness of influenza vacation, we conducted analyses at both individual level and health region level. The association between influenza vaccination and hospital admission was examined among 128,677 subjects 12+ years of age who participated in a national survey in 2005. Both influenza and hospital admission proportions varied across health regions. Health regions with higher proportions of influenza vaccination had significantly lower proportions of hospitalization. A 10% increase in influenza vaccination less than 1 year ago was associated with a reduction of 11% in the risk of hospitalization over a 12-month time period at the health region level.

So... you're wrong on all 4 counts. Honestly, the best health data comes from Europe or Canada because the nationalized health care puts all the chart data in a centralized place.

I'm spouting a bunch of nonsense, just ignore me.

RuKiddingMe!! wrote:

Vaccine Dangers Exposed Part 1 Of 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j9YY-uAekw&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Dr Andrew WakeField

You're a moron, this guy is going down for fraud.

helper outer wrote:

The only problem with your math is the relative risk reduction measures only individual risks. You can't extrapolate those individual risks to the population without accounting for the effects of "herd immunity" as others have mentioned. All these studies took place in populations with at least partial herd immunity, so all patients got the "benefits" of vaccination even if they weren't directly vaccinated.

And I'm afraid I still don't follow you on the last part. Where did you come up with this information?

tomtom wrote:

As vaccines doesn't decrease hospitalization nor pneumonia rates, no person is saved.

So, I believe we can make some agreement here (goes to other posters as well)

1. I will agree that flu vaccine in fact can partially protect against flu, but works only for people with already very strong immune system

2. Still my point "flu vaccines are crap" is correct, as such vaccination do NOT stop disease from spreading (there's no such thing as herd immunity here, as vaccine just hide symptoms, so theoretically "healthy" person usually spread more virus than sick one), and vaccines do not work for only people that should be concerned - elderly and with compromised immunity.

and pt2 is what I'm talking about in quote highlighted by you - vaccination of elderly or immune compromised people doesn't help at all, as pneumonia and/or death rates shows.

Do you normally take advice from a doctor (wakefield) who LOST his license and fled his country?

Do normally take advice from a Doctor(wakefield)where all his colleagues(11) abandoned him and accused him of fraud?

They testified against him when they yanked his medical license.

If Dr. Wakefield had the known cause of Autism he would have won the Nobel prize but now authorities are talking about CRIMINAL charges against the guy.....

Wakefield's plan was to discredit the current manufacturing of vaccines and to get his own patented one approved.

Thimerosal was phased out a while ago but it was not just used in vaccines it was used in other injectables as a preservative.Where is the autism from these injections?

Hey do want to buy Alcatraz Island I own it and will sell it to you cheap.I can prove I own it on the internet.

stay stupid people....If you don't want the vaccines please send them to Haiti because they do!

I know a guy that was born in India and contracted polio.He won't be RUNNING anytime soon..Please send your vaccines to people who want them.

What medical school did you and Jenny McCarthy attend?

Google school of medicine?

Were Harrisons, Goodman and Gilman's guide to Pharmacotherapy Dipiero's pathophysiology just some of the books you have read? or was it wikipedia?

R.U. That STUPID wrote:

Do you normally take advice from a doctor (wakefield) who LOST his license and fled his country?

Since he damaged most powerful people on this planet, it's more than likely they will take action against him. Are these actions justified? Who knows? Show me these "mass destruction weapons" in Iraq and we can talk.